The expositor's Greek Testament;

κκ οφ «κο RO νν κ.κ νι.

Ὃ SSS

pc αι
ο σας

φις ὁ

Senses Peet
-- worry

ehtacrore}
seacarectoa

μα

"SEP 12 1960
4, τς

ἱ a! 4

λα
ra awe η ube
j 4 ‘ mi hori / 4

y >
ο
ΤΑ]

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library

https://archive.org/details/expositorsgreektOSnico

THE EXPOSITOR’S

monk PRS TAMENT

EDITED BY THE REV.
W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.

BDITOR ον “THE EXPOSITOR,” “THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE,” ETC.

VOLUME V.

HODDER AND STOUGHTON LIMITED

LONDON NEW YORK TORONTO

πο. EXPOSITOR'S
τς ΤΕ ΥΙΜΕΝΤ

I

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF
PETER

BY THE REV.
|. απ κ πκατ M.A,
II

THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF
PETER

R. H. STRACHAN, M.A.
III
THE EPISTLES OF JOHN

DAVID SMITH, Μ.Α., D.D.
IV
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE

BY THE REV.
J. B. MAYOR, Lrrr:D.
V

THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
THE DIVINE

BY THE REV.

JAMES MOFFATT, D.D.

HODDER AND STOUGHTON LIMITED
LONDON NEW YORK TORONTO

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL
«ΟΕ

PETER

INTRODUCTION

In the case of this document a question preliminary to the ordinary
heads of Introduction arises; the question of the Unity of the
Epistle. For it contains two formal and solemn conclusions.
The first! is “« That in all things God may be glorified through Fesus
Christ to Whom belongs the glory and the victory to the ages of the
ages. Amen;” and the second,’ ‘‘ Now the Godof all grace, he who
called you to his eternal glory in Christ, himself shall refit you after
brief suffering, shall confirm you, shall strengthen you, shall establish
you. His is the victory to the ages of the ages. Amen.” The latter
conclusion is followed by a postscript which ends with yet another
formula of conclusion ὃ “ Peace to you all who are in Christ”’.

The address * at the head of the document stamps it as a circular
letter or an encyclical epistle. The three conclusions divide it into
three parts. Of these the last and shortest part may fairly be taken
as a true postscript. The writer (we may suppose) takes the pen
from the secretary, to whom he has been dictating, and appends a
greeting in his own handwriting. St. Paul did the same thing in
the Epistle to the Galatians.’ In such a case the value of the post-
script would be greater than in the case of a circular letter addressed
to widely separated churches in different provinces or countries.
The Galatian letter would naturally be preserved in the chest of the
chief church of the province; and St. Paul’s autograph would be
prized as proof of the authenticity of the exemplar, copies of which
were doubtless made and supplied as need and demand arose. But
in this case also the autograph has a value of its own, inasmuch as
it gives the credentials of the bearer, who presumably went from
place to place and read it out to the assembled Christians, letting
them see the postscript before he travelled on. So the third part of
the letter may well be an integral portion of this encyclical.

But this postscript is preceded not by one conclusion but by two;
and in this the document bears witness against its own unity. And

Viv, II. ἂν. το f. Ἑν. 14. 41, 1. 5 Gal. vi. ΤΙ-17.

4 INTRODUCTION

further it is to be noted that the first conclusion is followed by a
general form of address—“ Beloved ””—which has occurred at an
earlier point... In fact, apart from the formal superscription—X to
Y greeting—the second part? of the Epistle is a complete epistle in
itself. And it is natural enough that a circular letter, addressed to
different communities, should contain alternative or additional letters,
if the writer was aware that the conditions or circumstances were
not identical in every case. The formal severance of the second
part may, therefore, be taken as indicating that all the communities
addressed were not necessarily in the condition, which that part
implies.

1. The Recipients.~-Eusebius of Czsarea, whose Ecclesiastical
History belongs to the beginning of the fourth century, is the earliest
(extant) writer, who inquired systematically into the origins of the
Christian literature. For him there is no question about the nation-
ality of the first recipients of this document: they are Hebrews or
Jewish Christians. He insists that the compact made between St.
Peter and St. Paul at Jerusalem® was faithfully observed, as their
respective writings and the evidence of St. Luke agree to testify:
“That Paul, on the one hand, preached to those of Gentile origin and
so laid the foundations of the churches from Jerusalem and round
about as far as Illyricum is plain from his own statements and from
the narratives, which Luke gives in the Acts. And, on the other hand,
from the phrases of Peter it is clear in what provinces he for his part
preached the Gospel of Christ to those of the Circumcision and
delivered to them the message of the New Covenant—I mean, from
his acknowledged epistle in which he writes to those of Hebrew origin
in the dispersion of Pontus and Galatia, Cappadocia and As@ and
Bithynia.*

Just before this® plain statement Eusebius quotes verbally from
Origen’s exegetical commentary upon Genesis: “ Peter seems to have
preached in Pontus and Galatia and Bithynia, in Cappadocia and
Asia to the Fews in dispersion”. Origen’s assertion rests presumably
on the authority of the address of our document, although the order
of the provinces differs in respect of Bithynia from the generally
accepted text. When Eusebius speaks for himself he restores the
conventional order of the provinces and explicitly quotes the authority
of ‘the acknowledged Epistle’. It does not seem at all probable
that either Eusebius or Origen had any other evidence for their belief
than such as is preserved for modern investigation. Both knew of

απ τα, Ziv. 12-v. II. 3 Gal. ii. 7-9.
“Ρας. Η. E. iti. 4. SEus, Η. Ἐ. αι. τ.

INTRODUCTION 5

the compact, in virtue of which Peter was to continue his work among
the Jews: both construed the direction of the Epistle as proof that
the writer had preached the Gospel to his readers: therefore in
virtue of the compact his readers were fews—dJews of the Dispersion,
but still Jews.

The evidence upon which both Eusebius and Origen seem to rely
is extant; the deduction drawn—characteristic as it is of patristic
exegesis—is not necessarily valid, and it is not supported by any
pretence of independent tradition.

The compact to which James and Cephas and John, on the one
side, and Paul and Barnabas, on the other, were consenting parties,
cannot be held to prove these Christians to be Jewish Christians—
even if it could be made out that St. Peter “the Apostle of the Cir
cumcision,” who writes to them, converted them to Christianity.

The appellation of the Dispersion is on the face of it a weightier
argument, because Dispersion is a technical term and comprises in
itself all the Jews who lived outside Palestine. Whatever its pro-
venance, the term is Jewish through and through, for it insists upon
the First Cause of all such scattering and upon the central shrine
from which the exiles are removed. The mere Greek spoke and
thought of exiles as fugitives and had a collective term φυγή to cor-
respond with the Jewish διασπορά. But the Jewish word recognises
that those dispersed are placed here and there—as exiles, traders
and what not ?—by God. Jewish as it is, this appellation is capable
of extension to the new Israel and does not necessarily imply that
the persons addressed were born Jews. Ultimately and fundamentally
it does not denote privilege like the term Jsrael but rather penalty—
removal from the place which was traditionally associated with the
visible presence of Jehovah. The writer may, perhaps, be taken to
use it without a precise definition of a centre corresponding to the Holy
Land of the Jew; but there is no valid ground for doubting that he
could apply it to Gentiles, who were in the world and not of it by
virtue of their faith in Christ. Situated as they were among un-
friendly friends these Gentile churches are collectively the new Dis-
persion.

These Gentile Churches—for there is more than one passage in
our document which seems to settle the point, apart from general
probabilities to be derived from the traditions of St. Paul’s missionary
activity. Inthe first place, St. Peter! applies to his readers the words
of Hosea*?; ye who were once no People but now are God’s People,
who were not ina state of experiencing His mercy, but now have

lii. το. 2 See Hosea ii. 23.
vOL. V. I

6 INTRODUCTION

come under its influence.’’ At a definite time God had shown mercy
to these Christians, who before—according to the strict Jewish point
of view—had been outside the pale of His mercy. And, if we may
argue from silence as from the tenses employed, they were formerly
not a people at all, to say nothing of their being no people of God. In
fact they were just tribes and Gentiles—not a dads but just έθνη. It
is true that Hosea was speaking of the children of Israel, who had
apostatized, and of the final restoration, when all the dispersed should
be gathered together. It is true, again, that St. Paul! uses the pro-
phecy conformably with the apparent intention of the prophet; but
he cites it more fully than St. Peter in connexion with the calling of
the Gentiles.2, The Christian Church is God’s, Israel the heir of His
promises; and—who knows ?—the writer may have added the title
of the Dispersion partly because it is written in the book of Hosea,®
‘“‘and I will sow her unto myself upon the earth, and 1 will love her
who was not beloved, and I will say to Not-my-people, Thou art my
people and he shall say, Thou art the Lord my God”. It is a great
prophecy and a Jewish Christian would be slow to forget its first
intention. Noline of argument can exclude the possibility that some
of the Christians, to whom his letter is addressed, were born Jews.
And if he thought less of them and most of the aliens, who, perhaps,
outnumbered them, at anyrate his own mind was Jewish and he
spoke to his Jewish self, before he wrote or dictated his letter. It
must have been a strange experience for a Jew to preach a Messiah,
whom his Nation had rejected, to a motley collection of Gentile be-
lievers and to use such prophecies as this.

But whatever emotions the words stirred up within his heart
they remained there. The thought of his countrymen does not
shake him visibly as it shook St. Paul;+* and from this self-repression
one might conclude that the Jewish element in these churches was
insignificant, or that the decree which severed him and them from
the unbelieving Jews was already made absolute.

The probable significance of this use of Hosea’s phrase is sup-
ported by the words, “ For ye were once wanderers like sheep but now
ye have returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls” .® It is,
of course, possible to exaggerate the force of ἐπεστράφητε, ye have
returned, as if it implied a previous association with God. But the
word means no more than obedience to the invitation Repent,
which Christian missionaries addressed to all the world; in the
Septuagint it is used of Jewish apostasy without implying previous

1Rom. xi. 28-32 2Rom. ix. 24-26. 3 Hosea ii. 23 (LXX).
4 Rom. ix. 1 ff. Sti. 25.

INTRODUCTION 7

apostasy, and here it is fitly applied to the adherence of Gentiles,
who previously had no faith in God. In fact its proper force is
represented by turn rather than return.

Another capital passage would seem to be sufficient in itself to
show that the writer regarded the churches to whom he speaks, as
composed of Gentile Christians : “ Sufficient is the time that is past
for the accomplishment of the ideal of the Gentiles, when you walked
in. . . unlawful idolatry”. If they were Jews by birth, who are so
reproached for their pre-Christian life, it is clear that they must have
been renegades, who had forfeited their title to be reckoned as Jews,
For so great an apostasy there is no evidence whatever. That in-
dividuals in the Dispersion did succumb to the attractions of the life
outside the ghetto is probable enough. Philo, for example, warns
his fellow countrymen against the seductions of pagan mysteries ;
and his own nephew gave up his faith in order to become a soldier
of fortune. But the interpretation, which makes Jews of the
readers, involves an impossible assumption of wholesale perversion.
The persons in question are, surely, Gentiles; before their conver-
sion they lived as their neighbours lived, and, after their conversion,
they excited the surprise of their neighbours by their change of life.?

The internal evidence of the Epistle is borne out by what is
known of the evangelisation of the provinces named. With the ex-
ception of Cilicia all Asia Minor is included and Asia Minor was the
great field of the labours of St. Paul and his companions. There is
nothing to suggest that St. Peter was addressing converts of his own
as Origen and Eusebius* seem to assume.

The Author.—The beginning and the final conclusion of this
document certify it to be the letter or epistle of Peter the Apostle of
$esus Christ, who speaks of Silvanus and Mark as his companions
and writes from ‘“‘ Babylon”. The certificate was accepted and re-
mained unquestioned until quite modern times. Irenzus, whose
connexion with Polycarp is certain, quotes the document as
written by the Peter of the Church—Simon, son of John, to whom
Jesus gave the name of Cephas or (in Greek) Peter. When F. C.
Baur (for example) speaks of the ‘alleged apostolic authorship of
writings which bear the marks of pseudonymity so plainly on their
face,” + he illustrates the reaction which ran riot, when once the
doctrine of the inspiration and authority of canonical books was
called in question. The authorship of this document does not

liv. 3. Ziv. 4. ® See above page 4.

4 Church History (English translation: London, 1878), p. 131 (note) in refer-
ence to the Epistle of James and the First Epistle of Peter.

8 INTRODUCTION

necessarily decide the question of its authority—all or none—as it
did in the time of uncritical devotion to the letter of Scripture. But
Baur’s brave words do no more to solve the problem than the stolid
reiteration of traditional dogmas. And it is to be remembered that
Catholic traditions have often been rehabilitated by critical researches.

Το the question, “ Do you at this time of day venture to attribute
this document to Simon Peter?” the answer is, ‘‘ Why not ?”’

Such a conservative attitude excites the pity—if not the contempt
—of the “advanced” critics. They find no difficulty in treating the
Canonical Epistles as most men have treated the Epistles of Phalaris
—ever since Bentley wrote his dissertation. Bentley said! out of
Galen, “ That in the age of the Ptolemies the trade of coining false
Authors was in greatest Practice and Perfection... . When the
Attali and the Ptolemies were in Emulation about their Libraries,
the knavery of forging Books and Titles began. For there were
those that to enhance the price of their Books put the Names of great
Authors before them, and so sold them to those Princes.” But Bentley
proceeded to demonstrate that the Epistles of Phalaris contained
blunders incompatible with their authenticity; and—for all their
exquisite reasons—the critics, who treat the First Epistle of Peter
as falsely so-called, have not yet found their Bentley. Indeed, their
reasons are chiefly interesting as symptoms of presuppositions in-
herited from past controversies. They reveal (for example) a ten-
dency to resent the attribution of divine authority to the Apostles,
and a tendency—which others share—to ignore the relatively mature
theology to which, as a matter of fact, the first Christian mission-
aries were bred, before ever they became missionaries or Christians
at all. For those who believe that the Church has been directed by
the Holy Spirit it is not easy to suppose that others than James and
Peter, Jude andsJohn were as destitute as they were full of divine
inspiration. And it is not difficult to acquiesce in the excommunica-
tion of Marcion and all others who regard Christianity as a new
thing descended from heaven with no affinity to any earthly ante-
cedents.

In a natural and simple phrase this document professes to be
written by Peter. But Harnack? has put forward the hypothesis
that the opening and closing sentences* are an interpolation by an-
other hand and argues against the assumption that the whole is a
forgery. “If,” he says, ‘ the hypothesis here brought forward should
prove erroneous, I should more readily prevail upon myself to regard
the improbable as possible and to claim the Epistle for Peter him-

1 Wagner’s edition (London, 1883), pp. 80, 81.
2 Chronologie, p. 457 ff. 3i, 1, 2 and v. 12-14.

.

INTRODUCTION 9

self than to suppose that a Pseudo-Petrus wrote our fragment as it
now stands from the first verse to the last, soon after a.p. 90, or
even from ten to thirty years earlier. Such an assumption is, in my
opinion, weighed down by insuperable difficulties.!

So far as extant evidence goes Harnack’s hypothesis of interpola-
tion has nothing on which to rest. It remains to consider the chief
objections which have been urged to prove that the traditional view
is improbable. Peter cannot have written the Epistle (it is said)
because (1) it is clearly indebted to Paulinism, (2) it contains no
vivid reminiscences of the life and doctrine of Jesus, (3) it is written
in better Greek than a Galilean peasant could compass, and (4) it
reflects conditions which Peter did not live to see.

The first reason is regarded as decisive by Harnack:? ‘‘ Were it
not for the dependence [of 1 Peter] on the Pauline Epistles, | might
perhaps allow myself to maintain its genuineness: that dependence
however, is not accidental, but is of the essence of the Epistle”. Dr.
Chase has examined the affinities between 1 Peter and the Epistles
of the N.T., and it is sufficient to state the results at which he arrives.
‘The coincidences with St. James can hardly be accounted for on the
ground of personal intercourse between the two writers. . . . The
coincidences with the Pauline Epistles other than Romans and
Ephesians are not very close and are to be accounted for as the out-
come of a common evolution of Christian phrases and conceptions
rather than as instances of direct borrowing. . . . There is no doubt
that the author of 1 Peter was acquainted with the Epistle to the
Romans. Nor is this surprising if the writer is St. Peter. . . . The
connexion of Ephesians with 1 Peter (here he adopts the words of
Hort) is shown more by the identities of thought and similarity in
‘the structure of the two Epistles as wholes than by identities of
phrase. ...” In his summing-up he says: “ All that we learn of St.
Peter from the New Testament gives us the picture of a man prompt
and enthusiastic in action rather than fertile in ideas. His borrow-
ing from St. James’ Epistle shows that his mind was receptive and
retentive of the thoughts of others. The Epistle undoubtedly owes
much to St. Paul. But it is only when the Pauline element is isolated
and exaggerated that it becomes a serious argument against the
Petrine authorship of the Epistle.” ὃ ‘

It is to be remembered, also, that St. Paul did not invent Paul-
inism and that St. Peter manifests (according to the narrative of

1 Die Chronologie, 464 f. (quoted by Chase, Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible,
vol. iii. p. 786 Ὁ).

2 Chron. p. 364 (quoted by Chase).

3 Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. pp. 788 f.

IO INTRODUCTION

Acts) a disinclination to associate with the Gentile which suggests
that he also was a strict Pharisee. There can be no doubt that of
the Apostles of Christianity, who are known to us, St. Paul’s was the
master-mind. And there can be no doubt that St. Paul brought to
the service of the Church a body of doctrine which he had inherited
from Gamaliel and the masters of*Gamaliel. The common notion
that Christianity was something absolutely new planted by St.
Paul and watered—watered down—by St. Peter and finally by St.
John is inconsistent with known facts and with general probability.
It is, indeed, the vicious product of the artificial isolation of the New
Testament literature from the literature and the life of Judaism.

Others than St. Paul modified their inherited theology in the
light of their belief, that Jesus, having been raised from the dead,
was the promised and anointed deliverer—the Messiah, who by
revealing God’s will more fully than the prophets or the scribes, but
not independently of either, introduced to men more fully the Sove-
reignty of Heaven, under whose yoke he lived and died. Inevitably
and insensibly the first Christian teachers learned from each other
and profited by their own and each other’s experience. But they all
inherited and already possessed the presuppositions and categories of
the Scribes, whose teaching their Master had endorsed and extended.
Into this body of theology they fitted the new fact of a crucified Mes-
siah—into the framework of Pharisaism—as Pharisees fitted all new
facts which threw fresh light upon the will of God. If St. Paul was the
first (as our fragmentary evidence suggests) to find a deep significance
in it, it is not derogatory to St. Peter to suggest that he may have
been indebted to St. Paul both here and elsewhere, and such in-
debtedness is not necessarily an argument against the authenticity
of this Epistle of Peter.

The second objection is that our document contains no vivid re-
miniscences of the life and doctrine of Jesus such as we should
expect from a personal disciple.

The alleged expectation is not altogether a reasonable one. If
the document is, as an unbroken chain of tradition affirms, a pastoral
letter addressed to Christian Churches already in being, there is no
reason to expect reminiscences of the life and teaching of Jesus. The
Church was built upon the belief that Jesus was raised from the dead
and so declared to be the promised deliverer. His submission to
death—and the death of the cross—was the crown and the summary
of His life as it was the fulfilment of His teaching. So far as other
facts and traditions were relatively necessary to the faith of the
converts they were naturally communicated—formally or informally—
by those who founded or confirmed the Churches. But in an epistle

INTRODUCTION II

like this they would have been irrelevant and inconclusive. The oc-
casion called for the emphatic isolation of the glorious resurrection,
which followed the culmination of the sufferings of Jesus and in which
His past miracles were swallowed up like stars in the sunshine. As
for the teaching of Jesus our records are plainly incomplete, and,
whether the Fourth Gospel be permitted to give evidence or not
it is quite clear that the arguments used by Jesus and the topics He
treated were determined for Him by the character of those to whom
He addressed Himself. When the Christian missionaries addressed
themselves to men of different nationalities, they could not presume
in them knowledge of Jewish presuppositions and therefore, quite apart
from its relative insignificance they postponed indefinitely much of
the teaching of Jesus. For in any case this teaching was relatively
insignificant in their view; the essence of their message was Jesus
and the Resurrection. Particular. incidents and particular sayings
may have their value as links in the chain of proof that—witness here
and witness there—Jesus was He of whom Moses and the Prophets
had spoken. But such proof belongs properly to the controversy
with the Jews and, in many cases, not to the original phase of it.
Historical or biographical sermons upon which the Gospel according
to St. Mark is by tradition asserted to be based, were a sequel to the
summons, ‘ Repent and believe”. It may well be that St. Peter
did so preach, and that he dwelt rather upon the record of Jesus’ life
in Galilee of the Gentiles, because his own audience had little in
common with the Jews of Jerusalem; but his reminiscences of the
ministry prior to the Passion were not, as has been said,! ‘‘ the best, the
most inspiring message that he could deliver at such a critical time”.
He himself had seen and heard these things; yet, when the crisis
came, he himself denied and repudiated Jesus. The impressiveness
of these things, which failed to convince an eye-witness, was not likely
to be heightened, when he repeated them to strangers. And there
can be little doubt that, if he had inserted a reference to the Trans-
figuration (for example), it would be said nowadays that this was the
mark of a sedulous forger, anxious to keep up the part he was playing.
In his intercourse with Jesus St. Peter had learned and unlearned
here a little and there a little. But at the last his faith was not

1Von Soden, Early Christian Literature (English Translation), London, 1906,
pp. 278 f. : ‘* It is evident that St. Peter cannot have written this epistle. The oldest
personal disciple of our Lord would never have omitted the slightest reference to that
which must above all things have distinguished him in the eyes of his readers. And
how, especially at such a critical time, could he have refrained from speaking of

reminiscences which formed the best, the most inspiring, message that he could
deliver ?””

ο INTRODUCTION

proof against the appearance of failure. When, therefore, he con-
verted and began to establish his brethren, he imparted to them the
convictions he had acquired, and did not parade the diverse and
devious steps by which he had painfully reached that height.

A third objection is that the Greek of this Epistle is better than
a Galilean peasant could compass and that a Palestinian Jew would
not possess such a familiar knowledge of the Old Testament in
Greek.

Such an objection seems to take no account at all of certain
known facts and of general probability. Even a Galilean peasant,
who stayed in his native place, needed and presumably acquired
some knowledge of the Greek language in his intercourse with the
non-Jewish inhabitants ofthe land, whom Josephus calls indifferently
Greeks and Syrians. If he went up to Jerusalem for the feasts
he there came into contact with Jews of the Dispersion, most of
whom lived in the Greek-speaking world. The part played by these
assemblies in cementing the solidarity of the whole nation is
commonly overlooked; and therefore it is worth while to quote
Philo’s explicit statement on the subject.1 ‘“ The Temple made with
hands,” he says, ‘‘ is necessary for men in general. They must have
a place where they can give thanks for benefits and pray for pardon
when they sin. So there is the temple at Jerusalem and no other.
They must rise up from the ends of the earth and resort thither, if
they would offer sacrifice. They must leave their fatherland, their
friends and their kinsfolk, and so prove the sincerity of their religion.
And this they do. At every feast myriads from East and West,
from North and South repair to the Temple to be free for a little
space from the business and the confusion of their lives. They
draw breath for a little while, as they have leisure for holiness and
the honouring of God. And so they make friends with strangers
hitherto unknown to them ; and over sacrifices and libations they form
a community of interests which is the surest pledge of unanimity.”
In the face of this, it seems impossible to accept the modern dis-
tinction between Alexandrian and Palestinian Judaism as corre-
sponding to an absolute severance in life, language and religion in
the first century of the present era. Apart from this normal inter-
course of all classes of religiously minded Jews, those who aspired
to direct their fellows as Sages or Scribes seem to have travelled in
foreign countries as a part of their training. And further, it is
known that the delivery of the Temple dues at Jerusalem was
regarded as a pious duty which the foremost members of each

1 De specialibus legibus, i. (de templo), §§ 67-70 (Cohn and Wendland, vol. v. pp,
17f.; ii. p. 223, Mangey).

INTRODUCTION 13

community were selected to perform. In these and other ways the
Jews of Palestine became acquainted with the Greek language and,
so far as they engaged in religious discussion with their visitors or
hosts of the Dispersion, with the Old Testament in Greek also.
‘The translation known as the Septuagint was still a triumphant
achievement, through which the Jews of the Greek world were
retained within the fold of Judaism and the Greeks outside were
offered knowledge of the Law. And even when the Christian
missionaries began to utilise in the interests of their own creed the
laxities of the Septuagint, the non-Christian Jews produced the
‘Greek versions of Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion. In fact, so
far as and as long as any sect of Judaism engaged in missionary
enterprise knowledge of the Greek language and the Greek Bible
was indispensable to its agents.

It is therefore entirely in keeping with the tradition that this
document is the Epistle General of St. Peter, the Apostle of the
‘Circumcision, that it should be written in passable Greek and bear
evident traces of familiarity with the Septuagint. In order to prove
that Jesus was the deliverer for whom the prophets had looked, he
was bound to appeal to the Scriptures, and to the Scriptures in that
‘version which was established as the Bible of the Greek Dispersion.

If in spite of these and other considerations it is felt that the
‘general style of the Epistle is too literary for one who had lived the
life and done the work of St. Peter, there is still another line of
defence for the traditional view. In other words, it is still possible
to believe that the document as it stands gives a just and true
account of its own origin. In the postscript! the author says, “J
write (or I have written) to you, briefly by means of Silvanus the
faithful brother, as I reckon him”’,

If the phrase I write by means of Silvanus may be taken to imply
that Silvanus was not only the bearer of the Epistle but also the
trusted secretary who wrote out in his own way St. Peter’s message,
then all the difficulties derived from the style of the document and
its use of Pauline ideas vanish at once. And in any case this mention
-of Silvanus proves that St. Peter was closely associated with the
sometime colleague of St. Paul, who had actually helped to preach
the Gospel in Syria, Cilicia and Galatia.2, For there seems to be no
reason for questioning the identification of the Silas of the Acts with
the Silvanus of the Pauline Epistles and this Epistle.

The interpretation of the phrase διὰ Οιλουανοῦ is still in dispute.
Professor Zahn* maintains the view that ‘‘Silvanus’ part in the

ly. τὸ. 2See Acts xv. 23, 40 f.; xvi. 1-8.
3 Introduction to the New Testament (English Translation, 1go9), vol. ii. p. 150.

14 INTRODUCTION

composition was so important and so large that its performance
required a considerable degree of trustworthiness. . . . It purports
to be a letter of Peter’s; and such it is, except that Peter left its
composition to Silvanus because he regarded him as better fitted
than himself . . . to express in an intelligible and effective manner
the thoughts and feelings which Peter entertained toward the Gentile
Christians of Asia Minor”’

Dr. Chase! quotes Professor Zahn as arguing that Silvanus.
‘“must have been either a messenger who conveyed the letter or a
friend who put St. Peter’s thoughts into the form of a letter”.
Against this interpretation, he says, four “ considerations seem
together decisive” ; and he concludes that Silvanus carried the
Epistle and did not write it. It is of course possible that the phrase
may bear this meaning, but the other is not to be excluded. The
parallels quoted are, with two exceptions, ambiguous, and of the
exceptions each supports one of the rival views. In Acts xv. 22,
for example, it is said that the Apostles chose Judas and Silas and
wrote by their hand.2 Clearly they were the bearers of the letter,
as it is said that they delivered it at Antioch ;* and ‘ being prophets.
they exhorted and confirmed the brethren”.* But it is certainly
possible if not definitely probable that they actually wrote each a
copy of the letter for himself at the dictation of St. James. The
case on which Dr. Chase chiefly relies is the postscript of Ignatius’
letter to the Romans: “I write these things to you by the worthy
Ephesians: Crocus whom I love is by my side with many others”’.°
But even here the other interpretation is not impossible. They
certainly were the bearers, but for safety’s sake each may have written
his own copy of the letter. The journey from Smyrna to Rome was.
long and dangerous, and apart from considerations of safe delivery
each of them may well have desired to have his own copy. And there
is one clear case in which this ambiguity disappears: Dionysius,
Bishop of Corinth, writes to Soter, Bishop of Rome, in acknowledg-
ment of a letter received from the Roman Church, which (he says)
‘‘we shall always have to read for our admonition like the former

1 Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (1900), vol. iii. p. 790.

“ypawavres διὰ χειρὸς auTav.

5 Acts xv. 30, of μὲν οὖν ἀπολυθέντες κατῆλθον εἰς ᾽Αντιόχειαν καὶ συν-
αγαγόντες τὸ πλῆθος ἐπέδωκαν τὴν ἐπιστολήν.

4 Acts xv. 32.

5 Ad Romanos, xiv. 1, γράφω δὲ ἡμῖν ταῦτα ἀπὸ Ομύρνης 80 Ἔφεσιων τῶν:
ἀξιομακαρίστων. ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἅμα ἐμοὶ σὺν ἄλλοις πολλοῖς καὶ Κρόκος τὸ ποθητόν΄
μοι ὄνομα.

INTRODUCTION 15

Epistle written to us through Clement”.! Here the preposition
clearly denotes the interpreter who writes in the name of the Church
and cannot cover the messenger also, because the bearers of the
Epistle—Claudius Ephebus, Valerius Bito, and Fortunatus—are
named at the end.’

Since, therefore, διά can in such contexts designate the writer as
well as the bearer of an Epistle, it is hardly safe to say that Silvanus
cannot have been both in this case. If St. Peter had not so far
profited by his general experience and in particular by his association
with Silvanus and other missionaries as to write moderately good
Greek and to employ ‘“‘Pauline”’ ideas, then we may suppose that
he permitted Silvanus to write the Epistle for him. He was none
the less the real author if he employed a letter-writer whose position
and experience enabled him to supplement the author’s alleged
deficiencies in respect of the language and modes of thought familiar
to the persons addressed. The postscript indicates St. Peter's
approval of the draft thus made and submitted to him. The tone
of authority which is used in the addresses to separate classes is
naturally reproduced by the secretary from his recollection of what
St. Peter had said. The secretary’s intervention affects only the
manner of the Epistle at most. If Silvanus had really contributed
to the matter he would have been joined with St. Peter in the
salutation. On the other hand, there is every reason to suppose
that Silvanus was also St. Peter’s messenger plenipotentiary and
would, as when he was sent by the Apostles of Jerusalem, ‘‘ proclaim
the same things by word of mouth ’”’.®

The fourth objection to the traditional view is that the Epistle
reflects conditions which were definitely later than the date of St.
Peter’s death. No other book of the New Testament offers any
plain information about St. Peter at any time after the hypocrisy he
practised at Antioch. But Christian tradition connects him not
only with Antioch ® and Asia Minor ®&—statements which are probably
simple inferences from the statements of St. Paul’s Epistle to the

1 Τὴν σήμερον οὖν κυριακὴν ἅγιαν ἡμέραν διηγάγοµεν ἐν ᾖ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν trv
ἐπιστολήν:' ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι ὡς καὶ τὴν προτέραν
ἡμεῖν δια Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν (Eusebius, Historiae Ecclesiae, iv. 23. 8).

2Clement, ad Corinthios, Ixv. 3 Acts xv. 27. 4 Gal. ii.

5So Origen (in Lucam Homilia, vi.): ‘‘ Eleganter in cuiusdam martyris epistola

scriptum repperi, Ignatium dico, episcopum Antiochiae post Petrum secundum, qui in
persecutione Romae pugnavit ad bestias, ‘ principem saeculi huius latuit virginitas

Mariae’.””

8So Origen (fragment in Eusebius, Historiae Ecclesiae, iii. 1): Πέτρος δὲ ἐν
Πόντῳ καὶ Γαλατίᾳ καὶ Βιθυνίᾳ Καππαδοκίᾳ τε καὶ ᾿Ασίᾳ κεκηρυχέναι τοῖς ἐκ
διασπορᾶς ᾿Ιουδαίοις ἔοικεν.

16 INTRODUCTION

Galatians and the First Epistle of St. Peter respectively—but also
with Rome. For this part of the tradition there is no obvious hint
in the New Testament which can be used to explain away its origin,
unless it be supposed that the bare mention of Babylon in the First
Epistle of St. Peter is sufficient of itself to have given birth to so
complete a legend. It is not surprising that Babylon should have
been interpreted as meaning Rome from the first ; but the tradition,
that St. Peter died at Rome under Nero, has nothing on which to
rest in the Epistles or elsewhere.

Tertullian is the first to state this tradition explicitly. We read,
in the Lives of the Caesars, ‘“‘ Nero first laid bloody hands upon the
rising faith at Rome. Then was Peter girded by another when he
was bound to the cross.”!1 But apart from the definite date, the
tradition is as old as Clement of Rome, who cites St. Peter and St.
Paul as ‘‘noble examples of our own generation ” in his Epistle to
the Corinthians: ‘“‘ By reason of envy and jealousy the great and
righteous Pillars were persecuted and struggled on till they died.
Let us put before our eyes the good Apostles—Peter, who by reason
of unrighteous envy endured not one or two but many labours and
so became a martyr and departed to the place of glory which was
his due”.2. A brief account of St. Paul’s sufferings, based largely
on New Testament evidence, follows; and the conclusion that St.
Peter suffered before St. Paul and both at Rome is commonly drawn.
After this Clement goes on to say: ‘‘To these men of holy life was
gathered a great multitude of elect persons who by reason of envy
suffered many outrages and torments and so became a noble example
among us”. This further illustration of the terrible effects of envy
and jealousy—the theme to which all these references are incidental
—is most naturally interpreted as describing the victims of the
Neronian persecution of Α.Ρ. 64, of whom Tacitus* speaks as ‘‘a
huge multitude”. If, then, Clement has put his illustrations in

1Vitas Caesarum legimus: Orientem fidem Romae primus Nero cruentavit.
Nunc Petrus ab altero cingitur, cum cruci adstringitur (Scorpiace, 15). The fact
is so stated as to indicate the fulfilment of the word of Jesus reported in John xxi.
18:

διὰ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον οἱ µέγιστοι καὶ δικαιότατοι στύλοι (cf. Gal. ii. 9)
ἐδιώχθησαν καὶ ἕως θανάτου ἤθλησαν. λάβωμεν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμῶν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς
ἀποστόλους Πέτρον ὃς διὰ ζῆλον ἄδικον οὐχ ἕνα οὐδὲ δύο ἀλλὰ πλείονας ὑπήνεγκεν
πόνους καὶ οὕτω µαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης
(I Clementis ad Corinthios, v. 2-4).

τούτοις τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ὁσίως πολιτευσαµένοις συνηθροίσθη πολὺ πλῆθος
ἐκλεκτῶν οἵτινες πολλὰς αἰκίας καὶ βασάνους διὰ ζῆλος παθόντες ὑπόδειγμα
κάλλιστον ἐγένοντο ἐν ἡμῖν (1 Clementis ad Corinthios, Vi. 1).

4 Annals, xv. 44.

INTRODUCTION 17

chronological order, he agrees with Tertullian in asserting that St:
Peter died as a martyr under Nero and, being a conspicuous pillar
of the Church, before the mass of the Christians. To this assertion
Origen, quoted by Eusebius,! adds the statement that ‘at the end
Peter being at Rome was crucified head-downwards having himself
requested that he might so suffer”.

Eusebius in his account of the Neronian persecution endorses
this tradition of St. Peter’s martyrdom and cites evidence to prove
its truth: “So then at this time this man who was proclaimed one
of the foremost fighters against God was led on to slaughter the
Apostles. It is related that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and
that Peter was likewise crucified in his reign. And the history is
confirmed by the inscription upon the tombs there which is still in
existence. It is also confirmed by an ecclesiastic named Gaius,
who lived at the time when Zephyrinus was Bishop of Rome, who
writing to Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, says these very
words about the places where the sacred tabernacles of the aforesaid
Apostles are deposited, ‘ But I can shew the trophies of the Apostles.
For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find
the trophies of those who founded this Church. And that they both
became martyrs at the same time Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth,
writing to the Romans proves in this way. You also by such
admonition have compounded the plant of Romans and Corinthians
which came from Peter and Paul. For they both of them came
to our Corinth and planted us, teaching like doctrine, and in like
manner they taught together in Italy and became martyrs at the
same time.” 3

All the other extant evidence* agrees with this, and we may
fairly conclude that from the end of the first century it has been the
unchallenged belief of the Christian Church that St. Peter was put
to death at Rome in Α.Ρ. 64. The question therefore arises, Is this
tradition compatible with the traditional ascription of this document
to St. Peter ?

Date, CIRCUMSTANCES, AND PurRPoOsE.

‘

If St. Peter was the author of this document and if St. Peter
perished in the persecution under Nero, it follows that the document

1 Historiae Ecclesiasticae, iii. 1: ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ τέλει ἐν Ρώμῃ yevopevos averkodo-
πίσθη κατὰ κεφαλῆς οὕτως αὐτὸς ἀξιώσας παθεῖν.

3 Historiae Ecclesiasticae, ii. 25.

3See Dr. Chase’s article on Peter (Simon) in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
vol. iii.

18 INTRODUCTION

must have been written before Α.Ρ. 64, The conclusion is challenged
on the ground of the circumstances implied by the document and
consequently one or other of the premises is invalidated. The cir-
cumstances implied and indicated are suppposed to belong to a date
definitely later than the time of Nero; and from this supposition it
follows either that St. Peter did not write the Epistle or that he
did not perish under Nero. In either case the Epistle is now com-
monly assigned to the reign either of Domitian (Α.Ρ. 81-96) or of
Trajan (A.D. 98-117). Professor Gunkel (for example) in a popular
commentary recently published! ends his introduction with the
words: ‘‘ The more precise dating of the Epistle must be determined
in accordance with the persecutions above mentioned, with which, it
must be confessed, we are not perfectly acquainted. Now the
Neronian persecution affected only Rome and not the provinces,
On the other hand more general persecutions seem to have taken
place under Domitian. The time of Trajan, under whom a persecu-
tion (A.D. 112) to which the letters of Pliny to the emperor testify,
certainly took place in Asia Minor, is open to the objection that
then the Christians were compelled to offer sacrifice—to which the
Epistle has no reference. Our Epistle is therefore best assigned to
the early period of Domitian’s reign. A still later dating (sc. than
the reign of Trajan ?) is excluded by the lack of references to Guosis
and the Episcopate.”’

Professor Ramsay similarly suggests, on the basis of the contents of
the Epistle : ‘‘ ThevFirst Epistle of Peter then must have been written
soon after Vespasian’s resumption of the Neronian policy in a more
precise and definite form. It implies relations between Church and
State which are later than the Neronian period, but which have only
just begun.” ?

Professor Cone ὃ urges that the conditions implied by the Epistle
fit the time of Trajan, and argues, as against Professor Ramsay, that
‘since they also fit the later date, they furnish no ground for exclud-
ing it in favour of the earlier”. His conclusion is: “The data
supplied in the Epistle and in known and precisely determinable his-
torical circumstances do not warrant us in placing its composition
more definitely than in the last quarter of the first, or the first
quarter of the second, century”. For this he relies partly on Pro-
fessor Ramsay’s opinion that ‘‘the history of the spread of Chris-

1 Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu iibersetzt und fur die Gegenwart
εγε]ᾶγέ. . . Gottingen, 1908.
2 The Church in the Roman Empire (sixth edition: London, 1893), p. 282. He
assigns it, therefore, to ο. A.D. 80 at the end of Vespasian’s reign.
3 Encyclopedia Biblica III., “ Peter, the Epistles of”.

INTRODUCTION 19

tianity imperatively demands for 1 Peter a later date than Α.Ρ. 64”;
and from it he deduces the corollary: “The later date renders it
very probable that Babylon is employed figuratively for Rome, ac-
cording to Rev. xiv. 8, xvi. 19, xvii. 5, xviii. 2, 10, 21”.

Professor Cone’s corollary deserves attention. He seems to
assume that the Christians started afresh—de novo or ex nihilo—to
evolve modes and idioms of thought for themselves. Such an as-
sumption is demonstrably untenable. In the particular case of such
cipher-language as this, it is certain that the Christians appropriated
the inventions of the Jews, who in their own oppressions and their
own persecutions had BG Bip to veil their hopes from all but the
initiated. Babylon was the great and typical oppressor, and her
successors in the part naturally received her proper name. Rome
‘was not the declared and inflexible enemy of the Jewish nation as a
whole before the time of Caligula; but Rome stood behind Herod
the Great, and Pompey had desecrated the Temple at Jerusalem.
Philo might forgive and forget the outrages which Pompey and
Herod had perpetrated in order to heighten the enormity of Caligula’s
offences, but the Psalms of Solomon and the evidence of Josephus
suffice to prove that for some Rome was already the enemy in the
last century B.c. Pormal proof that the Jews actually spoke of
Rome by the name of Babylon before the destruction of Jerusalem
in A.D. 70 is, indeed, wanting. But the identification of Rome with
Babylon and the consequent transference of the paraphernalia of
Babylon to Rome is part and parcel of the apocalyptic vocabulary
and passed over into the language of the Rabbis. The author of the
Epistle had no more need to explain his use of Babylon than had the
Jewish poet who wrote in the name of the Sibyl and said in reference
to Nero :—

‘Poets shall mourn for thee, thrice-hapless Greece,
What time the mighty king of mighty Rome,
Coming from Italy, shall pierce thine Isthmus—
A God-like mortal, born (they say) of Zeus
By lady Hera, who with dulcet songs
Shall slay his hapless mother and many more.
A shameless prince and terrible! He shall fly ͵
From Babylon...” }

And again he prophesied that after a time and times and half a
time?

1Oracula, Sibyllina, v. 137-143 (Geffcken: Leipzig, 1902).
ITbid. 154: "ἐκ τετράτου éreos”” ; compare Daniel vii. 25.

20 INTRODUCTION

‘* Prom heav’n into the sea a star shall fall
That shall consume with fire the ocean wide,
And Babylon herself, and Italy...”

Nero’s achievements added matricide to the specification of Anti-
christ ; but the book of Daniel and other apocalypses, which were
directly or indirectly inspired by the experience of the Jews under
Antiochus Epiphanes, had long ago established the code of language
by which each particular persecutor was identified with the vanished
type. Inthe time of Antiochus such disguise was a necessary pre-
caution; and it was so again in the time of Nero or Vespasian, of
Domitian or Trajan. In fact, Professor Cone’s corollary has nothing,
to do with his conclusion. Whenever any Christian community be-
came exposed for whatever reason to attack by any representative of
the State, the State became for them the enemy, and therefore
Babylon.

For Trajan’s attitude towards the Christians of Bithynia we have
ample testimony—thanks to the lack of independence displayed by
his legate, the younger Pliny. In a.p. 112 Bithynia was in a bad
state. There were many abuses which called for remedies, and the
province was distracted by factions.2 The law which forbade the
formation of clubs or associations for different purposes had fallen
into abeyance, and Pliny began by re-enacting it in accordance with
Trajan’s mandate? On this policy Trajan insisted so strongly that
he refused to authorise a fire brigade in Nicomedia, in spite of Pliny’s.
protestations that only 150 men would be enrolled, only carpenters,
and for the sole purpose of dealing with such a conflagration as had
recently devastated the city. From experience he held that all
corporations, whatever name they bore, quickly became politica]
associations.» This rigid interpretation of the law made the ordi-
nary meetings of the Christians at once illegal; and there were so:
many Christians in Bithynia that the temples were almost deserted
and the customary sacrifices were omitted. When the edict was

1 Or. Sib. v. 158-160.

2Trajan to Pliny, xxxii. (xli.): ‘‘ Meminerimus idcirco te in istam provinciam
missum, quoniam multa in ea emendanda apparuerint; xxxiv. (xlili.) meminerimus-
provinciam istam . . . factionibus esse vexatam”’.

3 Pliny to Trajan, xcvi. (xcvii.): ‘‘ Edictum meum quo secundum mandata tua
hetaerias esse vetueram ’’.

‘Pliny to Trajan, xxxiii. (xlii.): “Tu, domine, dispice an instituendum putes.
Collegium fabrorum dumtaxat hominum Cl. Ego attendam ne quis nisi faber reci-
piatur neve iure concesso in aliud utatur; necerit difficile custodire tam paucos”’.

5 Trajan to Pliny, xxxiv. (xliii.): ‘‘Quodcumque nomen ex quacumque causa
dederimus eis qui in idem contracti fuerit. . . . hetaeriae que brevi fient ”.

INTRODUCTION 21

published, some Christians — apparently renegades, who abjured
Christianity when challenged by Pliny—asserted that either they or
the Christians generally gave up either the practice of meeting for a
common meal or their religious meetings also. It is improbable that
those who persisted in their wicked and immoderate superstition
should have abandoned their weekly assemblies at which they recited
a hymn to Christ as God, but it is unnatural to distinguish between
these assemblies and the subsequent meetings for the common meal,
and the statement of the renegades may reasonably be confined to
their own obedience to the edict. \

Professor Ramsay, however, infers from Pliny’s language that
the statement refers to the Christians as a whole: “They had,
indeed, been in the habit of holding social meetings, and feasting in
common; but this illegal practice they had abandoned as soon as the
governor had issued an edict in accordance with the Emperor’s in-
structions, forbidding the formation or existence of sodalitates”}
And he asserts that Pliny’s language implies a distinction between
the illegal meetings of the evening and the legal meetings of the
morning: “The regular morning meetings which Pliny speaks about
and which, as we know, must have been weekly meetings, were not
abandoned, and Pliny obviously accepts them as strictly legal. Amid
the strict regulations about societies the Roman government ex-
pressly allowed to all people the right of meeting for purely religious
purposes. The morning meeting of the Christians was religious;
but the evening meeting was social, including a common meal, and
therefore constituted the Christian community a sodalitas. The
Christians abandoned the illegal meeting, but continued the legal
one. This fact is one of the utmost consequence. It shows that
the Christian communities were quite alive to the necessity of acting
according to the law, and of using the forms of the law to screen
themselves as far as was consistent with their principles.” 2

Against this view it must be urged, in the first place, that the
common meal of the Christian community had a definitely religious
character and could not be abandoned without a breach of their
principles; and, in the second place, that Pliny’s language is by no
means so explicit and clear as is suggested. The authors of the,
statement are a large number of persons accused of Christianity,
either by an anonymous letter or by an informer: all of them
convinced Pliny that they had never been Christians, or had
ceased to be Christians, by offering sacrifice to idols and blas-

1The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 206.
2 Tbid. pp. 219 f.
VOL. V. 2

22 INTRODUCTION

pheming Christ.' As regards their past Christianity—if ever they
had practised Christianity—they affirmed that this was the sum
and substance of their crime, that they had been accustomed to
assemble on a fixed day before sunrise and to repeat alternately
a hymn to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by an oath—not
to commit any crime, but—to abstain from theft, brigandage, adul-
tery, breach of faith, and refusal of any deposit; which done they
usually departed and assembled again to take food, which food was
taken by all together, and involved no crime. And even this, they
said, they had ceased to do after the edict.?

Here, surely, Pliny is concerned only with renegades who proved
to him that the Christian faith which they had abandoned had led
them into no crimes of which he must take cognisance. Their oath
was not proof of conspiracy and their meal was not a cannibal feast,
To satisfy himself that their denial of the charges brought against
them was well founded, Pliny examined two slaves, who were called
deaconesses, under torture. Finding nothing in them but a foul im-
moderate superstition, he submitted the case to the Emperor.’

The fact is that the large number of persons involved and the
doubt whether those who had repented of their Christianity had
thereby deserved free pardon, gave Pliny food for reflexion. Christi-
anity had been rampant in his province, but his experience of these
apostates gave him good hope that it might be checked. Apostates
would naturally be more zealous heathens, and therefore good

1 Pliny to Trajan, xcvi. (xcvii.): ‘‘ Propositus est libellus sine auctore multorum
nomina continens. Qui negabant esse se Christianos aut fuisse cum praeeunte me
deos appellarent et imagini tuae, quam propter hoc iusseram cum simulacris nomi-
num adferri, ture ac vino supplicarent, praeterea male dicerent Christo, quorum nihil
posse cogi dicuntur qui sunt se vera Christiani, dimittendos esse putavi. Alii ab
indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt et mox negaverunt; fuisse quidem, sed
desisse, quidam ante plures annos non nemo etiam ante viginti quoque. Omnes et
imaginem tuam deorumque simulacra venerati sunt et Christo maledixerunt.”

2 Pliny to Trajan, xcvi. (xcvii.):; ‘“‘ Adfirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel
culpae suae vel erroris quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque
Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod
obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent,
ne depositum appellati abnegarent; quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse,
rursusque ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium; quod ipsum
facere desisse post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua hetaerias esse
vetueram ”’.

3 Pliny, ibid.: ‘‘Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis quae minis-
trae dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenta quaerere. Nihil aliud inveni quam
superstitionem pravam immodicam. Ideo dilata cognitione ad consulendum te
decucurri ”’.

INTRODUCTION 23

citizens, in future. To execute them all would have been to diminish
seriously the population of his province. As a conscientious gover-
nor, he was anxious to bring this section of his subjects to their
senses, and he believed that the extension of clemency to those who
repented of their Christianity would be the means most likely to
secure that end.? If room for repentance was given, all the
Christians might be induced to recant. He does not contemplate
a policy of religious toleration at all. Though there might be no
crimes inherent in the profession of Christianity, Christians were
still guilty of sacrilegium when they refused to worship the gods of
the Empire, even if they satisfied Pliny that their meetings were
purely religious in character and, therefore, did not constitute them
a sodalitas within the meaning of the law. Obstinate Christians
had three opportunities of recantation: if they did not take ad-
vantage of their opportunities, they were executed summarily—or, if
they were Roman citizens, they were transported to Rome. It was
an accepted and a familiar fact that a Christian was, as such, a
criminal *—so familiar, indeed, that Pliny leaves their crime of sac-
rilege to be inferred from the sacrifice required of those who would
prove their apostasy. He confesses that he never occupied such an
official position as to be called on to decide or advise in the case of
Christians, and was therefore ignorant of the precise nature of the
proceedings. But he did not hesitate to condemn the obdurate,5
although he might doubt whether the name itself, if it involved no
crime, or the crimes attaching to the name were thereby punished.®

1Tbid.: ‘‘ Visa est enim mihi res digna consultatione maxime propter pericli-
tantium munerum. Multi enim omnis aetatis, omnis ordinis utriusque sexus etiam,
vocantur in periculum et vocabuntur. Neque civitates tantum sed vicos etiam atque
agros superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est; quae videtur sisti et corrigi posse.
Certe satis constat prope iam desolata templa coepisse celebrari et sacra sollemnia
diuintermissa repeti pastumque venire victinarum cuius adhuc rarissimus emptor.”

2 [bid.: ‘‘ Ex quo facile est opinari quae turba hominum emendari possit si sit
paenitentiae locus”’.

’Tbid.: ‘* Interrogari ipsos an essent Christiani. Confitentes iterum ac
tertio interrogari, supplicium miratus: perseverantes duciiussi. Neque enim dubi-
tatum, qualecumque esset quod faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstina-
tionem debere puniri. Fuerunt alii similis amentiae quos, quia cives Romani erant,
adnotari in urbem remittendos.”

‘Professor Ramsay’s paraphrase of Pliny’s words (1δίά.): ‘‘ Cognitionibus de
Christianis interfui numquam; ideo nescio quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut
quaeri”’. 5 See note (1) supra.

8 Ibid. : "Νες mediocriter haesitavi sitne aliquod discrimen aetatum an quam-
libet teneri nihil a robustioribus differant, detur paenitentiae venia an ei qui omnino
Christianus fuit desisse non prosit. nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat, an flagitia
cohaerentia nomini puniantur ”.

24 INTRODUCTION

Such doubts as this arose from his examination of the renegades
and the slaves who were called deaconesses, in which he learned
that there were no crimes other than sacrilegium involved in the
name, and, therefore, was emboldened to suggest that renegades
should be pardoned.

Trajan’s answer authorises the policy suggested: “Any one
who denies that he is a Christian and gives plain proof of his.
truthfulness, that is, by worshipping our gods, though his past may
not be above suspicion, shall obtain pardon by his repentance’! No
anonymous accusations are to be entertained,? and Christians are
not to be sought out. If they are brought before the governor and
convicted of being Christians they must, of course, be punished.
Pliny did well to investigate the cases of the so-called Christians,
who had been brought before him.’ No general policy can be
laid down. Trajan is content to endorse the existing practice of
punishing obdurate Christians as Christians, and to sanction the
pardon of such Christians as were prepared to renounce their
Christianity and to ratify their renunciation by performance of
heathen rites.

Trajan’s endorsement of the action which Pliny took without
hesitation against the Christians as such, proves that “persecution
for the name” was already an established and familiar part of
Roman policy. If Pliny had been present at trials of Christians
before becoming governor of Bithynia, he might have learned that
the vulgar were wrong in ascribing foul crimes to the Christians, as.
such. But there is no question that Christians, as such, were liable
to capital punishment. In the first instance, when he had only to
do with those Christians who refused to apostatize, Pliny con-
demned them to death almost instinctively as a matter of routine
and immemorial tradition.

Under Domitian (according to Dio Cassius) Flavius Clemens
was put to death on the charge of atheism, and many others who
embraced the customs of the Jews were condemned to death or

1 Trajan to Pliny, xcvii. (xcviii.). . . . puniendi sunt ita tamen ut qui negaverit
se Christianum esse idque re ipsa manifestum fecerit, id est supplicando dis nostris,
quamvis suspectus in praeteritum, veniam ex paenitentia impetret”’.

2Ibid.: ‘‘Sine auctore vero propositi libelli in nullo crimine locum habere
debent. Nam et pessimi exempli nec nostri saeculi est.”
3Ibid.: ‘“* Actum quem debuisti, mi Secunde, in excutiendis causis eorum qui

Christiani ad te delati fuerunt secutus es. Neque enim in universum aliquid quod
quasi certam forman habeat constitui potest. Conquirendi non sunt: si deferantur
et arguantur, puniendi sunt”... .

INTRODUCTION 25

deprived of their goods. His wife Domitilla, a relative of the Emperor,
was merely banished to Pandateria.!

Suetonius? describes Flavius Clemens as a man of contemptible
inactivity—a conventional description of Christians 3—and says that
he was put to death on the barest suspicion. Eusebius‘ asserts
explicitly that Domitilla was banished with many others, because she
bore witness to Christ. Probably the Christians were regarded as
a Jewish sect who could not claim the privileges of Jews proper.
Evidently the sect was proscribed. A Christian as such was liable
to death, banishment, or confiscation of his goods. Domitian (as
Eusebius® says) was the second persecutor of the Christian Church
and made himself the heir of Nero’s battle with God. But according
to Hegesippus,® as reported by Eusebius,’ Domitian stopped the
persecution after examining the grandsons of Judas, the brother of
Jesus.8

1]xvii. 14 (epitome of Xiphilinus): Kav τῷ αὐτῷ ἔτει (A.D. 95) ἄλλους τε πολλοὺς
καὶ τὸν Φλάβιον Κλήμεντα ὑπατεύοντα, καίπερ ἀνεψιὸν ὄντα, καὶ γυναῖκα καὶ αὐτὴν
συγγενῆ ἑαυτοῦ Φλαουίαν Δομιτίλλαν ἔχοντα, κατέσφαξεν 6 Δομετιανός' ἐπηνέχθη
δὲ ἀμφοῖν ἔγκλημα ἀθεότητος, ὑφ᾽ ἧς καὶ ἄλλοι εἰς τὰ τῶν Ιουδαίων ἔθη ἐξοκέλλοντες
πολλοὶ κατεδικάσθησαν, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀπέθανον, οἱ δὲ τῶν γοῦν οὐσιῶν ἐστερήθησαν: ἡ
δὲ Δομιτίλλα ὑπερωρίσθη µόνον εἰς Πανδατερίαν.

2 Domitian xv. Denique Elavium Clementem patruelum suum contemptissimae
inertiae . . . repente ex tenuissima suspicione tantum non ipso eius consulatu
interemit ; quo maxime facto maturavit sibi exilium.

’ Compare Tertullian’s Apology, xlii.: ‘‘Sed alio quoque iniuriarum titulo
postulamur et infructuosi in negotiis dicimur. . . . Quomodo infructuosi videmur
negotiis vestris, cum quibus et de quibus vivimus, non scio. Sed si carimonias tuas
non frequento, attamen et illa die homo sum.”

4 Historiae ecclesiasticae, iii. 18: ‘eis τοσοῦτον δὲ dpa . . . ἡ τῆς ἡμετέρας
πίστεως διέλαµπε διδασκαλία, ὡς καὶ τοὺς ἄποθεν τοῦ Kal’ ἡμᾶς λόγον συγγραφεῖς
py ἀποκνῆσαι ταῖς αὐτῶν Ἱστορίαις τόν τε διωγμὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ μαρτύρια παρα-
δοῦναι. οἵγε καὶ τὸν καιρὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀκριβὲς ἐπεσημῄναντο, ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ
Δομετιανοῦ μετὰ πλείστων ἑτέρων καὶ PAaviav Δομετίλλαν ἱστορήσαντες, ἐξ ἀδελφῆς
γεγονυῖαν Φλανίου Κλήμεντος, ἑνὸς τῶν τηνικάδε ἐπὶ Ρώμης ὑπάτων, τῆς εἰς
Χριστὸν μαρτυρίας ἕνεκεν, εἰς νῆσον Ποντίαν κατὰ τιµωρίαν δεδόσθαι.”

5 Historiae ecclesiasticae, iii. 17: ‘‘ Tis Νέρωνος θεοεχθρίας τε καὶ θεοµαχίας
διάδοχον ἑαυτὸν κατεστήσατο. δεύτερος δῆτα τὸν Kad’ ἡμῶν ἀνεκίνει διωγμὸν, καίπερ
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ Οὐεσπασιανοῦ μηδὲν καθ’ ἡμῶν ἄτοπον ἐπινοήσαντος.”

Hegesippus was an Eastern—probably a native of Palestine. He visited Rome
in the episcopate of Anicetus (? Α.Ρ. 155-156) and published his five books of
Memoranda or Memoirs (ὑπομνήματα) in Α.Ρ. 180. See Bardenhewer, Geschichte
der altkirchlichen Literatur, i. pp. 483-490.

Historiae ecclesiasticae, iii, 20: “ép’ ols μηδὲν αὐτῶν κατεγνωκότα τὸν
Δομετιανὸν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς ἐντελῶν καταφρονήσαντα, ἐλευθέρους μὲν αὐτοὺς dveivar,
καταπᾶνσαι δὲ διὰ προστάγµατος τὸν κατὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διωγµόν

26 INTRODUCTION

Eusebius’ quotes Tertullian*® to the same general effect:
“ Domitian, a semi-Nero in cruelty, attempted to condemn the
Christians ; but, being also a man, he readily stopped the course of
action he had begun, and even recalled those whom he had
banished ”.

But Nero was the first to persecute the Christians * and something
is known of his procedure from Tacitus,‘ who represents his per-
secution as a final effort to divert from himself the suspicion of
having given orders for the fire of Rome. Human assistance, public
largesses, services of expiation, all failed to banish the calumny. So
to put an end to the rumour, Nero made the Christians, as they were
commonly called by the vulgar who hated them for their crimes,
scape-goats in his place and visited them with the most elaborate
penalties. Christ from whom their name was derived was executed
by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. For a
time this fatal superstition was suppressed, but it broke out after-
wards not only in Judaea, the birthplace of the mischief, but also in
Rome... Accordingly, in the first instance those who confessed
were arrested ; and afterwards on their information a huge multitude
were sent to join them not so much on the charge of arson as on that
of hatred of the human race.

Tacitus emphasises the fact that the Christians were guilty and
deserved to suffer the last penalty of the law. Public feeling con-
demned them as enemies of civilised society; but the outrageous
mockery with which Nero had them executed, and the common sus-
picion that the alleged arson was a mere pretence produced a revul-

1 Historiae ecclesiasticae, iii. 20.

2 Apology v.: ‘‘ Temptaverat et Domitianus, portio Neronis de crudelitate ; sed qua
et homo (ἀλλ᾽ οἶμαι ἅτε ἔχωντι συνέσεως, Eusebius) facile coeptum repressit, restitutis
etiam quos relegaverat.

3 Tertullian, Apology, v.: ‘‘Consulite commentarios vestros; illic reperietis
primum Neronem in hanc sectam cum maxime Romae orientem Caecsariano gladio
ferocisse. Sed tali dedicatore damnationis nostrae etiam gloriamur. Qui enim scit
illum, intelligere potest non nisi grande aliquod bonum a Nerone damnatum.”

4 Annals, xv. 44: ‘‘Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum
placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. Ergo abolendo
rumori Nero subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos vul-
gus Chrestianos (sic) appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Christus, Tiberio imperitante,
per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. Repressaque in praesens
exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat, non modo per Judaeam originem eius mali
sed per urbem etiam. . . . Igitur primo correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum
multitudo ingens, haud perinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis
coniuncti sunt.” ,

5 Ibid.: ‘*sontes et novissima exempla meritos”’.

INTRODUCTION 27

sion in their favour.1 The bare punishments—crucifixion, burning”
at the stake, and death by wild beasts—were right and proper. But

the people to whom Nero threw open his gardens, in order that they

might witness such sights, found Nero himself among them dressed

in the garb of a charioteer2—the ancient equivalent of a jockey. If

the Christians were really magicians, as their punishments implied,*

and their stories of healings may have suggested, the situation was

too serious for such buffoonery. Nero’s conduct was enough to dis-

credit his plea of reasons of state.

It is clear, then, that Christians, who confessed their Christianity
or were denounced as Christians by such confessors, were put to
death by Nero after the great fire of Rome in Α.Ρ. 64. It was alleged
that they were incendiaries or magicians, but these allegations were
not proven. The reference to the execution of the founder of the
sect suggests that they were, in accordance with that precedent, liable
to capital punishment in Rome or in the provinces.

Suetonius records that under Nero many practices were severely
punished and prohibited and many others set up. No food was
henceforth to be sold in the cook shops (for example) except vege-
tables ; and punishments were inflicted upon the Christians—a_ kind
of men who embraced a new and maleficent superstition.+4

The natural inference that Nero’s action in the matter of the
Christians formed a precedent which was followed generally and in
the provinces unless further regulations were introduced by himself or
his successors, is probable in the nature of the case, and it is expressly
asserted by Sulpicius Severus, who follows Tacitus, and may have
known parts of his Annals which are no longer extant. This, he
says, was the beginning of the savage treatment of the Christians.

1 Annals: “ pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti, laniatu canum
interirent, aut crucibus affixi, aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum
nocturni luminis urerentur... Unde. . . miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utili-
tate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.”

* [bid. : ‘* Hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et Circense ludicrum edebat,
habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel circulo insistens’’.

%So Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 236: '' Odium humani generis
was, as Arnold aptly points out, the crime of poisoners and magicians. . . . The
punishments inflicted on the Christians under Nero are those ordered for magiciang.
Paulls, Sentent. v. 23 M.: ‘‘ Magicae artis conscios summo supplicio afflici placuit,
id est, bestiis obici aut cruci suffigi. Ipsi autem magi vivi exuruntur.”

4 Vita Neronis, xvi.: ‘‘ Multa sub eo et animadversa severe et coercita nec minus
instituta . . . interdictum, ne quid in popinis cocti praeter legumina aut holera
veniret cum antea nullum non obsonii genus proponeretur; adflicti suppliciis
Christiani, genus hominum superstition's novae ac maleficae.”’

25 INTRODUCTION

Afterwards also laws were laid down by which the religion was pro-
scribed and edicts were issued by which it was publicly declared
illegal to be a Christian. Then Paul and Peter were condemned to
death.!

To the three first persecutors of the Church—Nero, Domitian,
and Trajan—Sulpicius Severus suggests that Titus should be added.
If he is following good authority—say, Tacitus, here as elsewhere—
Titus held a council to decide the fate of the Temple, when Jerusalem
was taken in Α.Ρ. 70. Of his councillors some urged that a con-
secrated house famous beyond all mortal things ought not to be
destroyed. Its preservation would bear witness to Roman modera-
tion; its ruin would be an eternal mark of their cruelty. Others,
and among them Titus himself, held the Temple should be destroyed
at once, in order that the religion of the Jews and Christians might
be more completely undone; inasmuch as these religions, though
opposed to one another, nevertheless came from the same parent
stock. The Christians sprang from the Jews. If the root were
taken away the branch would naturally perish.?

From this survey of the evidence it appears that the non-Christian
authorities bear out the assertion of Tertullian that from the year 64
A.D. Christianity was distinguished from Judaism and, therefore, pro-
scribed. It had lost the protection of the ancient and famous lawful
religion, which sheltered it at the first.2 Nero set the law in motion
against it for his own purposes and attempted to justify his action
to the people. But such action once taken, persecution of the
Church was part of the law of the Empire, as Suetonius, Sulpicius
Severus, and Tertullian aver.t There is nothing in the evidence to

1 Chronicon, ii. 29: “Hoc initio in Christianos saeviri coeptum. Post etiam
datis legibus religio vetebatur, palamque edictis propositis Christianum esse non
licebat. Tum Paulus et Petrus capitis damnati.”

2 Chronicorum, ii. 30: “ Fertur Titus adhibito consilio prius deliberasse an templum
tanti operis everteret. Etenim nonnullis videbatur aedem sacratam ultra omnia
mortalia illustrem non oportere deleri, quae servata modestiae Romanae testimonium,
diruta perennem crudelitatis notam praeberet. At contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum
imprimis templum censebant, quo plenius Judaeorum et Christianorum religio
tolleretur: quippe has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, isdem tamen ab auctoribus
profectas: Christianos ex Judaeis extitisse: radice sublata stirpem facile perituram.”

3 Tertullian, Apology, xxi.: ‘‘ Antiquissimis Judaecorum instrumentis sectam. . .
suffultam . . . sub umbraculo insignissimae religionis certe licitae”’.

4In addition to passages quoted above, see Tertullian, ad Nationes, i.7: ‘ Prin- ©
cipe Augusto nomen hoc ortum est: Tiberio disciplina eius inluxit: sub Nerone
damnatio invaluit ut iam hinc de persona persecutoris ponderetis, si pius ille princeps,
impii Christiani. . . si non hostis publicus, nos publici hostes: quales simus dam-
nator ipse demonstravit, utique aemula sibi puniens: et tamen permansit erasis

INTRODUCTION 29

‘suggest that the Neronian persecution slackened, because the citizens
‘of Rome saw through the pretexts of arson and witchcraft. On the
contrary the evidence suggests that the name was condemned by
Nero.

It was still possible for Titus and for Dio Cassius to recall the
fact that Christianity was a sect—a schismatic sect of Judaism.
Perhaps the condemnation of the sect carried with it a partial pro-
‘scription and prohibition of its name. But there is no trace of any
real change of attitude between the policy, on which Nero embarked
in sudden desperation, and the action taken by Pliny, when he began
to put the affairs of Bithynia in order. Pliny assumed that the name
-of Christian was proof of guilt and only inquired why, when he found
himself dealing with special and extenuating circumstances. Nero
in special circumstances had sought to save himself from popular
suspicion by making the name of Christian proof, first of special and
then of general guilt.

It remains to examine the relations of the Christian Church and
‘the Roman State, as they are reflected in the First Epistle of St.
Peter, and to inquire which of the first three persecutions known to
us they best fit.

In the first part of the Epistle, which ends at iv. 11, the writer
speaks generally of manifold temptations.! ‘‘ He exhorteth them—
to quote the summary of the revisers of 1611—from the breach of
charity . . . he beseecheth them also to abstain from fleshly lusts,
to be obedient to magistrates, and teacheth servants how to obey
their masters, patiently suffering for well-doing after the example of
‘Christ. He teacheth the duty of wives and husbands to each other,
exhorting all men to unity and love, and to suffer persecution. .. .
He exhorteth them to cease from sin by the example of Christ, and
the consideration of the general end that now approacheth. .. .

In the second part of the Epistle the writer ‘‘ comforteth them
against persecution. He exhorteth the elders to feed their flocks,
the younger to obey, and all to be sober, watchful, and constant in
the faith : to resist the cruel adversary the devil.” Here only it is sug-
gested that Christians may be put to death forthe Name. For certain
churches, to whom the bearer would read this part of the letter and
whose special circumstances the writer had in mind, a trial? was im-
minent : their adversary the devil was walking about, as a roaring lion,

omnibus hoc solum institutum Neronianum: iustum denique, ut dissimile sui

-auctoris’’.
11, 6. 2 iv. 12.

30 INTRODUCTION

seeking whom he might devour. In the earlier and general part the-
references to persecution and persecutors are vaguer, and stress is-
laid upon the railing or reviling* to which the Christians are exposed,
but must not retaliate in kind. In both parts the example of Christ
is put before them as their model—He suffered and they must suffer-
as He suffered—but only in the second part is it added that they
must commit the keeping of their souls to God, as He did? The
first part, in fact, does not seem to contemplate state-persecution so-
much as the discredit and discomfort inevitably incurred by those
who dissent from an established religion.

But such a distinction between the two parts of the Epistle, even
if it be accepted as valid, does not relegate the second part to a later
period. In some of the Churches of Asia Minor, at any rate—and
there is no evidence to show which—the conditions described in the
second part existed already. And so the evidence of the Epistle as.
a whole must be taken.

The faith of the Christians addressed is undergoing atrial: for a.
season (if need be) they are in heaviness through manifold tempta-
tions. In different ways their faith is being tested. The tests—
whatever they are—cause a temporary grief in the midst of their
permanent joy, but will only refine their faith and purge it of dross.
Half-hearted Christians will fall away. They have already purified.
their souls by obedience to the truth revealed to them,°® and must
lay aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and all
evil speakings.6 They must abstain from fleshly lusts which war-
against the soul, and, by their good conduct, refute the common
rumour which speaks of them as evildoers.’ Pending the visitation
of God, they are exhorted to be obedient to the Emperor and his
officers, and as loyal citizens stop the mouths of ignorant fools.®
There is no room, here, for the later test of their loyalty : the writer-
could not exhort them to offer sacrifice toCzsar. No one can really
harm them, if they obey these commands; but they may have to-
suffer for righteousness’ sake. They must not be afraid. They
must be ready to defend themselves and to reply to every one who-
inquires about their hope. Good behaviour and gentle answers may
put their calumniators to shame; in any case it is essential.!”

In certain places Christians are already sharing in the sufferings.
of Christ, and therefore must rejoice therein. Their suffering may
be misrepresented as the just punishment of murderers, thieves,.

ly, 8 2 iii. g with ii. 21-23. 3 iv. 19 with ii. 23. 31.6.
5.1 2ο δη, τ. πι ατα. 5µ, τα, πα. τας 10 iii. 15 f.

INTRODUCTION 3)

criminals or busybodies: they must correct by word or deed all such
misrepresentations and make it clear that they are reproached—or
what not ?—simply because they are Christians.1 Their adversary
the devil—in the persons of all his agents—goes about seeking whose
faith he may destroy; they must resist him and survive the ordeal.?
Throughout the world the Christian brotherhood is exposed to the
same temptations and varied persecutions.

From this evidence Professor Ramsay ὃ concludes that the Epistle
belongs to the time when Vespasian revived the policy of Nero.
“‘ The Christian communities of Asia Minor north of the Taurus are
regarded as exposed to persecution (i. 6), not merely in the form of
dislike and malevolence on the part of neighbours, . . . but persecu-
tion to the death (iv. 15, 16), after trial and question (iii. 15). The
persecution is general, and extends over the whole Church (ν. 9).
The Christians are not merely tried when a private accuser comes
forward against them, but are sought out for trial by the Roman
officials (v. 8, iii. 15). They suffer for the Name (iv. 14-16) pure
and simple; the trial takes the form of inquiry into their religion,
giving them the opportunity of ‘ glorifying God in this name’.”

Of this persecution by Vespasian there is no evidence except an
inference from the statement of Sulpicius Severus, that Titus his
son and successor wished to exterminate both Judaism and Christi-
anity, and the general deduction from the letter of Pliny, that
persecution for the Name was an established practice. Apart from
this objection, it may fairly he said that even the rigorous interpre-
tation which Professor Ramsay puts upon different passages is not
necessarily inconsistent with the conditions of the reign of Nero
when persecution of the Church did, as a fact, begin. If the vague
terms, in which the various sufferings of Christians are described, are
to be pressed and limited to mean State persecution and persecu-
tion to the death, there still remain indubitable references to un-
official persecution which did not go to such lengths. The author,
as Professor Ramsay himself says, looks forward to a period of
persecution as the condition in which Christians have to live.
Further he exhorts Christians to be loyal subjects and therein
proves that the obvious test of loyalty had not yet been applied to,
them. And he definitely excludes the narrow interpretation of the
roaring lion, when he urges the Christians to resist it.

For these and other reasons, Professor Ramsay’s theory is re-

liv 13-16. Seto kos
3 The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 279 ff.

32 INTRODUCTION

jected by Dr. Chase on the one hand and Professor Schmiedel! on
the other. But many of his arguments hold good against the date
under Trajan, to which Professor Schmiedel adheres. Pliny’s cor-
respondence with Trajan, however, is not easily made to fit the state
of things reflected in the First Epistle of St. Peter. For one thing,
in Pliny’s time Bithynia was so far infected by real or nominal
Christianity that the temples were deserted. The unlawful super-
stition was so far predominant that many of its adherents conformed
without any conviction. Pliny’s anticipation that clemency shown
to such penitents would result in the annihilation of Christianity
suggests an altogether different state of things.

On the whole—whether St. Peter perished under Nero or, as
Professor Ramsay urges, at a later date—the Epistle may not un-
reasonably be referred to the time when Nero inaugurated the
attack upon the provincial Roman Christians and gave the cue to all
provincial governors who wished to earn his favour by endorsing the
rightfulness of his action under whatever pretext. Already they were
distinguished from the Jews, and, therefore, stood under the ban of
the law as an unlicensed corporation. They were magicians who
prophesied the destruction of the world, and the fire of Rome was
proof of their power. They might plead innocence of crimes associ-
ated with the name by vulgar suspicion ; but even when they cleared
their name it was in itself sufficient tocondemn them. That is the
pagan view. The Christian view is that Christ suffered and they
must follow in His steps. No colour must be given to the misrepre-
sentations of their enemies. They must take every opportunity of
removing them. This done, though death be their penalty, they
will die to the glory of God, resisting the slanderer and remaining
firm in their faith.

CANONICITY.

There are two different ways of treating the fact that any given
book of the New Testament Canon is first quoted as authoritative
Scripture and as the work of its commonly reputed author by a later
writer of known date and recognised authority. You may say that
the said book is thereby recognised as canonical and as authentic
either not before or as early as such and such a date. In the former
case the endorsement of tradition is regarded as an innovation, in
the latter as an explicit regularisation of previous, but inarticulate,
practice.

1 Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. i.: ‘‘ Christian, name of”.

INTRODUCTION 33

The former interpretation of such facts has the advantage of
appearing to appeal to what is apparent and to nothing else. But it
involves axioms which require to be proved. We must suppose that
the Canon was definitely fixed by authority and was not a thing of
gradual growth. And, if we are to argue from the silence of ec-
clesiastical writers, we must ignore the fact that many of them are
no longer extant and postulate for them an interest in such matters
as canonicity equal to our own. In fact it seems more reasonable to
allow ourselves the exercise of a sober imagination in dealing with the
evidence. In the case of 1 Peter at all events there is no sign of any
attempt to force a new forgery upon the acceptance of the Church.
It contains no innovation of doctrine such as might need the support
of Apostolic authority.

The Epistle, then (we may say), is used by Irenzeus as early as
the third quarter of the second century. Behind Irenzus in all
probability there lies a period, in which the idea of the New Testa-
ment Canon grew up and in which its contents were gradually reduced
for reasons which appeared to those in authority to be adequate. Of
that period we certainly do not know everything. All the Gnostics
whom Irenzeus has pilloried are represented only by fragments and
summaries of their doctrines contemptuously preserved by their
opponents at a later time. But, even so, it appears that the Gnostics
in their efforts to elucidate the philosophy of the Christian religion
and to advance to something higher than the somewhat pedestrian
and commonplace theology of the ordinary ecclesiastic laid stress
upon Scripture. And in so far as they tended to relegate the Old
Testament to a definitely inferior place in the development of true
religion they necessarily devoted themselves to the writings of the
Apostles—the Scriptures of the New Testament. Inevitably the
Gospels, which contained the sayings of Jesus, and the works of St.
Paul occupied the first place in their estimation. The Lord and the
Apostle exercised an authority to which the Church must bow. So
the Gnostics applied themselves to New Testament exegesis—not
always for the purposes of theological controversy. The controversies,
which ensued upon the deductions they drew from such exegesis, led
to the delimitation of the Canon and there is a strong presumption
in favour of the traditional view of the books which survived the’
ordeal. 1 Peter is not a book which was likely to be much to the
mind of daring thinkers who could discriminate between the different
degrees of inspiration latent in different sayings of the Lord and who
were determined to be done with Judaism. The Gnostics professed
to be wiser than the Apostles—Irenzeus their posthumous conqueror

34 IN RODUCTION

asserts. 1 Peter is a book more congenial to such a man as Polycarp,
who was more fitted to be a simple recipient of the general tradition.
And it is to be remembered that Polycarp takes us back to a time
when the idea of a Canon of New Testament Scripture was in its
infancy.

Our document is first quoted with the formula Peter or Peter in
his Epistle says in the latter part of the second century.

Irenzus, the disciple of Polycarp, whose book Against Heresies
was written while Eleutherus was Bishop of Rome (Α.Ρ. 175-189),}
is the earliest witness to its reception as such. He appealed to it
(for example) along with Paul and Isaiah: “ et Petrus ait in epistula : ?
Quem non videntes diligitis, inquit, in quem nunc non videntes credt-
distis, gaudebitis gaudio inenarrabili”’. Inanother place it is quoted
after Moses and the Lord: “et propter hoc Petrus, ait, non vela-
mentum malitiae habere nos libertatem* sed ad probationem et
manifestationem fidei ”.

Tertullian, a little later, puts Peter on a level with Paul in respect
of his inspiration, and explains their agreement as due to the fact
that they were inspired by the same spirit: “de modestia quidem
cultus et ornatus aperba praescriptio est etiam Petri cohibentis eodem
ore quia eodem et spiritu quo Paulus, et vestium gloriam et auri
superbiam et crinium lenoniam operositatem’’.® In his Antidote to
the poison of the Gnostics, which may perhaps be dated Α.Ρ. 213,
he cites 1 Peter as addressed to the natives of Pontus: “ Petrus
quidem ad Ponticos, Quanta enim, inquit, gloria st non ut delin-
quentes puniamini, sustinetis, Haec enim gratia est, in hoc et vocati
estis, quoniam et Christus passus est pro nobis, relinquens vobis
exemplum semetipsum, utt adsequamini vestigia ipsius. Et rursus
Dilecti ne expavescatis ultionem quae agitur in vobis in temptationem,
quasi novum accidat vobis; etenim secundum quod communicatis
passionibus Christi, gaudete, uti et in revelatione gloriae eius gau-
deatis exultantes: st dedecoramini nomine Christi, beati estis, quo-
niam gloria et det spiritus requiescat in vobis, dum ne quis vestrum
patiatur, ut homicida aut fur aut maleficus aut alieni -speculator.
Si autem ut Christianus, ne erubescat, glorificet autem dominum in
nomine tsto.®

1“ yoy δωδεκάτῳ τόπω τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον
Ελεύθερος.’ Irenzus, Adv. Haer., iii. 3. 3 (Harvey’s edition).

2 Adv. Haer. iv. 19, 2 1 Peter i. 8. 3 Adv. Haer. iv. 28. 41 Peter ii. 16.

5 De Oratione, xv. referring to 1 Peter iii. 3 and Tim. ii. 9; compare Clement of
Alexandria, Paedagogus, III., xi. 66, quoted above.

6 Scorpiace xii. = 1 Peter ii. 20, 21 and iv. 12-15.

INTRODUCTION 35

Clement of Alexandria (Α.Ρ. 150-(?) 210) commented on 1 Peter
in his Hypotyposes, but the commentary is only preserved in a
Latin abridgment.! In his extant works he quotes freely from the
Epistle and uses it as if it were familiar to his readers. In the
Paedagogus?* (for example), which is addressed to catechumens, he
SayS: éyvwkdtes οὖν τὸ ἑκάστου ἔργον, ἐν φόβῳ τὸν τῆς
παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνον ἀναστράφητε, εἰδότες ὃτιοῦ
Φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ Χρυσίῳ, ἐλυτρώθημεν ἐκ τῆς pa-
ταίας ἡμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατριπαραδότου, ἀλλὰ τιµίω
αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ. ἀἆρκε-
TOs οὖν ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος--ό Πέτρος Φησί-- τὸ βούλημα
τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι, πεπορευµένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις,
ἐπιθυμίαις, οἰνοφλυγίαις, κώµοις, πότοις. καὶ ἀθεμίτοις
ἐιδωλολατρείαιςὸ Andin the Stromateis,* which were intended
for more advanced Christians, he has, after quotations from the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians: 816 καὶ 6 θαυμάσιος Πέτρος pyotv -
ἀγαπητοί, παρακαλῶ ὡς παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήµους
ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, aitives στρατεύον-
ται κατὰ τῆς Ψψυχῆς, τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν καλὴν
ἔχοντες ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. ὅτι οὕτως ἐστι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ
θεοῦ, ἀγαθοποιοῦντας Φιμοῦν τὴν τῶν ἀφρόνων ἀνθρώπων
ἐργασίαν, ὡς ἐλεύθεροι καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχοντες
τῆς κακίας τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, GAN ὡς δοῦλοι θεοῦ. On
one occasion® he fuses together the sumptuary laws for women
laid down by St. Paul and St. Peter: προσιέναι δὲ αὐτὰς 6 παιδάγωγος
κελεύει ἐν καταστολή κοσµίῳ, μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν
€autds,© ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, os καὶ
el τινες ἄπειθοῖεν τῷ λόγω, διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀν-
αστροφῆς ἄνευ λόγου κερδηθήσονται, ἐποπτεύσαντες,
φησί, τὴν ἓν λόγῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφήν ὑμῶν' dv ἔστω
οὐχ 6 ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐν-
δύσεως ἱἵματίων κόσμος, ἀλλ 6 κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας
ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτω τοῦ πραέος καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύ-
µατος, ὅ ἔστιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ πολυτελές. This fusion
is characteristic: both St, Paul and St. Peter wrote Scripture, and
Clement follows popular usage, which never has insisted upon a nice
‘discrimination between the authors of “texts”. Indeed in another
place * he refers part of the first Epistle to Timothy ® to St. Peter:

1 Potter’s edition, pp. 1006 f. ITIL, xii. 85. 81 Peter i. 17-10, iv. 3.
πι xi. 75; 5 Paedagogus, III., xi. 66. Sr Tim, ii. 9.
+x Peter iii. 1-4. 8 Paedagogus, II., xii. 127. ® Tim. ii. 9 f.

~

36 INTRODUCTION

πάνυ your θαυµασίως 6 Πέτρος 6 µακάριος γυναῖκας, φησίν, ὥσαυτως μὴ ev
πλέγμασιν ἢ χρυσῷ ἢ µαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, ἀλλ ὃ πρεπει
γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, δι ἔργων ἀγαθῶν σφᾶς αὐτὰς κοσ-
μούσων.

The fact of the matter is that even Clement used, at any rate in
his Paedagogus, manuals of extracts from Scripture classified
according to their subjects. His Paedagogus or instructor is the
distinguished successor of a line of humbler books of the same kind.
The Christian catechist had his armoury of appropriate texts just as
the missionary to the Jews had his. The extracts were arranged
under headings: sayings of Moses, the Prophet, the Psalmist, the
Sage, the Lord and the Apostle followed each other in various.
orders and with different degrees of precision in attribution. The
inevitable results were that the extracts were affected by their new
neighbours in respect of their text, and that their proper ascrip-
tion was lost sight of. As the learning and the security of the
Church increased, these results were corrected. Complete Bibles
in the Church chests superseded the manuals, and Origen (for ex-
ample) laboured to restore the purity of the text. The new
state of things is reflected in the Stromateis of Clement: there
Jesus Son of Sirach receives credit for his wisdom, which in the
Paedagogus is ascribed to wisdom, the Paedagogue, or Solomon;
and the text of the extracts conforms to the standard of the uncial
manuscripts. But the literature which preceded Clement was
popular rather than scholarly, and the phenomena presented by
his use of Scripture in the Paedagogus contribute to confirm
the conclusion that the argument based upon the silence of his.
predecessors is fallacious, and that their silence can fairly be
construed as a denial of the Petrine origin or authorship of 1
Peter.

These examples of the use of 1 Peter made by Irenzus, Tertullian,
and Clement of Alexandria have been given in full to show what the
raw material of the evidence really is. Samples only as they are, they
suffice to show that 1 Peter was recognised as St. Peter’s Epistle
about Α.Ρ. 200 in Gaul, Africa, and Alexandria. By a stretch of the
imagination it might be supposed that Tertullian was dependent upon
Clement for this knowledge; but Irenzeus and Clement represent
a tradition which they inherited independently from a distant past.
Now Clement was the earliest Christian scholar, whose works have
come down to us, and Irenzus is linked to the apostolic age by his.
connexion with Polycarp.

In his Epistle to the Philippians, Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,.

INTRODUCTION 37

who died a martyr on 23rd February, Α.Ρ. 155 at the age of 86 years,}
has left, as Eusebius noted, a valuable witness to the earlier history
of the New Testament Canon.

So far as the Canonicity of 1 Peter is concerned the evidence of
the Epistle is overwhelming. It is true that Polycarp does not give
the name of the authority, which he uses so often. It would be un-
reasonable to expect that he should. ‘‘ Paul” and ‘‘the Lord” are
the only authors named. The words of the Lord have naturally a
higher authority than those of His Apostles—at any rate at this stage
in the development of the Canon. And St. Paul as the founder of
the Church at Philippi had a special claim upon their obedience:
‘Neither I (Polycarp says) nor anyone like me can attain to the
wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who, when he came among
you, before the face of the men of that time taught accurately and
surely the word of truth, who also when he was absent wrote letters
to you into which if you look you will be able to be built up in the
faith given unto γοι. 2. Other Scriptures, even the first Epistle of
St. John, Polycarp’s teacher, are used just as 1 Peter is used—
anonymously and not always with a clear formula to stamp the
quotations as quotations.

The following passages contain clear cases of Polycarp’s use of
1 Peter :—

(1. 1-3) συνεχάρην . . . ὅτι ἡ βεβαία τὴς πίστεως ὑμῶν pita . . . μεχρὶ
νῦν διαμένει καὶ καρποφορεῖ εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν . .
eis ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες πιστεύετε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτω
καὶ δεδοξασμένηὸ εἰς ἦν πολλοὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν εἰσελθεῖν.ά

I]. 816 ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας ὑμῶνῦὸ δουλεύσατε τῷ
θεῷ . . . πιστεύσαντες εἰς τὸν ἐγείραντα τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόντα αὐτῷ δόξανῦ καὶ
θρόνον ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ .. . μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντ
κακοῦ ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας] ᾖἢ γρόνθον ἀντὶ
γρόνθου ἢ κατάραν ἀντὶ κατάρας.ὃ

V. καλὸν γὰρ τὸ ἀνακόπτεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσµω, ὅτι
πᾶσα ἐπιθυμία κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος στρατεύεται."
VII. ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα λόγον ἐπιστρέψωμεν νήφοντες

πρὸς τὰς ἐυχὰς᾽Ό καὶ προσκαρτεροῦντες νηστείαις.

190 Bardenhewer, Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Litteratur, i. p. 149.

ain. 2. Στ Peter 1.8. 4 Compare 1 Peter i. 12. ὅτ Peter i. 3.
ο eter 1.20. 71 Peter iii. 9. 8 Compare 1 Peter iii. 9.
51 Peter ii. 11 conflated with Galatians v. 17. 10 Peter iv. 7s

VOL. V. 3

33 INTRODUCTION

VIII. προσκαρτερῶμεν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν καὶ τῷ ἀρραβῶνι τῆς δικαιοσύνης
ἡμῶν, ὃς ἐστιν Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, ὃς ἀνήνεγκεν ἡμῶν τὰς
ἁμαρτίας τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματιέἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, ὃς ἁμαρτίαν
οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόµατι
αὐτοῦ." ἀλλὰ δι ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ζήσωμεν ἐν αὐτῷ, πάντα ὑπέμεινεν.
μιμηταὶ οὖν γενώµεθα τῆς ὑπομονῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐὰν πάσχωμµεν
διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, δοξάζωµεν αὐτόν. τοῦτον γὰρ
ἡμῖν τὸν ὑπογραμμὸν ἔθηκε δι ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς
τοῦτο ἐπιστεύσαμεν."

X. In his ergo state et domini exemplar sequimini firmi in fide
et inmutabiles, fraternitatis amatores diligentes invicem. . . .°
Omnes vobis invicem subiecti estote,® conversationem vestram
inreprehensibilem habentes in gentibus, ut ex bonis operibus
vestris et vos laudem accipiatis et dominus in vobis non

blasphemetur."
1y Peter ii. 24. 27 Peter ii. 22.
Shr Peter lv.) £0; aT Peter ie σε.
5 Compare 1 Peter iii. 8 (ii. 17). 6 Compare 1 Peter v. 5.

7x Peter ii. 12: the paraphrase of the latter part of the verse (ἐποπτεύοντες
δοξάσωσι τὸν Gedy) is due to the next quotation (Isaiah lii. 5), vae autem, per quem
nomen domini blasphematur.

NOTE.

This edition is based on a course of lectures delivered, in the first instance, to
a class of honours men who were expected to use the late Professor Bigg’s com-
mentary as a text-book. The lectures were, therefore, made independently of that
commentary and with a view to the exhibition of new material and processes rather
than results. In particular, an attempt was made to illustrate the reference of the
Septuagint and Jewish literature generally to the exegesis of the New Testament.
In the reduction of these notes to their present form the commentaries of Alford,
Bigg, Hort, Kiihl-Meyer, and Von Soden were consulted.

The text is taken from the facsimile of the great Vatican Codex (B), the lines
of which are indicated by spaces.

The editor gratefully acknowledges the kindness of the Rev. George Milligan
D.D., and the Rev. R. St. John Parry, B.D., who read the commentary in proof.

“πέτροὺ A.

ΠΕΤΡΟΣ ἀπόστολος

σπορᾶς Πόντου Γαλατίας Καπ

la XG) ἐκλεκτοῖς παρε

πιδήµοις δια- ]. 1
παδοκίας ᾿᾽Ασίας κατὰ 2

119 XB is the normal contraction of Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: so KY = κυρίον, OF = Θεοῦ.
After ᾽Ασίας all other manuscripts and all the versions add καὶ βιθυνίας: the original
scribe of Codex Vaticanus (B*) stands alone in the omission,

CHAPTER I.—Vv.1,2. Peter the High
Commissioner of Jesus, who is Messiah
of Greeks as of Jews, sends greeting
after the Christian fashion, in which the
Greek and Jewish formule have been
combined and transformed, to the
Churches of Northern Asia Minor.
They are the dispersion of the New
Israel, chosen out of the whole world in
accordance with God’s foreknowledge
of their fitness, to undergo the hallow-
ing of His Spirit, and with a view to
their reception into His Church. For
the result, and therefore the purpose, of
their election is that they may profess
obedience and receive the outward sign
of sprinkling, being baptised into the
death of Jesus Christ. For them may
grace (and not mere greeting) and peace
(God’s peace not man’s) be multiplied!
For discussion of writer and readers see
Introduction.

Ver.I. ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμµ-
οις διασπορᾶς, elect sojourners of
dispersion, a combination of titles of
Israel appropriated to Christians in ac-
cordance with the universal principle of
the early Church. (i.) The Jews were
the chosen race (ii. 9 from Isa. xliii. 20)
as Moses said, Because He loved thy
fathers therefore He chose their seed after
them (Deut. iv. 37; cf. Rom. xi. 28). So
Jesus said to His disciples, I have chosen
you (John xv. 16, 19, etc.), and refers to
them in the eschatological discourse as
the elect (Mark xiii. 20). (ii.) Being
chosen out of the world—in the world,
indeed, but not of it, John xv. 16 Π.---
Christians are alien sojourners during
their life on earth. Their fatherland is
the city that hath foundations (i.7, ii. 11;

Heb. xiii. 14; Phil. iii. 20), In Heb. xi.
9-13 the Patriarchs are credited with the
same idea and Philo says that the sages
of Moses’ school are all introduced as
sojourners (p. 416 M). So Abraham said
to the Sons of Heth, ‘‘I am astranger and
sojourner (πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδηµος =

SYN 33) with you” (Gen. xxiii. 4);
Jacob speaks of the days of the years of
my pilgrimage (S9)3%) &s παροικῶ) ;
and the Psalmist anticipates Peter and
Heb. in the generalisation I am a
stranger and sojourner (mapo.xos καὶ
παρεπίδηµος) in the earth as all my
fathers were (Ps. xxxix. 13). Deissmann
(Bible Studies, p. 149) quotes two ex-
amples of παρεπίδηµος from wills of the
third century B.c., one of a Jew resident
in the Fayyiim (Απολλώνιον [παρεπ]ίδη-
pov ὃς καὶ συριστὶ ᾿Ιωνάθας). In P. Tor.
8 (B.c. 118) παρεπιδημοῦντες and κατοι-
κοῦντες are contrasted. (iii.) Moses
said to Israel thou shalt be scattered
among the kingdoms of the earth (Deut.
XXvili. 25) ; and the rendering of the LXX
διασπορά is probably the earliest ex-
ample of the technical designation (cf.
John vii. 35) of the Jews, who—for what-
ever reason—lived outside the Holy
Land. The collective term (Rabbinic

54) implies the real unity of these
scattered communities, whose scattering
is no longer regarded as God’s punish-
ment for sin. It thus serves well the
purpose of one, who, like St. Paul, in-
sists on the unity of the whole brother-
hood of Christians (e.g., ν. 9); but this
application of the principle that the
Church is the Israel of God is subordi-
nate to others which imply that there is

40

πρόγνωσιν Θῦ 1 πατρὸς

καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος

ἐν ἁγιασμῶ πνεύμα

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α a.

τος eis ὑπακοὴν

Ιδ XU- χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη

1 Θ0 is the normal contraction of Θεοῦ.

no earthly correlative to it. When St.
James addresses the twelve tribes which
are in Dispersion, he may on the other
hand be contrasting the saints of Jeru-
salem with those abroad (as St. Paul did
in the matter of the Collection) if indeed
he is not speaking simply to his fellow-
countrymen as a Jew to Jews. But St.
Peter writes from ‘‘ Babylon” and the
capital of Christendom is no longer Jeru-
salem. The collocation of παρεπι-
Sy pots and διασπορᾶς implies that
this scattering, which in the case of
the type was God’s punishment for sin,
will not be permanent for the antitype.
For the Christian Church the Jewish
hope of the ingathering will be fulfilled,
as is indicated by the emphatic ἐκλε-
«tots—for Jesus said, “ The Son of
Man .. . shall gather together his elect

. - from the uttermost part of the earth
to the uttermost part of heaven” (Mark
κ. 26, 27; cf. Deut. xxx. 4). Compare
Didache ix. 4, ‘‘ For as this was broken
[bread] scattered over the hills and being
gathered together became one, so may
thy Church be gathered together from
the ends of the earth into thy kingdom,”
and Justin Martyr, Dial. 113, ‘As
Moses . . . so also Jesus the Christ
(corresponding to J., the Son of Nun)
shall turn again the Dispersion of the
People . . . shall give us the possession
eternally ”’.

Ndvrov...’Agias. The order
indicates the, route of the messenger,
who landed presumably at Sinope or
Amastris and, if the omission of καὶ
Βιθυνίας be accepted, left the country at
Ephesus or Smyrna. The (Armenian)
Acta of Phocas (Martyr of Sinope under
Trajan) are addressed to the brethren
dwelling in Pontus and Bithynia in
Paphlagonia and in Mysia in Galatia and
in Cappadocia and in Armenia (Cony-
beare, Monuments of Early Christianity,
Ρ. £03). See Introduction.

Ver.2. Thethreeclauses katTa...,
ἐν ..., and eis... qualify ἐκλεκ-
τοῖς and perhaps also ἀπόστολος (as
Oecumenius) Peter himself is elect and
shares their privileges but had no need
to magnify his office, as had St. Paul.
Yet see Acts xv. 7 ff.

κατὰ wpdyvwotv.... The noun
occurs only in Acts ii. 23 (speech of St.

Peter) in reference to the slaying of
Christ τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει
τοῦ θεοῦ, cf. i. 20. The use of nouns
instead of verbs is characteristic of this
Epistle. The same idea is expressed
more elaborately by St. Paulin Rom. viii.
29 (g.v.). Cf. Origen, Philocalia, xxv.
Oecumenius infers that the Apostle is thus.
the equal of the prophets, especially
Jeremiah (ο. Jer. i. 5).—@€v ἁγιασμῷ
πνεύματος, subjective genitive like
θεοῦ, being elect they are within the
sphere of the proper work of the Holy
Spirit. The context excludes the render-
ing hallowing of the (human) spirit. Peter
uses the stereotyped phrase; cf. 2 Thess.
ii. 13 (which corresponds exactly to the
whole context) εἵλατο ὑμᾶς 6 θεὸς an”
ἀρχῆς (κατὰ πρ. 0. π.)... ἐν aye
ασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἄλη-
θείας (εἰς ὑπ.).--εἰς ὑπακοὴν .. . |.
Χριστοῦ, the goal or purpose of their
election. Obedience is a technical term :
sc. to God; cf. i. 14, where it is con-
trasted with the ignorant disobedience of
their past lives (i. 22). As Christians,
they obeyed God and not men (Acts iv.
το, ν. 29) ; God gives His Holy Spirit to
them that obey Him (Acts v. 32). Com-
pare the Pauline obedience of faith. This
obedience implies a change of mind in
Jew and in Gentile, which is effected by
the sprinkling of blood of Ὕεσις Christ.
They are now cleansed from sin, which is
disobedience in Jew or Gentile. Jesus
Christ, the mediator of the new covenant,
sprinkles those whom God selected with
His own blood, as Moses sprinkled the
children of Israel who had promised
obedience with the blood of oxen (Exod.
xxiv. 7 £.; cf. Heb. ix. το). But refer-
ences to other sprinklings of the Ο.Τ.,
unconnected with obedience, must not be
excluded. The word ῥαντισμός is appro-
priated, for example, to the water in
which the ashes of the heifer were dis-
solved (Num. xix.); and a less obvious
explanation is supported by Barnabas,
‘that by the remission of sins we might
be purified, that is in the sprinkling of
His blood for it stands written... by
His bruise we were healed (Isa. ΠΠ. 5)’.
Indeed the best commentary is supplied
by the Epistle to the Hebrews in which
evidence of the O.T. is reviewed and the
conclusion drawn that according to the:

2—3.
πληθυνθείη. εὐλογητὸς 6 OS! καὶ πα
Xd 6 κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας

41

τὴρ τοῦ KU ἡμῶν 163
ἡμᾶς 3 eis

1 OF is the normal contraction of Θεός: so Xs = Χριστός, ks = κύριος, ἰς = ᾿Ιησοῦς.
2For ἡμᾶς a few cursives read ὑμᾶς: the words are practically interchangeable

in manuscripts.

law everything is cleansed by blood. All
the types were summed up in the fulfil-
ment (see especially Heb. ix.) whether
they related to the Covenant or to the
Worship. So in Heb. xii. 24 the blood
of Abel the first martyr is drawn into the
composite picture of typical blood shed-
dings. It would be possible to take
ὑπακοήν with Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and to
render either that ye might obey Jesus
Christ (cf. i. 22; 2 Cor. x. 5) being
sprinkled with His blood or that ye
might obey as He obeyed even unto
death (cf. Heb.. v. 83. Phil; ii. 8).
χάρις... πληθνυνθείη. This
tull formula is found also in 2 Peter
and Jude. For precedent see Dan. iii. 31.
Its use here is not merely a convention
peculiar to the Petrine school ; grace and
peace are multiplied to match the growth
of hostility with which the Christians ad-
dressed are confronted, lest the word of
Jesus be fulfilled διὰ τὸ πληθυνθῆναι τὴν
ἀνομίαν ψυγήσεται ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν πολλῶν
(Matt. xxiv. 12); cf. Rom. ν. 20 f. In
the Pastoral Epistles ἔλεος (cf. ver. 3) is
inserted between x. and eip., so 2 John 3.
From Gal. vi. 16 it appears that ἔλεος
stood originally in the place which χάρις
usurped (as distinctively Christian and
reminiscent of the familar χαίρειν); so
that the source will be Num. vi. 24-26.
κύριος . . . ἐλεήσαι σε . . . καὶ Son
σοι εἰρήνην.

Vv. 3-12. Benediction of the Name.
The mention of God is followed by the
Benediction of the Name as Jewish piety
prescribed; the formula the Holy One,
blessed be He, being amplified by the
Christian appreciation of their fuller
knowledge. The Apostle surpasses the
fervour of the Psalmist, Blessed be the
Lord God of Israel inasmuch as the last
mighty work surpasses all previous de-
liverances. It falls naturally into three
divisions. Vv. 3-5 have as their central
figure the Father, vv. 6-9 the Son, and
vv. 10-12 the Spirit who is at last given,
who inspired the prophets of old and now
inspires the Christian missionaries. From
the past which preceded their acceptance
of God’s choice of them and its outward
sign St. Peter turns to consider their
present condition and to illuminate it with
the light of the future glory.

Vv. 3-5. Blessed be God whom we
have come to know as the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! For
He has granted to us the crowning mani-
festation of His great mercy. He has
raised Jesus Christ from the dead and us
thereby to newness of life. So you may
hope for and in part enjoy the inheritance
which was prefigured by the Promised
Land. This heavenly treasure God has
kept for those whom He guards with
His power. So your faith respond, He
is guarding you for the salvation which
will be revealed at the last.

Ver. 3. εὐλογητός. The verbal
adjective is recognised, perhaps coined by
the LXX as proper to the Benediction of
the Name. This usage is reflected in
ΝΤ Rom. τ ο κ. ο (Cor. 1.) 3,
xi. 31; Eph. i. 3; note Mark xiv. 61.
ὁ Beds... ἡμῶν, part ot the for-
mula (cf. 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3)—based
on the saying “I ascend to your father
and my father, unto your God and my
God” (John xx. 17). κατὰ τὸ πολὺ
ἔλεος, the more elaborate κατὰ τὸ
πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ of Eph. i. 7
(cf. ii. 4). ἀναγεννήσας (cf. i. 23).
Else the verb only occurs in N.T. as
variant to γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν in Old Latin
(and Irenzus) text of John iii. 5, which
prompted St. Peter’s Christian use of the
word, see especially i. 23. Later it is
used to describe the outward sign of
baptism (e.g., Justin Apol. i. 51) for the
benefit of pagans as to the limitation of
worshippers of Isis (Apuleius, Met. xi. 26,
ut renatus quodammodo staatim sacrorum
obsequio desponderetur). And of Mithras
(in aeternum renati). Here the regenera-

tion of the Christian corresponds to the |
resurrection of Christ (Chrysostom on |

John) and implies a previous mystical
or figurative death to sin—see ii. 24;
iii. 17 f.; iv. 1—which is repeated in the |

practice of their unnatural virtue (iv. 1-4). ΄

The simple idea of regeneration underlies
St. Paul’s elaborations of the doctrine of
the καινὴ «riots. Hort refers to Philo,
de incorruptibilitate mundi (ii. 489 M.)
where ἀναγέννησις is used for the
more usual madvyyeveol(a—rebirth of the
world—of the Stoics. ἐλπίδα ζῶσαγν.
The omission of the definite article is
characteristic of St. Peter. The Hope

|

42 πμ ιρο ια 1.

4 ἐλπίδα ζῶσα 1
νοµίαν ἄφθαρτον k,”
5 οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς τοὺς

δι) ἀναστάσεως Ι8 XT
ἀμίαντον καὶ ἁμάρα.
ἐν δυνάµει OF pou

ἐκ νεκρῶν eis κληρο
τον τετηρηµένην ε
poupevous διὰ

1ζωσα--- ζῶσαν: the sign™ for v is apt to be absorbed in the preceding line and
so disregarded: it is used at the end of the line or sichu, whether or not the word

in which it occurs has come to its end.

2 is the common abbreviation for καί:

it is probably derived from cursive writ-

ing in which letters were joined together and so varied in shape according to their

companions,

is a recognised technical term (Acts
xxiii. 6, etc.) of the Pharisees, cor-

responding to "P77. Ceoav stamps

the Christian hope as Divine since life is
God’s prerogative (cf. i. 23 and the living
bread, water of John) and effective (cf.
the corresponding use of dead faith, Jas.
ii. 17, 26). Cf. Sap. iii. 4, ἡ δὲ ἐλπὶς
αὐτῶν ἀθανασίας πλήρης. δι &. with
ἀναγεννήσας rather than ζῶσαν: three
prepositional clauses are thus attached to
ᾱ. as to ἐκλεκτοῖς (and ἀπόστολος) in
ver. 2. The resurrection of Jesus is the
means and guarantee of the spiritual
resurrection of the Christian (rz Cor. xv.
14,17) from the death of the sinful and
fleshly life.

Ver. 4. εἷς κληρ.... Gpapav-
τον, as God's sons in virtue of their re-
generation they are God’s heirs (Gal. iv.
7) and have an heavenly inheritance.
The accumulated adjectives recall various
images employed to describe it—and em-
phasise the fact that it is eternal (Heb.
ix. 15) and spiritual. It is ἄφθαρτον, in-
corruptible (cf. i. 23, iii. 4) because it be-
longs to the future life which the risen
dead (τ Cor. xv. 52) share with God Him-
self (Rom. i. 23; 1 Tim.i.17). It is set
_ where “ moth doth not corrupt (διαφθεί-
pet, Luke xii. 33: Matt. vi. 19 ff. has
adavite),” apart from this corruptible
world (cf. Isa. xxiv. 3). It is the incor-
ruptible crown (x Cor. ix. 25). The
second epithet ἁμίαντον is applied to
the great High Priest, Heb. vii. 26 (cf.
Heb. xiii. 4; Jas. i. 27) and implies again
separation from this sinful world of which
it is written ἐμιάνατε τὴν γῆν µου καὶ
τὴν κληρονοµίαν µου ἔθεσθε εἰς βδέ-
Avypa (Jer. ii. 7). Compare the descrip-
tion of virtue in Sap. iv. 2, στεφανηφο-
ροῦσα πομπεύει τὸν τῶν ἁμιάντων ἄθλων
ἀγῶνα νικήσασα. ἁμάραντον is
peculiar to x Peter in N.T., cf. ἁμαράντι-
vov (v. 4): it is perhaps derived from
Sap. vi. 12, ἁμάραντός ἐστιν ἡ σοφία,
and thus presupposes the identification of
eternal life with knowledge of God (John

xvii. 3). Compare the application of Isa.
xl. 6 f. (cited infra 24) in Jas.i. 11. All
three suit or are associated with the
wreath presented to the victor in the
games—a metaphor which the Lord Him-
self used according to the Apocalypse
(ii. 10, cf. x /Peter πμ. κ ο).
Origen (?) in Cramer’s Catena notes that
the words contradict Chiliasm. τετ-
ηρηµένην εἰς ὑμᾶς, reserved (1)
with a view to you, cf. John xii. 7, ἵνα
cis τὴν ἡμέραν .. . τηρήσῃ, 2 Peter ii.
4, εἰς κρίσιν τηρουµένους; for same use
of eis in similar context see Rom. viii. 18.
(2)... until you came—a sense which
would suit the other examples of τηρεῖν

eis. (3) . . « for you, εἰς = = dative
(so Syriac), the writer or translator being
influenced by eis above and below. The
inheritance is still, as it has always been,
kept back, but the Christians are sure to
succeed to it. So Enoch refers to the
secrets of the righteous which shall be
revealed (xxxviii. 3); the lot of the right-
eous which the Son of Man preserves
(xlviii. 7); and says Blessed are ye ye
righteous and elect for glorious will be
your lot . . . it will be said to the holy
that they should seek in heaven the
secrets of righteousness the heritage of
faith (lviii. 5).

Ver. 5. The Christians addressed are
—to complete the metaphor from other
passages in the Epistle—a spiritual house
(ii. v.), which is besieged by the devil
(v. 8) but guarded and garrisoned by God’s
Power. So long as they have faith (v. g)
they are safe: ‘‘ our faith lays hold upon
this power and this power strengthens
faith and so we are preserved” (Leigh-
ton). Without responsive faith God’s
power is powerless to heal or to guard (cf.
Mark vi. 5 f. and accounts of Jesus’ mir-
acles generally, Jas.i.6f.). The langu-
age seems to echo Rom. i. 16, Svvapis
θεοῦ cis σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι,͵
combined with Gal. iii. 23 (cf. Phil. iv. 7)
where also the distinctive @povpetv oc-
curs in similar context. The Power

——

4---6.

,
πίστε ws els σωτηρίαν ἑτοί

ἐσχάτω" ἐν ὦ

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

µην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε ὀλίγον ἄρ

43

ἐν καιρῶ
τι ct δέον 1 λυπηθέντες2 6

1 Codex Alexandrinus with others adds ἐστι after δέον.

λυπηθέντες is probably right, εἰ δέον being parenthetical: the variants λυπη-
θέντας (first hand of Codex Sinaiticus and many cursives) and λυπηθῆναι (one
cursive and the Vulgate) are due to the connexion of δέον with its context, the
parenthetical character of the phrase being disregarded.

(sna) of God is put for ¥ehovah

in the Targum of Isa. xxxiii. 21; and the
corresponding use of ἡ δύναμις is found in
Mark xiv. 62 (see Dalman, 200 f.; and
add ἡ µεγαλωσύνη, a more exact render-
ing, of Heb. i. 3, viii. 1). In Philo God’s
powers are personified self-manifestations.
eis σωτηρίαν, κ.τ.λ., is probably the
third clause qualification of φρουρ. (cf.
2, 3). Below, the salvation of souls is
described as the goal of faith (ο) ina
passage where the ἑτοίμην, κ.τ.λ., qualify
σωτηρίαν rather than κληρονομίαν which
is explained by owt... . ἐσχάτῳ. Sal-
vation is to St. Peter that saivation
which is to be revealed in the future (c/.
i. 9, ii. 2; so Rom. xiii. 11, viv ἐγγύτερον
+++ ἡ σωτηρία). Partial anticipations
he neglects; for them as for Christ the
glory follows the present suffering. The
idea of the revelation of salvation comes
from Ps. xcviii. 2 (cf. Isa. lvi. 1) which
has influenced St. Paul also (Rom. i.
16 f.). ἑτοίμην seems to be simply

the equivalent of “PY prepared, which
St. Paul renders with more attention to
current usage than etymology by µέλ-
λουσαν (Rom. viii. 13; Gal. iii. 23; so
I Peter v. 1). This weaker sense begins
with Deut. xxxii. 35 (LXX, πάρεστιν
ἔτοιμα. as Peter here) and prevails in
new Hebrew (Tarphon said. . . the re-
compense of the reward of the righteous

is for the time to come. sab DY
Aboth, ii. το). But the proper signific-
ance of the word is recognised and utilised
in the Parables of Jesus, Matt. xxiv. 4, 8.
καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ, still anarthrous as
being technical term—indefinite as the
time is unknown as well as in accordance
with authors’ custom (cf. δύναµις, πισ-
τέως, σωτηριαν above) ; cf. John ii. 18.
Vv. 6-9. Exult then. These various
temptations to which you are exposed
cause present grief. But they are part of
God’s plan for you. Even material per-
ishable gold is tried in the fire. So is
your faith tested that it may be purged of
its dross and the good meta! be discovered
when Jesus Christ is revealed. You love
Him whom you never saw; though you
see Him not you believe on Him. Enxult

then with joy that anticipates your future
glory. You arewinning the prize of your
faith, the ultimate salvation of souls. St.
Peter returns to the present and regards
it from the point of view of those whom
God is guarding—but only to advance
again to the glorious future (7 fin, 9)
when Jesus Christ the present object of
their love and faith shall be revealed. He
is the central figure of this sectionwhich is
based upon two of His sayings which are
appropriate to the circumstances of these
His persecuted followers (so iv. 13) v.
Matt. v. 12 = Apoc. xix. 7 from Ps. xxi. 1,
cxvill. 24. Compare Jas. i. 2-4 and John
cited below.

Ver. 6. ἐν ᾧ. There are four possible
antecedents. (1) καιρῷ, (2) Jesus Christ,
(3) God, (4) the state of things described
in 3-5. (1) would imply that they must
live in the future and is least probably
right. (2) is supported by 8 but is un-
likely at this point. The choice lies be-
tween (3), God being hitherto the domin-
ating figure; and (4): cf. Luke i. 47 =
1 Sam. il. 1 a—a. with évin LXX as well
as ἐπὶ. ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. Indicative
(with or without quasi future meaning)
rather than Imperative. Bye form of
ἀγάλλομαι (Homer downwards) first
found in LXX especially as assonant

rendering of "1 : used later in bad
sense (λοιδορεῖται, Hesych): here bor-
rowed from Matt. v. 11 f. χαίρετε καὶ
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. ὀλίγον, (1) for a little
time, or (2) to a small extent (contrast
John xvi. 6, 4 λύπη πεπλήρωκεν ὑμῶν
τὴν καρδίαν). εἰ Séov, they cannot
but fee] grief at their trials (John xvi. 20,
ἡμεῖς λυπηθήσεσθε ἡ δὲ λύπη ὑμῶν εἰς
χαρὰν γενήσεται), but they must not in-
dulge their natural weakness. To take
the ‘‘necessity” as referring to their’
trials (for not all the Saints are oppressed,
Oec.) limits Ava. to the external sense of
vexation without reference to the feelings
of the grieved corresponding to the feel-
ings implied in ay. The contrast is thus
destroyed, but this sense harass would
suit the other military metaphor, τοὺς
Φρουρουμένους.--ἐν ποικίλοις πει-
ρασμοῖς, the adjective rules out the

’

44 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α is

7 ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς

πολυτει 2

o 4 5 , 1 ε (a
ἵνα τὸ Soxipiov! ὑμῶ
µότερον χρυσοῦ τοῦ

τῆς πίστεως

ἀπολλυμένου διὰ πυ ρὸς δὲ

1 For δοκίµιον three cursives read δόκιµον, a more familiar form of the adjective.
*The ει in πολυτειµότερον is used in place of the conventional t to show that

the syllable is long: so τειµήν, etc.

limitation of π. to external trials which
St. James who has the entire phrase
seems to put upon it.

Ver. 7. τὸ δοκίµιον. The evi-
dence of the papyri (Deissmann, Bible
Studies, pp. 259 ff.) shows that δοκίµιος
is a bye form of the adjective δόκιµος
approved; so Ps. xii. 7, ἀργύριον πεπυρ-
ωμένον δοκίµιον (cf. 1 Chron. xxxix. 4;
Zech. xi. 3, where it occurs as v.l. for
δόκιµον). Hence the phrase (here and
in Jas. i. 37) corresponds exactly to St.
Paul’s τὸ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀγάπης γνή-
σιον--' {πε genuineness of your faith
or “the approvedness ”). So Arethas
on Apoc. ix. 4, of δὲ τὸ δοκίµιον
ἑαυτῶν διὰ πυρὸς παρεχόµενοι. The
substantive δ.-Ξ ‘‘ means of trial, testing”’
which does not suit this context, or a
specimen of metal to be tested.—rolv-
τιµότερον, to justify the common
rendering (A.V., R.V.) according to which
π. κ.τ.λ. are taken as in apposition to τὸ
δοκ., Sv must be supplied as if omitted by
haplography after πολ. But there is no
need for emendation, if πολ. be taken as
predicate thrown forward for the sake of
emphasis.— xpvaov κ.τ.λ. St. Peter
adapts the familiar comparison of man’s
sufiering to the fining-pot of precious
metal, insisting on the superiority of the
spiritual to the material gold. The stress
lies on διὰ πυρός. True faith is tested
by trials, just as goldis proved by fire. It
is more valuable than gold which is per-
ishable. If men test gold thus, much
more will God test faith which outlives
the present age, cf. Hebrew ix. 23. Cf.
use of πύρωσις, iv. 12.
Zech. xili. 9, δοκιμῶ αὐτοὺς ὡς δοκιµ-
άζεται τὸ χρυσίον; Ps. Ixvi. το; Prov.
xvii. 3; Sir. ii. 5, etc.—Tod ἀπολ-
λυμένον, cf. John vi. 27, τὴν βρῶσιν
τὴν ἀπ. (contrasted with imperishable
food; here gold generally is contrasted with
faith) and Φθαρτοῖς ἀργυρίῳ καὶ χροσίῳ
below.—etpeOq, cf. 2 Peter iii. 14,
σπουδάσατε ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι αὐτῷ
εὑρεθῆναι ἐν εἰρήνῃ; Ps. xvii. 3, ἐδοκί-
µασας τὴν καρδίαν pov... καὶ οὐχ
εὑρέθη ἐν ἐμοὶ ἀδικία.--- eis ἔπαινον
..» must be taken with the whole sen-
tence, unless dv be supplied. So eis
might introduce the predicate (better ".'

For the image, ’

The secondary uncials have πολὺ τιµίωτερον.

stronger) of εὗρ., cf. Rom. vii. το. εἰς

taken as = 5) expressing transition into
a new state or condition (as Rom. vii. 10).
--ἔπαινον is the verdict. ‘ Well done
good and faithful servant; enter thou
into the joy of thy Lord.” The Christian
is the true Jew and receives at last the
praise which the name Judah signifies.
In Rom. ii. 29, 6 ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ *lovdatos
- + + οὗ 6 ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρωπων GAN
ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, Paul follows the alteration
of the original ἐξομολόγησις (Gen. xxix.
35, LXX, and Philo) consequent upon the

transference of the praise (5 Τ1Γ}) from
God to men (cf. Gen. xlix. 8, Ιούδα σε
αἰνέσαισαν ot ἀδελφοί σου). The old
Israel set their hope on praise from the
congregation (Sir. xxxix. 10) or glory
from men, John v. 44; xii. 42f. The
new Israel looked for praise from God to
balance the dispraise of men (Matt. v.
ΤΙ f.); so St. Peter adds ἐπ.. to the usual
formula δόξαν καὶ τιµήν, Rom. ii. 7, 1Ο
(Ps. viii. 6) δόξῃ καὶ ting ἐστεφάνωσας
ἄνθρωπον, cf. oxedos εἰς τιμήν, Rom.
ix. 21, for the less obvious word.
Hort compares Marcus Aurelius xii.
II, μὴ ποιεῖν ἄλλο H ὅπερ μέλλει
6 θεὸς ἐπαινεῖν.- ἐν ἀποκαλύψει
lu. Χν., when Fesus Christ is revealed.
The expression is derived from the saying
κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔσται ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ vids τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου ἀποκαλύπτεται (Luke xvii. 30).
As Judge He will pronounce the verdict
of approval and bestow glory and honour.
The reference to present glorified joy in
the midst of trial suggests that the writer
has advanced beyond the simple belief in
a final theophany and contemplates a
spiritual revelation of Jesus Christ as
each Christian (cf. Gal. i. 16) realises
the meaning of His Resurrection; but cf.
μὴ ὁρῶντες below.

Ver. 7. The Christians addressed
were not personal disciples of Jesus but
converts of the Apostles (12). As such
they could claim Beatitude µακάριοι οἱ
py ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες (John xx.
29). Their love began and continues
without sight of Him; even now when
they expect His coming they must still
believe without seeing Him and exult.
The Latin version of Augustine, gives

7—I0.

δοκιμαζοµένου
ἀποκαλύψει Ι8 XG ὃν
ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλ
δεδοξασµένη
Ψψυχῶν.
i

κομιζόµενοι τὸ τέλος
περὶ ἧς ow
ται οἱ περὶ τῆς eis ὑμᾶς

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α
εὑρεθῆ eis ἔπαινον k
οὐχ 1 ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε

λιᾶτε χαρᾶ ἀνεκλαλή

τηρίας ἐξείήτησαν &

45

δόξαν καὶ τειμὴν ἐν

3 a »” A
εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ 8
τω καὶ
τῆς πίστεως σωτηρί avg
ἐξηραύνησαν προ- 1ο

Χάριτος προφητεύσα «τες

1 The first hand of Codex Vaticanus is alone in reading οὐχ, which could only

be justified if followed by an aspirate.

2 For ἰδόντες many manuscripts, headed by Codex Alexandrinus, read εἰδότες :
this confusion between ἰδεῖν and εἰδέναι is common.

‘ three distinct clauses referring to the
past, the present and the future climax
whom you knew not; in whom now—not
secing ye believe; whom whenyou see you
will exult. But for lack of support it
‘must be set aside in favour of the Greek
text (which regards present as leading
up to future culmination without a break)
as being a redaction of the passage for
separate use. εἰς ὃν, with πιστεύοντες,
μὴ ὁρῶντες being parenthesis added to
explain force of πιστ. (Heb. xi. 1 ; Rom.
viii. 24)—xap@ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ
δεδοξασµένῃ. Their faith enables
them to pass beyond their present suffer-
ings to the joy which belongs to the sub-
sequent glories. Thus their joy being
heavenly is unspeakable and glorified.
Language cannot express the communion
with God which the Christian like St.
Paul may enjoy (2 Cor. xii. 3 f.); com-
pare Rom. viii. 26, αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερ-
“evVTVyXavet στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις. And
this joy is glorified because it is an
earnest of the glory which shall be re-
vealed; cf. iv. 14.

Ver.g. The connexion with mention
of persecution suggests that the writer is
here thinking of the saying, 7m your
patience ye shall win your souls and per-
haps also of the contrast between the
persecutor who has only power over the
body. Whatever happen to the body
the conclusion—the consummation of
their faith—is assured {πεπῃ.--κομ.ι ζ ό-
µενοι implies that already they are
receiving what is due to them (cf.
ν. 4) and therefore they rejoice with
Hannah in God the Saviour. In the
Attic Orators who use a refined form of
colloquial Greek the verb is common in
the sense of recovering debts, as in Matt.
XXV. 27, ἐκομισάμην ἂν τὸ ἐμόν. St. Paul
applies it to future recompense (2 Cor. v.
10, ἵνα κοµίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ
«σώματος; Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 25: cf. 2
Macc. viii. 33, τὸν ἄξιον τῆς δυσσεβείας

ἐκομίσατο µισθόν); in Heb. iii. 4, it is
used of receiving promises.—r6 τέλος.
The common meaning fulfilment or con-
summation gives a fair sense but the con-
nection with κομιζόµενοι is thus some-
what strange. The parallel of v. 4,
taken with Pindar, Ol. x(xi.) 81, Δόρν-
κλος 8 ἔφερε πυγμᾶς τέλος, suggests
as a possible rendering because ye
receive the reward. The Septuagint,
again (Num. xxxi. 28, etc.), uses 7. to

translate D3 = proportion to be paid,
tax. And this use is well estab-
lished in Greek literature for τὰ τέλη,
cf. λυσιτελεῖν, etc. Accordingly Suidas
defines τέλος as TO διδόµενον τοῖς
βασιλεῦσι. The particular connotations
can hardly be pressed here but these
uses give some colour of support to the
Syriac rendering recompense and the
mercedem of Augustine; cf. Rom. vi. 22.
—cotnplar Ψψυχῶν-τ σωτηρίαν
above. Ψψυχῶν is added to console the
readers for their sufferings in accordance
with Mark viii. 35, ὃς 8 ἂν ἀπολέσει τὴν
ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
σώσει αὐτήν = John xii. 25; cf. Luke
ax τος Jas. i 2k.) Phe sonl) for St.
Peter is the self or personality as for
Jesus Himself.

Vv. 10-12.—The ancient prophets pro-
phesied concerning the grace which was
destined for you and enquired diligently
about this salvation. They were the un-
conscious instruments of the revelation of
God and their first duty done continued
to pore over the inspired descriptions of
the sufferings and subsequent glories o
the Messiah. They asked themselves to
whom does this refer and when shall
these things be. And to them the revela-
tion was made that they were only the
administrators of an estate which others
—you in fact should enjoy. The subjects
of their prophecies have now been pro-
claimed to you by your Christian teachers
who, like the prophets, were inspired by

46

11 ἐραυνῶντες els
πνεῦμα Ἰ προµαρτυρό

τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν

μενον 2

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A a

ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς

τὰ εἲς Χρειστὸ παθήματα καὶ τὰς

Codex Vaticanus is alone in omitting Χριστοῦ after πνεῦμα.
*Codex Alexandrinus with others has προµαρτυρουµενον.

the Holy Spirit—with this difference that
now the Spirit has been sent from heaven
whereas of old He dwelt only in minds
of a few. And these are the mysteries
into which angels long to peep.

St. Peter has utilised a saying of Jesus
to explain the great problem of unfulfilled
prophecy and expounded it. Among the
prophets he includes the so-called apoca-
lyptic writers like Daniel and his suc-
cessors. Gradually the coming of the
Messiah and the dawn of the new age
had been pushed further and further back
until the inspired prophets realised that
——as the Christians held—the Messiah
would only come just before the end of all.
The Messiah was not Hezekiah despite
the Rabbis, nor yet the best of the Has-
monean house as Enoch hoped. ἀπεκαλύ-
$y. Such was the revelation or Apoca-
lypse from which the latest of the prophets
derive their common name; and St. Peter
credits all the line with the curiosity which
characterised the last of them and his
Own contemporaries; cf. Acts ii. and
Heb. xi. 13 ff. The saying in question
on which St. Peter builds is reported
differently: According to Matt. xiii. 17,
Jesus said, πολλοὶ προφῆται καὶ δίκαιοι
ἐπεθύμησαν . . . according to Luke x. 24,
προφῆται καὶ βασιλεῖς ἠθέλησαν .. .
according to St. Peter προφῆται (10) καὶ
ἄγγελοι. The mention of the righteous
derives support from Heb. xi. 13-16, and

John viii. 56, and an original Oty)
‘‘the righteous” would easily be altered in
the course of transmission into Ὀ συ)

= princes earthly or heavenly (cf. Dan.
x. 21; LXX, Μιχαἡλ 6 ἄγγελος). The
motive which prompted the interpretation
ἄγγελοι is due to the influence of the
Book of Enoch (see note below) which
explains the writer’s conception of the
prophets.

Ὑετ.το. The prophets were concerned
with the Messianic salvation and searched
their own writings and those of their pre-
decessors for definite information about
it. They are honoured by the Christians
who realise that as a matter of fact they
prophesied concerning the grace which
was destined for the Christian Church.—
τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος, the grace
which belongs to you, cf. τὰ eis χριστὸν
παθ. (11).

Ver. 11. The construction of εἰς

τ.κ.π. καιρόν and of προµαρτ. is doubt-
ful. épavv@vres takes up ἐξείήτησαν
k.t-A. (10); the run of the sentence seems
to naturaliy connect τὰ . . . δόξας with
προµαρτ. and εἰς . . . καιρόν with ἐδή-
λου. So Vulgate in quod vel quale
tempus significaret ... Spiritus... prae-
nuntians. . . passiones. Butifeis.. «
καιρὸν be unfit to be a direct object and
προµαρτ., perhaps, to have one οἱ this
kind, ra. . . δόξας must be governed
by ἐδήλου. It is possible also to dis-
sociate tiva from καιρὸν and to render
in reference to whom and what time the
Spirit signified... 5 ef. Eph.) ν. 5»,
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστόν, Actsii. 25. If
viva be taken with καιρόν, the two words
correspond to the two questions of the
disciples, When? . . . and what shall be
the sign ? (Mark xiii. 4). Failing to dis-
cover at what time, the prophets asked af
what kind of time; their answer received
a certain endorsement in the eschatolo-
gical discourse of Jesus (Mark xiii. 5 ff.
and parallels)—é€8yAov, cf. Heb. ix. §,
τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ Πνεύματος. The
word implies discernment on the part of
the student (Heb. xii. 27, τὸ δὲ ἔτι ἅπαξ
δηλοῖ . . «). What time . . . did point
unto of R.V. is unjustifiable; a simple
accusative is required, 1.6., either (i.) ποῖον
κ. or (ii.) τίνα ἢ π. κ. (ets being deleted
as dittography of -es) or (iii.) τὰ .
δόξας.- τὸ πνεῦμα [Χριστοῦ], the
full phrase is a natural one for a Christian
to employ—Christ being here the proper
name = Jesus Christ and not the title.
κύριος in the Ο.Τ. was commonly inter-
preted as referring to Our Lord; and
XC. is a frequent v./. for KC. Hence
Barnabas (v.q.), ot προφῆται ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ
ἔχον τὴν χάριν εἰς αὐτὸν ἐπροφήτευσαν.
---πµπρομιαρτυρόμενον -only occurs
here. 1 μαρτύρομαι (the proper sense):
determine the meaning of the compound
render ‘‘ protesting (calling God to wit-
ness) beforehand”. It usage justify con-
fusion with μαρτυρεῖν, be witness [of |
render testifying beforehand or (publicly.)
--τὰ εἰς Xv παθήματα, the doctrine
that the Messiah must suffer and so enter
into His glory was stated by the prophets
(e.g. Isa. iii.) but neglected by the Jews
of the first century (John xii. 34). Be-
lievers were reminded of it by the risen
Lord Himself (Luke xxiv. 26, 46) and put
it in the forefront of their demonstratio

ΙΙ---Ι2.

µε τὰ ταῦτα δόξας ols a

ὑμῖν δὲ διηκό

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

πεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑ

νουν 1 αὐτὰ ἃ νῦν ἂνηγ

47

αυτοῖς 12
γέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὖ

1¥For διηκόνουν Dr. Rendel Harris (Side-Lights on New Testament Research,
p. 207) conjectures that διενοοῦντο should be read in accordance with the statement
of the Book of Enoch, “I contemplated them (the things heard in the vision) not

for the present generation but for one that was far distant”’.

See Henoch, i. 2,

καὶ οὐκ ἐς τοῦ vuv γενεὰν διενοούµην ἀλλὰ ἐπὶ πόρρω ἦνσαν ἐγὼ λαλῶ. διανοίας
of verse 13 is cited in confirmation of the conjecture.

evangelica (Acts ΠΠ, 18, xvii. 3, xxvi. 23).
The phrase corresponds exactly to the

original 2} son: eis standing for

the (periphrasis for construct. state).—
τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας, the plural
glories implies some comprehension of the
later doctrine, ¢.g., John, which recog-
aised that the glory of Jesus was parti-
ally manifested during His earthly life;
although the definition subsequent reflects
the primitive simplicity and if it be pressed
the glories must be explained as referring
to the resurrection ascension triumph over
angels as well as the glorious session
(viii. οι f.).—ols ἀπεκαλύφθη, so
St. Peter argues that Joel prophesied the
last things (cf. Sir. xlviii. 24) and that
David foresaw and spoke concerning the
resurrection (Acts ii. 17, 31, cf. iii. 24).
Compare Dan. 1x. 2, xii. 4, etc., for ex-
amples of partial revelations of this kind
proper to apocalyptic writers. Heb. l.c.
supy. credits the Patriarchs with the
same insight—ovx ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν
δέ, negative and positive presentation of
the past for emphasis is common in this
Epistle. — Sunkdvovv αὐτά, '' they
were supplying, conveying the revelations
granted to them—primary the prophecy
and the revealed solution of it alike,”
cf. iv. 10, εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ διακονοῦν-
tes. The context shows, if the word
διακονεῖν does not itself connote it, that
herein they were stewards of God’s mani-
fold grace—channels of communication.
For Acc. with διακον. cf, 2 Cor. iii. 3,
ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ διακογηθεσα ὑφ᾽
ἡμῶν, vill. 19, τῇ χάριτι ταύτῃ τῇ δια-
κονουµένῃ Ud ἡμῶν, from which it may
be inferred that 8. connotes what the
context here suggests, cf. ἃ viv avny-
γέλη, have been at the present dispensa-
tion declared; a. is taken from the great
proof text relating to the calling of the
Gentiles, ols οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη ἀκούουσιν,
Isa. lii. 15 cited Rom. xv. 21. ‘But St.
Peter probably meant more by the word
. . . the phrase includes not only the
announcement of the historical facts of
the Gospel, but, yet more, their implicit
teachings as to the counsels of God and

the hopes revealed for men” (Hort).—
διὰ τῶν evayy. ὑμας, God spake
through the evangelists (cf. Isa. lxi. 1,
apud Rom. x. 15) as through the pro-
phets, Matt. i. 22, ii. 15, etc. Both are
simply God’s messengers. For accusative

after εὐαγγ. cf. use of SAP] = gladden
with good tidings (Isa. Ixi. 1). So
πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται (Matt. xi. 5;
Luke vii. 22) is substituted for the original
πτωχοῖς εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (Luke iv, 138 =
Isa. Ixi. 1) if the prophecy which Jesus
appropriated and which forms the basis
of the Christian use of the word.—
πνεύµματι «TA. The evangelists
preached by the Spirit, as Stephen spoke
(Acts vi. το), τῷ πνεῦματι ᾧ ἐλάλει. In
Sir. xlviii, 24, if the Greek and Hebrew
texts are trustworthy, πνεύµατι the
simple Dative (πνεύµατι peyaho εἶδεν
τὰ ἔσχατα i.e, Isaiah) corresponds-
to : of. insertion of ἐν here in
oul: αλ. oe descent of the Holy
Spirit is contrasted with the indwel-
ling Spirit which inspired the pro-
phets. The Holy Spirit was given, when
Jesus was glorified, as never before, οὐκ
ἐκ µέτρου (John iii. 34). Vulgate renders
by ablative absolute.—eis ἃ ... παρα-
κύψαι, after expanding the first part of
Jesus’ saying (and its context ye see) St.
Peter at last reaches the second in its
secondary form. He combines with it as
its proper Scripture, the prophecy of
Enoch (ix. 1) καὶ ἀκούσαντες ot τέσ-
σαρες μεγάλοι ἀρχάγγελοι . . . παρέ-
κυψαν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ. St. Paul spiritualises the idea
“to me... this grace was given to
preach to the Gentiles . . . in order that
now might be made known to the princi-
palities and the authorities in heavenly
places by means of the Church the very-’
varied wisdom of God” (Eph. iii. 8 ff.).
St. Peter reproduces faithfully the sim-
plicity of the original and represents
this longing as still unsatisfied since the
Church is not yet perfect or complete.
It thus becomes part of the sympathetic
groaning and travailing of the whole
creation (Rom. viii. 22 f.), In iii. 21 St.
Peter states on the same authority that

αγγελισαµένων ὑμᾶς πνεύµατι 1 ἁγίω πο

a

13 cls ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ay

A 3 , fol [ή
τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας

τ4 ἐπὶ τὴ

γελοι παρακύψαι.

φεροµένην ὑμῖν χάρι

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α 4

σταλέντι ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ
διὸ

ὑμῶν νέφοντες ? τε

ἀναζωσάμενοι
λείως ἐλπίσατε

ἐν ἀποκαλύψει IG XU. as

1 Το πνεύµατι Codex Sinaiticus, with other manuscripts of less weight, prefixes

ἐν.
Ἀνέφοντες {ΟΙ νήφοντες.

Christ preached to the spirits in prison ;
adding that when he ascended all angels
were subjected to Him. The apparent
contradiction is due to the discrepancy
between the ideal and its gradual realisa-
tion and not to an imperfect coordination
of these conceptions of the universal
sovereignty of God. Seer Cor. xv. 25 f.,
Μορ πο πο Wen dor wersee . -
παρακύψαι has lost its suggestion of
peeping through its use in the LXX for

Πρω look forth though it is not em-

ployed by them in the places where God
is said to look down from heaven (Ps. xiv.
2, etc.). The patristic commentators
seem to hold by the Evangelist rather
than the Apostle in respect to the saying,
as they refer exclusively for illustration
to the O.T. figures, Moses (Heb xi. 26),
Isaiah (John xii. 41). Oecumenius notes
that Daniel is called by the angel a man
of longings (Dan. ix. 25). That the
angels of Peter are due to Enoch and
secondary seems to be borne out by the
Targum of Eccles. i. 8, “‘ In all the words
that are prepared (about) to come to pass
in the world the ancient prophets wearied

themselves and could not find their
ends”
Vy. 13-21. Practical admonitions. In

this section St. Peter is engrossed with
the conception of the Church as the new
Israel which has been delivered from
idolatry—the spiritual Egypt—by a far
more excellent sacrifice. Jesus Himself
endorsed such adaptation of the direc-
tions given for the 'typical deliverance
(Luke xii. 35) and the principle that the
worshippers of Jehovah must be like
Him (John iv. 23 f.; Matt. v. 48, etc.).

Ver. 13. διό introduces the practical
inference. —avalwoadpevot, K.TA.,
the reference to the directions for celebra-
tion of the Passover (Exod. xii. 11, οὕτως
δὲ φάγεσθε αὐτό" ai ὀσφύες ὑμῶν περι-
εἷωσμέναι . « . μετὰ σπουδῆς) is unmis-
takable. The actual deliverance of the
Christians is still in the future; they
must be always ready against the coming
of the Lord. Oec. refers to Job xxxviii,
3. The particular compound occurs only
twice in LXX—once in this phrase of the

manly woman in Prov. xxxi. 17, ἀναζωσα-
µένη ἰσχυρῶς τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτῆς, where it
implies preparation for serious work. In
2 Kings iv. 29 ff. (Elisha’s mission of
Gehazi which is in some ways a type
fulfilled by Jesus’ mission of the Seventy,
cf. Luke x. 4), ζῶσαι τὴν ὀσφύν σου is
the preparation for an urgent errand.
The addition of τῆς διανοίας implies that
the readiness required is spiritual. St.

Paul uses καρδία in the same way (Eph.

i. 18, πεφωτισµένους τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς
τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν) and from Mark xii. 30
= Deut. vi. 4 f. it appears that διάνοια is

a recognised equivalent of 45) heart.
--γήφοντες τελείως. Incases like
this it is natural to take the adverb with
the preceding verb. τελείως (only
here in N.T.) has much the same force as
τῆς διανοίας; so the adjective is applied
to the antitype as contrasted with the type
in Heb. ΙΧ. II, τῆς . . . τελειοτέρας
σκηνῆς and Jas. i. 25, νόµον τέλειον τὸν
τῆς ἐλευθερίας. For νήφοντες cf. iv. 7
and ν. 8, νήψατε γρηγορήσατε, 1 Thess.
v. 8, γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν. Sobriety
is necessary to watchfulness. The origin
of this use of the word (not in the LXX)
is to be found in the parable of Luke xii.
45 f.; it has special point in view of the
K@pots and πότοις, in which they were
prone to indulge.—t 7 v φερομένην
ὑμῖν χάριν is an adaption of the
common Greek idiom (Homer down-
wards) φέρειν χ», to confer a favour (cf.
Sir. viii. το, μὴ ἀναφερέτω σοι χάριν)
and is thus analogous to St. Paul’s use
of χαρίζεσθαι (see Rom. viii. 32). The
present participle has its natural force.
Peter does not distinguish between the
present and the climax; already the new
age which is the last has begun. ΤΠεχάρις
is the final deliverance and its use here
is another link with the type: ἔδωκεν 6
Κύριος τὴν χάριν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ (Exod.
xii. 36).--ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, Jesus Christ is being re-
vealed or is revealing the salvation. The
revelation began with the resurrection cf.
φανερωθέντος and continues to the cul-
mination (7).

Ver. 14. ὦς, inasmuch as you are, cf.

13—17.

, ς ~ A ul
τέκνα ὑπακοῆς" μὴ συσχηματιζόµε
TH ἀγνοία ὑμῶν ἐπι
a μα A 3 A o > ,
ἅγιο καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πά
διότι γέγραπται
πατέρα ἀἐπικαλεῖσθε τὸν ἄπρο

τὸ ἑκάστου ἔργον ἐν φόβω τὸν

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

θυµίαις’ ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ
ση ἀναστροφῆ γενή
ov oa ” J >
ὅτι ἅγιοι έσεσθε ὅτι ἐ
σωπολήµπτως κρί

τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν

49

ναι 1 ταῖς πρότερον ἐν
καλέσαντα buds 15
θητε:

‘ ov ‘ >
γὼ ἅγιος: καὶ ev 16, 17
νοντα κατὰ

χρόνον

1 The termination συσχημµατιζόµεναι is probably due to the following ταῖς.

ii. 2, 5, iii. 7, είο.-- τέκνα tbmraKxoj7s,
obedient corresponds to St. Paul’s υἱοὶ
τῆς ἀπειθείας (Col. iii. 6; Eph. ii. 2,
ν. 6). Both phrases reflect the Hebrew
use of 75}, ‘followed by word of quality

characteristic, etc.” (B.D.B., s.v., 8).
For τέκνα in place of usual viot in this
idiom, cf. Hos. 9, τέκνα ἀδικίας and Eph.
ii. 3, τέκνα ὀργῆς. Here it suits better
with βρέφη (ii. 1).--συσχηματιζό-
µεναι, from Rom. xii. 2, μη συσχηµα-
τίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ. The feminine
is peculiar to B whose scribe was perhaps
influenced by the Alexandrian identifica-
tion of woman with the flesh (John 1. 13)
or regarded such conformity as woman-
ish. The participle has the force of an
imperative. The Christians needed to
be warned against conformity to the
manners and morals of their countrymen,
which were incompatible with their new
faith (see v. 2-4). The use of σχῆμα in
Isa. iii. 17, perhaps assists the use of
συσχ. in connection with lusts.—év Tq
ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν. It wasa Jewish axiom
that the Gentiles were ignorant (Acts
xvii. 30; Eph. iv. 17 f.). Christian
teachers demonstrated the equal ignor-
ance of the Jews (Peter, Acts iii. 17;
Paul, in Rom.). So Jesus had pronounced
even the teachers of Israel to be blind
and promised them knowledge of the
truth (John viii. 32 ff., cf. interview with
Nicodemus); whereas speaking to the
Samaritan woman He adopted the Jew-
ish standpoint (John iv. 22)—cf. 2 Kings
xvii. 20-41 with Isa. ii. 3; Baruch. iv. 4,
µακάριοί éopev ᾿Ισραὴλ ὅτι τὰ ἀρεστὰ
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῖν γνωστά ἐστιν.

Vv. 15{. The command Ye shall be
holy for I am holy is connected originally
with the deliverance from Egypt and the
distinction between clean and unclean,
which lays down the principle of separa-
tion involved in the Exodus (Lev. xi. 44-
46, etc.; cf. Isa. ΠΠ. rz). St. Peter com-
bines the Scripture with the Word of
Jesus for κατὰ τὸν . . . corresponds to
ὡς of Matt. v. 48. Gentiles needed God’s

summons before they could regard Him
as their heavenly Father; hence Him
that called you. Compare Deut. xviii.
13 (whence τέλειος ot Matt. /.ο.) where
also contrast with abominations of the
the heathen.—aytov is better taken as
predicate than as substantive, since 6
καλέσας (καλῶν) is well-established as a
title of God in His relation to Gentile
Christians (cf. ii. 9, etc.).—év πάσηῃ
ἀναστροφῇ, cf. i. 18, ii, 12, ΠΠ. 1,
2, 16; Tobit iv. 19, ἴσθι πεπαιδευµένος ἐν
πάσῃ a4 gov. The corresponding verb,
ἀναστρέφεσθαι is found as rendering of

πι in the same sense (Prov. xx. 7,

ἀναστρέφεται ἅμωμος); both verb and
noun are so used in late Greek authors
(especially Epictetus)—yev 4697 € be-
come as you were not oR show yourselves
as you are; the latter sense suits a. which
is distinctively outward behaviour.

Ver. 17, cf. Εοπι. Π.1ΟΓ, εἰ πατέρα
ἐπικαλεῖσθε, if ye invoke as Father :—
reminiscence of Jer. iii. το, εἰ πατέρα
ἐπικαλεῖσθέ pe (5ο Q. perhaps after
τ Peter, for εἶπα πατέρα καλέσετέ pe)
cf. Ps. Ixxxix. 27, αὐτὸς ἐπικαλέσεται
µε Πατήρ pov el σύ. There may be a
reference to the use of the Lord’s Prayer
(surname the Fudge Father); but the
context of Jer. l.c. corresponds closely
to the thought here: ‘‘ All the nations
shall be gathered . . . to Jerusalem,
neither shall they walk any more after
the stubbornness of their evil heart. In
those days . . . Judah and Israel shall
come together out of the land of cap-
tivity . . . andI said ‘ My father ye shall
call me’.”” —ampocwTrory partes
summarises St. Peter’s inference {τοπή
experience at Caesarea (Acts x. 34) κατα-
λαμβάνομαι ὅτι ovK ἐστιν προσωπολή-
µπτης ὁ θεός. Adjective and adverb are
formed from λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον of

LXX = “HD NW) receive (lift up) the
face of, i.e., be favourable and later
partial, to. The degeneration of the
phrase was due to the natural contras!

50 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α 1.

18 ἀναστράφη
ἐλυτρώθητε ἐκ τῆς
19 δότου :

between the face and the heart of a man,
which was stamped on the Greek equiva-
lent by the use of πρόσωπον for mask of
the actor or hypocrite—«pivovra. If
the tense be pressed, compare the saying
of Jesus recorded in John xii. 31, viv
κρίσις ἐστιν τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. Rom.
ii. 16 is referred to the last Judgment by
διὰ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ. But the present
participle may be timeless as in 6 καλῶν,
6 βαπτίζων, etc.—KkaTa τὸ ἑκάστουν
ἔργον, a commonplace Jewish and
Christian, cf. Ps. xii. 12 (cited Rom. ii. 6),
σὺ ἀποδώσεις ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα
αὐτοῦ (Hebrew has the work). R. Aqiba
used to say . . . The world is judged by
grace and everything is according to the
work (Pirge Aboth., iii. 24). For col-
lective singular lifework, cf. also 1 Cor.
iii, 13-15, etc.—év φόβῳ, Fear is not
entirely a technical term in N.T. Chris-
tians needed the warning to fear God (so
Luke xii. 5 ; 2 Cor. v. 10), although love
might be proper to the perfect—Gnostic
or Pharisee—z John iv. 18. The natural
and acquired senses exist side by side, as
appears in the use of ἄφοβος. Compare
ἄφοβος οὐ δύναται δικαιωθῆναι (Sir. i.
(22 with ἐν τούτῳ ἄφοβός cipr (Ps.
xxvii. 2, Symmachus) = 1x Him I am con-
fident.—tov τῆς παροικίας χρο-
νον, during your earthly pilgrimage,
which corresponds to the sojourn of
Israel in Egypt (Acts xiii. 17). If God is
their Father, heaven must be their home
(i. 4); their life on earth is therefore a
sojourn (see on i. 1). St. Paul has his
own use of the metaphor (Eph. il. το).
Gentile Christians are no longer strangers
and sojourners, but fellow-citizens of the
saints.

Ver. 18. Amplification of Isa. lii. 3 f.,
Δωρεὰν ἐπράθητε καὶ οὐ μετὰ ἀργυρίου
λυτρωθήσεσθε (cf. αἷν. 13) . . « Eis
Αἴγυπτον κατέβη ὁ λαός µου τὸ πρότερον
παροικῆσαι ἐκεῖ. The deliverance from
Babylon corresponds to the deliver-
ance from Egypt. To these the Chris-
tians added a third and appropriated to it
the descriptions of its predecessors.—ot
Φθαρτοῖς, κ.τ.λ. The preceding
negative relief to positive statement is
characteristic of St. Peter, who here
found it in his original (Isa. 1.ο.). φΦθαρ-
τοῖς echoes ἀπολλυμένου and is prob-
ably an allusion to the Golden Calf of
which it was said These be thy gods O

τε: εἰδότες ὅτι οὗ φθαρ
µαταίας ὑμῶν ἄναστρο
> x 4 9 ς

ἀλλὰ τιµίῳ αἵματι ὡς

τοῖς ἀργυρίω ἢ χρυσίω

φῆς πατροπαρα-
ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἆ σπίλου
Israel, which brought thee up out of the
land of Egypt (Exod. xxxii. 14). Accord-
ing to Sap. xiv. 8, it is the proper name
for an idol : τὸ δὲ φθαρτὸν θεὸς ὠνομάσθη.
So the dative represents the agent and
not only the instrument of the deliver-
ance.—patatas supports the view taken
of φθ., for the gods of the nations are

vanity, µάταια bin (Jer. x. 3, etc.).—
πατροπαραδότου, ancestral, here-

ditavy. The adjective indicates the source
of the influence, which their old way of
life—patrius mos, patrit ritus—still exer-
cised over them. The ancient religion
had a strength—not merely vis inertiae—
which often baffled both Jewish and
Christian missionaries: ‘to subvert a
custom delivered to us from ancestors the
heathen say is not reasonable” (Clem.
Ac. Protr. x.). “This power of the dead
hand is exemplified in the pains taken by
the Stoics and New Pythagoreans to con-
serve the popular religion and its myths
by allegorical interpretation. Among the
Jews this natural conservatism was highly
developed; St. Paul was a zealot for the
ancestval laws. But the combination of
patriarch and tradition does not prove
that the persons addressed were Jewish
Christians. The law, according to which
the Jews regulated their life, was Divine,
its mediator Moses; and there is a note
of depreciation in the words not that it ts
derived from Moses only from the Fathers
(John vii. 22). πατρο is contrasted with
πατέρα (17) as παραδότου with the direct
calling.

Ver. 19. The blood of Christ, the true
paschal lamb, was the (means or) agent
of your redemption. The type contem-
plated is composite; the lamb is the

yearling sheep (Xt? πρόβατον, but
Targum-Onkelos has “\WS lamb and

στυλ is rendered ἀμνός in Lev. xii. 8;
Num. xv. 11; Deut. xiv. 4) prescribed for
the Passover (Exod. xii. 5). But the des-
cription perfect (τέλειον Dn) is
glossed by Gpopov (cf. Heb. xii. 14),
which is the common translation of
DWM in this connection, and ἁἀσπί-
λου which summarises the description
of sacrificial victims generally (v. Lev.
xxli. 22, etc.). ἅμωμος would be unintel-
ligible to the Gentile, because it has
acquired a peculiar meaning from the

———

15-21.

XU προεγνωσ
ῥωθέντος δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχά

Hebrew DD blemish. ἄσπιλος is used
by Symmachus in Job xv. 15, for 757
Hesychius treats ἄσπιλος. ἅμωμος and
καθαρός as synonyms.—ripiq is set
over against φθαρτοῖς as πολντιµ. against
ἀπολλυμένου; cf. Ps. cxvi. 15, τίμιος
ἐναντίον Κυρίου 6 θάνατος τῶν ὁσίων and
λίθον . . . ἔντιμον (ii. 4).

Ver. 20. As the paschal lamb was
taken on the tenth day of the month
(Exod. xiii. 3) so Christ was foreknown
before the creation and existed before
His manifestation. The preexistence of
Moses is stated in similar terms in As-
sumption of Moses, i. 12-14, “* God created
the world on behalf of His people. But
He was not pleased to manifest this pur-
pose of creation from the foundation of
the world in order that the Gentiles
might thereby be convicted... . Ας-
cordingly He designed and devised me
and He prepared me before the founda-
tion of the world that I should be the
mediator of His Covenant.” So of the
Messiah, Enoch (xlviii. 3, 6) says: ‘‘ His
name was called before the Lord of
spirits before the sun and the signs of
the zodiac were created.... He was
chosen and hidden with God before the
world was created. At the end of time
God will reveal him to the world.” Alex-
andrian Judaism took over from Greek
philosophy (Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle)
the doctrine of the preexistence of all
souls. Soin the Secrets of Enoch (xxiii.
5) it is said ‘‘Every soul was created
eternally before the foundation of the
world”. The author of Wisdom was a
goodly child and obtained a good soul or
vather being good came into a body unde-
filed (Sap. viii. το f.); and Philo found
Scriptural warrant in the first of the two
accounts of Creation (Gen. i. 264). Out-
side Alexandria, apart from the Essenes
(Joseph, B. J., ii. 154-157) the general
doctrine does not appear to have been
accepted. But the belief in the preexist-
ence of the Name of the Messiah if not
the Messiah Himself was not unknown in
Palestine and was latent in many of the
current ideals. The doctrine of Trypho
was probably part of the general reaction
from the position reached by the Jewish
thinkers (Α.Ρ.) and appropriated by the
Christians, There are many hints in the
Ο.Τ. which Christians exploited without
violence and the development of angel-
ology offered great assistance. Current

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

µένου μὲν πρὸ κατα

του τῶν χρόνων δι

δα

βολῆς κόσμου dave 20, 21

ὑμᾶς τοὺς δι αὐτοῦ

conceptions of Angels and Wisdom as
well as of the Messiah all Jed up to this
belief. Apart from the express declara-
tions of Jesus recorded by St. John, it is
clear that St. Peter held to the real and
not merely ideal pre-existence of Christ,
not deriving it from St. Paul or St. John
and Heb. It is no mere corollary of
God’s omniscience that the spirit of
Christ was in the prophets.— poe-
yvwopévon, cf, κατὰ πρόγνωσιν, ver.
2; only here of Messiah, perhaps as a
greater Jeremiah (cf. Jer. i. 5)—but see
the description of Moses cited above.—
πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμον. The
phrase does not occur in LXX but Matt.
xiii. 35 = Ps. Ixxvili. 2 renders O72 a al a)

by ἀπὸ καταβολῆς (LXX am ἀρχῆς)
Philo has καταβολὴ yeveoews and ai
καταβολαὶ σπερµάτων and uses ἐκ κ. =
afresh. In 2 Macc. ii. 29, καταβολή
is used of the foundation of a house; cf.
κατασκευάζειν in Heb.—odavep wb év-
τος, of the past manifestation of Christ.
In v. 1 of the future implies previous
hidden existence, cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16 (quota-
tion of current quasi-creed) ἐφανερώθη ἐν
τῷ κόσµφ. The manifestation consists
in the resurrection and glorification evi-
denced by déscent of spirit (21): cf.
Peter’s sermon in Acts ii., risen, exalted,
Fesus has sent the spirit: therefore let all
the house of Israel know surely that God
hath made Him both Lord and Christ.
St. Paul speaks in the same way of the
revelation of the secret, which ts Christ
in you; see especially Col. i. 25-27.
Compare John i. 14.--ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου
τῶν χρόνων, at the end of the times,
cf. ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν (Heb. i. 1
and LXX). The deliverance effected
certo tempore by Christ's blood is eter-
nally efficacious, cf. αἰώνιον λύτρωσιν
εὑράμενος Heb., ix. 12 and the more
popular statement of the same idea in
Apoc. xiii. 8, the lamb slain from the
foundation of the world.

Ver. 21. δι’ ὑμᾶς, for the sake of
you Gentiles, {.ε., ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ
τῷ θεῷ, iii. 18. The resurrection of Jesus
and His glorification are the basis of
their faith in God and inspire not merely
faith but Ἠορε.--δι αὐτοῦ. Compare
for form Acts iii. 16, ἡ πίστις ἡ Sv αὐτοῦ
and for thought Rom. v. 2; Eph. ii. 18---
πιστοὺς εἰς θεόν. This construc-
tion occurs not infrequently in the Bezan
text and is simply equivalent to π. with

~

52

πιστοὺς } eis OF τὸν ἐ

αὐτῶ
22 OV: τὰς ψυχὰς
as? cis φιλαδελφίαν

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

δόντα: ὥστε τὴν πί
ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες ἐν
ἀνυπόκριτον ' ἐκ Kap

1.

κρῶν καὶ δόξαν
εἶναι εἰς

γείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νε
στιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα
TH ὑπακοῆ τῆς ἀληθεί

δίας ἀἄλληλους

1 For πιστοὺς Codex Sinaiticus and others substitute the participle πιστεύοντας
in order to avoid the unfamiliar construction with the adjective.

2 Manuscripts of secondary importance add διὰ πνεύματος after τῆς ἀληθείας

and (with the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus) καθαρᾶς before καρδίας.

The

latter addition might be regarded as a mistaken emendation of an accidental repeti-
tion of καρδίας; but in the course of transmission such safeguards are commonly

added to Scriptural texts.
after καρδίας.

the Dative (Acts xvi. 15) corresponding
to ' YON). But w. keeping construc-

tion has changed its meaning. Already
it is semi-technical = believing, sc. in
Jesus and here πίστιν . . . εἰς θεόν fol-
lows immediately. So the verb πιστε-
ύοντας is a true gloss; the addition of
eis θεόν corrects the common conception
of faith, which ultimately gave rise to a
distinction between belief in Christ and
belief in ἄοά.- δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα,
so ¢.g., the prophecy (Isa. lii. 13) 6 wats
µου . . . δοξασθήσεται σφόδρα was ful-
filled when the lame man was healed by
St. Peter and St. John; ὃ θεὸς “ABpaap
-. . ἐδόξασεν τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦν
(Acts iii. 13). But the glory is prim-
arily and generally the glorious resurrec-
tion and ascension, in which state Jesus
sent the Holy Spirit (ἠν τὸ πνεῦμα ὅτι
οὕπω ἐδοξάσθη, John).—dore . . .
θεόν. καὶ ἐλπίδα may be part of the
subject of εἶναι εἰς θεόν, so that your
faith and hope are in God, or predicate so
that your faith is also hope in God. In
either case ἐλπίς is rather confidence
than hope, in accordance with LXX usage

(= ΠΤΙ), and supplies an adequate
climax—patient faith leads up to the ap-

propriation of the Hope of Israel.

Vv. 22-25. The combination of puri-
fication of souls with love of the brother-
hood suggests that the temptations to
relapses were due to former intimacies
and relationships which were not over-
come by the spiritual brotherhood which
they entered. Different grades of society
were doubtless represented in all Chris-
tian churches and those who were marked
out for leaders by their wealth and posi-
tion were naturally slow to love the
slaves and outcasts. As at Corinth old
intimacies and congenial society led the
better classes (iv. 3 f.) to fall back on the
clubs to which they had belonged and in

The third hand of Codex Sinaiticus substitutes ἀληθινῆς

the company of their equals to sneer at
their new brothers—‘‘ the brethren ”’
(ii. r). St. Peter reminds them that they
must purify their souls from the taint—
with a side-glance perhaps at the rites
proper to the associations in question.
They must love the brotherhood and its
members as such. Earthly relationships
are done away by their regeneration ; they
have exchanged the flesh for the spirit.
The section is full of echoes; compare
ἡγνικότες with ἅγιοι (15), ἐν ἁγιασμῷ (2),
τῇῃ ὑπακοῇ with τέκνα v. (14), ἄναγε-
γεννηµένοι with ἀναγεννήσας (3), Φθαρτῆς
with Φθαρτοῖς (18), εὐαγγελισθέν with
τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων (12). It should be
compared throughout with Eph. iv. 18-
24.—Tas.. . Ἠγνικότες from Jer. vi. 16,
“ see what is the good way and walk in
it and youshall find purification (ayviopév
LXX) to your souls. a. usually of cere-
monial purification in LXX. Compare
Jas. iv. 8, ayvicate καρδίας δίψυχοι
(cf. ἀνυπόκριτον). The perfect participle
is used as indicating the ground of the
admonition, so ἀναγεγεννημένοι (23).
Pagan rites professed to purify the
worshipper but cannot affect the soul, the
self or the heart any more than the Jewish
ceremonies can (Heb. ix. 9 f.). Scripture
declares 6 φόβος Κυρίου ἁγνός (Ps. xix.
10). They must realise that they have
cleansed themselves ideally at baptism,
cf. 1 John iii. 3 and 15 f. above with con-
text.—év τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἆληθε-
ίας, in your obedience to the truth, cf.
Jer. lic. above. They are no longer igno-
rant (14) but have learned the truth (cf.
John xvii. 17-19, and γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀ.,
John viii. 32) from the missionaries. They -
must persist in the obedience to it which
they then professed, in contrast with
those who are disobedient to the truth
(Rom. ii. 8; cf. 2 Thess. ii. 12). Hortsays:
“St. Peter rather means the dependence
of Christian obedience on the possession

22—25.

ἀγαπή cate ἐκτενῶς dvaye
Φθαρτῆς ἀλλὰ

ToS.”

ἀφθάρτου διὰ λόγου
διότι πᾶσα σὰρξ

Χόρτου ἐξηράνθη ὁ
τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα

ἄνθος
Κυ µένει εἰς τὸν ala

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α
γεννηµένοι οὐκ ἐκ

ὡς χόρτος καὶ πᾶσα
, 7 A ”
Χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος

ων

σπορᾶς 1 23
ζῶντος Θῦ kai µένο

δόξα αὐτῆς ὡς 24
ἐξέπεσεν

να: τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν τὸ

25

1 The three great uncials (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus) put
φθορᾶς for σπορᾶς keeping φθαρτῆς: the variant was probably a paraphrase of
the whole phrase and possibly implied the identification of ἀφθάρτου with ζῶντος

Θεοὺ καὶ µένοντος.

2 The addition of eis τὸν αἰῶνα to µένοντος is due to verse 25.

of the truth,” relying on Eph. iv. 24, and
the probability that ‘‘ St. Peter would have
distinctly used some such language as év
τῷ ὑπακούειν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ”’. In regard to
the latter point it should be observed that
St. Peter is curiously fond of using nouns
instead of verbs (e.g., 2)—ets Φιλαδε-
Ἀφίαν, love of the brethren, Vulgate, tn
fraternitalis amore, mutual love which
exists between brothers. It is the prim-
ary Christian duty, Matt. xxiii. 8, the
first fruits of their profession of which St.
Paul has no need to remind the Thessa-
lonians, | Thess. iv. Ο.--ἀνυπόκρι-
τον, unfeigned, contrasted with the love
which they professed towards their fellow
Christians (cf. ii. 1) which was neither
hearty nor eager. There was pretence
among them whether due to imperfect
sympathy of Jew for Gentile or of wealthy
and honourable Gentiles for those who
were neither the one nor the other. For
a vivid illustration of this feigning see
Jas. ii. 15 f. and ii. 1-5, etc., for the fric-
tion between rich and Ροοτ.--ἀλλήλ-
ους ἀγαπήσατε. St. John’s sum-
mary of the teaching of Jesus (John xiii.
34 f., xv. 12, 17) which he repeated in
extreme old age at Ephesus, till the dis-
ciples were weary of it: ‘‘ Magister quare
semper hoc loqueris”. His answer was
worthy of him: ‘‘Quia praeceptum Do-
mini est et si solum fiat sufficit (Hieron.
in Gal. vi. 1Ο).--ἐκτενῶς, intentius
(Vulg.), in LXX of ‘strong crying to
God” (Jonah iii. 8 = mpi. violently,
cf. Jud. iv.12; Joeli.14; 3 Macc.v.Q: in
Polybius of a warm commendation (xxxi.
22, 12) a warm and friendly welcome (viii.
21, 1), a warm and magnificent reception
(xxxili. 16 4).

Ver. 23. ἀναγεγεννημένοι. So
St. John ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους ὅτι...
mas ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται;
cf. Eph. iv. 17, ν. 2.--ἐκ σπορᾶς
ἀφθάρτον, i.c., of God regarded as

VOL. V. 4

ο

Father and perhaps also as Sower (cf.
νετ. 24); the two conceptions are com-
binedin 1 John iil. 9, was 6 γεγεννηµένος
ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ ὅτι σπέρμα
αὐτοῦ µένει. Compare Philo, Leg. All.,
Ρ. 123 M. Λείαν ... ἐξ οὐδενὸς γεννη-
τοῦ λαμβάνουσαν τὴν σπορὰν . . . add’
ὑπ) αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.- διὰ λόγου...
µένοντος, the connection of ζῶντος κ.
μέν. is doubtful ; the following quotation
might justify the abiding word and Heb.
iv. 22, the living word in accordance
with Deut. xxxii. 47—cf. 3, ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν.
On the other hand the rendering of the
Vulgate, per verbum det vivi et perman-
entis, is supported by Dan. vi. 26 (αὐτὸς
γάρ ἐστιν θεὸς µένων καὶ Lov) and sup-
Ροτίς5 St. Peter’s argument: earthly rela-
tionships must perish with all flesh and
its glory; spiritual kinship abides, be-
cause it is based on the relation of
the kinsfolk to God living and abiding.
For the word of God as the means of
regeneration, cf. Jas. i. 18, βουληθεὶς
ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας. For its
identification with ῥῆμα of the quotation,
cf. Acts x. 36 f.

Ver. 24 f. = Isa. xl. 6-8, adduced as
endorsement of the comparison instituted
between natural generation and divine
regeneration, with gloss explaining the
saying of Jehovah (cf. Heb. i. 1 f.). The
only divergences from the LXX (which
omits—as Jerome notes, perhaps through
homcedeuton—quia spiritus dei flavit in
eo: vere foenum est populus; asuit foe-
num cecidit flos) are that ὡς is inserted
before x. (so Targum), and that αὐτῆς is
put for ἀνθρώπου (so Heb., etc.) and
Κυρίου for τοῦ θεοῦ nee (in accordance
with the proper reading of ¥ehovah in
the omitted verse).

Ver.25. τὸ evayyeAto Bev comes
from 6 εὐαγγελιζόμενος Σειὼν of Isa. x!
g which the Targum explains as referring
to the prophets.

94

II. 1 ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲ
κακίαν καὶ
2 καταλαλιὰς ὥς

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

πάντα δόλον καὶ ὑπό

ος

εἰς ὑμᾶς. ἀποθέμενοι οὖν πᾶσαν
κρισιν καὶ φόνους] k πάσας

ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον

1 φόνους is an error (peculiar to Codex Vaticanus) for φθόνους.

ΟΗΑΡΤΕΚ IJ.—Vy. 1-10. Continuation
of practical atlmonition with appeal to
additional ground-principles illustrating
the thesis of i. το.

Ver.1. Put away then all malice—all
guile and hypocrisy and envy—all back-
biting. οὖν resumes διό (i. 13). The
faults to be put away fall into three
groups, divided by the prefix all, and cor-
respond to the virtues of i. 22 (ὑπόκρισιν
ἀνυπόκριτον). The special connection
of the command with the preceding Scrip-
ture would require the expression of the
latent idea, that such faults as these are
inspired by the prejudices of the natural
man and belong to the fashion of the
world, which is passing away (i. John ii.
17).- ἀποθέμενοι, putting off. Again
participle with imperative force. St. Peter
regards the metaphor of removal as based
on the idea of washing off filth, cf. σαρ-
Kos ἀπόθεσις PU Tov (iti. 21). St. James
(i.21,806 ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπα-
piav καὶ περισσείαν κακίας) which
seems to combine these two phrases and
to deduce the familiarity of the spiritual
sense of filth (cf. Apoc. xxil. 11, ῥυπαρὸς
κἄγιος). St. Paul has the same word
but associates it with the putting off of
clothing (Col. iii. 5 ff.; Eph. iv. 22; Rom.
xiii. 12—all followed by ἐνδύσασθαι).---
κακίαν, probably malice rather than
wickedness. Peter is occupied with their
mutual relations and considering what
hinders brotherly love, not their vices, if
any, as vice is commonly reckoned. So
James associates the removal of κακία
with courtesy ; and St. Paul says let all
bitterness and anger and wrath and
shouting and ill-speaking be removed
from you with all malice (Eph. iv. 31;
cf. Col. iii. 8). κ. is generally eagerness
to hurt one’s neighbour (Suidas)—the
feeling which prompts backbitings and
may be subdivided into guile, hypocrisy,
and envy.—86Xov, Guile was character-
istic of Jacob, the eponymous hero of the
Jews, but not part of the true Israelite

ἴδε ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλίτης ἐν ᾧ δόλος οὐκ
ἔστιν John i. 47). It was also rife
among the Greeks (μεστοὺς . . . δόλον,
Rom. i. 29) as the Western world has
judged from experience (Greek and grec
= cardsharper ; compare characters of
Odysseus and Hermes). 8. is here con-

trasted with obedience to the truth (i. 22),
Vii. 22, ili, 10.—tméxpiow is best ex-
plained by the saying Isaiah prophesied
about you hypocrites. This people
honours me with their lips but their heart
is far away from me (Mark vii. 6f. = Isa.

It stands for IN profane,

impure in Symmachus’ version of Ps.
XXXV. 16: SO ὑποκριτὴῆς in LXX of Job
(xxxiv. 30, xxxvi. 13), and Aquila (Prov.
xi. Ο), etc. In 2 Macc. vi. 25, v is used of
(unreal ?—not secret) apostasy perhaps
in accordance with the earlier sense of

‘Fy, which only in post-Biblical Hebrew
and Aramaic = hypocrisy. In His re-
peated denunciations of the hypocrites
Jesus repeated the Pharisees description
of the Sadducees that live in hypocrisy
with the saints (Ps. Sol. iv. 7). Polybius
has v. in the classical sense of oratorical
delivery, and once contrasted with the
purpose of speakers (xxxv. 2, 13).—
καταλαλιάς, detractiones (Vulgate),
of external slanders in ii. 12, ili. 11. For
internal calumnies, cf. Jas. iv. 11; 2 Cor.
xii. 20 illustrates one special case, for
φυσιώσεις καᾳταλαλιαὶ correspond to eis
ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ
ἑτέρου of 1 Cor. iv. 6 (cf. i. 12).

Ver. 2. ws, inasmuch as you are new-
born babes; cf. ἀναγεγεννημένοι (i. 23).
The development of the metaphor rests
upon the saying, unless ye be turned and
become as the children (ὡς τὰ παιδία)
ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven (Matt. xviii. 3).--βρέφη (only
here in metaphorical sense) is substituted
for παιδία (preserved by St. Paulin τ Cor.
xiv. 20) as= babes at the breast. A παιδίον
might have lost its traditional innocence
but not a βρέφος (= either child unborn
as Luke i. 41, or suckling in classical
Greek). For the origin of the metaphor,
which appears also in the saying of
R. Jose, ‘‘the proselyte is a child just
born,” compare Isa. xxviii. ο, Whom
will he teach knowledge? ... Them
that are weaned from the milk and
drawn from the breasts, which the Tar-
gum renders, To whom was the law
given? . Was it not to the house of
Israel whith is beloved beyond all peoples ?
—td... γάλα. The quotation of
ver. 3 suggests that the milk is Christ;

xxix. 13).

I—5.

> , o >
λα ἐπιποθήσατε ἵνα ἐν αὖτ

γά
εἰ ἐγεύσα σθε ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ KS
λίθον Lavra ὑπ a
Θῶ ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντει μον’ κα

µεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

@ αὐξηθῆτε] eis

θρώπων μὲν ἆποδε
ὶ

αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι
εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον

55

σωτηρίαν 3, 4
πρὸς ὃν προσερχόµε vor
δὲ

ζῶντες οἴκοδο- 5

δοκιµασμένον παρὰ

ἀνενέγκαι

1 The variant ἀξιωθγτε for αὐξηθίτε illustrates the possibilities of variation and
consequently of emendation: at the same time it directs attention to the omni-
potence of God and the relative impotence of man.

compare St. Paul’s explanation of the
tradition of the Rock which followed the
Israelites in the desert (1 Cor. x. 4) and
the living water of John iv. 14. Milk
is the proper food for babes; compare
Isa. lv. 1, buy ... milk (LXX, στέαρ)
without money (cf. i. 18). This milk is
guileless (cf. δόλον of ver. 1) pure or un-
adulterated (cf. μηδὲ δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον
τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor. iv. 2). The interpreta-
tion of λογικόν (pertaining to λόγος) is
doubtful. But the use of Adyos just
above (i. 23) probably indicates the sense
which St. Peter put upon the adjective he
borrowed (?) from Rom. xii. I, τὴν
λογικὴν λατρείαν. There and elsewhere
λ. = rationabilis, spiritual ; here belong-
ing to contained in the Word of God,
delivered by prophet or by evangelist.
St. Paul in his use of A. and of the meta-
phor of milk (solid food, 1 Cor. iii. 1 ff.)
follows Philo and the Stoics.—tva...
σωτηρίαν, that fed thereon ye may
grow up (cf. Eph. iv. 14 f.) unto salvation ;
cf. Jas. i. 21, “‘ receive the ingrafted word
which is able to save your souls”’.

Ver. 3. St. Peter adopts the language
of Ps. xxxiv. 9, omitting καὶ ἔδετε as inap-
propriate to γάλα. χρηστός (identical in
sound with χριστός) = dulcts (Vulg.) or
kind (cf. χρηστότης θεοῦ, Rom. ii. 4, xi.
22). Compare Heb. vi. 4 f. γευσαµέγους
τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου ... καὶ
καλὸν γευσαμµένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα.

Vv. 4-10. Passages of scripture prov-
ing that Christ is called stone are first
utilised, then quoted, and finally ex-
pounded. The transition from milk to
the stone may be explained by the pro-
phecy the hills shall flow with milk (Joel
iii. 18), as the stone becomes a mountain
according to Dan. ili. 21 f.; or by the
legend to which St. Paul refers (1 Cor. x.
4); compare also ποτίσαι of Isa. xliii. 20,
which is used in ver. 9. This collection
of texts can be traced back through Rom.
ix. 32 f. to its origin in the saying of
Mark xii. το f.; Cyprian (Test. ii. 16 f.)
gives a still richer form.

Ver. 4. πρὸς ὃν προσερχ. from

Ps. xxxiv. 6, προσελθόντες πρὸς αὐτὸν
(Heb. and Targum, they looked unto
Him ; Syriac, look ye...). Cyprian
uses Isa, ii. 2 f.; Ps. xxiii. 3 f. to prove
that the stone becomes a mountain to
which the Gentiles come and the just
Ώδοεπά.---λίθον ζῶντα, a paradox
which has no obvious precedent in O.T.
Gen. xlix. 24 speaks of the Shepherd the
stone of Israel, but Onkelos and LXX

substitute πο thy father for jas

stone. The Targum of Isa. viii. 14, how-
ever, has SP jas a striking stone, for
PAIN which might be taken as meaning

veviving or living stone, if connected
with the foregoing instead of the follow-
ing words. The LXX supports this con-
nection and secures a good sense by in-
serting a negative; the Targum gives
a bad sense throughout. wm...
ἔντιμον, though by men rejected, yet
in God's sight elect precious. ἀποδεδοκ.
comes from Ps. cxvili. 22 (see ver. 7);
ἐκλ. ἐντ. from Isa. xxviii. 6 (see νετ. 6).
ἀνθρώπων is probably due to Rabbinic

exegesis “read not 05993) builders but

DIN 1} sons of men”. St. Peter insists
upon the contrast between God’s judg-
ment and man’s in the sermon of Acts ii.

Ver. 5. Fulfilment of the saying,

_ Destroy this temple and in three days

I will raise it (John ii. το). Christians
live to God through Jesus Christ (Rom.
vi. 11). For this development of the
figure of μήν cf. especially Eph. ii.
20 Π.-- οἰκοδομεῖσθε, indicative
rather than imperative. ‘‘ It isremarkable
that St. Peter habitually uses the aorist
for his imperatives, even when we might
expect the present; the only exceptions
(two or three) are preceded by words re-
moving all ambiguity, ii. 11, 17, iv. 12 f.”
(Hort)—otkos .. .ἅγιον, aspiritual
house for an holy priesthood. ‘The con-
nection with priesthood (Heb. x. 21) and
the offering of sacrifices points to the
special sense of the House of God, {.ε..

56

6 mveupate
περιέχει ἐν γραφῆ
άκρο ἍὙωνιαῖον ἔντειμον

7 καταισχυν
στοῦσιν 1 δὲ λίθος ὃν a
ἐ γενήθη cis κεφαλὴν

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

Kas θυσίας εὐπροσδέ
ἰδοὺ τίθηµι ἐν Σειὼν

θη: ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ τειμὴ
πεδοκίµασαν οἱ οἶκο

, 1 4
γωνίας καὶ λίθος προσ

πε

κτους Θῶ διὰ Ι8 XT δι ότι

λίθον ἐκλεκτὸν

A c , yes ° na > 9

καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ av τῶ οὐ μὴ
τοῖς πιστεύουσιν: ἄπι

δομοῦντες οὗτος

A

κόμματος καὶ

1 For ἀπιστοῦσιν Codex Alexandrinus, with others, reads ἀπειθοῦσιν.

the Temple;'{cf. (iv. 17; 1 Tim. iii. 5)
ναὸς ὅς ἐστε tpets, 1 Cor. iii. 16; Eph.
ii. 21. So Heb. iii. 5 f., οὗ (Χριστοῦ)
οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς .. —lepatevpa,
body of priests, in Exod. xix. 6 (Heb.
priests) xxiii. 22; 2 Mace. ii. 17; cf. 9
infra. Here Hort prefers the equally legi-
timate sense, act of priesthood. Usage
supports the first and only possible ety-
mology the second. The ideal of a
national priesthood is realised, Isa. 1xi. 6.
--ἀνενέγκαι . . . Χριστοῦ. to
offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to
God through Fesus Christ—8 ra Ἰησοῦ
Χ. is better taken with av. than εὐπροσδ.;
cf. Heb. xiii. 15, 8° αὐτοῦ, where the
thankoffering is singled out as the fit
type of the Christian sacrifice. Spiritual
sacrifices are in their nature acceptable to
God (John iv. 23) and Christians are en-
abled to offer them through Jesus Christ.
ἀναφέρειν in this sense is peculiar to
LXX, Jas. and Heb.

Ver. 6. περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ, {ΐ
is contained in Scripture. The formula
occurs in Josephus (Ant. xi. 7, βούλομαι
γενέσθαι πάντα καθὼς ἐν [τῇ ἐπιστολῇ|
περιέχει) and is chosen for its compre-
hensiveness.—m €pté yeu is intransitive
as the simple verb and other compounds
often are; cf. περιοχή, contents, Acts viii.
32.—y pad q, being a technical term, has
πο ατεῖο]ε.-“ἰδοὺ...καταισχυνθῇ,
formal quotation of Isa. xxviii. 16, preced-
ing quotation from Psalms, as prophets
always precede the writings. The LXX
has ἰδοὺ ἐμβάλλω ἐγὼ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια
(unique expansion of normal θεμελιῶ =
“1D of Heb., cf. eis τὰ 6. below ; Targum,

S57) I will appoint) Σειὼν λίθον πολυ-
τελῆ (π. duplicate of ἔντιμον; Heb., a
stone a stone; Targum, a king a king ;
pointing to Jewish Messianic interpreta-
tion) ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρ. ἔντ. eis τὰ θεμέλια
αὐτῆς (a foundation a foundation, Heb.)
καὶ 6 πιστεύων (+ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ΝΑ) οὐ μὴ
καταισχυνθῇ (= aya for (wor of
Heb. = shall not make haste; Targum,
when tribulation come shall not be moved).

The chief difference is that St. Peter
omits all reference to the foundation,
and substitutes τίθηµι; LXX is conflate,
ἐμβάλλω eis being the original reading
and τὰ θεµ. added by some purist to pre-
serve the meaning of the Hebrew root.
This omission may be due to the fact that
Christians emphasised the idea that the
stone was a corner stone binding the two
wings of the Church together (Eph. ii. 20)
and regarded this as inconsistent with
εἰς κεφ.

Ver. 7 f. Thesecond quotation is con-
nected with the first by means of the
parenthetic interpretation: The “ pre-
cious ”-ness of the stone is for you who.
believe but for the unbelievers it is...
‘‘q stone of stumbling”. Itis a stereo-
typed conflation of Ps. cxviii. 22 and Isa.
viii. 14, which are so firmly cemented
together that the whole is cited here
where only the latter part is in point.
The same idea of the two-fold aspect of
Christ occurs in St. Paul more than
once; 6.6., Christ crucified to Fews a
stumbling-block . . . but to you who be-
lieve . . . 1 Cor.i. 23. The problem in-
volved is discussed by Origen who ad-
duces the different effects of the sun’s
light—% τιµή, the τιµή involved in the
use of the adjective ἔντιμον., or rather

Heb. mam? underlying it. The play

on the peculiar sense thus required does
not exclude the ordinary meaning honour
(for which cf. 1. 7; Rom. ii. ΤΟ).--λίθος
dv... γωνίας-- Ps. l.c: (LXX)—the
prophetic statement in scriptural phrase
of the fact of their unbelief. The idea
may be that the raising of the stone to be
head of the corner makes it a stumbling-
block but in any case λίθος . . . σκα-
νδάλου is needed to explain this._AtBbos
προσκόµµατοςκ. π. σκ. from Isa.
viii. 14 ; LXX paraphrases the original,
which St. Peter’s manual Ῥτεδεινες,
reading καὶ οὐχ ὡς λίθῳ προσκόµµατι
συναντήσεσθε οὐδὲ ὡς πετρας πτώμ-
ατι (common confusion of construct. with
Gen.).— ot... ἀπειθοῦντες, des-

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

6---ο. 57
πέτρα σκανδάλου ot προσκό = Trova TH λόγω ἀπι στοῦντες ὃ
εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέ Onoav:! ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτὸν βασίλειον 9

ε , ” εφ a
ἱεράτευμα ἔθνος ἅγιο

ἐξαγ Ἁγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους

λαὸς els περιποίησιν "
ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς

ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς
τὸ

1 Τη view of “the argument which is intended to carry one back to the opening
of the prophetic passage,” Dr. Rendel Harris (Side-Lights on New Testament
Research, pp. 209 f.) proposes to substitute ἐτέθη for ἐτέθησαν.

cription of the unbelieving in terms of
the last quotation, who stumble at the
word being disobedient. τῷ λόγῳ is pro-
bably to be taken with πρ. or both πρ.
and 4. in spite of the stone being identi-
fied with the Lord. Stumbling at the
word is an expression used by Jesus
(Mark iv. 17, διὰ τὸν λόγον σκανδαλί-
ἵονται; Matt. xv. 12, ἀκούσαντες τὸν
λόγον ἐσκανδαλίσθησαν; John vi. 6ο,
τοῦτο--ὁ λόγος οὗτος--ὑμᾶς σκανδα-
λίζει). For a. cf.iv. 17, τῶν ἀπειθούντων
τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ.--εἰς ὃ καὶ
ἐτέθησαν, whereunto also (actually)
they were appointed. ἐτέθησαν comes
from τίθηµι (6); stone and stumbler
alike were appointed by God to fulfil
their functions in His Purpose. For the
sake of the unlearned he only implies and
does not assert in so many words that
God appointed them to stumble and
disobey; but his view is that of St. Paul
(see Rom. ix., xi., especially ix. 17, 22);
cf. Luke ii. 34. Didymus distinguishes
between their voluntary unbelief and
their appointed fall. If any are tempted
to adopt such ingenious evasions of
the plain sense it is well to recall the
words of Origen: ‘‘If in the reading of
scripture you stumble at what is really a
noble thought, the stone of stumbling
and rock of offence, blame yourself. You
must not despair of this stone . . . con-
taining hidden thoughts so that the say-
ing may come to pass, And the believer
shall not be shamed. Believe first of all
and you will find beneath this reputed
stumbling-block much holy profit (in Jer.
xliv. (li.) 22, Hom. xxxix. = Philocalia x.).

Vv.gf. The Church, God’s new people,
has all the privileges which belonged to
the Jews. In enumerating them he draws
upon a current conflation of Isa. xliii.
20 f., ποτίσαι τὸ yévos µου το ἐκλεκτὸν
(1) λαόν µου dv περιεποιησάµην (4) τὰς
ἀρετάς µου διηγεῖσθαι with Exod. xix.
65, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθέ por βασίλειον ἵερά-
τευµα (2) καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον (3) ἔσεσθέ por
λαὸς περιούσιος (4) ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν
ἐθνῶν (1); and Ps. cvii. 14, καὶ ἐξήγαγεν
αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐκ σκιᾶς θανάτου . . . ἐξομο-

λογησάσθων τῷ κυρίῳ τὰ ἐλέη αὐτοῦ καὶ
τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ τοῖς viois τῶν ἀνθ-
pwmwv—to which is appended Hos. i.
6, 8.—yévos ἐκλεκτόν, Isa. lc, LXX
(Heb., my people my chosen); yévos, race
implies that all the individual members
of it have a common Father (God) and
are therefore brethren (cf. viol γένους
‘ABpadp, Acts xiii. 26); cf i, 1, 6.—
βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, a royal
priesthood, from Exod. l.c. LXX (Heb., a
kingdom of priests = Apoc. i. 6, βασιλείαν
iepets). Christians share Christ’s prero-
gatives. The priesthood is the chief point
(see ii. 5) it is royal. Clement of Alex-
andria says: ‘“‘Since we have been sum-
moned to the kingdom and are anointed
(sc. as Kings)”. ‘The comparison of Mel-
chizedek with Christ perhaps underlies
the appropriation of the Εῑιε.--ἔθνος
ἅγιον, to the Jew familiar, with the use
of ἔθνη for Gentiles, as much a paradox
as Christ crucified. But λαός, the com-

mon rendering of O37 in this connexion
is wanted below, and St. Peter is content
to follow his authority.—Aads εἰς
περιποίησιν, a people for possession

= στης o The source of the Greek
phrase is Mal. iii. 17, but the Hebrew
title variously rendered occurs in the two
great passages drawn upon. Deut. (vii.
6, etc.) has λαὸς περιούσιος which is
adopted by St. Paul (Tit. ii. 14); but the
phrase εἰς π. is well established in the
Christian vocabulary, Heb. x. 39 ; 1 Thess.
v. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 14, and the whole title
is apparently abbreviated to περιποίησις
in Eph. i. 14.-- ὅπως... ἐξαγγε-
ίλητε, from Isa.l.c. + Ps. l.c., the latter
containing the matter of the following
designation ot God. In Isa. tas ape-

τάς pov stands for snosn my praise ;
and this sense reappears in Esther xiv.
10. ἀνοῖξαι στόµα ἐθνῶν cis ἀρετάς
µαταίων, the praises of idols. Else-
where it stands for "Τὸ glory (Hab.
iii, 3; Zach. vi. 13). in the books of
Maccabees (especially the fourth) it has
its ordinary sense of virtue, which cannot

~

1Οθαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ

11 οὐκ ἡ
ὡς παροίκους

12 ἐπιθυμιῶν αἵτινες
στροφὴν 2 ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

φῶς: ot tote οὐ λαὸς
λεημένοι νῦν δὲ ἐλε
καὶ παρεπιδήµους ἀπέ

στρατεύονται κατὰ
ἔθνεσιν καλὴν ἵνα

Il,
viv δὲ λαὸς OF οἱ
ἀγαπητο παρακαλῶ
χεσθαι 1 τῶν σαρκικῶ
τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν ava

ἐν ® καταλαλοῦσιν

ηθέντες.

1Ἐοι ἀπέχεσθαι Codex Alexandrinus and others read ἀπέχεσθε: ε and αι are

interchangeable in the manuscripts.

2 Codex Vaticanus omits ἔχοντες, which is formally required to govern ἄναστρο-

φὴν.

be excluded altogether here. The whole
clause is in fact the pivot on which the
Epistle turns. Hitherto Peter has ad-
dressed himself to the Christians and
their mutual relations, now he turns to
consider their relations to the outside
world (i. 11 f.). In 2 Peter i. 3, &. corre-
sponds to θεία Svvapis, a sense which
might be supported by Ps. l.c. (for dis-
cussion of other—very uncertain — evi-
dence see Deissmann, Bible Studzes, pp.
95 ff., 362) and the events of Pentecost
(see especially Acts ii. 11).- τοῦ...
φῶς is derived from Ps. l.c.; the natural
antithesis light is readily supplied (cf.
Eph. v. 8, 14) ; darkness = heathenism in
cf. το. /

Ver. το, from Hosea i. 6, ii. 1(3); of.
Rom. ix. 25 (has καλέσω κάλεσον of
Hos.); the terms are so familiar that
µου is omitted by Peter as unnecessary
(cf. γένος é«. for τὸ y. pov ἐ.).

Vv. 11 f. indicate generally the subject
to be discussed. Beloved I exhort you
to abstain from the lusts of the flesh, be-
cause they wage war against the soul.
Slanders and even torments can only
affect the body. But the lusts natural
or acquired which you have renounced
may hinder your salvation, as they have
already impeded your mutual love. For
the sake of your old friends and kinsfolk
refuse to yield to their solicitations. If
rebuffed they resort to persecution of
whatever kind, remember that it is only a
passing episode of your brief exile. Let
your conduct give them no excuse for
reproach; so may they recognise God’s
power manifest not on your lips but in
your lives.—a yam Tol, not an empty
tormulz but explanation of the writer’s
motive. He set before them the great
commandment and now adds to it as
Jesus did, Love one another as I have
loved you, John xiii. 34.- ὡς π. καὶ
παρεπιδήµους with amex. (motive
for abstinence in emphatic position) rather
than παρακαλῶ (as νουθετεῖτε ὡς ἀδελφόν,
2 Thess. iii. 15—the motive of exhorta-

If ἀπέχεσθαι represents the infinitive, ἔχοντας would be more grammatical.

tion is here expressed by ay.) echoes
παρεπιδήµοις of i. 1 and παροικίας of
i. 17. The combination (= ΙΓ] ηλ)
occurs twice in LXX (Gen. xxxiii. 4; Ps.
χχχιχ. 13). Christians are in the world,
not of the world.—amwéyeoO@at, cf.
Plato, Phaedo, 82 C, true philosophers,
ἀπέχονται τῶν κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἐπιθυμιῶν
ἁπάσωγ-- ποῖ for fear of poverty, like the
vulgar, nor for fear of disgrace, like the
ambitious, but because cnly so can he,
departing in perfect purity, come to the
company of the gods”.—t@v σαρκι-
κῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, the lusts of the flesh.
St. Peter borrows St. Paul’s phrase, ἡμεῖς
πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπι-
θυµίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ
θελήµατα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν
(Eph. i. 3), but uses it in his own way
in a sense as wide as τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐ.
(Tit. i. 12). For the flesh is the earthly
life (cf. Col. iii. 5) the transitory mode of
existence of the soul which is by such
abstinence to be preserved (i. 9).—
αἵτινες ... ψυχῆς, because they
are campaigning against the soul. —
στρατεύονται (cf. iv. rf., for mili-
tary metaphor) perhaps derived from Rom.
vii. 23, “I perceive a different law in my
members warring against (άντιστρατε-
υόµενον) the law of my mind;” cf. Jas.
iv. I, the pleasures which war in your
members, and 4 Macc. ix. 23, ἱερὰν καὶ
εὐγενῆ στρατείαν στρατεύσασθε περὶ τῆς
εὐσεβείας.- κατὰ τῆς ψΨυχῆς. The
lusts of this earthly life are the real
enemy for they affect the soul. Compare
Matt. x. 28, which may refer to the Devil
and not to God, and the Pauline parallel,
ἡ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος
- +. ταῦτα yap ἀλλήλοις ἀντικεῖται
(Gal. ν. 17).

Ver. 12. Adaptation of the saying,
ὅπως wow ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ
δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς (Matt. ν. 16). The good be-
haviour on which the resolved ἀναστρέ-
Φεσθαι permits stress to be laid is the

1ο---15.

6 μῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν
δοξά σωσι τὸν OV ἐν ἡμέρα
πάση ἀνθρωπί

νη κτίσει

ὑπε µῥρέχοντι εἴτε ἡγεμό
ἐκδίκη giv κακοποιῶν ἔπαι
ἐστὶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ Θῦ ἆγαθο

fruit of the abstinence of ver. 11; cf.
Heb. xiii. 8; Jas. iii. 13. This second
admonition is disjointed formally—against
formal grammar—from the first; cf. Eph.
ποσα παρακαλῶ oo + ὑμᾶς . . « ἄνε-
χόμενοι.--ἐντοῖς ἔθνεσιν, the people
of God (ii. ϱ) is a correlative term and
implies the existence of the nations, who
are ignorant and disobedient. The situa-
tion of the Churches addressed justifies
the use of Dispersion ini. 1. But the point
of the words here is this: you—the new
Israel must succeed where the old failed,
as it is written my name is blasphemed
ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν on your account (Isa. lii.
5; LXX, cited Rom. ii. 24)—tva...
ἐπισκοπῆς, in order that as a result
of your good works they may be initiated
into your secrets and come to glorify God
_in respect to your conduct when He at last
visits the world, though now they calum-
niate you as evildoers in this matter.—
ἐν ᾧ in the case of the thing in which,
{.ε., your behaviour generally ; cf. ii. 16,
iv. 4, and for δοξ. τὸν θεὸν ἐν, iv. 11, 16.
--καταλαλοῦσιν ὡς κ. Particular
accusations are given in iv. 15. This
popular estimate of Christians is reflected
in Suetonius’ statement: Adflicti suppli-
ciis Christiani, genus hominium super-
stitionis novae et maleficae (Ner. 16).—
ἐποπτεύοντες takes Acc. in iii. 2 (over-
look, behold, as in Symmachus’ version of
Ps, Χ. τό, xxxili. 13); but here the avail-
abie objects are either appropriated (θεόν
with 808.) or far off (ἀναστροφήν). It will
therefore have its ordinary sense of become
ἐπόπτης, be initiated. The Chris-
tians were from the point of view of their
former friends members of a secret asso-
ciation, initiates of a new mystery, the
secrecy of which gave rise to slanders
such as later Christians brought against
the older mysteries and the Jews. St.
Peter hopes that, if the behaviour of
Christians corresponds to their profession,
their neighbours will become initiated into
their open secrets (for as St. Paul insists
this hidden mystery has now been re-
vealed and published).—8o0fadqcwotrv
τὸν θεόν, come to glorify God—like
the centurion, who said of the crucified
Jesus, Truly this was the Son of God

TIETPOY A

ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων
ἐπισκοπῆς.
διὰ τὸν Κύ
ε 3 3
ow ὡς δι’ αὐτοῦ wep
νον δὲ ἀγαθοποιῶν -

59

ἐποπτεύοντες
γητε 13

ὡς

ὑποτά
βασιλεῖ

ποµένοις εἰς 14

”
ειτε

ὅτι οὕτως 15
ποιοῦντας Φφειμοῦ. τὴν

(Mark xv. 39)—1i.e., recognise the finger
of God either in the behaviour of the
Christians or in the whole economy (see
Rom. xi.).—év ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς,
from Isa. x. 3, What will ye do—ye the
oppressors of the poor of my people—in

day of visitation (App DD) i.e. (Tar-

gum), when your sins are visited upon
you. But St. Peter looks for the repent-
ance of the heathen at the last visitation
(cf. iv. 6), though the prophet found no
escape for his own contemporaries. Com-
pare Luke xix. 44.

Vv. 13-17. The duty of the Christian
towards the State; compare Rom. xiii.
1-7.--πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει,
every human institution, including rulers
(14), masters (18), and husbands (iii. 1).
κτίζειν is used ordinarily in many senses,
e.g., of peopling a country, of founding a
city, of setting up games, feasts, altar,
etc. In Biblical Greek and its descend-
ants it is appropriated to creation. Here
κτίσις is apparently selected as the most
comprehensive word available; and the
acquired connotation—creation by God—
is ruled out by the adjective ἀνθρωπίνῃ.
It thus refers to all human institutions
which man set up with the object of
maintaining the world which God created.
--διὰ τὸν κύριον, for the sake of the
Lord. διά may be (1) retrospective—
i.e., because Jesus said, Render what is
Czesar’s to Cesar or, generally, because
God is the source of all duly-constituted
authority; oy (ii.) prospective for the sake
of Fesus (Fehovah); your loyalty re-
dounding to the credit of your Master in
heaven.—Bagthet, the Roman Em-
peror, asin Apoc. xvii. 9, etc.; Josephus
B.J., ν. 136, v. infra.—iwe ρέχο ντι,
pre-eminent, supreme, absolute, as in Sap.
vi. 5, where τοῖς ὑπερέχουσιν corresponds’
to those who are underlings of His Sove-
reignty (4), to whom power was given
from the Lord (3); cf. δι’ αὐτοῦ below.—
ἡγεμόσιν, properly Governors of pro-
vinces, but Plutarch uses the singular =
Imperator. Peter rather follows the con-
ventional rendering of the saying of Jesus,
ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνων καὶ βασιλέων σταθήσεσθε,
interpreted in the light ot popular usage

60 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A . II.

16 τῶν ἀφρόνων
ὡς ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχο
17 00 δοῦλοι πάντας τιµή
18 τὸν Ov do
τασσόµενοι ἐν παντὶ
10 ἀγαθοῖς

(cf. Luke xxi. 12) or of Jet. xxxix. 3, ἢγε-
poves βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος. Contrast
vague general term, ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχ' ὡς
- - » which St. Paul employed before his
visit to Ἐοπε.- πεμπ., as being sent
through the Emperor. διά implies that
the governors are sent by God acting
through the Emperor; so Rom. xiii. 1-7
(cf. Sap. vi. 3) and John xix. 11, et μὴ Fv
δεδοµένον σοι avwlev.—eis ἐκδίκησιν,
κ.τ.λ. The ruler executes God’s ven-
geance (Rom. xii. 19) and voices God’s
approval (Ps. xxii. 25, παρὰ σοῦ 6 ἔπαινός
pov). The former function of governors
has naturally become prominent, the latter
is exemplified in the crowns, decrees and
panegyrics with which the Greek and
Jewish States rewarded their benefactors
if not mere well-doers.—ottTws...
since this is so (referring to 13 f.) God's
will is that ... (cf. Matt. xviii. 14,
οὕτως οὐκ ἔστιν θέλημα where οὕτως
refers to the preceding parable) rather
than God’s will is thus namely that
... or... well-doing thus. Since
God has set up governors who express
His approval of well-doers, you as well-
doers will receive official praise and thus
be enabled to silence the slanderers.
St. Peter is thinking of the verdict pro-
nounced in the case of St. Paul and of
Jesus ΠἰπιθεΗ.--ϕφιμοῦν, (1) muzzle (1
Cor. ix. 9), (2) stlence as Jesus did (Matt.
xxii. 34, ἐφίμωσεν τοὺς Σαδδουκαίους).
--τὴν ἀγνωσίαν, ατατεννοτά-- ρετπαρς
borrowed from Job xxxv. 16, ἐν ἀγνωσίᾳ
ῥήματα βαρύνει, He multiplieth words
without knowledge. In 1 Cor. xv. 34,
ἀγνωσίαν yap θεοῦ τινες ἔχουσιν, it is
derived from Sap. xiii. 1, οἷς παρῆν θεοῦ
ἀγνωσία. It is the opposite of γνῶσις
(ἀγνωσίας τε καὶ γνώσεως, Plato, Soph.,
267 B) cf. ἄγνοια, of Jews who crucified
Jesus, Acts iii. 17.- τῶν Adpdvev =
the foolish men who calumniate you (12).
&. is very common in the Wisdom litera-
ture (especially Proverbs); as used by
Our Lord (Luke xi. 40) and St. Paul (2 Cor.
xi.); it implies lack of insight, a point of
view determined by external appearances.

Ver. 16. ὡς ἐλεύθεροι, the con-
trast with τῆς κακίας supports the
connection of é. in thought with ἄγαθο-

> , 3 ΄-
ἀνθρώπων ἀγνωσία -

τες τῆς κακίας τὴν

βεῖσθε, τὸν βασιλέα τει
/ “a /

$6Bw τοῖς δεσπόταις,
A. 5 , > \ Ν

καὶ ἐπιεικέσι ἀλλὰ καὶ

ὡς ἐλεύθεροι καὶ μὴ
ἐλευθερίαν ἀλλ᾽ ὡς

gate: τὴν ἀδελφότη Ta ἀγαπᾶτε

pate. ot οἰκέται ὕπο

οὐ µόνον τοῖς

τοῖς σκολιοῖς. τοῦτο

ποιοῦντας, Which explains the nature of
the self-subjection required. Christians
are free (Matt. xvii. 26 f. g.v.; John viii.
36; Gal. ii. 4) and therefore must sub-
mit to authority. Peter generalises sum-
marily St. Paul’s argument in Gal. v. 13,
which refers to internal relations.—k at
μὴ... EXevOeplay, and not having
your freedom as a cloak of your malice.
For ἐπ. cf. Menander (apud Stobaeum
Florileg.) πλοῦτος δὲ πολλῶν ἐπικάλυμμ᾽
ἐστιν κακῶν. The verb is used in Ps.

cited Rom. iv. 7 = "\9)5; and this sense
may perhaps be contemplated here ; early
Christians regarded their freedom as con-
stituting a propitiation for future as for
past sins.

Ver. 17. Sweeping clause based partly
on Rom. xiii. 7 f. (cf. Matt. xxii. 21),
partly on Prov. xxiv. 21, φοβοῦ τὸν θεὸν
υἱὲ καὶ βασιλέα καὶ µηθετέρῳ αὐτῶν
ἀπειθήσῃς.- πάντας τιµήσατε.
The aorist imperative is used because the
present would be ambiguous; cf. ἀπό-
Sore, Rom. ζ.ο., and for matter, Rom. xii.
το, TH Tipp ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι,
since πάντας covers both the brotherhood
and the emperor.—ot οἰκέται, voca-
tive; the word is chosen as being milder
than δοῦλος and also as suggesting the
parallel between slaves and Christians
who are God’s household (ii. 5)-—¥ a o-
τασσόµενοι has force of imperative
resuming ὑποτάγητε or goes with τιµ-
ήσατε (17) as being a particular applica-
tion of that general principle-—rots
δεσπόταις, to your masters, not ex-
cluding God, the Master of all, as is indi-
cated by the insertion of i all fear (cf.
17, etc.) and τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν
(cf. Ps. Ixxxvi. 4, σὺ κύριος χρηστὸς καὶ
ἐπιεικής).--τοῖς σκολιοῖς, the βεγ-
verse, cf. Phil. ii. 15, ἵνα γένησθε.. .
τέκνα θεοῦ ἅμωμα µέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς
καὶ διεστραµµένης, where the full phrase
is cited from Deut. xxxii. 5 (ox. = wy):

The Vulgate has dyscolis = δυσκόλοις;
Hesychius, σκολιός. ἄδικος; Prov. xxviii.
18, 6 σκολιαῖς ὁδοῖς πορευόµενος x. 6
πορευόµενος δικαίως.

Vv. 19 f. Summary application of the
teaching of Jesus recorded in Luke vi. 27-

———

16—23.

γὰρ Χάρις εἰ διὰ συνίδη
ἀδίκως.
1

ποῖον γὰρ κλέος εἰ ἆ

µενοι ' ὕπομε

ὑπομενεῖτε, τοῦ TO χάρις παρὰ OD.

>

OTL kat Xs ἔπαθεν ὅ
pov ἵνα ἐπακολουθή

ς Le > > 4 2Q 8

ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ

αὐτοῦ ὃς λἎοι δορούµενος οὐκ ἂν

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

aw Θῦ ὑποφέρει τις
µαρτάνοντες καὶ κο
νεῖτε; GAN’ εἰ ἄγαθοποι

εἰς
πὲρ ὑμῶν ὑμῖν bio

61

λύπας πάσχων

λαφιζό- 29
οῦντες καὶ πάσχον TES
τοῦτο γὰρ ἐκλήθητε 21

λιμπάνων ὑπογραμ

σηται τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ: ὃς 22
εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῶ στόµατι
τελοιδόρει πάσχων οὐκ 23

1 The third corrector of Codex Sinaiticus puts κολαζόµενοι for κολαφιζόμενοι with

the assent of some cursives.

Such variations may be due to careless copying or

they may result from erroneous expansion and interpretation of abbreviations.

36 = Matt. v. 30-48δ.- χάρις seems to
‘be an abbreviation of the Ο.Τ. idiom {ο

Jind favour Qn) with God—cf. Χάρις
παρὰ θεῷ (20)—taken from St. Luke’s ver-
sion of the saying, εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς aya-
πῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἔστιν (vi.
332). --- Compare χάριτας = psn that

which is acceptable in Prov. x. 32.--διὰ
συνείδησιν θεοῦ, (i.) because God
is conscious of your condition (θεοῦ sub-
jective genitive), a reproduction of thy
Father which seeth that which is hidden
(Matt. vi. 4, etc.); so συνείδ. in
‘definite philosophical sense of conscience
is usually followed by possessive geni-
tive OR (ii.) because you are conscious of
God (8. objective genitive), cf. σ. apap-
-rtas, Heb. x. 2. The Jatter construction
is preferable: the phrase interprets διὰ
τὸν κύριον with the help of the Pauline
expression διὰ τὴν σ. (Rom. xiii. 5 ; 1 Cor.
x. 25) employed in the same context.—
πάσχων ἀδίκως, emphatic. Peter
has to take account of the possibility
which Jesus ignored, that Christians
might deserve persecution ; cf. 20, 25.—
ποῖον κλέος, what praise rather than
what kind of reputation (κλ. neutral as in
Thuc. ii. 45) cf. ποία χάρις τίνα µισθόν,
Matt. «A. (only twice in Job in LXX)
corresponds to ἔπαινος above: χάρις
παρὰ θεῷ shows that the praise of the
Master who reads the heart is intended.—
κολαφιζόμενοι, from description
of the Passion, Mark xiv. 65, Πρξαντό
πινες . . . κολαφίζειν αὐτόν: cf. Matt.
ν. 39, ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει. So also St.
Paul recalls the parallel between Christ’s
and the Christians’ sufferings (1 Cor. iv.
11) κολαφιζόµεθα.-- ἀγαθοποιοῦν-
τες, opposed to ἁμαρτάνοντες, explains
ἀδίκως (19).— x 4 pts, See ON x. Ver. 10.
Ver. 21. ets τοῦτο, sc. to do well
and to suffer, if need be, without flinch-

ing, as Christ did.—é« AW On Te, sc. by
God; cf. διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν θεοῦ.--
ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ver. 22 supplies
the essential point, which would be readily
supplied, but Christ’s suffering was un-
deserved (δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, iii. 18).—
καί also with reference to the similar
experience of Christians; so Phil. ii. 5,
τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ.
--Ὁπογραμμόν (1) outline, 2 Macc.
ii. 28, to enlarge upon the outlines of our
abridgment ; (2) copy-head, pattern, to be
traced over by writing-pupils (Plato,
Protag., 227 D; Clement of Alexandria,
Strom., v. 8, 49, gives three examples of
which βεδιζαμψχθωπληκτρον σφιγὲ is
0Π6).---ἐπακολουθήσητε, remini-
scence of Jesus’ word to Peter, ἄκολον-
θήσεις ὕστερον, John xiii. 36.

Ver. 22 = Isa. liii. 9, ap. being put for
ἀνομίαν (DPT) and εὗρ. δόλος (so
ὼ 8 AQ, etc.) for δόλον ( = Heb.) of
LXX. The latter variation is due to con-
junction of Zeph. iii. 13, οὐ ph εὑρεθῇ έν
τῷ στόµατι αὐτῶν γλῶσσα δολία : Christ
being identified with the Remnant. The
former appears in the Targum: ‘that
they might not remain who work sin and
might not speak guile with their mouth”.

Ver. 23. Combination of the Scripture
οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόµα (Isa. liii, 7) with
the saying ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν και διώξωσιν
(Matt. v. 11). For λοιδ. cf. 1 Cor. iv.
12. λοιδορούμενοι εὐλογοῦμεν (εἴπωσιν
πᾶν πονηρόν of Matt. 1...) John ix. 28, ν
the Jews ἐλοιδόρησαν the once blina
man as Jesus’ disciple and, for O.T. type
Deut. xxxiii. 8, ἐλοιδόρησαν αὐτὸν emt
ὕδατος ἀντιλογίας (Levi = Christ the
Priest, cf. ἀντιλογία, Heb. xii. 3).--ο ὐ κ
ἠπείλει, the prophecy ἀπειλήσει τοῖς
ἀπειθοῦσιν (Isa. lxvi. 14) is yet to be ful-
filled (Luke xiii. 27). Occ. notes that He
threatened Judas, seeking to deter him
and reviled the Pharisees, but not in re-

62

24 ἠπείλει παρεδί
ὑμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνή
ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἆ

25 τῷ µώλωπι }
στράφη

I ὑμῶν.

ἰάθηται.

III.

ς ,
ομοι

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

4 ~ ,
Sou δὲ TH κρείνοντι
νεγκεν ἐν TO σώµα

ὡς πρόβατα πλανώμε
τε νῦν ἐπὶ τὸν ποιµέ
ως Ὑγυναῖκες ὕποτασ

II, 24-25. ΤΠ.

, a BY ς Les
δικαίως: ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας
τι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλο

πογενόµενοι TH δικοσύνη ζήσωμεν: οὗ

νοι ἀλλὰ ἐπε-
ψυχῶν'
ἰδίοις

να καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶ

σόµεναι τοῖς

® The superfluous. αὐτοῦ after οὗ τῷ µώλωπι is Omitted by Codex Vaticanus and.

other authorities.

It would be repugnant to the ear of a Greek, but is not there-

fore to be regarded as necessarily absent from the original.

tort.—mapedfSov. It is doubtful what
object, if any, is to be supplied. The
narrative of the Passion suggests two
renderings: (i.) He delivered Himself
(ἑαυτὸν omitted as in Plato, Phaedrus,
250 Eye Cp. Luke xxiii, 46 (Ps. xxxi. 5),
παρατίθεµαι τὸ πνεῦμά pew and Isa. μα,
6: κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτόν. 7b. 12 παρε-
δόθη. (1. He delivered the persecutors
(latent in passive participles λοιδ. and
πάσχων), when He said Father forgive
them. In ordinary Greek παραδίδωμι
without object = permit ; but this hardly
justifies the rendering He gave way to
(cf. δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ, Rom. xii. ΤΟ),
{.ε., permitted God to fulfil His will. But

most probably παρ. τῷ . . « represents ©

the Hebrew ellipse, Ay xs by commit to
Fehovah (Ps. xxii. ϱ) for the normal com-
mit, way, works, cause; LXX (Syriac)
has ἤλπισεν = Matt. xxvii. 43. Compare
Joseph. Ant. vii. 9, 2, David περὶ πάντων
ἐπιτρέψας κρυτῇ τῷ θεῷ.- τῷ κρί-
νοντι δικαίως, ch i. 17; the award
was the glory.

Ver. 24. Christ was not only well-doer
but δεπε[αείογ.- τὰς ap... . ἀνήνε-
γκεν comes from Isa. liii. 12, LXX, καὶ
αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν ( ΝΟ
usually translated λαμβάνειν), used also
Heb. ix. 28. Christ is the perfect sin-
offering: ‘‘ Himself the victim and Him-
self the priest. The form of expression
offered up our sins is due to the double

use of ONG for sin and sin-offering.
—tv τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ, a Pauline
phrase derived from the saying, This is
my body which is for you (1 Cor. xi. 24),
explaining αὐτός of Isa. /.ε.---ἐπὶ τὸ
ξύλον, replaces the normal comple-
ment of ἀναφέρειν, ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον,
in view of the moral which is to be
drawn from the sacrificial language
adopted. So Jas. ii. 21, ἐπὶ τὸ θυσια-
στήριον is substituted for ἐπάνω τῶν
EvAwv of the original description of the
offering of Isaac, Gen. xxii. 9. Christ

died because He took our sins upon Him-
self (cf. Num. iv. 33, ot υἱοὶ ὑμῶν .. «
ἀνοίσουσιν τὴν πορνείαν ὑμῶν). There-
fore our sins perished and we have died to
them, Col. Π. τᾳ.- ἵνα... ζήσωμεγ.
Compare Targum of Isa. ΠΠ. το, ‘‘and
from before Jehovah it was the will to
refine and purify the remnant of His
people that He might cleanse from sins
their souls: they shall see the kingdom of
His Christ and . . . prolong their days”’.
--ἀπογενόμενοι = (i.) die (Herodo-
tus, Fhucydides) as opposite of γενόµενοι,
come into being or (ii.) be free from, as
in Thuc. i. 30, τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἄπο-
γενόµενοι. The Dative requires | (i.), cf.
Kom, Vi. 2, οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἅμαρ-
τίᾳ. The idea is naturally deduced
from Isa. liii. ., Christ bore our sins and
delivered His soul to death, therefore He
shall see His seed living because sinless..
—ot...ita@nre from Isa. ΠΠ. 5;
µώλωπι, properly the weal or scar pro-
duced by scourgeing (Sir. xxviii. 17, πληγὴ
µάστιγος ποιεῖὶ µώλωπας) thus the pro-
phecy was fulfilled according to Matt.
XXvil. 26, Φραγελλώσας. The original
has ἰάθημεν. The paradox is especially
pointed 1n an address to slaves who were
frequently scourged.

Ver. 25 = Isa. lili. 6, πάντες ws πρό-
Bata ἐπλανήθημεν combined with Ez.
xxxiv. 6, where this conception of the
people and their teachers (the shepherds
of Israel) is elaborated and the latter de-
nounced because τὸ πλανώμενον οὐκ
ἐπεστρέψατε. Further the use of this
metaphor in the context presupposes the
saying I am the good shepherd. . . . I lay
down my life for the sheep (John xii. a
--ἐπίσκοπον, cf. Ez. xxxiv. 11, ἰδοὺ'
ἐγὼ ἐκζητήσω τὰ πρόβατά pov καὶ
ἐπισκέψομαι αὐτά. It is to be noted
that the command which Jesus laid on
Peter, feeding sheep, comes from Ez. l.c.

CuapTer III.— Vv. 1-6. Duty of
wives (Eph. v. 21-24; Col. iii. 18; Tit.
ii. 4)—Submissiveness and true adorn-

4 .

ἀνδράσιν : ἵνα et τινες }
ἀναστροφῆς ἄνευ λό

τὴ ἐν φόβω ἁγνὴν ava

ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν k,

ς Φ- / > 2 ες by
ἱματίω κόσμος; GAN’ ὁ κρυπτὸς

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

γου κερδηθήσονται
στροφὴν ὑμῶν.
περιθέσεως χρυσίω.

ἀπειθοῦσιν TO λόγω διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶ

ἐποπτεύσαντες 2
ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ 3
ἢ ἐνδύσεως

τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος 4

1 The variant οἵτινες for et τινες serves as a reminder that in uncial manuscripts
€ is apt to be confused with O and that words were not written separately from one

another.

ment.—tots ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, your
own husbands, the motive for submissive-
ness, Eph. v. 22; Tit. ii. 4. St. Peter
assumes knowledge of the reason alleged
by St. Paul (Eph. l.c.; 1 Cor. xi. 3) after
Gen. iii. 16, αὐτός σου κυριεύσει.- καὶ
et... λόγῳ, even if in some cases your
husbands are disobedient to the word
(ii. 8), i.e., remain heathens in spite of the
preaching of the Gospel. St. Paul found
it necessary to impress upon the Corin-
thian Church that this incompatibility of
religion did not justify dissolution of mar-
riage (1 Cor. xii. 1ο ff.).—aveuv λόγον,
without word from their wives. Peter
deliberately introduces X. in its ordinary
sense immediately after the technical τῷ
\.—an example of what the grammarians
call antanaclasis and mena pun. In his
provision for the present and future wel-
fare of the heathen husbands whose
wives come under his jurisdiction he
echoes the natural aspiration of Jews and
Greeks; so Ben Sira said, a silent woman
isa gift of the Lord ...a loud crying
woman and a scold shall be sought out
to drive away enemies (Sir. xxvi. 14, 27)
and Sophocles, Silence is the proper orna-
ment (κόσμος) for women (Ajax 293). St.
Paul forbids women to preach or even
ask questions at church meeting (1 Cor.
xiv. 34: at Corinth they had been used to
prophesy and pray)._tva... κερδη-
θήσονται, be won, cf. ἵνα κερδήσω in
1 Cor. ix. 20 ff. =tva . . . σώσω, 1b. 22,
(cf.vii. 16.).

Ver. 2. ἐποπτεύσαντες, having
contemplated; see on ii. 12. τὴν...
ὑμῶν. ἐν φόβῳ, cf. i. 17 and Eph.
v.21. ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ
Χριστοῦ: αἱ γυναῖκες: as no object is
expressed, τοῦ θεοῦ must be supplied.—
ἆ γνήν, not merely chaste but pure, cf.
1. 22 and iii. 4.

Ver. 3. The description of the external
ornaments proper to heathen society
seems to be based on Isa. iii. 17-23, where
the destruction of the hair, jewels and
raiment of the daughters of Zion is fore-
το]ᾱ.- ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν, braiding

of hair. 1 Tim. ii. 19, πλέγμασιν καὶ
χρυσίῳ refers to the golden combs and
nets used for the purpose; cf. ἐμπλόκια,
Isa. 11. 18, for DIO WY Juvenal de-
scribes the elaborate coiffures which Ro-
man fashion prescribed for the Park and
attendance at the Mysteries of Adonis: tot
premit ordinibus tot adhuc compagibus
altum aedificat caput (Sat. vi. 492-504).
Clement of Alexandria quotes 1 Peter iii.
1-4, in his discussion of the whole subject
(Paed., III. xi.); and in regard to this
particular point says ἀπόχρη µαλάσσειν
τὰς τρίχας καὶ ἀναδεῖσθαι τὴν κόµην
ἐντελῶς περόνῃ τινι Ait] παρὰ τὸν
αὐχένα ... καὶ γὰρ ai περιπλοκαὶ τῶν
τριχῶν αἱ ἑταιρικαὶ καὶ ai τῶν σειρῶν
ἀναδέσεις . . . κόπτουσι τὰς τρίχας
ἀποτίλλουσαι ταῖς πανούργοις ἐμπλο-
Kats, because of which they do not even
touch their own head for fear of disturb-
ing their hair—nay more sleep comes to
them with terror lest they should un-
awares spoil τὸ σχῆμα τῆς ἐμπλοκῆς
(p. 290 Ἑ).- περιθέσεως χρυσίων,
1.6. tings bracelets, etc., enumerated in
Isa. ].ε.--ἐνδύσεως ἵματίων. Stress
might be laid on κόσμος, or the crowning
prohibition regarded as an exaggeration
intended to counteract an ingrained bias.
In either case the expression points to a
remarkable precedent for this teaching in
Plato’s Republic IV., iii. ff. ‘‘ Plato’s as-
signment of common duties and common
training to the two sexes is part of a
well-reasoned and deliberate attempt by
the Socratic school to improve the posi-
tion of women in Greece. . . . Socrates’
teaching inaugurated an era of protest
against the old Hellenic view of things.
. . - In later times the Stoics constituted
themselves champions of similar views”
(Adam, ad loc.). Accordingly gymnastics
must be practised by women as by men:
ἀποδυτέον δὴ ταῖς τῶν φυλάκων γυναιξὶν
ἐπείπερ ἀρετὴν ἀντὶ ἵματίων ἀμφιέ-
σουνται.

Ver. 4. Yours be the secret man of the
heart not the outward ornament. A better
antithesis and a pretty paradox would be

~

ἐν τῶ ἀφθάρτῶ τοῦ

5 ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θῦ πολυ
γυναῖκες

6 σόµεναι τοῖς
c A , > a
Αβραὰμ κύριον αὐτὸν

7 θοποιοῦ

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

ἠσυχίου καὶ πραέως
τελές.
at ἐλπίζουσαι eis OF
ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν: ὡς
καλοῦσα.
σαι, καὶ μὴ φοβούμε

III,

πνεύματος ὅ ἐστι»
4 ΔΝ c a

οὕτως ydp πο TE καὶ al ἅγιαι

ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτὰς ὁ ποτασ-
Σάρρα ὑπήκουεν τῶ

Hs ἐγενήθη

ναι µηδεµίαν πτόησι.

τε τέκνα, dya-

1 ἄνδρες

1 πτῶσιν for πτόησιν illustrates the danger of cursive writing, in which the liga-
ture of two letters is apt to alter the normal shape of one or both.

secured by supplying ἄνθρωπος with 6
ἔξωθεν and taking κ. as predicate: your
ornament be cf. οὕτως ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτάς
(ver. 5). But the order in ver. 3 is
against this and a Greek reader would
naturally think of the other sense of k. =
world universe and remember that man
is a microcosm and “the universe the
greatest and most perfect man” (Philo,
p- 471 M.).—6 κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας
ἄνθρωπος, the hidden man that is the
heart (or which belongs to the heart) is
the equivalent of the Pauline inner man
(Rom. vii. 22), z.e., Mind as contrasted
with the outward man, i.e., flesh (Rom.
l.c., cf. 2 Cor. iv. 16). St. Peter employs
the terms used in the Sermon on the
Mount; cf. St. Paul’s 6 ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ
Ἰουδαῖος απά περιτομὴ καρδίας, Rom. ii.
20.--ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ, clothed in the
incorruptible thing (or ornament, sc. κό-
σμφ) contrasted with corruptible goldens ;
cf. Jas. ii. 2, ἀνὴρ .. . ἐν ἐσθῆτι
λαμπρά.- τοῦ . .. πνεύματος,
namely, the meek and quiet spirit. The
adjectives are perhaps derived from the
version of Isa. Ixvi. 2, known to Clement
of Rome (Ep. i. xiii. 4) ἐ ἐπὶ iva ἐπιβλέψω
ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐπὶ τὸν πραὺν καὶ ἠσύχιον καὶ
τρέµοντά μου τὰ λόγια. Jesus professed
Himself, πραὺς καὶ ταπεινὸς Th καρδίᾳ.
For πνεύματος compare πνεῦμα ἅγι-
ωσύνης, Ῥοπῃ. Ἱ.4. In Rom. ii. 29, mv. is
coupled with heart as contrasted with
ες] and outwardness. 6 which spirit
or the posssesion of which reference.—
πολυτελές suggests use of conception
of Wisdom which is precious above rubies
(Prov. iii. 15, etc.); cf. Jas. i. 21, iii, 13,
ἐν πρφύτητι σοφίας and description of
the wisdom from above, ib. 17.

Ver. 5. ποτε refers vaguely to Ο.Τ.
history as ρατί οἱ αἳ .. . θεόν. Refer-
ences to the holy women of the Ο.Τ. are
rare in N.T. and this appeal to their ex-
ample illustrates the affinity of Peter to
Heb. (xi. 11, 35). Hannah is the ob-
viously appropriate type (cf. Luke i. with
2 Sam. 1 f.); but Peter is thinking of the
traditional idealisation of Sarah.

Ver. 6. ὡς... καλουσα. | ‘The
only evidence that can be adduced from
the Ο.Τ. narrative is Savah laughed with-
in herself and said... “ but my lord is
old” (Gen. xviii. 12). The phrase, if
pressed, implies a nominal subjection as of
a slave to her lord, but the context at any
rate excludes any hope in God. Philo,
who starts with the assumption that
Sarah is Virtue, evades the difficulty; her
laughter was the expression of her joy,
she denied it for fear of usurping God’s
prerogative of laughter (de Abr., ii. Ῥ.
30 M). The Rabbinic commentaries
dwell upon the title accorded to Abraham
and draw the same inference as Peter ;
but there are also traces of a tendency to
exalt Sarah “the princess’ as superior
to her husband in the gift of prophecy,
which St. Peter may wish to correct (as
St. James corrects the exaggerated re-
spect paid to Elijah, ]α5.ν. τ7).--ἧἦς ...
τέκνα. Christian women became chil-
dren of Sarah who is Virtue or Wisdom
(Philo) just as men became children of
Abraham. But the fact that they were
Christians is still in the background; the
essential point is that they must do the
works traditionally ascribed to Sarah (cf.
Rom. iv.; John viii.) and so justify their
technical parentage, whether natural or
acquired. Oec. compares Isa. li. 2, Sarah
your mother.—aya8Somorovaat, the
present participle emphasises the need
for continuance of the behaviour appro-
priate to children of Sarah—pah...
πτόησιν, from Prov. iii. 25, LXX.
Peter regards Sarah’s falsehood (Gen. /.c.)
as the yielding to a sudden terror for
which she was rebuked by God. Fear-
lessness then is part of the character
which is set before them for imitation
and it is the result of obedience to the
voice of Wisdom. Rabbinic exegesis as
sociates the ideas of ornament with the
promised child and that of peace between
husband and wife with the whole incident.

Ver. 7. Duty of husbands to their
wives. Application of principle πάντας
τιµήσατε.- κατὰ γνῶσιν, for the

5—I0,

, lol - παν
ὁμοίως συνοι κοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσι

τῶ γυναικείω dao

χάριτος ζωῆς εἰς τὸ
τὸ δὲ τέλος, πάντες ὁ

εὔσπλαγ Ἅνοι ταπεινόφρονες :

ἢ λοιδορί αν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας: τοῦ

5 3 Led >
οτι εις TOUTO €

woman is the weaker vessel—the pot—
which the stronger—the cauldron—may
easily smash (Sir. xiii. 2). @s, κ.τ.λ.
point with comma after γνῶσιν and τιμήν.
σκεύει. The comparison of Creator
and creature to potter and clay is found
first in Isa. xxix. 16, but is latent in the

description of the creation (4 5) of
Adam from the dust of the earth (Gen. ii.
7 f.). In the prophets it is developed
and applied variously (Isa. xlv. 9 f., Ixiv.
8; Jer. xviii. 6). In Sap. xv. 7, there is
an elaborate description of the maker of
clay images, in which σκεΌος replaces
πλάσμα and vessels which serve clean
uses are distinguished from the contrary
sort. Thence St. Paul adopts the figure
and employs it to illustrate the absolute
sovereignty of the Creator, as Isaiah had
done (see Rom. ix. 21), distinguishing
vessels intended for honour from those in-
tended for dishonour. Lastly 2 Tim. ii.
20 exemplifies the particular application
of the figure, on which Peter’s use of
okevos τεςίς---ἐν µεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ (x Peter
li. 5, iv. 17). . « κ.τ.λ. The comparative
ἀσθενεστέρῳ proves that both husband
and wife are vessels and assists to exclude
the notion that St. Paul could mean
to calla wife the vessel of her husband
in t Thess. iv. 4.-ὡς .. . ζωῆς,
inasmuch as they are also heirs with you
of the grace (i. 10, 13) of life (ii. 24): the
heavenly inheritance is not distributed ac-
cording to earthly custom, which gave
the wife no rights of her own.—ets...
ὑμῶν. If the prayers are those of all
(ver. 8) compare 1 Cor. vii. (τὴν ὀφειλὴν
ἀποδιδότω . . . ἵνα σχολάσητε τῇ προ-
σευχᾖῃ). Peter teaches that married life
need not—if the wife be properly hon-
oured—hinder religious duties, as St.
Paul feared (ib. 32 ff.). If ἡμῶν = you
husbands (as v.1, συγκληρονόµοι requires)
cf. Jas. v. 4.

Vy. 8 f. Sweeping clause addressed to
all, inculcating detailed φιλαδελφία after
Rom. xii. 10, 15-17.

Ver. δ. τὸ . . . τέλος, finally.
Oecumenius brings out the possible con-
notations of the word goal and also the

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

νέµοντες τειμὴν OS
μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι ταῖς
µόφρονες συμπαθεῖς
μὴ ἀποδιδόντες KAKO

κλήθητε, ἵνα εὐλογία

65

ὡς ἀσθενεστέρω σκεύ ει

καὶ συγκληρονόµοις
προσευχαῖς ὑμῶν.
Φιλάδελφοι 8
ἀντὶ κακοῦ 9
ναντίον δὲ εὐλογοῦ

κληρονοµήσητε.

law for all love since love is the end of
the law.—ép6poves, of one mind,
united, an Epic word. St. Paul’s τὸ αὐτὸ
dpovetv but here wider than parallel ex-
pressing Rom. xii. 16, τὸ αὐτὸ eis
ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες.-)- .συμπαθεῖς
summarises χαίρειν μετὰ Χαιρόντων
κλαίειν μετὰ κλαιόντων of Rom. xii.
το. ο Περ. ive το (of Christ); x. 34
(particular example of sympathy with
“the ΡΓΙΡΟΠΕΙΘ”).- φιλάδελφοι, cf.
i. |\22; Rom. xii. I0, τῇ Φιλαδελφίᾳ
εἰς ἀλλήλους Φιλόστοργοι. — evo A-
ayxvot, kind-hearted, in Eph. iv.
32 (only here in N.T.) coupled with
kind . . forgiving one anothe: ;
epithet of Jehovah in Prayer of Manasses,
ver. 7 = compassionate, in accordance
with metaphorical use of σπλάγχνα κ.τ.λ.

derived from different senses of O[]>-
Here = ἐνδύσασθε . . . τὰ σπλάγχνα
τῆς χρηστότητος, Οοἷ.-- ταπεινό-
o pOves = τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόµε-
νοι, Rom. xii. 16, cf. Prov. xxix. 23, LXX,
insolence humbleth a man but the humble
(ταπεινόφρονας) Fehovah stayeth with
glory (κ. ὕβρις).
er.g. μὴ... κακοῦ, from Rom.
Mis τη. ο, τ "ποσα, iV.) το τον, (xx. 225
Say not I will recompense evil (LXX
τίσοµαι τὸν ἐχθρόν): an approximation
to Christ’s repeal of the lex talionis (Matt.
v. 38 ff.) which Plato first opposed among
the Greeks (see Crito., p. 49, with Adam’s
note).—Aor8Sopiav ἀντὶ λοιδο-
ρίας refers to pattern left by Christ (ii.
23),—Tovvavtloy, contrariwise.—
εὐλογοῦὂντες with λοιδ., 1 Cor. iv.
21 ; cf. Rom. xii. 14, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώ-
κοντας = Luke vi. 28.—S TL... κλη-
ρονομήσητε, Christians must do as
they hope to be done by. They are
the new Israel called to inherit blessing
in place of the Jews, who are reprobate
like Esau ; cf. Heb. xii. 17, tore yap ὅτι
καὶ petémerta θέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν
εὐλογίαν ἀπεδοκιμάσθη. So St. Paul τε-
verses the current view which identified
the Jews with Isaac and the Gentiles
with Ishmael (Gal. iv. 22 ff.).
Vv. 10-12 = Ps, xxxiv. 12-17α.

TES,
610

intro-

66

γὰρ
παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσ
Ι1δό ov.
12 tym

A ,
ἐπὶ δικαί

ἐκκλεινάτω δὲ

13 δὲ Ku ἐπὶ
14 εἰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ Ly

δικαιοσύνην, µακά µρῥιοι.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾶ.,

~ ,
σαν ἀπὸ κακοῦ, καὶ χεί
3 , Ν
σάτω εἰρήνην, καὶ δι
ους, καὶ ὦτα αὐτοῦ

ποιοῦντας κακά.

τὸν δὲ φόβον ad

ΠΠ.
καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας dya as,
Ay τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι
σάτω ἀγαθόν :
Φθαλμοὶ Ku
πρόσωπον
ὑμᾶς,

A ‘
ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποιη
΄ > , oe >
ωξάτω αὐτήν, ὅτι ὁ
3 / 7 A
eis δέησιν αὐτῶν"
A ,
καὶ Tis 6 κακώσων

otal! γένοισθε” GX Nei καὶ πάσχοιτεδι 4

τῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε

1 For ζηλωταὶ three secondary uncials substitute µιµηται.
2 Codex Vaticanus is alone in reading γένοισθε for γενησθε (the first hand of

Codex Sinaiticus has γενεσθαι).

duced by mere γάρ as familiar. The lips
of Christians who wish to love life must
be free from cursing and from guile as
were Christ’s (cf. Isa. apud ii. 23). If
Jehovah is to hear their petition as He
heard Christ’s they also must turn from
evil and do good (cf. ἀγαθοποιεῖν above)
seeking peace within and without the
Church.

Ver. 10. Peter omits the rhetorical
question τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος, which in-
troduces 6 θέλων in the original (LXX
= Hebrew) but is influenced by it in the
substitution of the third for the second
person throughout. The change of
ἀγαπῶν (= Hebrew) to ἀγαπᾶν καὶ τε-
moves the barbarisms θέλων ζωήν and
ἀγαπῶν ἰδεῖν (= Hebrew) and secures
the balance between the clauses disturbed
by the omission of the opening words.—
ἰδεῖν ἡμ. ἀγαθάς is the natural
sequel of the alteration of the original
(days to see good), which is already found
in the LXX (np. t. ἀγαθάς). ζωήν =
earthly life in the original corresponding
to days. The text adopted by Peter
makes it mean eternal life, parallel good
days. Only with this interpretation is the
quotation pertinent to his exhortation: cf.
that ye might inherit blessing (ο) with
fellow-inheritors of the grace of life (7).—
παυσάτω, κ.τ.λ., parallel ph...
λοιδορίαν (9); cf. ii. 22 f.

Ver. 12. πρόσωπον Κυρίου,
‘$ehovah’s face, i.e., wrath (Targum, the
face of Fehovah was angry) as the fol-
lowing clause, to cut off the remembrance
of them... shows; cf. Lam. iv. 16;
Ps. xxi. g. But Peter stops short and
leaves room for repentance.

Ver. 13. κακώσων echoes ποιοῦν-
τας κακά (as ηλ. τοῦ ay. echoes
ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν) ; but the phrase comes
also from O.T.: Isa. 1. 9, Κύριος Bon-
θήσει µοι " τίς κακώσει µε;- τοῦ aya-

800 ζηλωταὶ. The phrase sums up
ver. 11. All that was good in Judaism,
however it may have been perverted, finds
its fulfilment in the new Israel (Rom. x.
2). Some Jews were zealots, boasting
their zeal for the Lord or His Law, like
Phinehas and the Hasmonaeans (x Macc.
ii. passim) : all Christians should be zea-
lots for that which is good. So Paul says
of himself as Pharisee that he was a zealot
for his ancestral traditions (Gal. i. 14).
For him as for the colleague of Simon
the Zealot the word retained a flavour of
its technical sense; cf. Tit. ii. 14, that He
might cleanse for Himself a peculiar
people, zealot of good (καλῶν) works ; cf.
similar use of ἀφωρισμένος = Pharisee

(Rom. i. τ). τοῦ ay. in emphatic posi-
tion.
Ver. 14. ἀλλ. os peewee

Nay if ye should actually suffer—if some
one, despite the prophet (13), should harm
you—for the sake of righteousness, blessed
ave ye. Peter appeals to the saying,
µακάριοι of δεδιωγµένοι ἕνεκεν δικαι-
οσύνης (Matt. ν. το).--πάσχοιτε, εἰ
with optative (cf. 17, et θέλοι) is used to
represent anything as generally possible
without regard to the general or actual
situation at the moment (Blass, Grammar,
Ρ. 213). The addition of καί implies that
the contingency is unlikely to occur and
is best represented by an emphasis on
should. The meaning of the verb is de-
termined by κακώσων above, if ye should
be harmed, i.e, by persons unspecified
(αὐτῶν). δικαιοσύνην perhaps sug-
gested ζηλωταί, cf. 1 Macc. il. 27-29, was
6 ζηλῶν τῷ vonw. . . ἐξελθέτω . . . τότε
κατέβησαν πολλοὶ ζητοῦντες Six. καὶ
κρίµα.- τὸν δὲ φόβον ... ὑμῶν.
An adaptation of Isa. viii. 12 f. LXX, τὸν
δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ μὴ φοβηθῆτε οὐδὲ μὴ
ταραχθῆτε’ κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε καὶ
αὐτός ἔσται σου φόβος. The scripture

aI—17.

Ky δὲ τὸν Χν ] ἁγιάσα

A , A ~
πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ
ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλ πίδος *
συνείδησιν ἔχοντες
αισχυ
ἀναστροφήν *

θῶσιν ot ἐπηρεάζον
κρεῖττον γὰρ ἆγαθο

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

τε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις 6
αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λογο
ἀλλὰ μετὰ πρα

> οκ ὦ > 9
ἀγαθήν ' ἵνα ἐν ᾧ
τες ὑμῶν τὴν ἀγαθὴ

67

μῶν ἔτοιμοι del 15
περὶ τῆς
ύτητος καὶ φόβου

λαλεῖσθε” κατ-

~
ον

κατα
ἐν Χῶ
ποιοῦντας εἰ θέλοι

17

1 Three secondary uncials read θεόν (ON) for Χριστόν (Χύ).

“For ἐν ᾧ καταλαλεῖσθε Codex Sinaiticus with other authorities reads ἐν ᾧ
καταλαλῶσιν ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν---απ assimilation of the text to ii. 12.

corresponding ‘to the saying, Fear not
them that kill the body; but fear rather
him that can destroy both soul and body
(Matt. x. 28 parallels Luke xii. 4 f. where
the description of God is modified), The
sense of the original, fear not what they
(the people) fear; Fehovah of Hosts Him
shall ye count holy and let Him be the
object of your fear, has been in part
abandoned. For it is simpler to take the
fear as referring to the evil with which
their enemies try to terrify them, than to
supply the idea that their enemies employ
the means by which they themselves
would be intimidated. Compare iii. 6.—
τὸν χριστόν, gloss on κύριον = Je-
hovah; cf.ii.3.—@€v ταῖς καρδίαις
sc. mere profession. Peter is probably
thinking of the prescribed prayer, Hal-
lowed be thy name, elsewhere in N.T. it
belongs to God to sanctify Christ and
men.—€rotpout ἀεὶ πρὸς ἆπο-
λογίαν, ready for reply. The con-
trast between the inward hope (parallels
sanctification of Christ in the heart) and
the spoken defence of it is not insisted
upon ; the second δέ is not to be accepted.
The use of the noun in place of verb is
characteristic of St. Peter. The play upon
ἀπολογίαν back-word and λόγον cannot
be reproduced. Properly speech tn de-
fence, & is used metaphorically (NB
παντί) here as by St. Paul in r Cor. ix. 3,
7 ἐμὴ ἀπολογία τοῖς ἐμὲ ἀνακρίνουσιν ;
where also, though another technical
word is introduced, no reference is in-
tended to formal proceedings in a court of
law. St. Peter is thinking of the promise
which he himself once forfeited for un-
worthy fear, I will give you mouth and
wisdom, (Luke xxi. 14f., xii. II, uses
ἀπολογεῖσθαι; Matt. x. 19, Aadetv).—
παντὶ όγον, to every one (for
dative cf. 1 Cor. ix. 3) that asketh of you
anaccount. The phrase (compare Demos-
thenes Against Onetor, p. 868, ἐνεκάλουν
καὶ λόγον ἀπήῄτουν) recalls the Parable
of the Steward of Unrighteousness, of

whom his lord demanded an account
(Luke xvi. τ ff.), as also the metaphor of
iv. 10, ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι.-)-ὺμμετὰ
πραὔτητος καὶ φόβου, with meck-
ness (cf. ver. 4) and fear of God (Isa. l.c.
has the same play on the senses of fear).
--συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν,
intermediate step between διὰ σ. θεοῦ
and the quasi-personification of σ. a. in
νετ. 21; so St. Paul says οὐδὲν γὰρ
ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα (1 Cor. iv. 4) but goes on
beyond the contrast between self-judg-
ment and that of other men to God’s
judgment. Ver. 17 supplies the explana-
tion Πετε.-- ἵνα... ἀναστροφήν,
generalisation of Peter’s personal experi-
ence at Pentecost, when the Jews first
scoffed and then were pierced to the
heart (Acts ii. 13, 37). Misrepresentation
is apparently the extent of their present
suffering (17) and this they are encour-
aged to hope may be stopped. The
heathen will somehow be put to shame
even if they are not converted (ii. 12).---
ἐν ᾧ, in the matter in respect of which ;
see ii. 12.- ἐπηρεάζοντες, occurs
in Luke vi. 28, προσεύχεσθε περὶ τῶν
ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς, and therefore consti-
tutes another hint of contact between St.
Luke and Peter (cf. χάρις, ii. 19). Aris-
totle defines ἐπηρεασμός as “ hindrance
to the wishes of another not for the sake
of gaining anything oneself but in order
to baulk the other”—the spirit of the
dog inthe manger. Ordinarily the verb
means to libel, cf. λαλῆσαι δόλον (10).—
ὑμῶν . . . ἀναστροφήν, your
(possessive genitive precedes noun in
Hellenistic Greek) good-in-Christ beha-
viour : ἕν Χριστῷ (iv. 14, 16) is practically
equivalent to Christian, cf. if any is in
Christ a new creature.

Ver. 17. κρεῖττον, cf. ii. 19 f., where
χάρις κλέος correspond to μισθὸν περισ-
σόν of the sources.—et θέλοι τὸ
θέλημα θεοῦ. Again optative im-
plies that it is a purely hypothetical case
(cf. ver. 14). For the semi-personification

68

18 τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θῦ πά
ἅπαξ πε
ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ

of thé will of God compare Eph. i. 11,
where the θέλημα has a βουλή; so Paul
is Apostle through the will of God (x Cor.
i. 1; 2Cor.i. 1). For the pleonastic ex-
pression cf. the verbal parallel ἐάν τις
θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, John vii.
17. So God's patience was waiting
(ver. 20).

Ver. 18. The advantage of suffering for
well-doing is exemplified in the experience
of Christ, who gained thereby quickening
(ver. 21) and glory (ver. 22). How far the
pattern applies to the Christian is not
clear. Christ suffered once for all according
to Heb. ix. 24-28; the Christian suffers for
a little (ν. το). But does the Christian
suffer also for sins? St. Paul and Igna-
tius speak of themselves as περίψηµα
περικαθάρµατα; compare the value of
righteous men for Sodom. But even if
Peter contemplated this parallel it is quite
subordinate to the main idea, in which
(spirit) even to the spirits in prison he
went and preached them that disobeyed
once upon a time when the patience of
God was waiting in the days of Noah
while the ark was being fitted out... .
The spirits who disobeyed in the days of
Noah are the sons of God described in
Gen. vi. 1-4. But there as in the case of
Sarah St. Peter depends on the current
tradition in which the original myth has
been modified and amplified. This de-
pendence supplies an adequate explanation
of the difficulties which have been found
here and in ver. 21, provided that the
plain statement of the preaching in Hades
is not prejudged to be impossible. The
important points in the tradition as given
in the Book of Enoch (vi.-xvi. cf. Jubilees
v.) are as follows: the angels who lusted
after the daughters of men descended in
the days of Jared as his name (Descent)
shows. The children of this unlawful
union were the Nephilim and the Eliud.
They also taught men all evil arts so
that they perished appealing to God for
justice. At last Enoch was sent to pro-
nounce the sentence of condemnation
upon these watchers, who in terror be-
sought him to present a petition to God
on their behalf. God refused to grant
them peace. They were spirits eternal
and immortal who transgressed the line
ef demarcation between men and angels
and disobeyed the law that spiritual beings
do not marry and beget children like men.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

σχειν ἢ κακοποιοῦν
4 ς ~ ”

ρὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν
θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρ

1Π.

[] ‘ a
τας; οτι και Χς

δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκω. ἵνα.

κὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ

Accordingly they are bound and their
children slay one another leaving their
disembodied spirits to propagate sin in
the world even after it has been purged
by the Flood. But Christians believed
that Christ came to seek and to save the
lost and the captives ; all things are to be
subjectedto Him. So Peter supplements
the tradition which he accepts. For him
it was not merely important as connected
with the only existing type of the Last
Judgment or an alternative explanation
of the origin and continuance of sin
but also as the greatest proof of the
complete victory of Christ over the most
obstinate and worst of sinners.—év @ sc.
πνεύματι: as a bodiless spirit in the
period between the Passion (18) and the
Resurrection-Ascension (22).—Kat, even
to the typical rebels who had sinned past
forgiveness according to pre-Christian
notions.—Tots ἐν φυλακῇ wvevp-
ασιν, the spirits in prison, i.e., the
angels of Gen. l.c. who were identified
with my spirit of Gen. vi. 3, and there-
fore described as having been sent to the
earth by God in one form of the legend
(Jubilees, l.c.). The name contains also
the point of their offending (Enoch sum-
marised above) ; cf. 2 Peter ii. 4 ; *Jude 6;
and the prophecy of Isa. Ixi. 1 (which
Jesus claimed, Luke iv. 84), κηρΌξαι
αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν. These spirits were
in ward when Christ preached to them in
accordance with Gods sentence, bind
them in the depths of the earth (Jub.
v. 6).—逫y pvéev = εὐηγγελίσατο, cf.
Luke iv. 8. Before Christ came, they
had not heard the Gospel of God’s Reign.
Enoch’s mediation failed. But at Christ’s
preaching they repented like the men of
Nineveh ; for it is said that angels sub-
jected themselves to Him (22, cf. ὑποτάσ-
σεσθαι, throughout the Epistle.—a a e-
ιθήσασίν ποτε, their historic dis-
obedience or rebellion is latent in the nar-
rative of Gen. vi. and expounded by
Ἡποσα ο ποσο thle πω hil IDO
ἀπ. commonly = rebel «ης - & 1 €-
ξεδέχετο . μακροθυμία,
God’s long-suffering was waiting. Vhe
reading ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο is attractive, as.
supplying a reference to the present
period of waiting which precedes the
second and final Judgment (Rom. ii. 4,
ix. 22). The tradition lengthens the
period of πάρεσις (Rom. iii. 25); but

18---21.

πνεύµατι ' ἐν ᾧ Kat) τοῖς
ἐκήρυ

,
µακροθυµία

ξεν ἀπειθήσασίν πο
ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατα
του εἲς ἣν ὀλίγοι του
τος" ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπο-

Kos ἀπόθεσις ῥύ

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμα
ε ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο 3

τέστι ὀκτὼ ψυχαὶ
νῦν σώζει βάπτισμα
που ἀλλὰ συνειδήσε

6ο

σιν πορευθεὶς 19
ἡ τοῦ OG 2ο

σκευαζοµένης κειβώ

διεσώθησαν δι’ ὕδα-

οὐ σαρ- 21

ως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτη

1 Dr. Rendel Harris would restore ἑνώχ after ἐν ᾧ καὶ (49), supposing that a scribe

has blundered “ in dropping some repeated letters’’ (a case of haplography).

See

Side-Lights on New Testament Research, p. 208.
2 Erasmus supposing an haplography read ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο for ἀπεξεδέχετο.

St. Peter limits it by adding while the Ark
was being fitted out in accordance with
Gen. If Adam’s transgression be taken
as the origin οἱ sin the long-suffering is
still greater. The idea seems to be due
to ἐνεθυμήθην, I reflected, of the LXX,
which stands for the unworthy anthropo-
morphism of the Hebrew I repented in
Gen. vi. 6. Compare for language Jas.
v. 7; Matt. xxiv. 37 f.; Luke xvii. 26 {.---
eis Hv, sc. entered απᾶ.-- ὀλίγοι,
κ.τ.λ. St. Peter hints that here in the
typical narrative is the basis of the
disciple’s question, et ὀλίγοι οἱ σωζόµε-
νοι (Luke xiii. 23).- ὀκτὼ ψΨυχαί, so
Gen. vii. 7; . = persons (of both sexes),
cf. Acts ii. 41, etc. The usage occurs in

Greek of all periods; so {JH5 in He-
brew and soul in English.—8veo 6 6 4-
σαν δι ὕδατος, were brought safe
through water. Both local and instru-
mental meanings of δί are contemplated.
The former is an obvious summary of the
whole narrative; cf. also διὰ τὸ ὕδωρ
(Gen. vii. 7). The latter is implied in
the statement. that the water increased
and lifted up the ark (ib. 17 f.) ; though it
fits better the antitype. So Josephus
(Ant. L, iii. 2) says that “the ark was
strong so that from no side was it worsted
by the violence of the water and Noah with
his household διασῴζεται ”. Peter lays
stress on the water (rather than the ark as
ε.σ., Heb. xi.) for the sake of the parallel
with Baptism (Rom. vi. 3; cf. St. Paul’s
application of the Passage of the Red
Sea, 1 Cor. x. 1 f.).

Ver. 21. Baptism is generally the
antitype of the deliverance of Noah.
Christians pass through water (in both
senses) to salvation; in each microcosm
are the sins which must be washed away
and the remnant which is to be saved.
Therefore the antitypical water saves us
(8 = τὸ ὕδωρ > BC ὕδατος) being οὐ
σαρκὸς, κ.τ.λ.; cf. Tit. iii. 5.--βάπτι-
opa, if not an interpolation explains

VOL. V.

6 avr. which corresponding to the (pre-
existent) type (cf. Heb. ix. 24 the earthly
temple is ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν). The
following definition by exclusion con-
trasts Christian baptism with Jewish and
pagan lustrationsand also with the Deluge
which was a removal of sin-fouled flesh
from the sinners of old (iv. 6) ; the former
affected the flesh and not the conscience
(Heb. ix. 13 f.), the latter removed the
flesh but not the spiritual defilement pro-
ceeding from past sin. σαρκός and συνει-
δήσεως stand before their belongings for
emphasis and not merely in accordance
with prevalent custom. For ἀπόθεσις
ῥύπου compare Isa. iv. 4 (sequel of the
description of the daughters of Zion which
is used above iii. 3), fehovah shall wash
away their filth (τὸν ῥύπον: LXX chival-
rously prefixes of the sons and). éme-
ρώτημα is explained by Oecumenius as
meaning earnest, pledge as in Byzantine
Greek law. Its use for the questions put
to the candidate in the baptismal service
(dost thou renounce . ..?) is probably
due to St. Peter here. In ordinary Greek
(Herodotus and Thucydides) it = question
(ἐπ. having no force, as if implying a
second additional question arising out of
the first). Here the noun corresponds to
the verb as used in Isa. Ixv. 1, quoted by
St. Paul in Rom. x. 20, ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην
τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσι = (1) a seeking,
quest after God or (2) request addressed to
God Sd eee by ets; cf. the formula
ἔντευξις εἰς τὸ βασίλεως ὄνομα, a petition
addressed to the king’s majesty). In
the latter case Peter will still be thinking
as above and below of the disobedient
spirits who presented a petition (ἐρώτη-
σις) to God inspired by an evil con-
science (see Enoch summarised above).
At any rate σνυνειδ. is probably subjective
or possessive rather than objective geni-
tive. The believer who comes to bap-
tism has believed in Christ and repented
of his past sins, renoxnces them and the

7ο

22 µα els OF Bi ἀναστάσε

θεὶς εἰς

IV. τσιῶν καὶ δυνάµε
> x ” ε ,

ad τὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσα

2 ἁμαρτίαις 4

θελήματι OF τὸν ἐπί

3 ἀρκετὸς

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

ως 10 X& Gs ἐστιν ἐν δε
οὐρανὸν ὑποταγέν
ων Xb οὖν παθόντος 2

εἰς τὸ µηκέτι ἀνθρώ
λοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶ

γὰρ > ὁ παρεληλυθὼς

III. 2». Ἱν.

ξιᾷ ©0! πορευ-
των αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων & ἐξου-
σαρκὶ ὃ καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν
σθε' ὅτι ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται
πων ἐπιθυμίαις ἀλλὰ

σαι χρόνον "

χρόνος ὃ τὸ βούλημα TO

1 After θεοῦ the Vulgate adds deglutitens mortem ut vitae aeternae heredes efficia-

Mur.

2 The variant αποθανόντος for παθόντος is a simple case of erroneous transcrip-

tion which does not affect the sense.
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.

Codex Alexandrinus adds the Christian gloss

3 To σαρκὶ two secondary uncials prefix the preposition ἐν.
4 For ἁμαρτίαις most manuscripts have ἁμαρτίας.
5 After yap the secondary uncials supply ἡμῖν, and the first hand of Codex Sinai-

ticus with many cursives ὑμῖν.

6 The secondary uncials add τοῦ βίου to χρόνος and substitute θέλημα for βούλ-

ημα.

spirits which prompted them and appeals
to God for strength to carry out this re-
nunciation in his daily life—6 0 ἀναστ.
with σώζει: compare 1 Cor. xv. 13-17.

Ver. 22. Christ went into Heaven—
and now is on God's right hand (Ps. cx.
1)—when angels and authorities and
powers had subjected themselves to Him
in accordance with prophecy (Ps. vili. 7 ;
of. Heb. ii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff.). For
the orders of angels see also Rom. viii.
38; Eph. i. 21. Clearly they include
the rebels of ver. 19 f. whom Jubilees
calls the angels of the Lord (Jub. iv. 15)
and Onkelos the sons of the mighty and
their children (2) the giants.

CuHapreR 1V.—Ver. 1. Christ having
died to flesh, arm yourselves with the
same thought that (or because) he that
died hath ceased to sins.—_waOédvrTos
σαρκί. Peter goes back to the start-
ing point of iii. 18 in order to emphasise
the import of the first step taken by
Christ and His followers, apart now from
the consequences. The new life implies
death to the old.—t jv αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν.
ἐ. only occurs once elsewhere in N.T.,
Heb. iv. 12, τῶν ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν
καρδίας, but is common in LXX of Pro-
verbs ; compare (e.g.) Prov. ii. 11, ἔγνοια
bola (Των discernment) shall keep
thee. Here it is the noun-equivalent of
dpoveitre ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ (Phil. ii. 1).
Christ’s thought (or purpose) which He
had in dying is shared by the Christian :
and it is defined by ὅτι, κ.τ.λ.--ὁπλί-
σασθε, sc. for the fight with sin and

sinners whom you have deserted.—é7e
+ + + ἁμαρτίαις. This axiom is
better taken as explaining the same
thought than as motive for ὁπλ. St.
Paul states it in other words, 6 γὰρ ἄπο-
θανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας;
compare the death-bed confession of the
Jew, ''Ο may my death be an atonement
for all the sins . . . of which I have been
guilty against thee”. One dead—literally
or spiritually—hath rest in respect of
sins assumed or committed ; so Heb. ix.
28 insists that after His death Christ is
χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. πέπαυται echoes παυ-
σάτω Οἱ iii. το. In the Greek Bible the
perfect passive occurs only once (Exod.
ix. 34) outside Isa. i.-xxxix., where it is

used three times to render (cf.
σαββατισµός, Heb. iv. 9). ος
Gp. is analogous to that following ζην
ἀποθανεῖν (παθεῖν); the vl. ἁμαρτίας
is due to the common construction of
ταν.

Ver. 2. Christians who were baptised
into Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom.
vi. 2-11) are not taken out of the world at
once (John xvii. 15); they have to live
in the flesh but not to the flesh, because
they have been born not of the will of the
flesh nor of man but of God (John i. 13).
Their duty is to their new Father.—eis
76... gives the result of ὅτι κ.τ.λ.
which must be achieved by, and is there-
fore also the object of, the required orna-
ment.

Ver. 3. The use of the rare ἁρκετός
indicates the saying which St. Peter here

I—5.

ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι -
αις οἰνοφλυγίαις κώ
5 /
ats ἐν ᾧ ξενίζονται
τῆς ἀσωτίας ἀνάχυσι,

applies, sufficient unto the day [that is
past] izs evil. Compare Ezek. xliv. 6,
ἱκανούσθω ὑμῖν ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν ἀνομιῶν
ὑμῶν. The detailed description of the
evil follows the traditional redaction of
the simple picture of absorption in the
ordinary concerns of life which Jesus is
content to repeat (Matt. xxiv. 37, etc.).
Eating, drinking, marrying were inter-
preted in the worst sense to account for
the visitation and become gluttony,
drunkenness and all conceivable perver-
sions of marriage; see Sap. xiv. 21-27,
followed by Rom. i. 29, εἴο.---τὸ
πεπορευµένους, from 2 Kings xvii.
δι ἐπορεύθησαν τοῖς δικαιώµασιν τῶν
ἐθνῶν. The construction is broken (for
the will... to have been accomplished
. . . for you walking) unless κατ. be taken
as if middle to πεπορ. as subject.—
ἀσελγείαις, acts of licentiousness
(as in Polybius) ; so Sap. xiv. 26. Earlier
of wanton violence arising out of drunk-
enness (Demosthenes).—otvo@gdv γί-
aus, wine-bibbings, Deut. xxi. 20, οἶνοφ-

λνγεῖ = Ν1Ὁ. Noun occurs in Philo
coupled with ἁπλήρωτοι ἐπίθυμίαι.---
κώμοις, revellings associated with
alien rites, Sap. xiv. 26. For πότοις cf.
ποτήριον δαιμόνων, 1 Cor. x. 14 ff.—
ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις, a
Jew’s description of current Pagan cults,
which were often illicit according to
Roman law. For ἀ. ϱΓ. Actsx. 28, itis un-
lawful for a Few to associate with a
foreigner, and 2 Macc. vi. 5, vii. 1 (of swine
flesh).

Ver. 4. ἐν ᾧ, whereat, i.e. (i.) at
your change of life (2 f.) explained below
by μὴ συντρεχ. « « «Οἱ (1.) on
which ground, because you lived as they
did.—teviLovrau, are surprised, as in
ver. 12, where this use of ξ. (elsewhere in
N.T. entertain, except Acts xvii. 20,
ξενίζοντα) is explained by ὡς ξένου . «.
συµβαίνοντος. Polybius has it in the
same sense followed by dative, acc., διά
with acc. and ἐπί with dative. So in Jose-
phus Adam was surprised (ξενιζόμενον)
that the animals had mates and he none,
Ant, i, 1, 2) and the making of garments
surprised God (ib. 4)---συντρεχόν-
των, from Ps. |. 18, LXX, if thou sawest
a thief, συνέτρεχες αὐτῷ, and with adul-
terers thou didst set thy portion; where

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

πεπορευµένους ἐν
pots πότοις καὶ ade
μὴ συντρεχόντων
βλασφημῦνταις ot

κε

ἀσελγείαις ἐπίθυμι
µίτοις εἰδωλολατρεί
ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν 4
ἀποδώσουσι λόγον 5

hd consent has been rendered as it
rom “\ run. It thus corresponds to

St. Paul’s συνευδοκεῖν (Rom. i. 32).—
ἀσωτίας, profligacy. According to
Aristotle a. is the excess of liberality,
but is applied in complex sense to τοὺς
ἀκρατεῖς καὶ els ἀκολασίαν δαπανηρούς.
Prodigality is in fact a destruction of one-
self as well as one’s property (Eth. Nic.,
iv. 13).—_aoeXyelars... πότοις.
Violence and lust are classed with
drunkenness, which breeds and fosters
them. 4a. is wanton violence as well as
licentiousness. So the classic Christian
example of the word is exactly justified ;
see Luke xv. 13, the Prodigal Son squan-
dered his substance, living acdtws.—
ἀνάχυσιν, excess, overflow, properly
of water (Philo ii. 508 f., description of
evolution of air from fire, water from
air, land from water). In Strabo (iii. 1, 4,
etc.) = estuary. St. Peter is still thinking
of the narrative of the Deluge, which was
the fit punishment of an inundation of
Ρτοάἱρα](γ.--βλασφημοῦντες, put
last for emphasis and to pave the way
for ver. 5 in accordance with the saying,
for every idle word (cf. Rom. iii. 8). The
abuse is directed against the apostate
heathens and implies blasphemy in its
technical sense as opposed to the giving
glory to God (ii. 12).

Ver. 5. ἀποδώσουσιν λόγον.
will render account — if of their
blasphemy, cf. Matt. xii. 36, if of their
ἀσωτία (see note) cf. the steward of
Luke xvi. 2.--τῷ ἑτοίμως κρίνο-
ντι, #.¢., to Christ rather than to God
(asi. 17). The Christians took over the
Jewish doctrine that every man must
give an account of his life (Rom, xiv. το).
As already Enoch (Ixix. 27 = John v. 22,
27) taught that this judgment was dele-
gated to Messiah. So St. Peter said at
Caesarea this is he that hath been ap-

pointed by God judge of living and dead

(Acts x. 43). Compare Matt. xxv. 31 ff.
for a more primitive and pictorial state-
ment. The use of ἑτοίμως pro-

bably represents “P\yy (see i. 5) {.6.,
the future judge ; Greek readers would
understand the imminent judge (cf.
use of ἑτοίμως = ready, sure to come,
Homer, I/., xviii. 96, etc.). The v./.

pa

615 = Eroipws κρείνοντι 1
καὶ νε
Ἴπους σαρκὶ Lo
ἤγγικεν' σωφρονήσα

ὃ πρὸ πάντω.

ϱ ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆ

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α
κροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη ἵ
σι δὲ κατὰ OV πνεύµατι.

τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπη.
Bos ἁμαρτιῶν" φιλόξε

IV.
Lavras καὶ νεκροὺς eis τοῦτο γὰρ
A 9 3 ,
να κριθῶσι μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώ-
πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος
> Ν [4 3

τε οὖν καὶ νήψατε Eis προσευχάς *
ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες ὅτι

νοι εἷς ἀλλή-

1 Codex Sinaiticus with the bulk of the manuscripts has ἔχοντι κρῖναι for κρίνοντι.

ἑ. ἔχοντι κρῖναι softens the rugged
original,

Ver. 6. The judgment is imminent
because all necessary preliminaries have
been accomplished. There is no ground
for the objection ‘‘perhaps the culprits
have not heard the Gospel”. As regards
the living, there is a brotherhood in the
world witnessing for Christ in their lives
and the missionaries have done their
part. As regards the dead Christ de-
scended into Hades to preach there and
so was followed by His Apostles. And
the object of this was that though the
dead have been judged as all men are in
respect of the flesh they might yet live as
God lives in respect of the spirit.—eis
τοῦτο, with a view to the final judg-
ment or = ἵνα, «.t.A..—vekpots, to
dead men generally, but probably as dis-
tinct from the rebel spirits who were
presumably immortal and could only be
imprisoned. Oecumenius rightly con-
demns the view, which adds in trespasses
and sins or takes dead in a figurative
sense, despite the authority of e.¢., Augus-
tine (Ep., 164, §§ 1-18).--εὐηγγε-
λέσθη, the Gospel was preached, the
impersonal passive leaves the way open
for the development of this belief accord-
ing to which not Christ only but also the
Apostles preached to the dead. Hermas,
Sim., ix. 165-167; Cl. Al. Strom., vi.
645 f. So was provision made for those
who died between the descent of Christ
and the evangelisation of their own
countries.—tva, κ.τ.λ., that though
they had been judged in respect of flesh as
men are judged they might live in respect
of spirit as God lives. The parallel be-
tween the dead and Christ is exact (see
iii, 20). Death is the judgment or sen-
tence passed on all men (Ecclus. xiv. 17
= Gen. ii. 17, iii. 10). Even Christians,
who have died spiritually and ethically
(Rom. viii. το), can only hope wistfully to
escape it (2 Cor. v. 2 ff.). But it is pre-
liminary to the Last Judgment (Heb. ix.
27), at which believers, who are quick-
ened spiritually, cannot be condemned to
the second death (Apoc. xx. 6).

Ver. 7. But the end of all things and
men has drawn nigh; Christians also
must be ready, watch and pray, as Jesus
taught in the parable of Mark xiii. 34-37
(cf. xiv. 38).-σωφρονήσατε paral-
lels ἀσελγ. ἐπιθυμίαις (ver. 3) of. 4 Macc.
i. 31, temperance ts restraint of lust. In
Rom. xii. 3 St. Paul plays on the mean-
ing of the component parts of ow-dpovetv,
cf. εἰς σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν above.—v ή ψ-
ατε, corresponds to οἰνοφλυγίαις κώµοις.
πότοις (ver. 3); cf. i. 13, ν. δ. St. Paul
also depends on parable of Luke xii. 42-
46 in 1 Thess. v. 6 ff—eis προσεν-
χάς, the paramount duty of Christians
is prayer especially for the coming of the
Lord (Apoc. xxii. 20; Luke xi. 2; cf.
ili. 7).

Ver. 8. πρὸ πάντων, St. Peter em-
phasises the pre-eminent importance of
love of man as much as St. John; ¢f.1. 22.
--ἑαυτούς put for ἀλλήλους in accord-
ance with the saying thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself as much as with the
contemporary practice.—8 Tt... ἅμα-
ρτιῶν, quotation of Prov. x. 12, love
hides all transgressions which was ad-
duced by Jesus (Luke vii. 47). The plain
sense of the aphorism has been evaded
by the LXX (πάντας τοὺς μὴ Φιλονει-
κοῦντας καλύπτει Φιλία) and Syriac
translators substitutes shame for love.
The currency of the true version is at-
tested by Jas. v. 20, he that converted a
sinner . . . καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν.

Ver. ο. Hospitality is the practical
proof of this love ; its practice was neces-
sary to the cohesion of the scattered
brotherhood as to the welfare of those
whose duties ‘called them to travel.
The inns were little better than brothels
and Christians were commonly poor.
Chrysostom cites the examples of Abra-
ham and Lot (cf. Heb. xiii. 2). The
united advocacy of this virtue was suc-
cessful—so much so that the Didache has
to provide against abuses such as Lucian
depicts in the biography of Peregrinus
κα Christian traveller shall not remain
more than two or three days. . . if he
wishes to settle... is unskilled andi

6---12.

λους ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ ’ ἕκαστος

εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ δια

Χάριτος OG ef τις λαλεῖ
vet ὡς ἐξ ἴσχυος ἧς χο
ὁ O§ διὰ Ι8

ὢνας τῶν αἰώνων ἁμήν.
Spt” πυρώσει πρὸς πειρα
will not work he is a Χριστέμπορος,
makes his Christian profession his mer-
chandise.”"—a AA yAovs, used despite
ἑαυτούς above and below, perhaps because
the recipients of hospitality belong neces-
sarily to other Churches.—avev yoy-
γυσμοῦ, St. Peter guards against the
imperfection of even Christian human
nature. Ecclus. xxix. 25-28 describes
how a stranger who outstays his welcome
is first set to menial tasks and then driven
out.

Vv. το f. supplement the foregoing
directions for the inner life of the Church
and rest partly on Rom. xii. 6 (with
simpler classification of gifts), partly on
the conception of disciples as stewards
(Luke xii. 42) serving out rations in God’s
house.—8 ta kovovvrTes, inthe widest
sense (as διακονία in Acts vi. I, 4; 1 Cor.
xii. 5) in accordance with the saying,
the Son of Man came... to minister
(Mark x. 45), which is interpreted here,
as part of the pattern, by the addition of
an object (only here and i. 12); cf. 2
Cor. viii. 19, τῇ χάριτι . . . TH διακον-
ουµένῃ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν.- οἰκονόμοι, The
title is applied to all and not only to the
governors as by St. Paul (1 Cor. iv. 1;
Tit. i. 7); compare the question of St.
Peter which precedes the source (Luke
xii. f.).

Ver. 11 follows the primitive division
of ministry into that of the word and
that of tables (Acts vi. 2-4); compare
prophecy and ministry (in narrower sense
like διακονεῖ here) of Rom. xii. 6.—
λαλ εἲ covers all the speaking described
in I Cor. xii. 8, 10, to one by means of the
spirit hath been given a word of wisdom,
etc. . . . xiv. 6,26.- ὡς λόγια θεοῦ
(perhaps echoes κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν of
Rom. xii. 6) as being God’s oracles or as
speaking God’s oracles. ‘The Seer is the
model for the Christian preacher: Num.
xxiv. 4, Φησὶν ἀκούων λόγια θεοῦ. His
message is the particular grace of God
which he has to administer like the pro-
phets and evangelists, i. 10-12. —
διακονεῖ includes all forms of the

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

κονοῦντες ὡς καλοὶ
ὡς λόγια OT"
ρηγεῖ 6 OS: ἵνα ἐν πᾶσιν
Χῦ ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ
ἀγαπητοί, μὴ

σμὸν ὑμῖν τεινοµέ

73

καθὼς ἔλαβεν χάρισμα Το
οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης
εἴ τις διακο IT

δοξάζηται

\ > ‘ 3
τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἱ
ξενίζεσθε τῇ ἐν 12
νη ὡς ξενοῦ

ministration of God’s gifts other than
those of speech—primayily almsgiving,
hospitality and the like—tva,x.7.A. A
liturgical formula such as this is neces-
sarily capable of many special meanings.
--ἐνπᾶσιν may refer particularly to
the gifts or their possessors—hardly to the
Gentiles as Oec. suggests (Matt. v. 16)—
but so to limit it would be a gratuitious in-
justicetotheauthor. Thesaying ἐν τούτῳ
ἐδοξάσθη 6 πατήρ pov ἵνα καρπὸν πολὺν
φέρητε καὶ γεγήσεσθε ἐμοὶ µαθηταί is
sufficient to justify this appendix to the
exhortation love one another in deed
--διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, through
Yesus Christ through whom the spirit
descended on each of you, Acts ii. 33,
through whom you offer a sacrifice of
praise (Heb. xiii. 15); cf. δοξαξέτω τὸν
θεὸν ἐν ὀνόματι τούτῳ.--ᾧ ... The in-
sertion of ἐστιν changes the doxology to
a statement of fact and thus supports the
interpretation of @ as referring of the
immediate antecedent ¥esus Christ. Αἱ-
ready He possesses the glory and the
victory ; realising this His followers en-
dure joyfully their present suffering and
defeat.

Ver. 12. ἄγαπητοί marks the be-
ginning of the third division of the
Epistle in which Peter having cleared
the ground faces at last the pressing
problem.—Eevilea Oe, be surprised, as
in νετ. 4.--τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει,
the ordeal which is in your midst or
rather in your hearts.—év ὑμῖν, cf.
τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίµνιον (ν. I) but the test
is internal—in what frame of mind will
they meet it? Will they regard it as a
strange thing or as a share in Christ’s
sufferings, part of the pattern 2---πυ ρ-
ώσει. This conception of suffering as
a trial not vindictive is stated in Jud.
viii. 25, 27, ἐκείνους ἐπύρωσεν eis ἐτα-
σμὸν καρδίας αὐτῶν; compare Zach.
xiii. 19, πυρώσω αὐτοὺς ὡς πυροῦται
ἀργύριον, Prov. xxvii. 21, χρυσῷ πύρωσις
parallels but a man is tried . . . π. also
occurs in the sense of blasting, Amos iv.
9; Apoc. xviii. 9, 18.

~

74

13 ὑμῖν cup
παθήµασιν Xaipe
14 αὐτοῦ
Xd µακάριοι ὅτι

1ς ἀναπαύεται Σ μὴ γάρ

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

βαίνοντος ' ἀλλὰ καθὸ
o Noes | a

τε ἵνα καὶ ἐν TH ἄποκα

χαρῆτε ἀγαλλιώμενοι *

τὸ τῆς δόξης 1 καὶ τὸ τοῦ

τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω

EV.

κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς TOU Χῦ
λύψει τῆς δόξης
εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε ἐν ὀνό ματι
Θῦ πνεῦμα ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς
ὡς φονεὺς ἢ κλέπτης

1 After δόξης the first hand of Codex Sinaiticus with the consent of many manu-

scripts adds καὶ τῆς δυνάµεως αὐτοῦ.

* At the end of the verse the secondary uncials add κατὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖ-

ται κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάζεται.

Ver. 11. καθ ό, so far as, i.e., so far
as your suffering is undeserved and for
Christ’s name.—kotvwvette.. «.
παθήµασιν, ye share the sufferings
of the Messiah. The dative after x.
usually denotes the partner; here the
thing shared as in Rom. xv. 27; 1 Tim.
v. 22; 2 John 11; and in LXX; Sap. vi.
23; 3 Macc. iv. 11. This idea is ex-
pressed even more strongly by St. Paul
ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλί-
Ψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Col. i. 24). It is
derived from such sayings as the disciple
is as his Master (Matt. x. 24 f.)—the sons
of Zebedee must drink his cup, be bap-
tised with his baptism (Mark x. 38 f.).
To suffer in Christ’s name is to suffer as
representing Christ and so to share His
sufferings.—t va «. 7. A., from Matt. v. 12,
χαίρετε kal ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. But St. Peter
postpones the exultation. St. James (v.
1ο) follows Jesus in appealing to the
pattern of the prophets. ἀποκαλύ-
Wet, the final revelation represents an

original wordplay = on the quoted

ἀγαλλιώμενοι = 1].

Ver, 14. The Beautitude, μακάριοι
.. . ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑμᾶς ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ
is supported by prophecy which referred
originally to the root of Jesse. Both are
partially paraphrased for sake of clear-
ness. For ἐν ὀνόματι; cf. Mark ix. 41,
ἐν ὀνόματι ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἔστε. For the re-
proach cf. Heb. xiii. 13, let us come out
to him bearing His reproach, with Ps.
Ixxxix., so remember Lord the reproaches
(ὀνειδισμῶν LXX) of thy servants.—é 1
-+.G@vamaverat, quoted from a
current Targum of Isa. xi. 1 f., a branch

(¥5 2 LXX, ἄνθος: Targ. Messiah)
ae his roots shall grow aud there shall
rest upon him the spirit of fehovah. An
elaborate description of this sfirit fol-
lows, which Peter summarises by τὸ τῆς
δόξης. The Glory is a name of God in
the Targums (so John xii. 41 = Isa. vi.

5; Onkelos has ‘SJ NAD" for 9) and

its use here is probably due to the juxta-
position of Isa. xi. 10, his rest shall be
glorious. It is not impossible that kat
τοῦ θεοῦ is an insertion by first or later
scribes for the benefit of Greek readers.
Ver. 15. yap. I assume that you
suffer in Christ’s name as representing
Him and bearing only the reproach which
attaches to it per se. The crimes of
which slanderers had accused Christians
are given in the order of probability and
are selected as belonging to the pattern.
Christ Himself was implicitly accused
thereof by His persecutors and acquitted
of each by independent witnesses, as the
Gospels are at pains to show. He suf-
fered the fate from which the murderer
was preserved (Acts iii. 14) by the peti-
tion of the Jews; shared it with thieves
or brigands, being delivered up to the
secular arm as a malefactor (John xviii.
30). Such slanders the Christian must
rebut for the credit of his Lord; that he
must not be guilty of such crimes goes
without ςεαγίηρ.- ἀλλοτριεπίσκο-
πος is distinguished from the preceding
accusations by the insertion of ὡς ; it is
also an addition to the pattern of Christ,
unless stress be laid on the sneer, He
saved others. The word was apparently
coined to express the idea of the itinerant
philosopher of whatever sect current
among the unphilosophical. Epictetus
defends the true Cynic against this very
calumny; he is a messenger sent from
Zeus to men to show them cone ne
good and evil (Arrian, iii. 22, 23) .
a spy of what is helpful and harmful to
men ... he approaches all men, cares
for αἲ (ib. Θα] πειαες meddler—
Ὃ οσο τος busybody is such an one;
for he is not busy about alien things—
τὰ ἀλλότρια woAvTpaypovet—when he
inspects the actions and relations of
mankind—érav τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἐπισκοπῇ
(tb. 97). This zeal for the welfare of
others was certainly the most obvious
charge to bring against Christians, who
indeed were not always content to

13---109. V.1.

ἢ κακοποιὸς ἢ ὡς GX λοτριεπίσκοπος: εἰ δὲ

αἰσχυνέσθω δοξαζέ

‘
μη
ὅτι 6 και pos τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ
Θῦ εἰ δὲ πρῶτον a
τῷ τοῦ OG εὐαγγελίω:
3 ‘
ασεβὴς
Χοντες κατὰ τὸ

ae 9 A
καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ

σαν τὰς ψυχὰς ἐν ἆ

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

τω δὲ τὸν OF ἐν
κρίµα ἀπὸ τοῦ
πὸ ἡμῶν τί τὸ τέλος
Δ 3 ε , ,
καὶ et 6 δίκαιο pois
avettar: ὥστε καὶ οἱ
θέλημα τοῦ OF πιστῷ
‘
he
ya8orota. πρεσβυ

75

ὡς Χρειστιανὸς τό

> 4 1

/
τῷ ὀνό Wate” τούτῳ

\ A

οἴκου τοῦ I7
τῶν ἀπειθούντων

σώζεται ὁ δὲ 18
πάσ- 19

κτιστῇ παρατιθέσθω
τέρους οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν V. 1

1 The secondary uncials have µέρει for ὀνόματι.

testify by good behaviour without word.
St. Paul heard of some at Thessalonica,
μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους ἀλλὰ περιεργαζο-
µένους (2 Thess. iii, 11). Women gener-
ally if unattached were prone to be not
merely idle but meddlers speaking what
they should not (1 Tim. v.13). SoSt. Peter
(cf. Cor. x. 27) has emphasised the duty
of all Christians—even of the wives of
heathen husbands—to preach Christianity
only by example and now deprecates
their acquieScence in what some might
reckon a title of honour. The fate of
Socrates is the classical example of the
suffering of such; and later one phil-
osopher was scourged and another be-
headed for denunciation of the alliance
of Titus with Berenice (Dio Cassius,
Ixvi. 15). Punishment of this offence
would depend on the power of the other
man concerned who, if not in authority,
would naturally utilise mob-law like De-
metrius (Acts xix.).

Ver. 16. εἰ δὲ Os χριστιαγὸς,
if one suffers as a follower of Christ, in
the name of Christ (14). See on Acts ix.
26 and Introduction.—p 7 αἰσχυνέ-
σθω echoes the saying, Whosoever shall
be ashamed of me and my words of him
also the Son of Man shall be ashamed
when He cometh in the glory; so St.
Paul says I suffer thus but am not
ashamed (2 Tim. i. 12; cf. 8).--δοξα-
Γέτω τὸν θεόν, by martyrdom if
necessary, for this sense the phrase has
’ acquired already in John xxi. 19.—év τῷ
ὀνόματι τούτῳ = Mark ix. qr.

Ver. 17. That Judgment begins at the
House of God is a deduction from the
vision of Ezek. ix. (cf. vii. 4, the καιρός
has come); the slaughter of Israelites
who are not marked with Tau, is οἵ-
dained by the Glory of the God of Israel ;
the Lord said, ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων pov
ἄρξασθε and the men began at (ἀπό) the
elders who were within in the house.
The new Israel has precedence like the
old even in condemnation ; cf. Rom. ii.

8 f., τοῖς . . « ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ
.. . ὀργὴ ἐπὶ. . . ψυχὴν . . «᾿Ιουδαίου
τε πρῶτον.- τῷ... εὐαγγελίωῳ, cf.
Mark 1. 14. The Gospel or Word, which
God spake in a Son, succeeds to the law
as the expression of the will against
which all but the remnant (Ez. l.c.) rebel.

Ver. 18. To the summary excerpt
from Ezekiel Peter appends the Septu-
agint version of Prov. xi. 31, which is
followed by the Syriac and partially by
the Targum: The original—according
to the Masoretic text—is Behold or if
the righteous will be punished on the
earth : how much more the wicked and the
sinner. The Greek, which probably re-
presents asdifferent Hebrew text, is more
apt to his purpose and to the teaching of
Jesus, whith provoked the question, Who
then can be saved (Mark x. 24-26).

Ver. το. So let even those who suffer
in accordance with the will of God with
a faithful Creator deposit their souls in
well-doing. The Christian must still fol-
low the pattern. It is God’s will that he
share Christ’s sufferings in whatever
degree; let him in this also copy Christ,
who said, Father into thy hands I com-
mit my spirit (Luke xxiii. 46 = Ps. xxxi.
6) and bade His disciples lose their souls
that they might find them unto life
eternal. With this teachiny Peter com-
bines that of the Psalmist which is as-
sumed by Jesus (Matt. vi. 25 ff.), fehovah
knows His creature. He the God of

faithfulness (MN bys, Έσι Ίο) 18

the faithful Creator to whom the soul
He gave and redeemed (Ps. /.c.) may
confidently return.

CuapreR V.—Ver.1. οὖν, therefore
—since your suffering is according to
God's will and calls only for the normal
self-devotion, which Christ required of
His disciples—go on with the duties of
the station of life in which you are called.
-πρεσβυτέρους, not merely older
men as contrasted with younger (ver. 5),

76

παρακαλῶ 6 συµπρε

παθηµά
4 δόξης κοινωνὸς Trot

ἀναγκαστῶς ἀλλὰ ἑ
.
but εἶάενς, such as had been appointed by
Paul and Barnabas in the Churches of
Southern Asia (Acts xiv. 23). The col-
lective τῶν κλήρων (νετ. 3) and the ex-
hortation, shepherd the flock (ver. 2) prove
that they are the official heads of the
communities addressed. Similarly St.
Paul bade the elders of the Church (Acts
xx. I7) at Ephesus take heed to them-
selves and to all the flock in which the
Holy Spirit appointed you overseers. The
use of the term in direct address here
Carries with it a suggestion of the natural
meaning of the word and perhaps also of
the early technical sense, one of the first
generation of Christians. Both Jews and
Gentiles were familiar with the title
which was naturally conferred upon
those who were qualified in point of
years ; the youthful Timothy was a
marked exception to the general rule
(i Tim. iv. 12).--ἐν ὑμῖν. Peter does
not address them as mere officials, your
elders, but prefers a vaguer form of ex-
pression, elders who are among you ee,
τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίµνιον, which also evades
any impairing of the principle, ye are
Christ’s—6 συμπρεσβύτερος...
κοινωνός. This self-designation justi-
fies Peter’s right to exhort them. He is
elder like them, in all senses of the word.
If their sufferings occupy their mind, he
was witness of the sufferings of Christ ;
of his own, if any, he does not speak.
He has invited them to dwell rather on
the thought of the future glory and this
he is confident of sharing —papTvus
εκ. παθηµάτων. Such experience
was the essential qualification ot an
Apostle in the strict sense; only those
who were companions of the Twelve in
all the time from Fohn’s baptism to the
Assumption or at least witnesses of the
Resurrection (Acts i. 22) were eligible; as
Jesus said, the Paraclete shall testify and
do you testify because ye are with Me
from the beginning (John xv. 27). That
he speaks of the sufferings and not of the
resurrection which made the sufferer
Messiah, is due partly to the circum-
stances of his readers, partly to his own
experience. For him these sufferings had
once overshadowed the glory; he could
sympathise with those oppressed by per-
secution and reproach, who understood
now, as little as he then, that it was all part

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

ς ‘ aA ,
των ὁ καὶ τῆς μελλού
µάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν

κουσίως μὴ δὲ αἰσχρο

Ν.

σβύτερος καὶ µάρτυς τῶν τοῦ XT

σης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι
ποίµνιον τοῦ OF μὴ
κερδῶς ἀλλὰ

of the sufferings of the Messiah. He had
witnessed but at the last test refused to
share them.—é...Kkotv@vés. Peter
will share the future glory which Christ
already enjoys for it was said to him,
Thou shalt follow afterward (John xiii.
36). St. Paul has the same idea in a
gnomic form, εἴπερ συνπάσχοµεν ἵνα καὶ
συνδοξασθῶμεν (Rom. viii. 17; cf. 2 Cor.
iv. 10) which presupposes familiarity with
the teaching of the risen Jesus rhat the
Christ must suffer and so enter into His
glory, Luke xxiv. 46; cf. i. 5, 13, iv. 13.

Ver. 2. The command laid upon St.
Peter, shepherd my sheep (John xxi. 19)
became the charge delivered to succeed-
ing elders (v. Acts xx. 28) and a familiar
description of the Christian pastor (e.g.,
1 Cor. ix. 7) who must copy the good
Shepherd who obeyed where His prede-
cessors fell short (Ez. xxxiv.)—tT6 ἐν
ὑμῖν ποίµνιον τοῦ θεοῦ. Chris-
tendom is God’s flock among you—not
yours but God’s.—_avaykaoT@s. As

} α matter of constraint contrasted with

ἐκουσίως, willingly—not as pressed men
but as volunteers. In times of persecu-
tion lukewarm elders might well regret
their prominence; hence the need for
the aphorism if any aspire to oversight
he desireth a noble work (ιτ Tim. iii. 1).
So of gifts of money St. Paul requires
that they be μὴ ἐξ ἀνάγκης (2 Cor. ix. 7).
It is possible that St. Paul’s words,
ἀνάγκη por ἐπικεῖται (1 Cor. ix. 16) had
been Ψτεςίεά.--αἰσχροκερδῶς. If
the work be voluntarily undertaken, the
worker has a reward according to St.
Paul (1 Cor. ix. 16 f.). Base gainers are
those who wish to make gain whence they
ought not (Aristotle, Nic. Eth., v. 1, 43).—
προθύµως. The adverb occurs in 2
Chron. xxix. 34, LXX, where the Levites
eagerly purified themselves; Heb. the
Levites upright of heartto . . . The verb
προθυμεῖν is used in Chron. to render

315 offer freewitll offerings.

Ver 3. Application of the saying, the
reputed rulers of the nations lord tt (κατα-
κυριεύουσιν) over them . « . not so among
you ; but whosoever would be great among
you he shall be your servant . . . for the
Son of Man came... to serve (Mark x.
42 f.).—_tT@v κλήρων, the lots, {.ε.,
the portions of the new Israel who fall to

2—6,

pws! καὶ Φανερωθέν
τινον τῆς δόξης στέ

προθύ

τὸν ἆμαρα.

ὑποτάγητε πρε
νοφροσύνην ἐγκομ

τάσ σεται ταπεινοῖς δὲ

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α

σβυτέροις ' πάντες δὲ
βώσασθε 2 ὅτι OF Se
δίδωσιν χάριν’ ταπει

δα

τος τοῦ ἀρχιποίμενος κομιεῖσθε 4

Φανον ΄ ὁμοίως νεώ τεροι 5
ἀλλήλοις τὴν τάπει
Ρρηφάνοις ἀντι-

νώθητε 6

1 Codex Vaticanus is alone in omitting verse 3, μηδ ὡς κατακυριεύοντες τῶν
κλήρων ἀλλὰ τύποι γινόµενοι τοῦ ποιµνίον.
2 For the unfamiliar ἐγκομβώσασθε two cursives read ἐγκολπίσασθε, whence

insinuate of the Vulgate.

your care as Israel fell to that of Jehovah
(Deut. ix. 29, οὗτοι λαός σου καὶ κλῆρός
gov). The meaning is determined by
the corresponding τοῦ ποιμνίου and sup-
ported by the use of προσεκληρώθησαν
were made an additional portion in Acts
xvii. 4. So itis said of God’s servant that
He κληρονομήσει πολλούς (Isa. liii. 12).
The Vulgate has dominantes in cleris,
and Oecumenius following the usage of
his time explains the phrase likewise as
equivalent to τὸ ἱερὸν σύστημα, {.έ.,
the inferior οἰετργ.- τύποι γεινόμµ-
ενουι, 1.6., aS servants according to Mark
το ο τ (HESS. σα πα αν. το.

Ver. 4. Φανερωθέντος τοῦ
ἀρχιποίμενος, at the manifestation
of the chief Shepherd, i.e., Christ. apxt-
ποίµην is the equivalent of 6 ποίµην 6
péyas of Heb. xiii. 20, being formed on the

analogy of ἀρχιερεύς = bey om 5 )
else it occurs only as Symmachus’ render-
ing of "12 (LXX, νωκηδ) in 2 Kings
ili. 4 and in a papyrus. Cf. appeal to
Jehovah, 6 ποιµαίνων τὸν lopand...
ἐμφάνηθι of Ps. Ἰχχχ. 1.—rév...
otédavov = the crown of life which
He promised (Jas. i. 12). The metaphor
is probably derived from the wreath of
fading flowers presented to the victor in
the games (cf. Gpapdvrivov) ; but it may
also be due to the conception of the
future age as a banquet, at which the
guests were crowned with garlands (Sap.
ii, 8, στεψώµεθα ῥόδων κάλυξιν πρὶν 7
µαρανθῆναι). See on i. 4.

Ver. 5. νεώτεροι, the younger
members of each Church were perhaps
more or less formally banded together on
the model of the σύνοδοι τῶν νέων, which
are mentioned in inscriptions as existing
distinct from the Ephebi in Greek cities,
especially in Asia Minor (Ziebarth Die
Griechische Vereine, 111-115). Compare
the modern Guilds and Associations of
Young Men. In 1 Tim. iv. 1, these
matural divisions of elders and youngers

are also recognised._mwavres δὲ...
Elders must serve ; youngers sub-
mit. May all be lowly-minded towards
one another—there is no need to add
detailed commands. —éyxopBpadaa-
σθε is explained by Oecumenius as
ἐνειλήσασθε περιβάλεσθε (wrap your-
selves in, put round you), so the com-
mand corresponds to ἐνδύσασθε . . .
ταπεινοφροσύνην of Col. 11.12. But the
choice of this unique word must have
some justification in associations which
can only be reconstructed by conjecture.
The lexicographers (Hesychius, Sindas,
etc.) give κόμβος κόσυµβος and ἐγκόμ-
βωμα as synonyms. Pollux explains
ἐγκομβ. as the apron worn by slaves to
protect their tunic; so Longus, Pasto-
valia, ii. 35 Εν in “casting his apron,
naked he started to run like a fawn”.
Photius (Epistle 156) takes George Metro-
politan of Nicomedia to task for his sug-
gestion that it was a barbarous word:
“You ought to have remembered Epi-
charmus and Apollodorus the
former uses it frequently and the latter
in the ‘ Runaway’ (a comedy) says τὴν
ἐπωμίαν πτύξασα διπλῆν ἄνωθεν ἄνεκομ-
βωσάμην.” But the LXX of Isa. iii. 18
has τοὺς κοσύµβους = front-bands and
Symmachus τὰ ἐγκομβώματα in ver. 20
for bands or sashes. Peter is therefore
probably indebted again to this passage
and says gird yourselves with the humility
which is the proper ornament of women.
If the word be taken in this sense a
reference to John xiii. 4 ff., Taking a
napkin He girded Himself, may be reason-
ably assumed. —@e€65...xaptv=
Prov. iii. 34, LXX (θεός being put for
κύριος, which to a Christian reader meant
Christ) ; the Hebrew text gives scoffers
he scoffs at but to the humble he shows
favour. The same quotation 1s em-
ployed in similar context by St. James
(iv. 6); the devil (see below) is the
typical scoffer.

Ver.6. ταπεινώθητε οὖν echoes
the exhortation and its accompanied

~

78

οὖν ὑπὸ TH
7 καιρῷ: πᾶσαν τὴν µέ
ὃ ὅτι
δικος bua
ϱ ζητῶν καταπιεῖν ᾧ
αὐτὰ τῶν παθηµατω:

1Ο ἐπιτε λεῖσθε -
scripture in νετ. 5—obey in order that the
promise (Luke xiv. 11) may be fulfilled
for you, he that humbleth himself shall
be exalted (sc. by God). Sotoo St. James,

subject yourselves therefore to God (iv. 7).

--τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα. God's

mighty hand is a common Ο.Τ. expres-
sion; see Exod, iii. 19, etc. for con-
nexion with deliverance and especially
Ez. xx. 33 f., ἐν χειρὶ κραταιᾷ kat...
ἐν θυμῷ κεχυµένῳφ βασιλεύσω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς.

Ver. 7. τὴν µέριμναν... a v-
τόν comes from Ps. lv. 12, ἐπίριψον ἐπὶ
Κύριον τὴν µέριμνάν σου, which is the
source of part of the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt. vi. 25 Π..-- ὅτι...
ὑμῶν substituted for καὶ αὐτός σε δια-
θρέψει of Ps. 1... in accordance with
Jesus’ amplification and application of
the metaphor. God cares for His flock
as the hireling shepherd does not (οὐ
µέλει αὐτῷ περὶ τῶν προβάτων, John
4515)

Ver. δ. νήψατε γρηγορήσατε,
of. ο το αν. Ze Ol Ste Paul, γρηγορῶμεν
καὶ νήφωμεν . . . ἡμέρας ὄντες νήφωμεν
(1 Thess. v. 6, 8) drawing upon the com-
mon source in the Parables of the House-
holder and Burglar, etc. (Matt. xxiv.
42 ff.) which set forth the sudden com-
ing of the Kingdom.—6 ἀντίδικος
ὑμῶν διάβολος, your adversary,
Satan—4. (properly adversary in law suit)
is used in the general sense of enemy in
LXX. Of the description of Satan, as a
roaring lion comes from Ps. xxii. 14, ὡς
λέων 6 ἁρπάζων καὶ ὠρυόμενος: walketh
from ]οῦ 1. 7, where Satan (6 διάβολος
LXX, Lardy, Aq.) περιελθὼν τὴν. γῆν καὶ
ἐμπεριπατήσας τὴν ὑπ οὐρανὸν πάρ-
ειµι; Seeking to devour identifies him with
Hades the lord of death; cf. Prov. i. 12,
where the wicked say of the righteous
man, καταπίωµεν αὐτὸν ὥσπερ ἅδης
ζῶντα. The present sufferings of the
Christians are his handiwork as much as
the sufferings of Jesus (1 Cor. ii. 6, 8) and
of Job.

Ver.9. ᾧ ἀντίστητε. St. James
adds the same exhortation to his quota-
tion of Prov. The connexion is not

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ OG
ριµναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρεί
2 See μα με
αὐτῷ µέλει περὶ ὑμῶ
διάβολος ὡς λέων ὦ
ἀντιστῆτε στερεοὶ

ὁ δὲ O§ πάσης

ἵνα ὑμᾶς Spoon ἐν
9 3 ο...
ψαντες em αὐτὸν
, , eens ν /
νήψατε γρηγορήσα τε ὁ ἀντι-

ρυόµενος περιπατεῖ
τῇ πίστει εἰδότες τὰ

ἀδελφότητι

~ 3 ~ / ε a”
τῇ ἐν TO κόσµω ὑμῶ

, e / c ~
xapitos 6 καλέσας ὁ pas

obvious but is perhaps due to the tradi-
tional exposition of = ὑπερηφάνοις
as referring to the Devil and his children.
As God ranges Himself against scoffers,
so must Christians resist the Devil who
is working with their slanderous tempers.
Oecumenius and Cramer’s Catena both
appeal to an extract from Justin’s book
against Marcion (?) which is preserved
in Irenzus and quoted by Eusebius.
The main point of the passage is that
before Christ came the devil did not dare
to blaspheme against God, for the pro-
phecies of his punishment were enig-
matic; but Christ proclaimed it plainly
and so he lost all hope and goes about
eager to drag down all to his own des-
truction.—_oTrepeot τῇ πίστει, rock
like in your faith, abbreviation of ἐπι-
µένετε τῇ πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ
ἑδραῖοι, Col. i. 23; cf. τὸ στερέωµα τῆς
εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως, Col. ii. 5 and Acts
XVi. 5, QL. . . ἐκκλησίαι ἐστερεοῦντο τῇ
moret. The metaphorical use of στ. in
a good sense is not common. Peter
perhaps thinks of the στερεὰ πέτρα
(4%) of Isa. li. 1 and warns them against
his own {[α]ησ.--εἰδότες .. . ἐπι-
τελεῖσθαι. The rendering (first sug-
gested by Hoffmann) knowing how to
pay (that you are paying) the same tax of
sufferings as the brotherhood in the world
is paying seems preferable to the com-
mon knowing that the same kinds of
sufferings ave being accomplished for (by)
. it assumes the proper idiomatic force
of ἐπιτελεῖσθαι and accounts for τὰ αὐτά
(sc. τέλη) followed by the genitive.
Xenophon who is a good authority for
Common Greek uses é thus twice:—
Mem. iv. 8. 8, “ but if I shall live longer
perhaps it will be necessary to pay the
penalties of old age (τὰ τοῦ γήρως ἐπι-
τελεῖσθαι) and to see and hear worse
. . «” Afol, 33 nor did he turn effeminate
at death but cheerfully welcomed it and
paid the penalty (ἐπετελέσατο). For the
dative with τὰ αὐτά same as, cf. 1 Cor. xi.

5, ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ.
Ver. 1ο. Your adversary assails you,

7---τ2.

€is τὴν αἰώνιον
τὸς καταρτίσει στηρί

τοὺς ai ὤνας ἁμήν. διὰ Cr
ἀδελφοῦ ὡς λογίζο
ἐπι μαρτυρῶν ταύτην

but God has called you to His eternal
giory; first for a little you must suffer,
His grace will supply all your needs.
Ver. g is practically a parenthesis; 6
θεός stands over against 6 ἀντίδικος (ver.
8) as δέ shows.—6 καλέσας, for the
promise of sustenance implied in the call-
ing; cf. i Thess. v. 23 f.; 1 Cor. i. 8 f.—
ἐν Χριστῷ goes with 6... δόξαν;
God called them in Christ and only as
they are in Christ can they enter the
glory; cf. 2 Cor. v. 17-19, et τις ἐν
Χριστῷ καινὴ κτίσις . . . θεὸς ἦν ἐν
Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαντῷ.---
τον παθόντας, after you have
suffered for a little while. The same
contrast between temporary affliction and
the eternal glory is drawn by St. Paul in
2 Cor. iv. 17, τὸ παραυτίκα ἐλαφρὸν τῆς
θλίψεως .. . αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης κατερ-
γάζεται, where in addition to the anti-
thesis between eternal glory and tempor-
ary suffering the weight of glory (play on

meanings of root 355) is opposed to

the lightness of tribulation.—atrés has
the force of πιστὸς 6 καλῶν (1 Thess.
ν. 24)-- καταρτίσει, shall perfect.
When Simon and Andrew were called to
leave their fishing and become fishers of
men James and John were themselves
also in a boat mending—xataprtifovras—
their nets (Mark i. 16-19). The process
was equally necessary in their new fish-
ing and the word was naturally applied
to the mending of the Churches or indi-
vidual Christians who by their good be-
haviour must catch men (see ¢.g., 1 Cor.
i. 10), Only God can fully achieve this
mending of all shortcomings; cf. Heb.
xiii. 21.—otyn ple, shall confirm; cf.
2 Thess. ii. 17, etc.; when the Kingdom
of Heaven was stormed the stormers
needed confirmation (Acts xviii. 23).
This was the peculiar work assigned to
St. Peter—thou having converted con-
jirm—orypicov—the brethren (Luke xxii.
32).--σθενώσει is only apparently
unique, being equivalent to ἐνισχύσει ος
δυναµώσει (Hesychius) cf. Col. i. 11, ἐν
macy δυνάµει δυναμώμενοι κατὰ τὸ κρά-
τος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ and Heb. xi. 34,
ἐδυναμώθησαν ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας (parallel to
ὀλίγον παθ. above).

Ver. 11. Liturgical formula, adapted

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

αὐτοῦ δόξαν ἐν τῷ XO

fe. σθενώσει' αὐτῷ

pat δί ὀλίγων ἔγραψα
εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ

79

ὀλίγον παθόντας αὖ
τὸ κράτος εἰς II

βανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοί 12

παρακαλῶν καὶ
Θῦ εἰς ἣν

in iv. 11 (ἐστιν), which occurs in 1 Tim.
vi. 16; John 25; Apoc. i. 6; v. 13.

Vv. 12-14. Postscript in St. Peter’s
own handwriting, like Gal. vi. 11-18
(Sere πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράµµασιν ἔγραψα
τῃ ἐμῃ χειρί; 2 Thess. ili. 17 {. (6
ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου).--δι ὰ
Σιλουανοῦ, by the hand of my scribe
S.; so Ignatius writes διὰ Βύρρου to the
Philadelphians (xi. 2) and the Smyrnaeans
(xii. 1), but wishes to keep him with himself
(Eph. ii. 1). That S. was also the bearer
of the Epistle is indicated by the recom-
mendation which follows. There does
not seem to be any good reason for re-
fusing to identify this S. with the com-
panion of St. Paul and Timothy who
wrote with them to the Church of Thessa-
lonica and preached with them at Corinth
(2 Cor. i. 10).--τοῦ πιστοῦ adeX-
got ὥς λογίζομαι. One main
object of the postscript is to supply S.
with a brief commendation. He is pre-
sumably the appointed messenger who
will supplement the letter with detailed
application of its general teaching and
information about the affairs of the writer.
So St. Paul’s Encyclical ends with that
ye may know my circumstances how I
fare Tychicus the beloved brother and
faithful minister in the Lord shall make
known all things to you (Eph. vi. 21 f.).
S. was known probably to some of the
Churches as St. Paul’s companion: in case
he was unknown to any, St. Peter adds
his own certificate. For this use of
λογίζοµαι compare 1 Cor. iv. I, οὕτως
ἡμᾶς λογιζέσθω ἄνθρωπος; 2 Cor. xi. 5,
λογίζοµαι yap pydev ὑστερηκέναι τῶν
ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων.- παρακαλῶν
- + « θεοῦ, motive and subject of the
Epistle. St. Peter wrote exhorting as he
said I exhort you (ii. 11, v. 1) and the
general content of his exhortation may
be given by the subordinate clause which
follows: “That you stand in the grace,
which I bear witness is truly God’s
grace”. The acquired sense of the verb

comfort (LXX for Ὁπρ) is not directly
contemplated. The Epistle is a λόγος
παρακλήσεως in the sense of 6 παρα-
καλῶν ἐν τῇ παρακλήσει, Rom. xii. 8.—
ἐπιμαρτυρῶν, testifying to... not

. . in addition. The verb does not

80

14 στῆτε"
14 Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός µου"

γάπης : εἰρήνη ὑμῖν

occur elsewhere in Ο.Τ. (LXX has ém-
μαρτύρομαι) or N.T.; but Heb. ii. 4 has
the compound συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ
θεοῦ.- ταύτην . « . θεοῦ, that this is
true grace of God, ἐ.ε., the grace—in the
widest sense of the word which is theirs
(i. 10) which God gives to the humble
(v. 5). St. Peter was witness of the
sufferings of Christ which they now share ;
he witnesses from his experience that the
grace which they possess is truly God’s
grace, though sufferings are a passing
incident of their sojourn nere.—ets ἣν
στῆτε, paraenetic summary of τὴν προ-
σαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην
ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμεν (Rom. v. 2), from which
the easier reading ἐστήκατε is derived.—
ἡ... συνεκλεκτή. As the co-elder
exhorts the elders so the co-elect (woman)
greets the elect sojourners (i. 1). The
early addition of Church represents the
natural interpretation of the word, which
indeed expresses the latent significance of
ἐκ-κλησία, the called out, compare St.
Paul’s use of ἡ ἐκλογή in Rom. xi. 7. In
v. τ ff. Peter addresses bodies rather than
individuals and in v. 9 he uses a collec-
tive term embracing the whole of Chris-
tendom. Accordingly the woman in ques-
tion is naturally taken to mean the
Church—and not any individual (see on
Mapxos). Compare the woman Οἱ Apoc.
xii. 1 f. who is Israel—a fragment which
presupposes the mystical interpretation of
Canticles (see Cant. vi. 10) and generally
the conception of Israel as the bride of
Jehovah, which St. Paul appropriated, as
complement of the Parables of the Mar-
riage Feast, etc., and applied to the
Church in Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 2). So in
Hermas’ Visions the Church appears as a
woman. ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, in Rome, ac-
cording to the Apocalyptic Code, the use
of which was not merely a safeguard but
also a password. Compare Apoc. xvii. 5,
on the forehead of the woman was written
a mystery, “ Babylon the great,” xiv. 8,
xvi. 10, xviii. 2; Apoc. Baruch, xi. 1. So
Papias reports a tradition (“they say”)
that Peter composed his first Epistle in
Rome itself and signifies this by calling
the city allegorically Babylon. The
point of the allegory is that Rome was
becoming the oppressor of the new (and

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A

ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐ
ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλή

V. 13—14.

KTH καὶ
hous ἐν φιλήματι a

Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλε

πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν XG.

old) Israel, not that it was the centre
of the world (Oec.). Literal interpreta-
tions (i.) Babylon, (ii.) Babylon in Egypt
are πιοάετη.--Μᾶρκος 6 vids pov.
Oecumenius interprets son of spiritual
relationship and adds noting that some
have dared to say that M. was the fleshly
son of St. Peter on the strength of the
narrative of Acts xii. where P. is repre-
sented as rushing to the house of the
mother of John M. as if he were return-
ing to his own house and lawful spouse.
So Bengel, “ Céelecta sic coniugem suam
appellare videtur; cf. iii. 7, Erat enim
soror; 1 Cor. ix. 5, Et congruit mentio
fil Marci”. But granting that Petro-
nilla (?) was missionary and martyr and
that Peter may well have had a son—
though Christian tradition is silent with
regard to him—what have they to do
sending greetings to the Churches of
Asia Minor in this Encyclical ?

Ver. 14. Φιλήματι ἁἀγάπης.
So St. Paul concludes 1 Thess. with
greet all the brethren with an holy kiss
(v. 26; ¢f. x Cor. xvi: 20; 2 6οτ. πα το,
Rom. xvi. 16). “ Hence,” says Origen,
‘“‘the custom was handed down to the
Churches that after prayers (so Justin
Apol., i. 65) the brethren should welcome
one another with a kiss.’”’ Chrysostom
(on Rom. l/.c.) calls it “the peace by
which the Apostle expels all disturbing
thought and beginning of smallminded-
ness ... this kiss softens and levels”.
But the practice was obviously liable to
abuse as Clement of Alexandria shows,
“love is judged not in a kiss but in
good will. Some do nothing but fill the
the Churches with noise of kissing. .. .
There is another—an impure—kiss full of
venom pretending to holiness” (Paed.,
iii, 301 P.). Therefore it was regulated
(Apost. Const., ii. 57, 12, men kiss men
only) and gradually dwindled.—eip xv.
The simple Hebrew salutation is proper
to Peter’s autograph postscript and links
it with the beginning. —toits ἐν
Χριστῷ, cf. iii. 16, ν. 1ο, and the
saying, Thus have I spoken to you that
in me ye might have peace: in the world
ye have tribulation but be of good cheer
I have conquered the world (John xvi,

33).

λα Μα
mI Pf [ ie ν . i ‘i We i,
ο η i ed , J Ae λα aN
αι h ign
αν

THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL

OF

PETER

nN a i Pip

iy

ἡ η
μαμα

INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER I.

AUTHENTICITY AND DATE.
ExTERNAL EVIDENCE.

Fourth Century.—In considering the external evidence for the
authenticity of 2 Peter, it will be found most convenient to proceed
from the earliest date when its place was fixed in the Canon of the
New Testament. This date must be found in the fourth century A.p.
Even then, the Epistle was rejected by the Syrian Church, where it
was not accepted till early in the sixth century, and only by the
Monophysites. The view of the Church of Rome is represented
chiefly by JERomeE, whose influence was paramount in the formation
of the Vulgate Canon. He mentions the doubts raised by the differ-
ences in style and character between 1 and 2 Peter (Quest. ad Hedib.
Migne, Pal, Lat., xxii. 1002). Jerome, however, is clearly expressing
only the objections of scholars. He says: ‘“Scripsit duas epistulas,
quae Catholicae nominantur ; quarum secunda a plerisque eius esse
negatur, propter stili cum priore dissonantiam,”’ where “a plerisque,”’
and the nature of the difficulty expressed, both point to the opinion of
the learned class, which he does not himself share. The Epistle is
quoted in the last quarter of the fourth century by ‘‘ AMBROSIASTER ” !
and by AMBROSE OF MILAN (de Fide, iii. 12). In an African list, CANoN
MommseEniaunvus, belonging to the middle of the fourth century, 2 Peter
is found inserted, but with a protest, which indicates rejection in the
mind of the scribe. Dipymus, who wrote a commentary on 2 Peter,
towards the end of the fourth century, uses the following words, which
are a fragment come down to us in a Latin translation, ‘non igitur
ignorandum praesentem epistolam esse falsatam, quae licet publicetur,
non tamen in canone est”. Howare we to explain the words in italics,
in view of the fact that in the De Trinitate, a later treatise, Didymus
quotes repeatedly from 2 Peter? Chase suggests that the phrase
represents the Greek words és νοθεύεται αὕτη ἡ ἐπιστολή, which would

Cf. Souter, Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 196 f., Pseudo-Augustine Quaestiones,
etc, (Vindob. 1908), p. 499.

δ4 INTRODUCTION

mean that the writer was only stating the opinion of others, more
or less contemporary. Zahn (Gesch. Kan., 1. i. p. 312) urges that
Didymus is here recording a judgment of the second or third century,
but there appears to be no conclusive reason to doubt that he is
recording a contemporary opinion. Eusesius (H. E., iti. 3) dis-
cusses the canonicity of 2 Peter, and makes the following important
statement: τὴν δὲ Φερομένην αὐτοῦ δευτέραν οὐκ ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι
παρειλήφαμεν, ὅμως δὲ πολλοῖς χρήσιμος Φανεῖσα μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσ-
πουδάσθη γραφῶν. ‘‘ The opinion has been handed down to us that the
so-called Second Epistle (of Peter) is not canonical, but it has
been studied along with the other Scriptures, as it appears profit-
able tomany”. Inthe H. E., iii. 25, 2 Peter is placed among the
ἀντιλεγόμενα, although “accepted by the majority” (γνωρίµων δ οὖν
ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς). Eusebius had a second class of ἀντιλεγόμενα which
he regarded also as spurious (νόθα), and 2 Peter is classed with
James, Jude, 2 and 3 John as disputed books which were also
γνώριμα. The evidence of Eusebius is specially valuable (1) because
he records the opinion that in his day 2 Peter was regarded as un-
canonical ; (2) because he records a judgment of the past against it ;
(3) he failed to find any recognition of the book as Petrine in the
earlier literature known to him, and his knowledge was wide. There
can be little doubt that Eusebius himself rejected the idea of Petrine
authorship, but he was also one of those to whom it was a “ pro-
fitatle’’ bock. Constantine entrusted Eusebius with the prepar-
ation, for use in the new Capital, of fifty copies of the Scriptures,
which contained 2 Peter. This quasi-official standard practically did
away with the distinction between ‘acknowledged’ and ‘disputed’
books (Chase, H. D. B., iii. 806 a).

Another indication of fourth century opinion is the inclusion of
2 Peter in the catalogues of GRecory ΝΑΖΙΑΝΖΕΝ (d. 391), CyrIL oF
JERUSALEM (d. 386), and Aruanastius (d. 373). One catalogue which
is contained in the CopExX CLAROMONTANUS (sixth century), and re-
garded by Tischendorf and Westcott as earlier than the fourth cen-
tury, recognises seven Catholic Epistles, together with the Shepherd
of Hermas, Acts of Paul, and Apocalypse of Peter. On the other
hand, in the list of AmpHiLocuius, Bishop of Iconium (c. 380), only
one Epistle of Peter is recognised. We have already seen that the
Syriac-speaking churches unanimously rejected 2 Peter, and con-
siderable importance is to be attached to the fact that Curysostom
acknowledges only the Catholic Epistles, and that THEODORE oF
MopsugstiA describes five Epistles, among which is 2 Peter, as
‘‘mediae auctoritatis”. “Since Chrysostom’s expositions, at any

INTRODUCTION 85

rate, were addressed to popular audiences, the rejection of the Epistle
by the great teachers in question must have reflected the usage of
the Antiochene Church in general.” (Chase, of. cit., iii. 805.)

If we pass in review the evidence afforded by the usage of the
fourth century in regard to this Epistle, we find that there was a
considerable prevailing feeling of doubt as to the Petrine authorship,
along with instances of definite rejection. It is, however, specially
significant, in view of the modern tendency to depreciate the Epistle,
that it seems to have gained a place in the Canon by virtue of its
contents and its useful opposition to the doctrines of false teachers.

Third Century —Metuoptus, a bishop of Lycia at the end of the
third century, who suffered in the Diocletian persecution, explicitly
quotes 2 Peter iii. 8 in the fragment De Resurrectione. Zahn
(Gesch. Kan., |. i. p. 313) has collected some passages in the same
treatise which seem to echo 2 Peter iii. 10-13, and while in these the
thought, rather than the language, recalls 2 Peter, there seems no
reason to doubt the reference. Methodius regards the Apocalypse
of Peter also as inspired (Comm.; Virg., ii. b). A further pre-
sumption in favour of the use by Methodius of 2 Peter is found in
the DiaLocug ΟΕ ADAMANTIUS, written probably in the later years of
Constantine, which makes large use of the works of Methodius. In
this work 2 Peter is quoted. ΕΙΕΜΙΙΠΙΑΝ, bishop of Cesarea in Cappa-
docia, evidently refers to 2 Peter in a letter to Cyprian (No. 75).
His words are: ‘‘ Stephanus adhuc etiam infamans Petrum et
Paulum beatos apostolos . . . qui in epistolis suis haereticos exse-
crati sunt, et ut eos evitemus monuerunt’’. The allusion to heretics
applies only to 2 Peter.

We come now to the evidence of ΟΕΙΟΕΝ. In his extant Greek
works there is a reference to 2 Peter of a somewhat ambiguous kind.
“Peter left one recognised Epistle, and perhaps a second; for it is
disputed ” (Πέτρος δέ. . . µίαν ἐπιστολὴν ὁμολογουμένην καταλέλοιπεν * ἔστω
δὲ καὶ δευτέραν : ἀμφιβάλλεται γάρ); (quoted Eusebius, H. Ε., VI. xxv.
8). In the Latin translation of his works by Rufinus there are some
passages expressly quoting 2 Peter, e.g., 2 Peter, i. 4, “ad participa-
tionem capiendam divinae naturae sicut Petrus Apostolus edocuit”’
(Ep. ad Rom. iv. 9. Ed. Lomm., vi. 302). 2 Peter, i. 2, “ Petrus in
epistola sua dicit. Gratia uobis et pax multiplicatur in recognitione
Dei” (2b., viii. 6. Ed. Lomm., vii. 234). 2 Peter, ii. 19, “Scio
enim scriptum esse, quia unusquisque a quo vincitur huic et servus
addicitur” (¢n Exod. xii. 4. Ed. Lomm., ix. p. 149). Also in a
passage which contains an allegorical use of the trumpet blasts
before Jericho, it is written, “ Petrus etiam duabus epistolarum

VOL. ¥. 6

δ6 INTRODUCTION

suarum personat tubis” (Hom. in Fos., xii. 1. Ed. Lomm., xi. 62).
These passages have had grave doubt cast on their genuineness
by Dr. Chase (op. cit., p. 803b). There can, at least, be no
doubt, judging from the one undisputed reference, that Origen
reflects a serious division of opinion in his time, and that his own
opinion tends towards rejection (ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν) of the Petrine
authorship.

As regards CLEMENT oF ALEXANDRIA, the main question to be
settled is whether in the Hypotyposeis he comments on 2 Peter.
If we are to take the statements of Eusebius (H. Ε., VI. xiv. 1)
and Photius (Bibliothec, 109), he commented “on all the Catholic
Epistles”. On the other hand, Cassiodorus, who wrote some 300
years afterwards, gives most conflicting evidence. At one time he
says that Clement expounded the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments “ from beginning to end,” and in another passage, where
he is giving a list of the canonical Epistles expounded by Clement,
he.omits 2 Peter. Moreover, in Cassiodorus’ translation of Clement’s
Expositions, none are given of 2 Peter. The difficulty may be
solved by supposing that in Clement’s work, 2 Peter had a place
beside the Apocalypse of Peter, which was included in the Hyfoty-
poseits. (So Chase, op. cit., 802 a, and Zahn. Forsch. iii. p. 154.)
Clement distinctly quotes the Apocalypse of Peter as the work of
Peter, and as Scripture (Ecloge ex Script. Proph., xli., xlviii., xlix).
Accepting the statements of Eusebius and Photius quoted above, and
supposing that for purposes of exposition 2 Peter was merged in the
Apocalypse of Peter, we may find confirmation of the first statement
of Cassiodorus in certain passages of Clement’s writing which have
been collected by Mayor (The Epistle of St. ude and the Second
Epistle of St. Peter, Introd., cxix.) and Bigg (Commentary on
First and Second Peter, p. 202). In these the word-parallels are
striking, but they would not necessarily constitute valid evidence in
themselves.

In the writings of Cyprian we find no trace of 2 Peter, but it
must not be forgotten that Firmitian’s letter to him, quoted above,
contains a clear allusion. In Hippotytus there are found passages
that point to acquaintance with 2 Peter (Chase, 804 b, Bigg, p. 203).
A portion of evidence that must not be omitted here is afforded by
the division of sections in Copex B. In this manuscript there are
two divisions of sections, and one is older than the other. The
double division is preserved in all the Catholic Epistles except
2 Peter, where the older division is wanting. The conclusion is
inevitable that in the older form of Codex B, 2 Peter was wanting.

΄

INTRODUCTION 87

To sum up the evidence of the third century, we find that 2 Peter
was in use so far as to influence the thought of Hippolytus in Rome,
to be commented on by Clement of Alexandria, and to be expressly
quoted by Firmilian and Methodius in Asia Minor. Although no
reference is found in the writings of Cyprian of Carthage, yet
Firmilian’s letter with the quotation is addressed to him. This is
scarcely evidence, but it certainly implies Cyprian’s knowledge of
the Epistle, and also that he would concur in its use as a source
of quotation. Again, the two great Egyptian versions of this cen-
tury, the ΞΑΗΙΡΙΟ and Bonairic, both contain 2 Peter. If we accept
a conjectural emendation of Zahn’s in the language of the Mura-
TORIAN CANON, there is contained in it a reference to the division of
opinion in the Church with regard to this Epistle (Gesch. Kan. i.,
p. 110 n.).! Origen’s statement that “it is disputed,’ represents a
widespread doubt as to its genuineness. This attitude, combined
with a general willingness to respect its contents, must be regarded
as the mind of the church about 2 Peter in the third century.

Second Century.—In a document which is preserved in a seventh
century MS. entitled Actus Petri cum Simone (xx., ed. Lips., p. 67)
there occurs a passage which contains several striking parallels with
2 Peter. The following phrases may be noted (1) “ majestatem
suam videre in monte sancto,” (2) “ vocem eius audivi talem qualem
referre non possum”. In (2) there is a parallel to the rather remark-
able phrase, φωνῆς τοιᾶσδε, of 2 Peter 1. 17. It is true that the extant
MS. only represents a Latin translation of the original Greek, and
that editors and translators may interpolate. At the same time, it is
difficult not to regard Chase as over-sceptical in seeking to discredit
the parallel by regarding the whole passage as an interpolation (0.
cit., 802 0). There seems no reason why we should not accept the
passage as an important second century attestation of 2 Peter, and
as an indication that the Epistle had already some position in the
Church. Turning next to the CLEMENTINE LITERATURE, we have in
the Recognitions (v. 12) what appears to be a reference to 2 Peter
ii. 19: “ Unusquisquis illius fit servus cui se ipse subjecerit’’. Rufinus

1The passage in question reads, as amended by Zahn, “ Apocalypses etiam
Johannis et Petri (unam) tantum recipimus (epistulam; fertur etiam altera), quam-
quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt”. The emendations are apt, but is it possible,
if we have regard to the loose grammatical construction everywhere in the document,
that no change is needed? The Apocalypse of Peter may be referred to as the
document “ quam quidam, etc.,” and we have seen reason to believe (ε.ρ., in case of
Clement of Alexandria), that 2 Peter and the Apoc. Petri were sometimes regarded as
one whole

88 INTRODUCTION

\

is again the translator of the Recognitions, and we are reminded of
his translation of Origen (In Exod. Hom., 12), “ Unusquisque a quo
vincitur huic et servus addicitur’”. The translations are both of the
same passage in 2 Peter, and the variety in the language, so far
from countenancing a theory of interpolation on the part of Rufinus
may well indicate that he is translating at different times separate
references to the same passage. In the Homilies (xvi. 20) there occurs
a reference, pointed out by Salmon (Introduction, p. 488 n.) to 2 Peter
ili. 9, τοὐναντίον μακροθυμεῖ, eis µετάνοιαν καλεῖ. The context also is con-
firmatory. Peter is speaking of the blasphemies of Simon Magus,
which appear to have been similar in character to the false teaching
that is denounced in 2 Peter. All things have been as they were
from the foundation of the world. The earth has not opened; fire
has not come down from heaven; rain is not poured out; beasts are
not sent forth from the thicket to avenge their spiritual adultery.
Then come the words quoted, “But, on the contrary, he is long-
suffering, and calls to repentance’. Yet Chase says, “ It is difficult
to see what there is in the context which specially recalls 2 Peter.”
The coincidences mentioned by Salmon (οβ. cit., p. 488) in the writ-
ing of THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH are inconclusive, although the words
in ii. 9, ot δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι πνευµατόφοροι πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ προφῆται
γενόµενοι recall 2 Peter i. 21. In ii. 13, & λόγος αὐτοῦ, φαίνων ὥσπερ
λύχνος ἐν οἰκήματι συνεχοµένῳ, May be compared with 2 Peter i. 19.
Similarly, in ΤΑΤΙΑΝ, Or. ad Graecos, 15 (Otto vi., p. 70), σκήνωµα
(= body) is reminiscent of its similar use in 2 Peter i. 13. To found
an argument, however, for the use of 2 Peter by these writers on
such single words and expressions is precarious. They might well be
part of the current vocabulary. In the Apology of AristTIDEs (129-
130) a passage occurs that naturally suggests 2 Peter i. 11 and ii. 2.
ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας ἥτις τοὺς ὁδεύοντας αὐτὴν Eis τὴν αἰώνιον χειραγωγεῖ
βασιλείαν (A polog., xvi.). Ιπβκαυς introduces a quotation from 1
Peter with the words, “ Petrus ait in epistola sua’”’ (iv. 9, 2), but this
does not necessarily imply that he knew only one Petrine letter. He
knew 2 John, and yet quotes 1 John in the same phrase. The phrase
in 2 Peter iii. 8 occurs in Irenzeus v. 23, 2, ‘‘ Dies Domini sicut mille
anni,” and in v. 28, 3, ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα κυρίου ds χίλια ἔτη. In both pas-
sages, however, the words are connected with Chiliasm, which is.
absent from the thought of 2 Peter. In ΤΗΕ ΕΡΙΘΤΙΕ ΟΕ THE
CuurcHES ΟΕ Lyons AND VIENNE, With which Irenzus was closely
connected (date 177-179) we find the words 6 δὲ διὰ µέσου καιρὸς οὐκ
ἀργὸς αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ ἄκαρπος ἐγίνετο (cf. 2 Peter i. 8).

The most important question in the external evidence of the second

INTRODUCTION 99

century arises in connexion with the ΑΡΟΟΑΙΥΡΘΕ ΟΕ Peter, to which
Harnack assigns the date 110-160, or probably 120-140. The work
is used by the Viennese Church, and therefore the earlier date is
more likely. Only a fragment of the Apocalypse is preserved to us,
. in which there are some striking coincidences with 2 Peter (cf.
M. R. James, A Lecture on the Revelation of Peter). Some of these
may be quoted here: (1) πολλοὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔσονται ψευδοπροφῆται, καὶ ὅδους
καὶ δόγματα ποικίλα τῆς ἀπωλείας διδάξουσιν: ἐκεῖνοι δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς ἀπωλείας
γενήσονται. καὶ τότε ἐλεύσεται 6 θεός . . . καὶ κρινεῖ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀνομίας
(Apoc. § 1; cf. 2 Peter ii. 1, iii. 7, 12.) (2) & Κύριος ἔφη, Ἄγωμεν eis
τὸ ὄρος . . . ἀπερχόμενοι δὲ pet αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς οἱ δώδεκα µαθηταί (Apoc.
§ 2; cf. 2 Peteri. 18). The passage goes on to say that the Apostles
desired “that He would show them one of our righteous brethren
who have departed,” ἵνα ἴδωμεν ποταποί (2 Peter iti. 11) εἰσι τὴν µορφήν,
καὶ θαρσήσαντες παραθαρσύνωµεν καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντας ἡμῶν ἀνθρώπους (cf.
ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν, 2 Peter i. 16); ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον (i. 19). (3) τόπον

. αὐχμηρὺν πάνυ; . . . σκοτεινὸν εἶχον αὐτῶν τὸ ἔνδυμα κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα
τοῦ τόπου (5 6; cf. i. 19). (4) A frequent use of κολάζειν, or the noun
(cf. §§ 6, 7, 10, 11, 2 Peter ti. 9). (5) ot βλασφημοῦντες τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς
δικαιοσύνης (§ 6; cf. § 13 and 2 Peter ii. 2, 21). (6) (a) λίµνητις . .
πεπληρωμένη βορβόρου (§ 8. BdpBopos occurs in § 9 twice, and in
§ 16); (0) ἐκυλίοντο (815; cf. ii. 22). (7) ἀμελήσαντες τῆς ἐντολῆς
τοῦ θεοῦ (8 15; cf. ii. 21, 11. 2). (8) (2) ἡ γῆ παραστήσει πάντας
τῷ θεῷ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως καὶ αὐτὴ μέλλουσα κρίνεσθαι σὺν καὶ τῷ περιέχοντι
οὐρανῷ (quoted by Macarius Magnes, 4 pocritica iv. ϐ). (0) τακήσεται
πᾶσα δύναμις οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἑλιχθήσεται 6 οὐρανὸς ὡς βιβλίον, καὶ πάντα
τὰ ἄστρα πεσεῖται Mac. Magn. op. cit. iv. 7; cf. 2 Peter iii. 10-13;
see Mayor, ed. pp. cxxx. Π.).

All scholars are agreed that these and other coincidences are
more than accidental (cf. Salmon, of. cit., p. 591). Various hypo-
theses to account for them are suggested.

(1) Did 2 Peter borrow from the Apocalypse ? (Harnack, Chrono-
logie, p. 471). A comparison, however, of the language of the two
documents suggests that 2 Peter is simpler and shorter in the ex-
pression of the same ideas; and in some cases, ideas and phrases,
separated in 2 Peter, are gathered together in one passage in the
Apocalypse (cf. (1), (2), (8) above). Bigg (op. cit., p. 207) also σοπ-
tends against this hypothesis on the ground that the description of
hell is suggested by Plato, Aristophanes, Homer, and especially
Virgil, and points to a later date than the Epistle. The rare word
ταρταρώσας is indeed used by 2 Peter of the punishment of the wicked
after death, and the conception is undoubtedly derived from heathen

9Ο INTRODUCTION

mythology. The word, however, is found in Jewish writings, which
2 Peter may have read (see note on ii. 4).

(2) Are 2 Peter and the Apocalypse by the same author ?
(Sanday, Inspiration, p. 347). This view is opposed by Chase
(op. cit., 815) on the ground of the difference in style. ‘The Apo-
calypse,” he says, “is simple and natural in its style. There is
nothing remarkable in its vocabulary.’ The argument would seem
to be conclusive, as the style of 2 Peter is unmistakable, and would
be easily recognised. At the same time, the undoubted similarity
between the two writings ‘not only in words or indefinitely marked
ideas, but also in general conceptions—e.g., in both there is the picture
drawn of Christ on the mountain with His Apostles, the latter being
admitted to a secret revelation which they should afterwards use for
the confirmation of their disciples—seems to be an argument of some
strength in favour of the view that the two documents are the product
of the same school” (Chase).

(3) Does the Apocalypse borrow from 2 Peter? Some of the
arguments already adduced against the contrary hypothesis (i.) are
really in favour of this supposition. The “naturalness of the words
and phrases as they stand in their several contexts in the Apocalypse,”
which is brought forward by Chase as an argument against this
third hypothesis (op. cit., p. 815 ϐ) is really only a compliment to
the style of the writing, and an indication that the writer has no
intention of slavishly imitating 2 Peter, or of forming a kind of
mosaic of his own and another’s diction. As regards the absence
in the Apocalypse of the strange and remarkable phrases of 2 Peter
that they were strange and remarkable might be precisely the reason
why they were avoided or modified. ἐβασάνιζεν in 2 Peter ii. 8 is
rendered by δοκιµάζω in Apocalypse, § 1; the reference to the Trans-
figuration in the Apocalypse is fuller than in 2 Peter, and would seem
to indicate reflection on the Petrine narrative (e.g., cf. addition of οἱ
δώδεκα µαθηταί to simple ἡμεῖς in 2 Peter i. 18; and expression τὸ
ὄρος for τῷ ἁγίῳ dpe). Such a phrase as ἐν τόπῳ σκοτεινῶ, might
well be a paraphrase of ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπω, a much rarer word, and
it is extremely unlikely that αὐχμ. would be substituted for σκοτεινός.
It is therefore most probable that the Apocalypse is indebted to
2 Peter, which would suggest a date for the Epistle earlier than
120-140 (cf. p. 181).

In the so-called ΞΕΟΟΝΡ ΕΡΙΘΤΙΕΒ oF CLEMENT (130-170) there is a
passage deserving of notice. γινώσκετε δὲ ὅτι ἔρχεται ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς
κρίσεως ὡς κλίβανος καιόµενος καὶ τακήσονται at δυνάµεις τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ
πᾶσα ἡ yi ὡς µόλυβδος ἐπὶ πυρὶ τηκόµενος καὶ τότε Φανήσεται τὰ κρύφια

INTRODUCTION ΟΙ

καὶ φανερὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων (xvi. 3). One or two interesting points
are raised by this passage.

(1) Where does the writer derive the conception of the day of
judgment as meaning the destruction of the universe by fire? He
clearly quotes Mal. iv. 1, Isa. xxxiv. 4, but these passages are not
sufficient to suggest the idea unless to one already familiar with the
doctrine. Bigg (Comm. pp. 214-15) argues at some length that
this doctrine is ultimately to be traced to 2 Peter. Justin (Afol., i.
20) traces the belief in the world-fire to the Sybil (Book iv.) and
Hystaspes. Bigg holds that both these belong to the same familv as
the pseudo-Petrine literature. The destruction of the world by fire
was not an article of faith among the Jews, and Philo argues strongly
against it (On the Incorruptibility of the World). The office of fire
in the Ο.Τ. is to purify, and not to destroy (Isa. xxxiv. 4, li. 6, Ixvi.
15, 16, 22; Mal. iv. 1). In the N.T. (e.g., Heb. xii. 26-29; 1 Cor. iii.
13; 2 Thess. i. 8; Apoc. xxi. 1) the conception of fire is distinctly that
of a purifying agency. It is to be noted, however, against Bigg’s
view, that the conception of 2 Peter is not altogether at variance with
the doctrine of the N.T. about the office of fire. The destruction of
the present universe is vividly described in Chapter III., but the
writer evidently has the idea of purification in his mind, and not of
annihilation. ‘‘ Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look
for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness ”’
(iii. 13). Accordingly, if the passage quoted from 2 Clement is to be
taken in the sense of annihilation by fire, it cannot be regarded as
founded exclusively on 2 Peter.

(2) Is there anything in the language to connect the two? ἡμέρα
κρίσεως is found in N.T. only in St. Matthew's Gospel (x. 15, xi. 22,
24), in 1 John (iv. 17), and in 2 Peter (ii. 9, iii. 7). In 2 Peter iii. 10,
however, the expression is ἡμέρα κυρίου. τήκοµαι is also a word
common to 2 Peter (iii. 12) and the passage in 2 Clem. An import-
ant coincidence is φανήσεται . . . έργα, which may be an attempt to
make sense of the very doubtful reading in 2 Peter iti, 10 (έργα
εὑρεθήσεται). On the whole, the similarity of language and the
affinity of thought in the two passages must be regarded as estab-
lishing a connexion. (For other coincidences, see Spitta, Der zweite
Brief des Petrus und der Brief des $udas, p. 534 η.) ;

In the ΕΡΙΘΤΙΒ oF Barnapas (130-31, Harnack), in a Chiliastic
passage, the words occur, ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα map’ αὐτῷ χίλια έτη. αὐτὸς δέ
μοι μαρτυρεῖ λέγων, ἰδοὺ ἡμέρα Κυρίου έσται ὡς χίλια έτη (αν. 4). It has
been pointed out that map’ αὐτῷ is very close to 2 Peter’s παρὰ κυρίω,
and the repetition of the words points to the quotation of some

92 INTRODUCTION

recognised utterance of Scripture. Barnabas, also, is in the habit of
using λέγει to introduce his quotations from Scripture. The question
is whether he is quoting 2 Peter iii. 8 or some other source. The
context in Barnabas is different from that in 2 Peter. He is deal-
ing with the mystical interpretation of the passage Gen. ii. 16.
Also, in 2 Peter no Chiliastic meaning is attached, as in Barnabas.
In all probability, 2 Peter iii. 8 is regarded by Barnabas as an
authority for Chiliasm, along with Rev. xx. 4 ff., which he
quotes. In ΤΗΕ SHEPHERD OF Hermas (110-140, Harnack) there
are certain words and phrases that are found only in 2 Peter,
µιασµός (Sim. ν. 1, 2); βλέμμα (in different sense=appearance ; Sim.
vi. 2,5); δυσνόητος (Sim. ix. 14, 4); αὐθάδεις, applied to false teachers
(Sim. ix. 22, 1.1 In ΟΙΕΜΕΝΤ oF Rome (93-95, Harnack) we find
several phrases which, in N.T., are peculiar to 2 Peter: τοὺς δὲ
ἑτεροκλινεῖς ὑπάρχοντας cis κόλασιν καὶ αἰκισμὸν τίθησιν (xi. 1); ἐπόπτης
(used, however, of God) (lix. 8): αὐθάδη (i. 1); μῶμος (κ. 1) ;
μεγαλοπρεπεῖ δόξη αὐτοῦ (ix. 2), but μεγαλοπρεπεῖ βουλήσει occurs
previously in same paragraph; Νῶε ἐκήρυξεν µετάνοιαν (vii. 6). The
passage in Clem. xxxiv. may also be noted: eis τὸ peroxous ἡμᾶς
γενέσθαι τῶν μεγάλων κ. ἐνδόξων ἐπαγγελιῶν αὐτοῦ (cf. 2 Peteri. 4).2 These
coincidences in Barnabas, in Clement, and in the Didache are
scarcely conclusive as quotations, but they suggest a mulieu of
thought corresponding to 2 Peter.

To what conclusion does the evidence of the second century lead ?
Chase says, “ If we put aside the passage from the Clementine Recog-
nitions and that from the Acts of Peter, as open to the suspicion of
not accurately representing the original texts, there does not remain,
it is believed, a single passage in which the coincidence with 2 Peter
can, with anything approaching confidence, be said to imply literary
obligation to that Epistle” (cf. Bacon, Introd., 173). It ought, how-
ever, to be noted that the passage in the Clementine Recognitions
can only be set aside on the ground that Rufinus can fairly be
accused of interpolation; and the evident coincidences in the Actus
Petri cum Simone can be dismissed only on account of distrust of
the Latin translator of the work. We have also the evidence of

1ΟΕ the passages collected by Zahn (der Hirt der Hermas, p. 431) as having
affinity with 2 Peter, the most striking is Sim. vi. 4,4: τῆς τρυφῆς καὶ ἁπάτης 6
χρόνος Spa ἐστὶ µία. τῆς δὲ Bacdvov ἡ ὥρα τριάκοντα ἡμέρων δύναμιν ἔχει. ἐαν
οὖν µίαν ἡμέραν τρυφήσῃ τις καὶ ἀπατηθῇ κ.τ.λ. (cf. 2 Peter ii. 13).

2 Spitta, p. 534 n., points out a passage in the Didache (iii. 6-8) having a remark-
able affinity with Jude and 2 Peter. Ὑόγγνσος, a rare word (Jude 16) is used.
βλασφημία, αὐθάδης and τρέµων are twice repeated (cf. 2 Peter ii. το).

INTRODUCTION 93

dependence in the Apocalypse of Peter. It is doubtful whether
any of the Apostolic Fathers make use of the Epistle, but the
-coincidences in word and thought in 2 Clement, Barnabas, Hermas,
Didache, and Clement of Rome cannot be ignored. They at least
suggest a possible atmosphere of thought for 2 Peter. On the
whole, the evidence of the second century would suggest a date
for the Epistle not much later than the first decade. There is
.an entire absence of evidence tor the Petrine authorship.

CHAPTER I.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY.

1, The obvious first step to be taken is to examine the References to-

the Gospel History in the Epistle, and to consider what light they

may throw on the authorship of the Epistle.
(1) Chap. i. 3. τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς. The reference of the parti-

ciple is to ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (cf. note). Does ἡμᾶς refer to the

Apostles, and in particular to the call of St. Peter? This interpre-
tation involves that ἡμῖν ini. 1 likewise refers to the Apostles. Other
indications, however, in the Epistle point to a group of scattered
Christian communities in Asia Minor as the recipients of the letter,

and the sense in i. 1 seems to be that the readers of the letter, who:

are isolated and harassed by false teachers, are set on equal terms

with “us,” who occupy a less difficult position, and enjoy greater

outward privileges. Again, ini. 4 the best attested reading is ἡμῖν
(not ὁμῖν), and clearly there the reference is to the writer and

readers together. So ἡμῶν ought to be taken in i. 2. ἡμᾶς must

therefore consistently be referred to the body of readers with whom
2 Peter identifies himself in thought, as united in their common
faith, and not to the Apostles alone. Spitta (op. czit., pp. 37 ff.),

arguing for the reference to the Gospel History, takes ἡμᾶς as.
referring to the calling of the immediate Apostles, in contrast to.
those who believed in response to their preaching. Such a sense

would by no means suit ἡμῖν in i. 4. Also, in i. 10 κλῆσιν clearly
refers to writer and readers taken together. Moreover, καλεῖν in
N.T. is by no means confined to the call of the first disciples (cf.
Matt, ix. 13). In Rom. ix. 24 the thought is almost exactly parallel

to this passage, ‘‘even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews.

only, but also of the Gentiles”.

(2) Chap. i. 16 ff.—The Transfiguration—If we compare the
reference here with the Synoptic accounts, there emerge some in-
teresting points of difference. All three Synoptics speak as though
the glory had its source from within. Such can only be the signifi-

cance of µετεμορφώθη (Matt. and Mark): and the ἐγένετο . . . ἕτερον of

INTRODUCTION 95

Luke is an indication that he interpreted the phenomenon as an
inward change. He also tells us that it was ἐν τῷ προσεύχεσθαι, “as
he was praying,” that the change took place (Luke ix. 29). 2 Peter,
_ on the other hand, seems to think of the glory as having an outward
source, like what happened in the case of Moses (Exod. xxxiv. 29 ff. ;
2 Cor. iii. 7 ff.), as a reflexion of the glory of God, an outward attesta-
tion in addition to the voice (λαβὼν yap παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ
δόξαν, i. 17). Spitta argues that this is a more natural and primitive
account, and therefore independent of the account in the Synoptics,
which shows traces of later thought playing upon the incident. There
can be no doubt that the conception of the glory as external is found
in 2 Peter, but it is not regarded as an attestation previous to the
voice, as in the Synoptics. On the contrary, the two aorist participles
imply coincident action, the first really taking the place of a finite verb
(cf. the common phrase, ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν). ‘‘ He received honour and
glory when there came to Him,’ etc. Moreover, τιµή can only refer
to the attestation of the voice (see note on passage). To this extent
2 Peter differs from the Synoptic gospels. Are we then justified in
regarding the disparity as a mark of the eye-witness? There are,
however, other characteristics of the passage in 2 Peter which
rather point to literary dependence on the Synoptic account. (a)
The reading of SACKL, adopted in the text, is οὗτος ἔστιν 6 vids pou 6
ἀγαπητός, εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα, which differs from Matt. xvii. 5 only in
respect that (a) εἰς ὃν is substituted for ἐν 6 (see note on passage),
(B) ἐγώ is inserted, and (y) ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ is omitted. Again, σκηνώµατι
(1, 12) σκηνώµατος (ii. 14) and ἔξοδον (ν. 15) occurring together, seem
to indicate that the vocabulary of the Synoptic account was lingering
in the mind of the writer. oxyvwpa, a rare and unusual word in this
sense, is used characteristically in the sense of the ordinary σκῆνος,
and may have been suggested by the σκήνη of the Gospel narrative.
έξοδος belongs to Luke’s own vocabulary in reporting the conversation
of the three men, and its employment indicates acquaintance with
his Gospel. ‘‘Omission of details of the history (e.g., the presence
of Moses and Elias) in an allusion contained in a letter cannot
reasonably be taken to show that a writer is giving an account
independent of, or more primitive than, that of the Synoptists”,
(Chase, op. ctt. iti. 809 b, but cf. Zahn, Introd. Π., pp. 217 f.).
Moreover, ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ dpe. indicates a later stage of thought than
the simple eis ὄρος ὑψηλὸν (Mark, ix. 2; Matt. 1. 7), or εἰς τὸ ὄρος (Luke
ix. 26). It implies not only the assignment of a definite locality, but
also the ascription of a ‘‘sacred”’ site, ‘‘a known mountain which had
now become consecrated as the scene of the vision” (Mayor, of. cit.,

96 INTRODUCTION

cxliv.). It is, of course, also possible to take ἐν τῷ dyiw dpe. in sense
of Isa. xi. 9, Ixii. 25. where it is used of the Messiah’s kingdom. ‘“ Per-
haps 2 Peter means that in the Transfiguration the three Apostles were
admitted to behold the glories of that kingdom, without alluding to
any particular Jewish mountain” (Mayor, iv., note 1). The passage
betrays reflexion on the original incident, and is written from the
standpoint of one who is concerned chiefly to interpret the “ glory”
of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration as prophetic of His
δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν, which is the theme of the Epistle (ἐπόπται
γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου µεγαλειότητος), and as establishing the truthful-
ness of the Apostles who preached the παρουσία.

(3) Chap. i. 14: Prophecy of the death of St. Ῥείεγ.---ταχινή ἐστιν ἡ
ἀπόθεσις . . . καθὼς καὶ 6 κύριος ἡμῶν I. Χ. ἐδήλωσεν por. Clearly there is
here a reference to the incident in John xxi. 18. In the notes, ταχινή
is taken to mean “imminent” and not in the sense of sudden death
Spitta, amongst others, has argued strongly (pp. 88 f., 491 f.) that
there is here no reference to the Gospel history, and is supported by
Mayor. It is contended that the words ὅταν γηράσῃς, in John xxi. 15,
imply that death was not imminent, and that in old age a man does
not require a prophecy to tell him that death is near. Moreover, in
the Johannine passage, the emphasis is not on the time but on the
manner of St. Peter’s death. It is further suggested that some special
revelation by Jesus to St. Peter of the near approach of death, not
recorded in Scripture, must be meant, and that a reference may be
intended to the story contained in the legend, ‘‘ Domine quo vadis?”
found in the Clementine Homilies, and in the Apocalypse of Peter.
The foregoing argument is founded on the supposition that καθὼς
necessarily refers to the whole preceding clause, ὅτι . . . pov. It meed
not be so. The writer speaks as an old man, and the reference would
then be to the prophesied death in oldage. The objection that old
age in itself is a warning of approaching death seems trivial. That
fact would not prevent the mention of a prophecy regarding it. Again,
it is not necessary to suppose that 2 Peter actually has the passage
John xxi. 18 in his mind. He may be referring independently to the
incident. It is suggestive to compare the use of καθὼς καὶ here with
iii. 15. There the καθὼς καὶ is added as a kind of afterthought,
and is not really dependent on the principal verb ἡγεῖσθε It has
really the significance of another principal clause. The syntax
would seem to be similar ini. 14. The matter of knowledge (εἰδὼς)
is that death is near at hand, however that knowledge is suggested
to him, and the clause καθὼς καὶ is added by way of further illus-
tration. It is unreasonable to demand that the thought in 2 Peter

INTRODUCTION 97

must be an exact replica of the passage in John, if the reference is
to be the same.

(4) Chap. ii. 20 (Ὑέγονεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα Χείρονα τῶν πρώτων) is
clearly areminiscence of the words of Jesus recorded in Matt. xii. 45,
Luke xi. 29.

These four references to the Gospel history have now been
examined. The first may be set aside, and the other three may be
regarded as indicating no more than a knowledge of the Gospels, and
especially of two incidents in the life of St. Peter. They do not
nearly amount to evidence that the writer is the Apostle himself.

The paucity of references to the Gospel history, in an Epistle pur-
porting to be written by the Apostle Peter, isremarkable. It contains
only one reference to the actual words of Jesus (ii. 20), but indirectly
these may be referred to in ii. 1 = Matt. x. 33; i. 8 = Luke xiii. 7-8 ;
iii. 4 = Matt. xxiv. 37-42. We would expect that the mind of an in-
timate disciple would have been saturated with reminiscences of our
Lord’s teaching, and would have dwelt easily on the great events of
His Life. In this respect we may compare 2 Peter most unfavourably
with the genuine first Epistle. In the former there is no mention of
the Passion or Resurrection, and there is a strange absence of that
vivid sense of the Risen Lord as living and reigning in grace, which
is so characteristic of the writings of the Apostles, who “ had been
begotten again unto a living hope”. It is also a matter for serious
consideration as against the genuineness of the Epistle, that the
references to the Gospel history are introduced apparently to support
the character of one writing as St. Peter, and to distinguish his state-
ments from σεσοφισμµένοι μῦθοι (1. 16). (But cf. Bigg. p. 231.)

2 The Personality of St. Peter in the Epistle—(1) Chap. i. 1
Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The significance of
the form Συμεὼν is very obscure. The point to be emphasised at
present is that St. Peter is here represented as the writer of the
Epistle. If, however, the Petrine authorship is untenable, how is
the expression to be justified? In this connexion, one or two
questions call for consideration.

(2) Does the form of the words afford any indication that the name
of St. Peter is being used by a later writer? His own description of
himself in 1 Peter i. 1 is Πέτρος ἀπόστολος Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The form
Συμεὼν is used only in one other passage, viz., Acts xv. 14, in the
address of St. James at the Council of Jerusalem. δοῦλος is found
in Jude 1, and in view of the evident dependence of 2 Peter on Jude,
this fact may be regarded as significant. Again, if Spitta is right in
supposing that by the use of the pre-Christian name, Συμεὼν, the writer

/
98 INTRODUCTION

puts himself on a level with those whom he addresses, and prepares
the way for the epithet ἰσότιμον (‘equally privileged,” as between
Jew and Gentile), it is evident that the whole title given to St. Peter
is carefully chosen by a process of reflection. There is, therefore,
a presumption that another mind is at work here, which has also
borrowed largely from Jude in chap. ii.

(b) Ifthe name of St. Peter has been thus used, the Epistle is pseu-
donymous. What is the distinction between pseudonymity in early
Christian writings and forgery? Does pseudonymity imply ethical
fault, and does it affect the authority of a writing? A most uncom-
promising position in this regard is characteristic of the older criti-
cism. Westcott (Canon, pp. 352 f.) in speaking of the disputed
books of the Canon, says: ‘‘The Second Epistle of St. Peter is
either an authentic work of the Apostle, or a forgery; for in this
case there can be nomean. . . . It involves a manifest confusion of
ideas to compensate for a deficiency of historical proof by a lower
standard of canonicity. The extent of the Divine authority of a book
cannot be made to vary with the completeness of the proof of its
genuineness. The genuineness must be admitted before the authority
can have any positive value, which from its nature cannot admit
of degrees; and till the genuineness be established, the authority
remains in abeyance.” In a note, Westcott adds, “ These books (2
Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews) have received the recognition of the
Church in such a manner that, if genuine, they must be canonical”.

The use of the term “forgery” in such a connexion ought to be
avoided.! In the first place, the expression is an entire misunder-
standing of the origin of much of the pseudepigraphic literature of the
time, and on other grounds the term is equally objectionable. It is,
in effect, an attempt to browbeat the judgment into the acceptance of
such books as genuine, on account of the difficulty of believing that
the Church could accept into the Canon what is supposed to be the
product of fraud and deceit. The question of pseudonymity cannot
be settled “by a profession of moral indignation”. The idea that
literary property is guarded by ethical considerations is essentially
modern. “Believers frequently borrowed from the books of other
believers or of unbelievers, without mentioning any source, and with-
out considering themselves in any way as thieves.” “ With the best
intentions and with the clearest consciences they put such words
into the mouth of a revered Apostle as they wished to hear enun-
ciated with Apostolic authority to their contemporaries, while yet
they did not regard themselves in the smallest degree as liars and

1 Zahn, who himself upholds the Petrine authorship, says ‘‘ The mere occurrence
of Peter's name in an ancient writing is no proof of authorship ”’ (Introd.,\ii., p. 270).

INTRODUCTION 99

deceivers” (Jiilicher, Introd., E. Tr., p. 52). The standard of
genuineness applied to the early Christian writings, and especially
in the formation of the Canon, was their conformity to the teaching
of the Church. Were they orthodox or heretical? A case in point
is the story related by TERTULLIAN (De Baptismo, xvii.) of the writer
of the Acts of Paul and Thecla, who was compelled to give up his
office “on the ground that he imputed to Paul an invention of his
own” (quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans). He defended himself
by saying that he wrote out of regard for Paul, and that therefore
he had not an evil conscience. The plea was evidently accepted,
and he was convicted, not of literary fraud as such, but because he
dared to advocate the heretical view that women had a right to
preach and to baptise. We must also take into account in our
estimate of pseudepigraphy what Jiilicher calls “the boundless credu-
lity of ecclesiastical circles to which so many of the N.T. Apocrypha
have owed their lasting influence”. Eusebius (H. Ε., 1. 13) quotes as
genuine an Epistle purporting to be written by Christ to Agbarus.
«It is evident,” says Mayor (p. xxv., note 1), “that there were among
the early Christians good and pious men who had no scruple about
impersonating not saints alone, but the Lord of saints Himself.
We should gather the same from the readiness with which the
orthodox worked up and expurgated the religious romances by which
the heretics sought to popularise their doctrines.”

The practice of pseudepigraphical writing is exemplified in the O.T.
in Ecclesiastes, and in the apocryphal books of Wisdom, Esdras,
Baruch, Enoch, and the Sibylline Oracles. The second century
produced many pseudonymous books, such as the Gospel of Peter,
which, after being read in the churches of Cilicia for some time, was
at length forbidden by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, about the end of
the century, on account of its docetic teaching. The unknown writer
of 2 Peter made use of the name of St. Peter, both in order to mark
his views as important, and because he believed them to be in
accordance with what would have been St. Peter’s teaching under
similar circumstances.

(c) The foregoing may enable us to rid our minds of prejudice
when we come to consider the question as to whether any genuine
teaching of St. Peter is contained in this Epistle. Are there con-
tained in the Epistle any actual reminiscences of St. Peter’s teaching,
and is the work written by a disciple of St. Peter?! No attempt,
of course, can be made to disentangle from the rest of the writing

“Cf. Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, pp. 492-3; Moffatt, Historical New
Testament, p. 598.

100 INTRODUCTION

what might be regarded as the utterances of the Apostle, but a
presumption in favour of the hypothesis of actual reminiscence
may be obtained from a comparison of 1 and 2 Peter (see chap. iv.).
Weiss has said that “no document in the N.T. is so like 2 Peter
as 1 Peter”. Moreover, there is probably a reference in the second
Epistle itself (i. 15), which is corroborated by tradition, to the
fact that St. Peter’s teaching was subsequently embodied in the
Gospel of St. Mark (so Jiilicher, Introd., E. Tr., p. 240). Mayor (p.
cxliii. ff.) also favours this view, and successfully defends it against
the objections of Zahn (Introd., ii., pp. 200-9).1 Bigg considers that the
statement in i. 15 gave rise to the whole body of pseudo-Petrine litera-
ture (op. cit. p. 265). It is to be noted also that in two passages in
the Epistle the pseudonymous writer betrays the consciousness that
he is faithfully and honestly setting forth nothing inconsistent with
the teaching of the Apostle. In iii. 1 he is not afraid to set the con-
tents of his Epistle alongside those of 1 Peter without fear of contra-
diction,? and again in iii. 15, his concern is evidently to show that
there is no inconsistency between the Petrine and the Pauline teach-
ing. These, and the other considerations adduced above ought to be
a guarantee at least of the good faith of the writer of this Epistle.
(2) Another instance where the personality of St. Peter is
allowed to obtrude itself is found in i. 16, in the use of the word
ἐπόπται. The word means eye-witness, with perhaps an added sense,
derived from Gnostic sources, of spiritual vision. In the Apocalypse
of Peter, there is an account of the Transfiguration which contains the
words ἡμεῖς οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταὶ ἐδεήθημεν ὅπως δείξη ἡμῖν ἕνα τῶν ἀδελφῶν
. τῶν ἐξελθόντων ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου, ἵνα ἴδωμεν ποταποί εἶσι τὴν µορφήν
(cf. Mayor, cxxv. note). Similarly in i. 18, of the Voice at the Trans-
figuration, 2 Peter has ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν. Jiilicher, in commenting on
the pseudepigraphic character of 2 Peter, says that “the author
never loses consciousness of the part he is playing,” and “constructs
his fiction methodically’’. Among other instances, he cites this
passage describing the Transfiguration. He sees in the structure
of the Epistle only ‘an artificial production of learned ingenuity ”
_(Introd., E. Tr., pp. 240, 241). It may be granted that the choice
1 Ἡ the words μετὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον are taken as implying that the Apostle was
not yet dead, we are immediately involved in all the insuperable difficulties connected
with a date for the Epistle earlier than Α.Ρ. 64, the traditional date of Peter’s martyr-
dom. On the other hand, it is easy to see how this expression might be put into
the mouth of Peter by a later disciple, who well knew his mind and the preparations
he had made for preserving his teaching after his death.

2 For consideration of the question whether the reference here is really to 1 Peter,
see p. 113.

INTRODUCTION IOI

of the Transfiguration as the only incident in the Synoptic account
of St. Peter's life, to which reference is made, is an indication that
the writer has made choice of this incident as suitable to his theme.
At the same time, if it was legitimate for him to write under the
honoured name at all, he could hardly have done so more naturally
than he does in i. 16-18, especially as it is extremely probable that
here he is making use of an actual reminiscence of the teaching
of St. Peter himself (cf notes on the passage).

(3) Chap. iii. 15.—6 ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος, The exami-
nation of the whole passage in the Commentary leads to the conclu-
sion that the Epistles of St. Paul are regarded as in the same rank
with the O.T. Scriptures. The date thus implied makes it impossible
that the actual writer is St. Peter. Why, then, the conjunction of
the two names? There can be little doubt that 2 Peter wishes to
impress upon his readers the consistency of the teaching of St. Peter
and St. Paul against the Antinomian interpretation of the Christian
faith. The affectionate terms in which St. Paul is spoken of are
exactly those that might have been used by St. Peter himself of his
fellow-apostle, and if St. Peter were known to be already dead, how
could there be any sane intention to deceive the readers? The
phrase 6 ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς is used by St. Paul of Tychicus
(Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7) and of Onesimus (Col. iv. 9; Philem. v. 16).
No doubt the readers of this Epistle were acquainted with the dis-
agreement between the two Apostles described in Galatians ii. 11-14.
2 Peter only reiterates the fact that there was never any fundamental
opposition between their teaching. St. Peter’s full sympathy with
the Pauline teaching is evident in the First Epistle, and this passage
may easily be true to his mind. It is indeed significant that the
attitude taken up towards the Pauline teaching is not without
reserve (iii. 16, ἐν ais ἐστὶν δυσνόητά τινα), but the warm-hearted
reference may be a real reminiscence.

TOL. ν 7

CHAPTER III.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE AS TO DATE.

We have next to examine any hints that may be given in the

/ Epistle itself as to the Date of its composition.

/ (1) Chap. i. 15—Here reference is made to the death of St. Peter
as imminent. Other considerations render it impossible to hold that
this Epistle was published during the lifetime of the Apostle who died
ο. 64 Α.Ρ. (see pp. 97 f.). The context shows that if the words μετὰ
τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον are put into the mouth of St. Peter by a later writer,
the period of writing must have been some time after his decease.
ἑκάστοτε (as occasion arises) in v. 15 implies that occasion has arisen
more than once to refer to the posthumous teaching. ἔχειν ὑμᾶς,
κ.τ.λ., implies a document or documents already in the possession of
the Church. Again, if we are to see in this verse a reference to the
tradition connecting St. Peter with the Gospel of Mark, we know that
this tradition is at least much earlier than the time of Papias (140-
160), who is quoted by Eusebius (H. Ε., iii. 99) as saying, καὶ τοῦτο
6 πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε, Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος ὅσα
ἐμνημόνευσεν ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὗ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ
λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. Ῥαρίας himself is reporting the testimony
which he had received orally from the Presbyter. From the perfectly
natural way in which the reference is introduced, we would conclude
that 2 Peter has not in view a tradition which he found in such a
writer as Papias, but betrays either a personal knowledge of the
intentions of St. Peter himself, or an acquaintance with those who
did know his mind. Hence a date not very much later than the
end of the first century is probable.

| (2) In chap. iii. 4 the words occur, ἀφ᾽ ἧς γὰρ ot πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν,
πάντα οὕτως διαµένει ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως. Here oi πατέρες refers to the
immediately preceding generation of Christians. The whole sentence
refiects the disappointment and disillusionment experienced by those
who saw men and women believing in the coming of the Lord in
their life-time, and dying without having realised their expecta-
tion, and who felt that all signs of an immediate coming in their

=

INTRODUCTION 103

own day were absent. Such an atmosphere of thought would be
most intense in the second generation of Christians, and much of the
Epistle is meant for the encouragement of those who still expected
the delayed Parousia of the Lord, and whose minds were likely to
feel the element of truth in the words of the false teachers. 4&4’ js
need not denote a long interval of time (cf. Luke vii. 45). It may
therefore be possible that the Epistle is addressed to the second
generation of Christians. Moreover, chap. i. 16-18 is most naturally
regarded as addressed to those “who have not seen, and yet have
believed,” and the superior position of the eye-witnesses therein
implied is an idea that would be most prominent in sub-Apostolic
times.

(3) Chap. iii. 8—As an indication of an early date for the Epistle,
the absence of any millennial significance in this passage has been
adduced (Bigg, pp. 214, 295). Against this, Mayor (of. cit. cxxvi.
has pointed out that we learn from Justin Martyr (Dzal., chap. 80)

ethat there were also many orthodox believers in his time who

refused to accept the millenial teaching. It may, however, be noted
that the passage in Justin hardly negatives Dr. Bigg’s conclusion.
There it is said that ‘‘ many think otherwise,” 1.ε., in opposition to a
millenial doctrine. In 2 Peter, the context in which the words are
used is entirely apart from any millenarian notion at all. The sig-
nificant thing is that 2 Peter, unlike all subsequent writers does not
employ Psalm xc. 4. in connection with the idea. He is dealing
with the very verse out of which Chiliasm arose, and he could hardly
have so completely ignored the opinion unless he had been writing at a
date previous at least to its later widespread acceptance in the Church.

At what time the view became common in the Early Church is
uncertain. In Barnabas xv. 5 we meet with the conception, but
there is no trace of the doctrine in either 1 Clem., Ignatius, Polycarp,
the Epistle to Diognetus, or the Didache. Hermas is not uninflu-
enced by the idea. Innone of the apologists, except Justin, is there
any trace of Chiliasm. 2 Peter ili. 8, therefore, with its peculiar
use of Psalm xc. 4 would indicate a date certainly much earlier than
Justin Martyr (140-161), who refers to the belief as a tenet of the
orthodox faith, and probably earlier than Barnabas. If the absence,
of reference to millenial doctrine in 1 Clem., Ignatius, and the Didache
means the same as in 2 Peter, a date at the very end of the first
century and the very beginning of the second is probable for our
Epistle.

(4) Chap. iii. 2.---τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν. The writer must be re-
garded as including himself among the Apostles (cf. 1. 1), and not as

104 INTRODUCTION

making any distinction between himself andthem. The phrase need
not necessarily mean “the Twelve,” but rather missionaries from
whom the knowledge of the Gospel was first received.! Of these the
writer is one (i. 16). ἀπόστολος is so used Phil. ii. 25, 2 Cor. viii. 23
(cf. discussion of term in Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, Bk.
iit, @h.! i); The passage, therefore, does not exclude a date later
than the Apostolic Age.

(5) Chap. iii. 16—Two considerations are suggested by this
reference to St. Paul that have a bearing on the date of the Epistle.
(a) Paul’s Epistles are included in a body of writings called γραφαί,
and we have reason to suppose that τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς probably
refers to the Ο.Τ. Scriptures. (b) The “unlearned and unstable ”’
distort these Epistles of Paul to their own destruction. Both these
statements require that the date of the Epistle be postponed so
as to leave room for them. (a) renders it quite impossible to fix
a date in the life-time of Peter. The statement implies not neces-
sarily a collection of Pauline letters such as we have in the Canon
of the N.T., but the epithet γραφή would be applied if certain letters
of Paul were accustomed to be read in the churches. That in-
terpretation would not require a date later than the end of the first
century. At the same time (0) demands that time must be allowed
to enable the Pauline Epistles to gain such a position of recognised
authority in the Church as Scripture that they can be misinterpreted
by “unlearned and unstable souls”. All these circumstances would
be met by a date quite early in the second century.

(6) Chap. ii—The resemblances in this chapter to the Epistle of
Jude are undoubted. There are parallels in thought and language
also in Jude 1,2=2 Peter i. 1,2; Jude 3, 2= Peter i. 12; Jude 17-19
=2 Peter iii. 1-3; Jude 20-25=2 Peter iii. 14-18. Spitta, Zahn,
and Bigg are among the foremost defenders of the view that 2 Peter
is prior to Jude. Irresistible arguments, however, may be adduced
for the opinion that the relationship is the other way. For the
discussion of the question the reader may be referred to the In-
troduction to Jude. At the moment we are concerned with the
question only in so far as it has a bearing on the date of 2 Peter. A.
date not later than Α.Ρ. 90 is assigned to Jude by Chase, Mayor,
Salmon, Plummer, Spitta. The limits 100-180 are accepted by

1Two conceptions of the term “apostle”? are found in the early church,
a wider, based on the Jewish official use of the term, and a narrower, confined
to the “ Twelve”. The two conceptions existed side by side, and “ the narrower
was successful in making headway against its rival”? (Harnack, Expansion of
Christianity, i. p. 408). If the wider use is found here, it would amount to an.
argument for an early date to the epistle.

INTRODUCTION 105

Jiilicher and Harnack. The arguments for the second century date
are examined by Chase (of. cit., pp. 803 f.), and found insufficient.

If the date in the last decade of the first century be accepted for
Jude, 2 Peter must be later; but there is not that evidence of
advance in the Gnostic views opposed in 2 Peter upon those in Jude
to warrant our assigning to 2 Peter a date much later than Jude.

To sum up the internal evidence for the date of 2 Peter, the
considerations adduced in (3) would fix the terminus ad quem at
least previous to 140-160, the probable date of Justin, in whose day
Chiliasm was an orthodox belief. On the other hand, (1), (2), (5)
would render it possible to regard the Epistle as the product of a
time not very much later than the apostolic, and perhaps (4) may
also be regarded as confirmatory in this connexion. The relationship
to Jude would suggest a date not earlier than Α.Ρ. 100. The external
evidence, as we have seen, would render possible a date not later
han the first decade of the second century. Perhaps Α.Ρ. 100-115,
may be tentatively suggested as the extreme limits.

1A summary of the evidence may here be given :—

1, πίστις, spoken of in Jude 3-20, as a formulated deposit, is used in practi-
cally the same way in Gal. i. 23, ili. 23, vi. Io, etc.

2. In ver. 17 the language need not imply that the apostolic period is long past.
The mention of oral instruction (ἔλεγον) would quite suit a date in early sub-apostolic
times, when some of the Apostles were dead and some scattered.

3. The argument from the use of apocryphal books is invalid. Of the two
quoted by Jude, Enoch is assigned by most scholars to a date B.c., and the
Assumption of Moses was probably written within the first thirty years A.D.

4. The Gnostic views attacked in the Epistle are not necessarily of late date.

CHAPTER IV.
RELATION TO 1 PETER.

Ir is a very generally accepted result of criticism that the two
Epistles of Peter are not by the same hand. Jerome (Script. Eccles.,
1), in connexion with 2 Peter, remarked on the “stili cum priore
dissonantiam’’ (see p. 175). So marked are these differences
between the two Epistles, that even Spitta and Zahn, who defend
the authenticity of 2 Peter, are therefore obliged to give up the real
Petrine authorship of 1 Peter. They admit that 2 Peter is a letter
from the Apostle’s own hand, and attribute the First Epistle to
Silvanus, under the direction of the Apostle, in accordance with their
interpretation of 1 Peter v. 12 (Spitta, of. cit, pp. 530 ff.; Zahn
Introd. Π., pp. 149 ff.).

Space does not permit of a full discussion of this question, and
the reader is referred to the minute and elaborate treatment of
the subject in Mayor’s edition (pp. Ixviii. ff.). Reference may be
made briefly to the following points :—

1. Resemblances in Vocabulary and Style.—(1) Vocabulary— (a)
Χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη, 2 Peter i. 2, 1 Peter i. 2; use of καλεῖν,
2 Peter i. 3 and 1 Peter i. 15, ii. 9, 21, iii. 9, v. 10; with κλῆσιν καὶ
ἐκλογὴν, 2 Peter i. 10, may be compared the foregoing references
to use of καλεῖν in 1 Peter, and the use of ἐκλεκτός, 1 Peter i. 1, 11. 4,9;
θέληµα 2 Peter i. 21, and 1 Peter ii. 15, iii. 17, iv. 2, 19; with ἐν
ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκὸς ἀσελγείαις cf. πεπορευµένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυμίαις
1 Peter iv. 3; ἐπόπται, 2 Peter i. 16, and ἐποπτεύοντες, 1 Peter ii. 12,
iii. 2; ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι, 2 Peter iii. 14, and ἅμωμος καὶ ἄσπιλος,
1 Peter i. 19; ἁκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας, 2 Peter ii. 14, and πέπαυται
ἁμαρτίας, 1 Peter iv. 1.

The foregoing resemblances are remarkable as extending to the
uses of the same words or ideas in similar connexions. The
following single words may be noted as being largely confined, in
their use in the N.T. to 1 and 2 Peter :—

INTRODUCTION 107

2 Peter. Ἑ Εσείς, Rest of Ν.Τ.
ἀναστροφή . «. 2 5 5
ἀπόθεσις 1 1 0
ἄρετην ο ον τς 3 1 (pl.) 1
ἀσεβής . . « 1 1 6 (3 in Jude.)
ἀσέλγεια 3 | 6 (1 in Jude.)
ἄσπιλος. 1 1 4
προγινώσκω 1 1 3

(b) Including these already mentioned, Mayor, op. cit., pp. Ixix.,
Ixx. gives a list of 100 words common to both Epistles. He also
gives a list of 369 words occurring in 1 Peter and not in 2 Peter,
230 words occurring in 2 Peter and not in 1 Peter.

(c) One remarkable difference is in the word used for the Second
Advent. In 2 Peter παρουσία (i. 16, iii. 4, 12), in 1 Peter ἀποκάλυψις
(i. 7, 13, iv. 13) is used.

The facts contained in (a) are sufficient at least to suggest literary
dependence between the two Epistles, but (4) and (c) entirely negative
the possibility that they are by the same hand.

(2) Style. ‘The style of 1 Peter is simple and natural, without
a trace of self-conscious effort. The style of 2 Peter is rhetorical
and laboured, marked by a love for striking and startling expressions ”
(Chase, D. B., iti. 812 a). As against this estimate, it may be ques-
tioned whether the two Epistles are so far apart in style as it is
usual to say they are. Mayor says, “There can be no doubt that
the style of 1 Peter is, on the whole, clearer and simpler than that |
of 2 Peter, but there is not that chasm between them which some
would try to make out” (p. civ.). As regards grammatical similarity,
he sums up the results of a most learned discussion (chap. iv.) as
follows: “As to the use of the article, they resemble one another
more than they resemble any other book of the N.T. Both use the
genitive absolute correctly. There is no great difference in their use
of the cases or of the verbs, except that 1 Peter freely employs the
articular infinitive, which is not found in 2 Peter. The accusative
with the infinitive is found in both. The accumulation of prepositions
is also common to both. The optative is more freely used in 1 Peter
than in 2 Peter. In final clauses 2 Peter conforms to classical
usage in attaching the subjunctive to ἵνα, while 1 Peter, in one place,
has the future indicative. 2 Peter is also more idiomatic in the use
of such elliptical forms as ἕως οὗ, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, ἀφ᾽ Fs. On the other hand,
1 Peter shows special elegance in his use of ὡς in comparisons, and
emphasises the contrast between the aorist and the present impera-
tive by coupling τιµήσατε with τιμᾶτε in ti. 7” (pp. civ., cv.). It is

108 INTRODUCTION

incumbent on scholars to give every weight to these utterances,
especially in view of such extreme criticism of the style of 2 Peter
as that of Dr. E. A. Abbott (Exp., ii. vol. iii.; From Letter to
Spirit, §§ 1123-1129).

2. Attitude to the Old Testament.—It has been reckoned by Hort
(Appendix, Notes on 1 Peter, p. 179) that there are thirty-one
quotations from the O.T. in 1 Peter as against five in 2 Peter.
Also, an examination of the quotations in 2 Peter (ii. 2, 22, iii. 8,
12, 13), and of the references to Ο.Τ. history (Noah, ii. 5; Lot,
ii. 6-9; Balaam, ii. 15-16) show that they are not only much fewer in
number, but that 2 Peter never formally quotes the O.T., and that
the actual allusions are of a much less intimate and spiritual char-
acter than in 1 Peter. Incidentally it may be pointed out (cf. Chase,
op. cit., p. 813 a) that this is the opposite of what we would expect if
St. Peter wrote the Epistle to Jewish Christians (so Spitta and Zahn).

3. Relation to the Pauline Epistles—a1 Peter displays a close
connexion of thought with Romans and Ephesians in particular.
“The connexion though very close, does not lie on the surface. It is
shown more by identities of thought and similarity in the structure
of the two Epistles as wholes than by identities of phrase’’ (Hort,
1 Peter, p. 5). 2 Peter, on the other hand, is extremely non-Pauline
in thought. The idea of the paxpo@upia of God in chap. iii. might
easily be the common property of the Christian consciousness.
Even granting that there were special circumstances in the origin of
1 Peter, that would largely account for the presence of Pauline
thought in the mind of St. Peter as he wrote (cf. Chase, D. B., 788,
789), it cannot be regarded as possible that the difference in the
circumstances both of writer and readers which we find in 2 Peter
would lead to such a complete freedom from Pauline influence.

4. Devotional Expression.—There is a great contrast in devo-
tional thought and feeling between the two Epistles. It has already
been noted (pp. 186-9) that the references to the great events in the
life of Christ are strangely few. The only allusion to His sufferings
and death is contained in τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην (11. 1). The
only crisis in His life that is mentioned is the Transfiguration. No
mention is made of the Holy Spirit except as the source of inspira-
tion of the ancient prophets (i. 21). Prayer is not alluded to. The
Apostles were essentially witnesses to the Resurrection, but on the
Resurrection 2 Peter is silent. Instead, the writer guarantees the
truth of the Apostolic teaching by an appeal to the Transfiguration
(ας Ρε 2,3; 1419-91, ai, 24, iii, 18,21, 29),

There is also a striking difference between the two writers in

εκ.

INTRODUCTION 109

their personal attitude and relationship towards Jesus Christ. A
warmth and intensity of feeling is apparent all through 1 Peter,
which displays a much more vivid and tender sense of the reality of
the grace and presence of the Risen Christ in the individual heart
wey. i, 5 18, ii. 9, 21, iv. 12 £, ν. 16) than the second epistle.
‘‘The flame of love,” so bright in the first epistle, burns but dimly
in the second. 2 Peter contains what Mayor calls ‘“ reverential
periphrases,” such as θεία φύσις, θεία δύναμις, µεγαλειότης, μεγαλοπρεπὴς
δόξα, κυριότης. ἐπίγνωσις, ἐπιγινώσκω are the only words that are used
of the deepest and most intimate religious experience, communion of
heart with the Living Christ. It is true that the thoughts of God’s
long-suffering (ili. 9-15) and His care of the righteous (ii. 9) are full of
tender meaning, but we do not find in 2 Peter that sense of personal
relationship to Christ, founded on memories of past, and an actual
sense of present discipleship, which transfuses the thought of the
first epistle, and we miss the penitential sense of cleansing through
the death of Christ so prominent in 1 Peter (cf. 1 Peter 1. 18-19, ii.
21-23). The references to the Risen Lord in 2 Peter are few, and are
pervaded chiefly by a sense of His majesty (cf. i. 16, ii. 1, 3, 12, 17,
20, 21, ili. 7, 10, 12). Even where the language is purely hortatory,
as in 2 Peter, chap. i., the difference of tone and manner compared
with 1 Peter is quite clearly marked. Thus the religious and devo-
tional atmospheres in the two Epistles are far apart. Allowance
must no doubt be made for the varying circumstances under which
they were written. The one is written to a scattered body of
Christians who are suffering persecution, and are in special need of
spiritual comfort and stimulus; the other is directed against the
immoral influences of false teaching. At the same time external
circumstances are quite insufficient to account for these fundamental
differences in the religious attitude of the two writings. Such a
change could not take place in the history of a single personality,
unless through some crisis completely revolutionising thought and
feeling.

CHAPTER V.
VOCABULARY AND STYLE OF 2 PETER.

THE extreme limit of depreciatory criticism of the style of 2 Peter
is reached in the epithet applied by Dr. E. A. Abbott, (Expositor ii.,
vol. iii.; From Letter to Spirit 1121-1135), who describes it as “ Baboo:
Greek”. The most moderate treatment of the subject is found in
the article, so often referred to, by Dr. Chase. We may briefly
summarise the chief points of criticism.

*1. The large number of words found in 2 Peter, and nowhere else
inthe N.T. The full list may be given: d@eopos,! ἀκατάπαυστος, ἅλω-

123 ἀστήρικτος,; αὐχμηρός.”

2

σις,! 2 ἀμαθής,; ἁμώμητος,” ὃ ἀποφεύγειν,” ἀργεῖν,
βλέμμα,” BopBopos,'?* βραδύτης,” διαυγάζξειν, Ὀυσνόητος, ἐγκατοικεῖν,” ἑκάσ-
τοτε, ὃ ἔκπαλαι,ὁ ἔλεγέις.ὶ ἐμπαιγμονή, ἐντρυφᾶν,! ἐξακολουθεῖν,! ὃ ἐξέραμα,
ἐπάγγελμα,” ἐπόπτης,! 3ὃ ἰσότιμος, κατακλύζειν,] ὃ καυσοῦσθαι, κύλισμα, λήθη,!
μεγαλοπρεπής, ὃ μέγιστος, ὃ µίασμα,] ” µιασµός,} μνήμη, ὃ µυωπάζειν, μῶμος;'
ὀλίγως, ὀμίχλη, 2 παραφρονία, παρεισάγειν, παρεισφέρειν,; ὃ πλαστός,” ῥοι-
ζηδόν, σειρός, στηριγµός,; ὃ στοιχεῖον] (in sense of physical elements),
στρεβλοῦν,] 2 ταρταροῦν, ταχινός, τεφροῦν, τήκεσθαι, τοιόσδε, τολµητής, Us,)?
φωσφόρος,ὃ ψευδοδιδάσκαλος.

One or two remarks on the list may be offered.

(1) Largely’on the ground of the use by 2 Peter of such a re-
markably long list of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα the vocabulary of 2 Peter has been
characterised as an “ambitious” one (Chase). It has also been
described as “bookish,” ** with a strong inclination for striking and
poetical words.

It is undoubtedly true that many of the words marked ? are
found only in the Greek dramatists or historians, but it is rash to
conclude that at the time 2 Peter was written all of them were still
poetical words. Moreover, the use of poetical language is not in-
compatible with the prophetic tone in 2 Peter. The words marked ®
are found in various Papyri, representing the vernacular of daily

life, in which much of the N.T. was written. It will be noted that

* Words marked ! are found in LXX, ? in classical writers, in Papyri (for reff.
see Comm.).
** Fg. Moulton, Proleg., pp. 97-8. But cf. note on II. 5 in Comm.

μα ων ο Μο

INTRODUCTION ΤΙΣ

in four cases the so-called ἅπαξ λεγόμενα of 2 Peter are found both in
the classics and in the vernacular. This suggests that most ordinary
of all occurrences in the history of words, the passing of a word
from the language of literature into the language of common speech.
Again, the case of words such as ἁμώμητος, ἀργεῖν, etc., taken along
with the fact that the study of colloquial Greek is in its infancy,
suggests that caution is required in peremptorily condemning the use
of certain words in 2 Peter as barbarisms. No less than sixteen
words in the above list are found in Papyri.

(2) At the same time it is undoubtedly true that the style of 2
Peter is often rhetorical, and contains some most successful attempts
after sonorous effect, (e.g., note the rhythm of 11. 4-9, and cf. the re-
marks of Mayor, p. lviii. and Bigg, pp. 227 ff.). The writer is himself
impressed with the majesty of his theme, and it is of great interest
to note that in some cases he may probably be making use of the
liturgical language of his day. An inscription has been discovered in
Stratonicea in Caria, dating from the early imperial period, contain-
ing a decree of the inhabitants in honour of Zeus Panhemerios and of
Hekate. Deissmann (Bible Studies, E. Tr., pp. 360 ff.) has pointed
out one or two most suggestive parallels in the inscription with 2
Peter i. 3 ff. The phrases τῆς θείας δυνάµεως ἀρετάς, τῶν κυρίων
Ῥωμαίων αἰωνίου ἀρχῆς, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν εἰσφέρεσθαι, and the superlative
μεγίστων (θεῶν) occur. In the case of θεία δύναμις, where 2 Peter
was usually supposed to be employing philosophical language, he
appears really to be quoting a current religious term, well known
perhaps to the very readers of his Epistle. With the phrase θείας
κοινωνοὶ φύσεως (i. 4) may be compared φύσεως κοινωνοῦντες ἀνθρω[πί]νης
from a religious inscription of Antiochus I. of Kommagene (middle
of first century B.c.). It is probable, also, that the use of words like
μεγαλοπρεπής, ταρταροῦν and εὐσέβεια (which also occurs in the Carian
inscription, and isa common N.T. word) ; δωρέοµαι, ἀρέτη (i. 3), ἐπιχο-
ρηγεῖν, and phrases like διεγείρειν ἐν ὑπομνήσει may be traced to the
same liturgical source.

2. Solecisms.—Chase gives alist of certain expressions in the Epistle
** which, so far as our knowledge of the language goes, appear to be
contrary to usage.” These are βλέμμα (ii. 8), καυσοῦσθαι (iii. 10-12),
µελλήσω (i. 12), µνήµην ποιεῖσθαι (i. 15), µυωπάζεν (i. 9), παρεισφέρειν
(i. 5), σειρός (ii. 4). For discussion as to the meaning of these see
the Commentary in loc. That something may be said for their use
is proved by the remarks of Mayor (pp. Ix. ff.).

3. Reiteration of Words.—There is a well-marked reiteration of
words in the vocabulary of 2 Peter, ¢.g., ἐπιχορηγεῖν (i. 5, 11) ; βέβαιος

EE2 INTRODUCTION

(i. 10, 19); ὑπομιμνήσκειν, ἐν ὑπομνήσει, µνήµην ποιεῖσθαι (i. 12, 13, 15;
iii, 1); ἐνεχθείσης, ἐνεχθεῖσαν (i. 17, 18); ἀπώλεια (1. 13, ΠΠ. 7-16) ;
ἐφείσατο (11. 4, 5); τηρεῖν (il. 4, 9, 17; iii. 7); στοιχεῖα καυσούµενα (iii.
16.19).

Chase asserts that “the extraordinary list of repetitions’ stamps
the vocabulary as “ poor and inadequate ” (op. cit., 808). In reply, it
may be urged, (1) This sweeping condemnation is scarcely consistent
with the occasional use of very rare words on the part of the writer.
(2) Reiteration may arise from other causes than a limited vocabu-
lary. It may arise ‘either from a liking for resonant sounds, or from
a desire to give emphasis by the use of line upon line, or from both”
(Mayor, p. lvii. f.). (3) A similar habit of repeating words is found in
1 Peter (cf. Bigg, pp. 226 f.).

The foregoing remarks on the vocabulary and style of 2 Peter are
necessary and timely, in view of the current tendency to depreciate
these. Many of the phrases in 2 Peter have found a permanent
place in the religious language of the Christian Church. It would
be rash to acquit the writer entirely of all faults of style that have
been attributed to him, but his ordinary intelligence must at least
be vindicated. Chap. iii., “On the Style of 2 Peter,” of Mayor's
edition is worthy of close study, as tending to restore the style of
2 Peter to that respect which enabled it to be studied in the time
of Aurelius, though not regarded as canonical, along with other
Scriptures, ‘‘as it appears profitable to many”’.

CHAPTER VI."
CIRCUMSTANCES OF WRITING.

1. Readers——To whom was the Epistle written? The crucial
passage in this connexion is iii. 1, where the Epistle referred to is
most naturally understood to be 1 Peter. The objection is urged by
Spitta, Zahn, and more recently by Mayor, that the description of
the contents in iii, 1, 2 is inapplicable to 1 Peter. Yet in 1 Peter i.
10-12 we have almost an exact parallel to τῶν προειρηµένων ῥημάτων
ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, and 1 Peter is full of reminiscences of the
teaching and example of Jesus (τῆς . . . ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος)
(cf. 1 Peter i. 15, 16, ii. 19-17, 23, etc.; cf. also ii. 1, τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν
τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς). The ethical difficulty caused by this
interpretation of the reference, if the two Epistles are not by the
same author, is no greater than that aroused by the use of the
apostolic name in i. 1 (see Jntrod., pp. 97-99). | Moreover, we have no
reason to expect anything but a statement in iii. 1 of what the two
Epistles have in common. ‘The words do not exclude the supposition
that their contents differ in many respects. The readers, then,
are, in general, those mentioned in 1 Peter i. 1, viz., Christian
communities of Asia Minor.

Mayor (op. cit., pp. cxxxvii. ff.) has again defended the view that
2 Peter is written to the Roman Church.) He founds his
argument on 2 Peter ili. 15, καθὼς καὶ 6 ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν Παῦλος
ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, holding that καθώς must be explained by the
immediately preceding admonition, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμών µακροθυµίαν
σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, which is more distinctly stated in Romans ii.
4, iii. 25, 26, ix. 22, than elsewhere. Various objections may
be urged against this view. (1) It is extremely doubtful whether
the reference καθώς can be thus narrowed, so as to include only
ver. 14. The introduction of the comparison with Paul seems
to arise from a desire to show that in general there is no dis-
crepancy between the Petrine and the Pauline teaching. (2) Even
although the Epistle to the Romans is meant, it would be no proof
that 2 Peter was written to the Roman Church, as it is evident from

1So Grotius, Dietlein.

114 INTRODUCTION

ἐν πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς, and τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς (ver. 16), that the Epistles
of Paul had reached the rank of γραφαί, and were known to the
Church at large. (3) Even if the narrower reference of καθὼς is
adopted, the idea of µακροθυµία is echoed also in 1 Corinthians and
Thessalonians (1 Cor. xv. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 16). If the wider reference
is taken, almost any of the Pauline Epistles may be meant, as the
doctrine of God’s free grace is reflected in many of them. It is also,
of course, quite possible that the reference may be to a lost Epistle."

That practically the same class of readers as in 1 Peter is meant,
is confirmed by τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν (1. 1).2 The phrase
may be regarded as referring in general to the isolated position of
the readers, who are made to feel, as in 1 Peter i. 1, 2, that they
too are recipients of the grace of God and objects of His special
choice. The words in 2 Peter may well be a succinct expression of
the idea in the opening verses of the First Epistle. In the one
case the readers are suffering persecution; in the other, they are
being led astray and harassed by false teaching. In both cases
the words carry a message of comfort.

The question may be raised whether i. 16, ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ
κυρίου . . . δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν, implies that the Apostle himself had
preached to these readers, and whether this is compatible with an
Asiatic community as recipients of the letter. In 1 Peter the Apostle
does not appear to have been personally acquainted with his readers
or to have himself laboured among them, and there is no trace in the
career of St. Peter of an Asiatic ministry. The words, however, do
not necessarily imply that Peter had himself preached the Gospel to
those who are addressed. The plural may be used of a single person
(cf. Moulton, Proleg., p. 86). The mask would seem to be thrown off
for the moment, and the actual personality of the unknown writer
to obtrude itself in this pseudonymous Epistle. That he should
have taken no special pains to prevent this, is itself an indication
of good faith on the writer’s part, and of his lack of any intention
to deceive. He himself is the preacher.

The general character of the address in 2 Peter is undoubted.
The Epistle is written to a wide class of Christians readers

1 Hofmann (vii. 2, 113 ff.) argues that the reference is to Ephesians. An im-
portant discussion of whole question is found in Spitta (pp. 286-88).

2 In connexion with these words, it has been argued whether they indicate Jewish
or Gentile Christians. The presumption is in favour of the latter (see Commentary
in loc.). The use of a word like ταρταρώσας (ii. 4) indicates a Hellenic atmosphere
of thought, and the phrase in ii. 20, ἀποφυγόντες τὰ µιάσµατα τοῦ κόσμου seems
most applicable to Gentiles.

INTRODUCTION 115

who are not recent converts (i. 12), “ein fur weite Kreise der
Kirche bestimmtes pastorales Rundschau”’ (Spitta, op. cit., p. 483).
1 Peter also is general in its destination. 2 Peter may well be
addressed to the same localities as 1 Peter, although to a later
generation of Christians, under different circumstances. This would
also supply a motive for the use of the Apostle’s name.

2. False Teachers.—The description of the false teachers given in
chap. ii. is taken in the main from the Epistle of Jude. It ought to
be noted, however, that the object in view in the two Epistles is
somewhat different. Jude is, above all, a polemic against the false
teaching, 2 Peter is written with a view to confirming the faith of
the Christian communities in the face of the delayed Parousia.

, The false teachers in 2 Peter “have brought a new idea into the
field... . They cast doubt on the Christian eschatological expectation

. appealing in support of their view to a deeper knowledge of
Christ (i. 2, 3, iii. 18, cf. i. 16-18), a particular conception of the Ο.Τ.
(i. 20, iii. 16), and certain Pauline positions (iii. 15 f., cf. ii. 19)” (Von
Soden, of. cit., p. 194). They are ‘‘ mockers”’ (ἐμπαῖκται) who say, ποῦ
ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ; (ili. 4). In this fact, we may
find a partial explanation of the use made by 2 Peter of Jude. He
makes use of an authoritative description of their real character,
making certain changes dictated by his own views as to the use of
apocryphal books (e.g., omission of story of Michael), and by the
special circumstances of those he addresses.

A remarkable circumstance in the language employed is that the
writer speaks at one time of the false teachers as about to come
(ii. 1 f., iii. 3), at another as though they were already active (ii. 11,
12, 17 f., 20, iii. 5, iii. 16). All such explanations as that the writer
projects himself into the future, and from that point of view vividly
regards future events as actually happening; or that he is at one
time thinking of communities where the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι are actually
at work, and at another of communities where their influence has
not yet penetrated, may be set aside. The simplest explanation
seems to be that again the writer, when he speaks of them in the
present tense, throws off the prophetic mask, and depicts what he
knew was actually happening.'

Do the characteristics mentioned in this Epistle point to 4
Gnostic sect? It has been pointed out that there is one important
difference between the libertines of Jude’s Epistle and those of

1 Henkel suggests that the False Teachers, who are active in other communities,
are regarded as presenting only an imminent possible danger to the readers of 2 Peter
{Der Zw. B. des Apostelfiirsten Petrus, p. 37 ff.).

116 INTRODUCTION

2 Peter (cf Chase, op. cit., ΠΠ. 811). In the former, not so much
ieaching as practice, was in question, while, in 2 Peter, they are called
ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, and seem to have been engaged in the active propa-
gation of false doctrine. The use of γνώσις in i. 5 f. can scarcely be
without reference to that intellectualism, with its hidden wisdom,
and exclusive mysteries, so characteristic of Gnosticism (cf. Light-
foot, Colossians, pp. 73-113). The word ἐπόπτης (i. 16) is a Gnostic
term meaning one who has been initiated into the mystery. Jude,
on the other hand, seems to feel that the movement. he combats is also
doctrinal in its import; for he urges his readers ‘‘ to contend for the
faith once delivered to the saints” (ver. 3), and the heresy he opposes
must have had a certain materialistic basis (κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν,
δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῖσιν, ver. 8). There is also implied a certain doctrinal ͵
process in the words, Χάριτα µετατιθέντες eis ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν µόνον
δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμών ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι (ver. 4). Thus, in
both cases, the readers are warned against what was really a matter
both of life and of doctrine, and the situation in 2 Peter need not
necessarily imply a stage at least much later in the development of
the false teaching. In these Epistles it can scarcely be doubted that
we are in the presence of an incipient Gnosticism, and the two
directions in which the Gnostic tendency led, viz., Intellectualism
and Antinomianism, are clearly marked. On this latter aspect, the
emphasis is laid, not only in the Epistles, but in the N.T. generally.
The new movement caused great anxiety to the leaders of the
Church, owing chiefly to its immoral tendency. For long the
heretics were in communion with the Christian Church, and it was
not until the second century that the cleavage widened out to its
true limits (cf. E. P. Scott, Apologetic of the N.T., pp. 146 ff.). These
false teachers in Jude and 2 Peter were partakers in the rites of the
Christian Church (Jude 12; 2 Peter ii. 19). Incidentally, it may be
mentioned that their description in 2 Peter does not in itself warrant
a date for its composition in the second century, and certainly not a
date so much later than Jude, as is usually supposed.

2 Peter, then, gives us in general a picture of the prevalence of
Antinomian heresy, which has as its results the corruption of morals,
and a certain materialistic tendency which led to disbelief in the
Person of Christ (ii. 1), and a denial of the ethical nature of God
(iii. 8, 9; cf. also Philipp. iii. 18 f). 2 Peter is throughout eminently
ethical in its tone. Religion and life are inseparably connected, és
πάντα ἡμῖν τῆς θείας δυνάµεως αὐτοῦ τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν δεδωρηµένης
διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς (i. 3). The true γνῶσις must
contain ethical qualities (i.6). The Christian must take pains “to

INTRODUCTION Fiz

make his calling and election sure’ by godliness of life (i. 10).
We are not, however, left without traces of the doctrinal position
of these false teachers. The Gnostic position which demanded
γνώσις, or a hidden wisdom which leads to perfection, is tacitly
opposed in the use of the word ἐπίγνωσις, which is used by St. Paul
to denote “complete knowledge ” or “saving knowledge”’ (cf. 1 Cor.
xiii. 12; Philem. 6). Mayor suggests (of. cit., p. 171) that ἐπίγνωσις
came into use to distinguish the “ living knowledge of the true believer
from the spurious γνῶσις which had then begun to ravage the Church”.
The true ἐπίγνωσις carries with it “all that is needed for life and godli-
ness” (i. 8). These Gnostics evidently held that Revelation in itself
was incomplete. Those, however, who possess ἐπίγνωσις are made
θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, a phrase which originates in a philosophic at-
mosphere, and no doubt reflects a sense of opposition to the pure
intellectualism of these false teachers, who would claim to be κοινωνοὶ
θείας φύσεως by means of wisdom or γνώσις alone. τυφλός ἐστιν
µυωπάζων (i. 9) is a reference to the darkness which was mistaken
for light, because the γνώσις that accompanied it was so unethical
(cf. the whole passage, i. 5-9). σεσοφισµένοις µύθοις (1. 16) refers to those
fictions connected with the emanation of zeons, so characteristic of
the Gnostic system (cf. 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 4; Tit. i. 14), by
virtue of which the Person of Christ was regarded as the emanation
of an zon, in union with a human body. In contrast to this idea,
the writer claims that the Apostles were ἐπόπται . . . τῆς ἐκείνου
µεγαλειότητος. The Voice proclaims Him to be actually 6 υἱός pou 6
ἀγαπητός pou (i. 17). What seems to be a denial of the Person and
Work of Christ is referred to in i. 1 τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην
ἀρνούμενοι. πλαστοῖς λόγοις (fictitious words) of i. 3 may be compared
with σεσοφισµένοις μύθοις of i. 16. µκυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας (ii. 10),
δόξας of τρέµουσιν (ii. 11) evidently cannot refer to any denial of
human authority, but rather to sceptical views regarding the in-
fluence of spiritual powers, good or evil, upon the life of the indivi-
dual. Such a belief was part of the orthodox Jewish thought of the
time (see Commentary in loc.). ἐλευθερίαν . . . ἐπαγγελλόμενοι (ii. 19)
may be set alongside the passage dealing with the misuse and mis-
interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of free grace (iii. 16), which
provided the theoretic basis for Antinomianism. These false teacherg
questioned the truth of the Parousia expectation (iii. 4) on the ground
(1) of the uniformity of nature (πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως)
which is met by the argument that the heavens and the earth were
created by the word of God, and that the earth has already been

flooded by the same divine agency (iii. 5-7). (2) The indestructibility
VOL. V 8

118 INTRODUCTION

of matter, against which it is asserted that in the day of the Lord
οἱ οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται, στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούµενα λυθήσεται (iii.
10). Finally, we are told that the false teachers use the Scriptures
of the O.T. as a basis for their heretical teaching (iii. 16).

It is thus apparent that in 2 Peter, far more than in Jude, the
doctrine as well as the life of the false teachers is in question.
Their ethical character is described in words largely borrowed from
Jude, and in no measured terms. They speak evil of the way of
truth (ii. 2); make merchandise of their followers (ii. 3); are fleshly
and lustful (ii. 10-12); practise a vulgar hedonism (ii. 13) ; defile the
love-feasts by their presence (13) ; deceive the hopes of their followers,
like waterless fountains (16). They are Christians in name, steal
into the Church without disclosing their impious views (ii. 1, 20, 21),
and are boastful and irreverent (ii. 10, 18).

The question arises whether these false teachers can be identified
with any known heretical sect. Some critics have sought to dis-
tinguish between the libertines of chap. ii. and the mockers of
chap. ΠΠ., but there is really no difficulty in identifying the two.!
The denial of the Parousia by the mockers is really the outcome of
a materialistic philosophy, and the denial of a future judgment would
have the tendency to emancipate from all moral restraint. “There
may have been shades of difference between them; some, perhaps,
had a philosophy, and some had not; but in the eyes of a Christian
Preacher, judging the party as a whole by its practical results, they
would all seem to wear the same livery” (Bigg, op. cit., p. 239, cf.
Henkel, of. cit., p. 37).

Harnack, who holds that Jude was written 100-130, suggests that
the attack in that Epistle is aimed at some of the older forms of
Gnosticism, among which he mentions the Nicolaitans. This sect is
known to have had considerable influence in Asia Minor, and is
mentioned by name in Rev. ii. 6, 15, in the Epistles to Ephesus and
to Pergamum. In the case of the latter Church they are represented
as existing side by side, and probably as identical with a sect of
« Balaamites” (ii. #4). Νο doubt the same sect is accused of immo-
rality in the Epistle of Thyatira (ii. 20). In 2 Peter ii. 15, 16 the
example of Balaam is adduced asa parallel to the conduct of the
false teachers, and it would appear that the name of Balaamites was
given as a nickname to the Nicolaitans. Irenzeus (iii.,c. 1) tells us
that the Nicolaitans held the doctrine of two Gods—the God who
created the world, and the Rather of Jesus; that an zon descended
upon Jesus, and again returned into the Pleroma before the Cruci-

1Cf. Henkel, of. cit., pp. 21 Β., where the question is fully discussed.

INTRODUCTION 119

fixion. The language of 2 Peter iii. 5-9, relative to the creation and
the present government of the world, through the long-suffering of
the Creator, might well have in view some such doctrine as this. The
accusation, also, of distorting the Scriptures of the O.T. (iii. 16)
would also be explained, as also the statement in Jude 4 and
2 Peter ii. 1 about the heretics’ denial of Christ. It is probable that
these views were common to the Nicolaitans along with other early
Gnostic sects, such as the followers of Simon Magus (cf. Mayor, op.
cit., pp. clxxviii. ff.). :

On the intellectual side, Gnosticism originated in a compromise
with Greek thought, and an attempt to adapt the Christian teaching
to the current philosophy. It is probable that, on the side of con-
duct, the immoralities that are so vividly denounced in Jude and 2
Peter were due to a similar compromise with the customs and ideas
of the Graeco-Roman society of the day. The Nicolaitan teaching,
as described in Rev. ii., was “ evidently an attempt to effect a reason-
able compromise with the established usages of Graco- Roman
society, and to retain as many as possible of those usages in the
Christian system of life. It affected most of all the educated and
cultured classes in the Church, those who had most temptation to
retain as much as possible of the established social ideas and customs
of the Grzeco-Roman world, and who by their more elaborate educa-
tion had been most fitted to take a somewhat artificial view of life,
and to reconcile contradictory principles in practical conduct through
subtle philosophical reasoning” (Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven
Churches, pp. 337 ff.).

It had evidently become the custom in the Early Church to use
the most unsparing language in denouncing these Gnostic errors.
Both in Revelation and in Jude, the language is violent, and 2 Peter
deals with the false teachers in the same temper. This may render
it difficult, at the present day, to understand the exact theoretic
position of a sect like the Nicolaitans, and it is a well-known fact
that certain philosophic positions in religion, adopted and advocated
by men who are themselves of blameless life, may really lead in the
case of weaker followers to great moral laxity. If we consider the
picture of Greco-Roman society drawn by St Paul in Romans i., it
is not to be wondered at that these heresies, which led to such
moral compromises, should be vigorously denounced by the Christian
teacher. Nothing else “could have saved the infant Church from
melting away into one of those vague and ineffective schools of philo-
sophic ethics. . . . An easy-going Christianity could never have
Survived ; it could not have conquered and trained the world; only

~

120 INTRODUCTION

the most convinced, resolute, almost bigoted adherence to the most
uncompromising interpretations of its own principles could have
gained the Christians the courage and self-reliance that were needed ”’
(Ramsay, op. cit., 1δίά.).

3. Place of Writing.—On this topic, there is very little ground
for judgment beyond vague conjecture. Chase favours the view that
2 Peter is of Egyptian origin. He founds his opinion (1) on the
supposition that the Apocalypse of Peter and 2 Peter belong to the
same school, (2) that Clement of Alexandria appears to have placed
the two documents side by side, and commented on them together
in his Hypotyposeis, (3) certain resemblances in thought and word
with Philo and Clement of Alexandria (op. cit., p. 816 f.). Julicher
(Introd., E. Tr., p. 239) suggests that the Epistle originated either
in Egypt or in Palestine. Palestine is selected on the ground that
the Epistle is directed against one of the earlier and less known
Gnostic sects which flourished in that country or in Syria. Deiss-
mann, on the basis of the Stratonicean inscription already quoted
(op. cit., pp. 367 f.) inclines to the view that the local colouring of
the Epistle belongs to Asia Minor. He awaits the result of further
inquiry “how far its peculiar vocabulary has points of contact with
that of literary sources (of the imperial period) from Egypt, or Asia
Minor, including those of the papyri and the inscriptions’. There
can be little doubt that the readers are in Asia Minor, but does not
the form of address, τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν, point to a writer
at some distance from his readers, though well acquainted with their

circumstances? (cf. p. 114).

LITERATURE.

Friederich Spitta. Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des fudas. 1885.

H. v. Soden. Hand-Commentar Zum Ν.Τ., vol. iii., 1892.

F. H. Chase. Art. 2 Peter in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible., vol. iii., 1900.

Charles Bigg. ‘A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St.
Peter and St. Jude (International Critical Commentary). 1901. -

1. B. Mayor. The Epistle of St. fude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter. 1907.

Amongst older commentaries of the present century referred to are those of
Alford (ed. 1898), Hofmann (1875), Huther (in Meyer, 1852. E. Tr., 1881), A.
Wiesinger (in Olshausen, Bibelwerk, 1862), Dietlein (1851).

The general question of authenticity is discussed in the following :-—

Salmon’s Introduction, pp. 481, ff. 1894.

Jiilicher’s Introduction, E. Tr., 1904, pp. 232 ff.

Zahn’s Introduction, E. Tr., 1909, vol. ii., pp. 134 ff.

B. Weiss. Studien und Kritiken, 1866, pp. 256 ff.

Grosch. Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri, 1889.

INTRODUCTION 121

McGiffert. History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, 1897, pp. 600 ff.

Sanday. Inspiration, 1893, pp. 346 Π., 382 ff.

E. A. Abbott. Expositor, Jan.-March, 1882. ‘‘ From Letter to Spirit,” §§ r12r-
1135,

Karl Henkel. Der zweite Brief des Apostelfiirsten Petrus, geprift auf seine
Echtheit. (From R. Ο. Standpoint), 1904.

ABBREVIATIONS OF REFERENCES TO PAPYRI AND INSCRIPTIONS.

Ῥ. Amh. The Amherst Papyri, edd. B. P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. (Lon-
don, 1900-or.)

Ρ. Fay. Fayim Towns and their Papyri, edd. B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt
and D. G. Hogarth (Egyptian Exploration Fund. London, 1goo.)

P, Fior. Papiri Fiorentini, ed. G. Vitelli. (Milan, 1905-06.)

P. Gen, Les Papyrus de Genéve,1. Papyrus Grecs, ed. J. Nicole. (Genéve,
1896-1900.)

Ῥ. Grenf. I. An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek Papyri, chiefly
Ptolemaic, ed. B. P. Grenfell. (Oxford, 1896.) Il. New Classical Fragments and
other Greek and Latin Papyri, edd. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. (Oxford, 1897.)

Ῥ. Hib. The Hibeh Papyri Ι., edd. Grenfell and Hunt. (Egyptian Explora.-
tion Fund. London, 1906.)

P. Lond. Greek Papyri in British Museum, 3 vols. (London, 1893, 1898, 1907.)

P. Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, edd. Grenfell and Hunt. (Egyptian Ex-
ploration Fund. London, 1898, 1899, 1903, 1904.)

Ῥ. Par. Paris Papyri in Notices et Extraits, xviii., ii., ed. Brunet de Presle,
(Paris, 1865.)

P. Petr. Flinders Petrie Papyri in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy,
“Cunningham Memoirs ”’ (Nos, viii., ix., xi.), 3 vols. (Dublin, 1891-1893.)

P, Tebt. The Tebtunis Papyri, 2 vols. (University of California Publica-
tions. London, 1902, 1907.)

B.G.U. Griechische Urkunden, from the Berlin Museum.

C.I.A, Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum. Berlin, 1873-

O.G.LS. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, 2
vols. (Leipzig, 1903-05.)

For the references to Papyri I am indebted to the “ Lexical Notes from the
Papyri,” appearing in Expositor, 1908-9, by Rev. Professor J. H. Moulton, D.D.,
D.Lit., and the Rev. George Milligan, D.D., and to private communications from
these scholars.

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS.

ZNTW. Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, herausgegeben
von Erwin Preuschen.

MME. Notes from the Papyri in Expositor, 1908, by Professor Moulton and
Dr. Milligan. ?

Moulton Proleg. Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. Prolegomena by
Professor J. H. Moulton.

Abbott, J.G. Johannine Grammar by Edwin A. Abbott.

WM. Winer’s Grammar of N.T. Greek, 3rd edition, by W. F. Moulton.

H.D.B. Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.).

ή ΠΜ) iis ie He Wi
ay ΜΑΝ UR

Se ST ή η: mM ο ΕΜ Sh i πι Αλ ae i
a ein i μμ Mi ΜΕ. γη Πλ A ok
aii rity in} 7 ey ak ΜΗ

τι | : :
| ΜΜ MI) ια, ο Herel (He aa ieee ee Nig πι ae
bon fey ; ΜΙΑ, Απ πο, i Vis (gees Phe) ou} άν
(a ! PAE | : ? J i
¥ oe ON A
ty ay fe
| iu | vt ve a fie Me.
K Pe, het ην. EP ΜΑ ο 4 BY) Ye Wi 1 nee cry 7 en"
| : : mf ' τὰ a ολ ή Ἱ
: ye
he ( ta κ η a th

ey

A ον 7 j
Ae gt iis
πρ να, αν

--

--

ντ. νυν

8

ΗΠΕΊΡΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΔΛΗ B.

I. 1. ΣΥΜΕΩΝ] Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς

> { ς a“ - , 3 , “A A c - LN
ισοτιµον ημιν λαχοῦσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσύνη του Θεοῦ ημων και

σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ °

2. Χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν

1Συµεων KAKLP syrr., Treg., Ti., WH™; Σιµων B, vulg., sah., boh., WH.

ΟΗΑΡΤΕΚ I. Vv. 1-2. The Greeting.
“Simeon Peter, slave and apostle of
Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained
a faith of equal honour with our own,
through the justice of our God and
Saviour Jesus Christ. Grace and peace
be multiplied unto you in the saving
knowledge of our Lord.”

Ver. 1. The form Συµέων is only once
used elsewhere of Peter in Acts xv. 14.
τοῖς κ.τ.λ. The question as to who are
the actual recipients of the letter, is
matter for discussion in the Introduction
(chap. vi. 1). The presumption is in
favour of a body of non-Jewish Christians.
ἡμῖν. probably means, in accordance
with its use elsewhere in the chapter,
the whole Christian community to which
the writer belongs (see Introd. p. 49).
ἰσότιμον. It is doubtful whether igor.
means “like in honour” or ‘like in
value’. Both meanings are found (cf.
Mayor, p- 80). We may compare the
sense of τιµή in v. 17 (see note),
where the sense is clearly of an honour
conferred (cf. Peter i. 7), which would
suggest the same meaning here. ἐν
δικαιοσύνῃ .. . Χριστοῦ. ἐν is instru-
mental,. Sux. has the sense of “ justice’’
or “impartiality,” and is opposed to
προσωπολημψία. God is no respecter
of persons. There is no distinction in
His sight between the faith of an eye-
witness, and the faith of those “ who
have notseen”’. With this non-theologi-
cal sense of δικ. cf. ἄδικος in Hebrew
vi. 10; alsor Johni.g. Θεοῦ refers to
Christ, cf. John xx. 28. σωτῆρος, a title
used by the Emperor. ‘‘ Familiarity with
the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts
itself in the papyri and inscriptions of
Ptolemaic and Imperial times, lends
strong support to Wendland’s conten-
tion (ZNTW, pp. 335 ff.) that Chris-

tians from the latter part of i. Α.Ρ.
onward, deliberately assumed for their
Divine Master the phraseology that was
impiously arrogated to themselves by
some of the worst of men’’ (i.e., the
Emperors). Moulton, Proleg. p. 84 (cf.
Spitta, p. 523; Chase, D. B, iii. 796).
πίστιν ἐν δικ. can hardly be taken to-
gether (cf. Eph. i. 15, 1 Tim. iii. 13), as
the relation of the believer to Christ in
this epistle is rather that of γνῶσις or
ἐπίγνωσις (cf. v. 2). (Cf. Zahn. Introd.
il. pp. 218-9).

Ver. 2. χάρις.» + πληθυνθείη. : the
same form ot salutation aS) anit Pet:
Ίο "εν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν.
(For history of ἐπίγνωσις see Mayor's
note, pp. 171 ff. ; Robinson’s Excursus in
Ephesians.) ἐπίγνωσις in this epistle
corresponds to πίστις in the Pauline
sense (Spitta, Ῥ. 522). In Rom. i. 21
γνόντες is used οἱ the imperfect know-
ledge of God possessed by the heathen
world, and in v. 28 he contrasts it with the
Christian or perfect knowledge of God.
(καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν Θεὸν ἔχειν
ἐν ἐπιγνώσει.) Cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 12, Col.
i. g. “ ἐπίγνωσις, involving the complete
appropriation of all truth and the unre-
served acquiescence in God’s will, is the
goal and crown of the believer’s course”
(Lightfoot, note on Col.i.g). Cf. Introd.
Ρ. 117; note v. 8; Paget, Spirit of Dis-
cipline, pp. 112 ff. ἐπίγνωσις implies a ,
more intimate and personal relationship
than γνῶσις. It would be a useful word,
seeing that γνῶσις had become associated
with Gnosticism, then incipient in the
Church. Mayor quotes Clem. Alex. Strom.
i. p. 372, and Str., vi., p. 759, where kar’
ἐπίγνωσιν is twice opposed to κατὰ
περίφασιν ( = ona broad general view,
cf. Mayor’s note, p. 213). Grace and peace
are multiplied in and through this more

124

> , A , ς a Mt
a1 Cor. iv. ἐπιγνώσει TOU κυρίου ημών,

18, Xen.

4. Mem.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B t

"Gs πάντα ἡμῖν τῆς θείας δυνά-

3.

CYr. 3,3) µεως αὐτοῦ τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν δεδωρηµένης διὰ τῆς ἐπι-

I, 6, 5.

lrov θεου και Incov του κυριου ημων MSS. generally, Ti., Treg., WH;
του θεου καὶ Inoov P, vulg., Minusc., 69, 137, 163, Spitta, Zahn.,

om.
Nestle. A

strong argument in favour of omission is the fact that consistently throughout the

epistle Jesus alone appears as the object of ἐπιγνωσις or γγωσις.

Additional

confirmation is the use of αυτου (sing.) in v. 3.

intimate heart knowledge of Jesus Christ,
in contrast to a mere barren γνῶσις.

Vv. 3, 4 The Promises and their
Source. “ Inasmuch as His Divine Power
has granted us all things that are needed
for life and piety, by means of the per-
sonal knowledge of One who called
us by the impression of his own glory
and excellency; and through this glory
and excellency have been granted pro-
mises that are precious to us and
glorious, in order that, by means of
these, ye might be partakers of the
Divine Nature, escaping the corruption
that is in the world owing to lust.”

Throughout this passage, the contrast
between ἡμῖν, ἡμᾶς, and 2 p. plur. in
γένησθε (νετ. 4) must be preserved. ἡμῖν
implies the apostolic circle, who, by
virtue of their own experience of the
δόξα and ἀρετή of Christ, are able to
transmit to these readers certain pro-
mises ‘‘precious to us, and glorious.”
(So Spitta, Van Soden).

Ver. 3. τῆς θείας δυνάµεως is Origin-
ally a philosophic term (Plato, Jon.
534 C., Arist. Pol. vii. 4) cf. τὸ θεῖον as
used by St. Paul in speaking to philos-
ophers at Athens (Acts xvii. 29). The sub-
ject is Christ (cf. δύναµις κυρίου, Luke x.
τος απ COIs ν. 4); 2) COL. X11. ο απἀν. LO;
of this chapter), The phrase θεία
δύναµις is contained in an inscription
of Stratonicea in Caria in honour of
Zeus Panhemerios and Hekate, belong-
ing to the early Imperial period. 2
Peter would thus be availing himself of
one of ‘the familiar forms and forrhule
ot religious emotion ”’ (Deissmann, Bible
Studies, p. 367). αὐτοῦ is taken as τε-
ferring to Kwptov in νετ. 2, which
would confirm the reading adopted.
πάντα . . . τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὖσέ-
βειαν. Cw is the new life that belongs
to believers in Christ. εὐσέβεια is also
found in the inscription quoted above.
This word and its cognates are found
in N.T. only in Acts, this Epistle, and
in the Pastoral Epistles. They are also
common in inscriptions of Asia Minor,
and were apparently familiar terms in the

religious language of the Imperial period.
In εὐσέβεια, the emphasis of meaning lies
towards “ godliness ’’ in its practical, rather
than its devotional aspect, z.e., what God
requires of man “pious conduct”’, In 1
Tim. iii, 16 Christ is spoken of as “ the
secret of piety ’’ (τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας µυστή-
ριον). The conjunction of the two ideas
ζωή and εὐσέβεια is significant. Religion
does not narrow, but expand the pro-
vince of life. The life in Christ is
not ‘‘a little province of peculiar emo-
tion... . If we fear that it may lose
itself in the vast and often lawless uni-
verse of life beneath, the danger is to be
averted not by wilfully contracting it
within a narrower field, but by seeking
greater intensity of life in deeper and
more submissive communion with the
Head Himself in the heavens”? (Hort,
The Way, the Truth, and the Life,
Ῥ. 147). δεδωρηµένης (= gifted” or
‘‘granted”’). This word and its cog-
nates always carry a certain regal sense
describing an act of large-handed
generosity. Cf. Mark xv. 45 of the
giving by Pilate of the body of Jesus to
Joseph; John iv. το; Jamesi. 17. The
same sense is found in Gen. Χκχ. 20,
Prov. ive 2, Isa.. lx. 3 απά Ο:81.5-
517" (iii. A.D.) with reference to the gift
by Marcus Aurelius of a new law-court,
ὁπότε ἐδω[ρ]ήσατο THe πατρίδι ἡμῶν
[τ]ὴν ἀγορὰν τῶν δικῶν. τοῦ καλέσ-
αντος ἡμᾶς. Judging from usage else-
where in N.T., the reference would
here be to God, who is always the
Caller. 2 Peter, however, shows great
independence of thought in other direc-
tions, and it is more likely that the
reference is to Christ, especially as ἐπί-
γνωσις is used consistently in relation to
Christ (i. 8, ii. 20). (So Spitta, Von
Soden, Mayor). ‘ Cognitionem dei prae--
supponit haec epistula, ver. 3. Cogni-
tionem autem Domini nostri, nempe Jesu
oe urget proprie”’ _(Bengel). Cf.

Clem. 1x. 5. χριστὸς + +» ἐγένετο
SRE καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν. ἰδίᾳ
δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇῃ. Has ἰδίᾳ an intensive
force here, or has it an exhausted sense

-σ, ο, OXY. τα, li. τν. Α.Ρ.].
«δόξειεν τῇ ἀρετῇ =“ if it please your

3---ᾱ-

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

125

Ὑνώσεως τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ,ὶ 4. δι ὧν τὰ

τίµια ἡμῖν καὶ μέγιστα” ἐπαγγέλματα δεδώρηται, ἵνα διὰ τούτων

Ὑένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσµω ἐν

1δια δοξης και αρετης BKL, 31, WH.

to dittography, and correction to genitive easily follows.

mous in favour of the reading adopted.

Recurrence of δια in vv. 3, 4 would lead
The versions are unani-

ὄτιμια και µεγιστα ηµιν B, syrP, spec., WH, Mayor; µεγιστα και τιµια ηµιν

ACP, syrp (A, syrP υμιν), 13, 31 + Treg.

‘merely equivalent to a personal pronoun ?
The emphasis conveyed in the former
interpretation would better carry on the
sense of πάντα. δόξα is used in sense of
John i. 14. ἀρετή is an interesting word.
There is considerable evidence to prove
that it is not used here in the ordinary
Greek philosophical sense of ‘ virtue,”
although the combination of δόξα

and ἀρετή is not infrequently found

in philosophical writings (cf. Plat. Symp.
208 D. Plut. Mor.535). Deissmann, fol-
lowing the Stratonicean inscription al-
ready mentioned, renders ‘‘ manifestation
of power,” i.e., in miracle (of. cit. pp.
95-97). In 1 Pet. ii. 9 it is used in
plural, in ΤΧΧ sense = “praises”

(755A). (Cf. Thue. i. 33.) In P.

Hib. xv. 3 ff. (ili. B.c.) the younger men
are exhorted to employ their bodies

«εὐκαίρως τὴν ἀπόδειξιν ποιησαµένους
τῆς αὐτῶν ἀρετῆς, ‘ina timely display

of their prowess” (G. and H.). In later
papyri ἀρετή is used as title of courtesy,
et σου

Excellency”. Foucart defines ἀρετή as
‘vim divinam quae mirabilem in modum
hominibus laborantibus salutem afferret ”’
(cf. Hort’s note, 1 Peter, p. 129 and
MME, Sept. 1908).

The phrase τοῦ καλέσαντος ... ἄρετῃ

-contains one of the finest ideas in the

N.T. What could be a more effective
answer to the intellectualism of the
Gnostic teachers or its modern equiva-
lent, than the impression produced on
the lives of men, and especially the early
disciples, by the Personality of Jesus?
They beheld His glory in the evidences of
miraculous knowledge and power which
Jesus showed at the time of their call (John
i. 42, 47-51; Luke v. 4). Their sense of
His moral greatness overcame all resist-
ance on their part (Luke v. 8; John i. 49).
If 2 Pet. is lacking in devotional expres-
sion, his apologetic for the person of
Christ is cast on most effective lines.
Reason can only compass the facts of
Revelation, in terms ofantinomies, and it
ds vain to meet inadequate theories of the

person of Christ by dogmatic subtlety.
The Life and Death of our Lord, if its sig-
nificance is to be fully understood, must
be looked upon largely as an acted
parable, and Christian experience—the
impression of δόξα καὶ apery—is an
indispensable constituent of dogmatic
expression.

Ver. 4. δι’ ὧν. Reference is to δόξῃ
καὶ ἀρετῇ (so Kihl, Dietlein, Wiesinger,
Briickner, Mayor) ἐπαγγέλματα-- “ pro-
mised blessings”. No doubt what 2
Peter has chiefly in view is the particular
comprehensive ἐπάγγελμα of His Second
Coming (cf. iii. 4, ἐπαγγελία and iii. 13).
The Parousia will be the vindication of
all moral and spiritual effort. Christ
promised forgiveness to the sinful, rest
to the weary, comfort to the sad, hope to
the dying and life to the dead. If the
reference adopted above of &’ ὧν is
correct, the sense would be that in the
character and deeds of the Incarnate
One, we have a revelation that is itself
a promise. The ἐπαγγέλματα are given,
not only in word but also in deed. The
very life of Christ among men, with its
δόξα and ἀρετή is itself the Promise of
Life, and the Parousia expectation is also
a faith that He lives and reigns in grace,
having “received gifts for men”. δεδώ-
ρηται. Passive, see note on ver. 3. ἵνα διὰ
τούτων . .. φύσεως. τούτων refers to
ἐπαγγέλματα. The hope and faith kin-
dled in us by the promises are a source of
moral power. ‘* Thehistory of the material
progress of the race is the history of the
growing power of man, arising from the
gradual extension of hisalliances with the
forces which surroundhim. . . . Hearms
himself with the strength of the winds and
the tides. He liberates the latent energy
which has been condensed and treasured
up in coal, transforms it into heat,
generates steam, and sweeps across a
continent without weariness, and with
the swiftness of a bird. . . . Moving
freely among the stupendous energies by
which he is encompassed, he is strong in
their strength, and they give to his voli-
tions—powerless apart from them—a
large and effective expression. ‘The his-

126

b Gen.

3 ΄. ὉἙὉ A
ἐπιθυμία ’ φθορᾶς.
after άν, $ ρα

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B r

Ν > aA
5. καὶ αὐτὸ "τοῦτο δὲ σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρει-

> LZ ιά 3) ~ ~ ~
ἀποφυγ. σενέγκαντες ἐπιχορηγήσατε ἐν τῇ πίστει ὑμῶν τὴν ἀρετήν, ἐν δὲ τῇ

found

hereonly. ἀρετῇ τὴν γνῶσιν, 6. ἐν δὲ

c Xen.
Anab.1,
9, 21, Plat- Protag. 310e.

tory of man’s triumphs in the province of
his higher and spiritual life is also the
history of the gradual extension of his
alliance with a Force which is not his
own... .In Christ we are ‘ made par-
takers of the divine nature’’’ (Dale,
Atonement, pp. 416, 417). θεία φύσις is
originally a philosophic term, cf. Plat.
Symp. Π. 6, Philo (ed. Mangey), ii. pp. 51,
647; ii. 22, 143, 320, 343. O@etos is
found in a papyrus of 232 A.D. = * im-
perial’’ (Deissmann, of. cit. p. 218, note
2). Probably 2 Peter is here again making
use of a current religious expression (cf.
note on eta δύναµις, ver. 3). ἀποφυγόν-
tas... φθορᾶς. The aorist participle
is used of coincident action. Moral eman-
cipation is part of the κοινωνία θείας
φύσεως. The idea of participation in the
Divine Nature is set between the two pic-
tures, one of hope, τὰ τίµια ἡμῖν καὶ µέ-
γιστα ἐπαγγέλματα, the other of despair,
τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς.
The way to God is through the Redemp-
tion of Christ. The approach to God is
an “escape,” and not an act of intellectual
effort. φθορά in philosophic writers is
the counterpart of γένεσις, cf. Plat. Rep.
546A, Phaed. 95Ε. Aristot. Phys. 5, 5, 6.
It expresses not sudden but gradual dis-
solution and destruction. ‘The scriptural
meaning alternates between destruction
in the moral, and in the physical sense.
In the N.T. the significance is physical,
in ® Cor. xv. 42, 50; σοι. i. 22, Gal. vi.
8, ii. Pet. ii. 12; moral here, as in 2 Pet.
ii. το, Rom. viii. 21. Man becomes either
regenerate or degenerate. Either his
spiritual and moral powers are subject
to slow decay and death, the wages of
sin (ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ), or he rises to full par-
ticipation in the Divine. ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ, a
compact phrase. The corruption con-
sists in ἐπιθυμία, which may be inter-
preted in the widest sense of inordinate
affection for earthly things. ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ;
cf. Rom. viii. 21. Φθορά becomes personi-
fied as a world-wide power to which
all creation including man is subject. In
Mayor’s edition there is a valuable study
of φθορά and cognates (pp. 175 ff.). The
idea contained in φθορά, moral decay,
is illustrated in Tennyson’s “ Palace of
Art,” and “‘ Vision of Sin”; also in Byron,
ε.σ., “ Stanzas for Music’’.

Vv. 5-7. Faith is not only illumination

τῇ γνώσει τὴν ἐγκράτειαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ

but character. ‘Nor is this all. On
your part bring the utmost earnestness
to bear, and in your faith supply moral
energy, and in your moral energy under-
standing, and in your understanding self-
control, and in your self-control patient
endurance, and in patient endurance
piety, and in piety brotherly love, and in
brotherly love love.”

Ver. 5. καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὲ, a phrase
that emphasises the fact of the δώρηµα
as having its logical outcome in character.
“The soul of religion is the practick
part’? (Bunyan). On the other hand, 2
Peter here teaches that so-called practical
Christianity without the spiritual motive is
incomplete and unintelligent. σπουδην
πᾶσαν παρεισενέγκαντες, an impressive
phrase. Cf.similar ideas in Rom. xii. 11,
Heb. vi. 11. It is a warning against
sluggishness and self-indulgence in the
spiritual life. ἐπιχορηγήσατε. The A.V.
trans., “ add to,” is insufficient. χορηγός
in- Attic drama is one who defrays the
cost of the chorus, at the bidding of the
State, as an act of citizenship (Dem.
496, 26). It was a duty that prompted
to lavishness in execution. Hence χορη-
γέω came to mean “supplying costs for
any purpose,”’ a public duty or λειτουργία,
with a tendency, as here, towards the
meaning, “ providing more than is barely
demanded”. In P. Oxy. 2526 ff. (30-35
A.D.), a man complains that his wife had
deserted him, although ἐπεχορήγησα
αὐτῇ τὰ ἑξῆς καὶ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν (“I pro-
vided for her suitably and beyond my
resources”). ἐπι- denotes a particular ap-
plication ΟΓχορηγέω (c/. Moulton, Proleg.
p- 113). ἐν ‘tis used each time of that
which is supposed to be theirs’’ (Alford).
ἀρετή: “strenuus animae tonus ac
vigor”? (Bengel)—a manifestation of
moral power. γνῶσιν, understanding,
implying insight, circumspection, discre-
tion, discernment (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 18).
Cf. Didache, ix. 3 (in Eucharistic prayer),
xi. 2, where yv. is conjoined with δικαιο-
σύνη.

Ver. 6. ἐγκράτειαν: “self-control” :
accompanied by, and arising from, know-
ledge, and not a mere product of fear
or submission to authority. ὑπομονήν :
‘steadfastness ’"—not turned aside from
the faith by trial and suffering (cf, Luke
viii. 15, Rom. v. 3 ff.). The desponding

5—9-

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

127

ἐγκρατείᾳ τὴν ὑπομονήν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ὑπομονῇ τὴν εὐσέβειαν, 7. ἐν δὲ
τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ τὴν φιλαδελφίαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ Φιλαδελφίᾳ τὴν ἀγάπην. 8.

ταῦτα γὰρ ὑμῖν ὑπάρχοντα καὶ πλεονάζοντα οὐκ ἀργοὺς οὐδὲ ἀκάρ-

, > A , Sica Μιὰ A me 5 d
tous καθίστησιν εἰς τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπίγνωσιν.
ϱ. ᾧ γὰρ “pi πάρεστιν ταῦτα, τυφλός ἐστιν µυωπάζων, λήθην λαβὼν

doctrine of the false teachers would itself
call for ὑπομονή in the readers. Mayor
compares the Aristotelian καρτερία (cf.
Heb. xi. 27). εὐσέβειαν. In the Epistle
the false teachers are ἀσεβεῖς (cf. note
on v. 3).

Ver. 7. Φιλαδελφίαν: “affection to-
wards the brethren,” 1.6., of the same
Christian community. ἀγάπην: prob-
ably love towards all, even enemies; not
directed by sense and emotion, but by
deliberate choice (cf. Matt. v. 44). Mayor
interprets : “ Love to God manifesting
itself in love to man and to the whole
creation, animate and inanimate”.

Vv. 8-11. Further emphasis on the
connexion between faith and morality,
and its reward. ‘‘If you have these vir-
tues, and are not sparing in your use of
them, you will not be ineffective and un-
fruitful in the direction of deepening
your Christian experience. Where these
virtues are not present a man is blind,
near-sighted as it were, and entirely for-
getful of the great fact that he is purified
from the sins of the past. With this
danger in view, your earnest purpose
ought to be to make sure your calling
and election. Steadily practise these
virtues and you will not stumble; for
thus there will be ministered unto you
an abundant entrance into the eternal
kingdom.”

Ver. 8. πλεονάζοντα: “abound”. In
classical use=“‘ exaggerate”. The word
here again emphasises the display of a
regal, uncalculating and unwearied spirit
in the practice of the Christian graces.
ἀργοὺς. Perhaps “ ineffective” or “in-
effectual,’”” a meaning which is further
emphasised in ἀκάρπους. In The Di-
dache, 12, are given directions for dis-
criminating genuine from false among
the itinerant teachers. ‘If he wishes
to settle with you and is a tradesman,
let him work and let him eat. If he
has no trade, according to your wisdom
provide how he shall live as a Chris-
tian among you, but not in idleness
(μὴ ἀργός). If he will not do this, he is
making merchandise of Christ. Beware
of such men.” Here is illustrated the
passage from the ordinary sense of ἀργός,
which really signifies “idle” for want of
occupation, and not by choice, to the

29 (D), 1
John iv.
3, ΤΙ. 1.

ethical significance. Cf. James ii. 20,
“ Faith without works is apyy”’. Matt.
xx. 6, ‘ Why stand ye here all the day,
ἀργοί 2’ and the reply. Cf. also use of
ἀργεῖ in ii. 3. In P. Par. II. 4(9)* (iii.
B.C.), Certain quarrymen complain that
they “are idle (4pyotpev) for want of
slaves to clear away the sand”. Cf.
P. Par. II. 20. ὅπως . . μὴ ἀργῆι τὰ
πλοῖα. P. Lond. 290810 (ii. Α.Ρ.). λόγος
ἐργατῶν ἀργησάντων. In P. Lond. ΤΠ.
Ρ. 27 (acensus-return of 160 or 161 A.D.) a
certain Apollonius is described as belong-
ing to “the leisured class of Memphis”’.
(τῶν ἀπὸ Μέμφεως ἀργῶν). P. Fior. 1.
Ῥ, Amh, 97? (both 11.Α.Ρ.) ἐλαιουργίου
ἀργοῦ = “an oil-press which is out of
working order” εἰς τὴν . . . ἐπίγνωσιν.
Here the writer returns to the idea, in-
troduced by ἀποφυγόντες . . . Φθορᾶς
in v. 4, that morality and religion are
intimately connected. Some have sought
to interpret the words as meaning “ with
reference to the knowledge of our Lord
Jesus Christ,” on the ground that ἐπί-
γνωσις has already been postulated as
the source of “all things needed for lite
and godliness,’ and cannot now be re-
garded as an end to be attained. Yet
ἐπίγνωσις may be regarded as both the
beginning and the end of morality (cf. iii.
18, Col. i. 6 ff. Phil. i. 9). The transla-
tion of A.V. is correct (ets =in, expressive
of result). ἐπίγν. contrasted with γνῶσις
marks “a higher degree of intensity, an
energy of deeper penetration. It is nota
quiescent state, the resting in an acquire-
ment, but the advance of one to whom
easy attainment is but the impulse of
fresh effort; one who is not content to
know, but ever, in Hosea’s words (vi. 3),
follows on to know” (Paget, Spirit of
Discipline, p. 112). Each advance in the
Christian life deepens and widens our
spiritual understanding. ‘‘ Die ἐπίγν. ist
ihrer Natur nach etwas, was wachst”’
(Von Soden).

Ver. 9g. µυωπάζων : ‘“short-sighted”’.
Only once elsewhere in Greek literature
in Ps. Dionys. Eccl. Hier. ii. 3. This
is one of the words to which exception
has been taken in 2 Peter. It is both
rare, and it seems to contradict τυφλός.
Spitta and Von S. translate ‘“ wilfully
blind”. Mayor (p. Ixi.) (fo lowing Beza

~

125

e Heb. i. 3.

τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι αὐτοῦ " ἁμαρτιῶν.

METPOYB 1

1Ο. διὸ μᾶλλον,

ἀδελφοί, σπουδάσατε βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν

f Moulton,
Proleg.
pp. 188 ff.

g Matt.
Xxiv. 6
only.

1 weAAnow ΝΑΒΟΡ, ve., Ti., Treg., WH; ουκ apeAnow KL, syrr.

ποιεῖσθαι ' ταῦτα γὰρ ποιοῦντες οὐ μὴ πταίσητέ ποτε" II. οὕτως
γὰρ πλουσίως ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται ὑμῖν ἡ εἴσοδος εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον
βασιλείαν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

12. Διὸ ΕΣ µελλήσω] det ὑμᾶς ὑπομιμνήσκειν περὶ τούτων,

The analogy

ο{[σπουδασω in ver. 15 favours reading adopted. Yet, in MSS., there is frequent con-
fusion between µελλω and pedo, ¢.g., John xii. 6, 1 Peter v. 7, Matt. xxii. 16, where

µελλω is incorrect.

Field (Notes on Trans. of N.T. p. 240) suggests that true

reading here is peAnow (cf. on σπουδαζω νετ. 15).

Grotius, Huther, etc.) interprets the word
as limiting τυφλός. ‘ He who is with-
out the virtues mentioned in i. 5-7 is
blind, or to put it more exactly is short-
sighted ; he cannot see the things of
heaven, though he may be quick enough
in regard to worldly matters.” λήθην
λαβὼν. A periphrastic form. Cf. Jos. Ant.
ii. 6,9; also2 Tim. 1.5, Heb. xi. 29. τοῦ
καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτιῶν.
Is the reference to baptism? This view
is rendered very probable by the use of
πάλαι. For the idea of cleansing from
pre-baptismal sin, cf. Barnabas, xi. 11,
Hermas, Mand. iv, 3. Vis. ii. 1. Spitta
adheres to the general interpretation of
καθ. as the work of Christ on the moral
life. Cf. ii. 20-22, 1 Jn. ΠΠ. 3. While
καθαρισμός is used of the ceremonial
washings of the Jews, John iii. 25, it is
also used of the work of Christ in Heb.
i. 3 (cf. Zahn. Introd. ii. 232).

Ver.10. σπουδάσατε. An Imperative.
‘A sharp and urgent form” (Moulton,
Proleg. i. 173). βεβαίαν. Cf. Deiss-
mann, B. S. pp. τος ff. The word has a
legal sense. βεβαίωσις is the legal guar-
antee, obtained by a buyer from a seller,
to be gone back upon should any third
party claim the thing. Here the readers
are exhorted to produce a guarantee of
their calling and election. This may be
done by the cultivation of the Christian
graces, Cf. Eph. iv. 1. ‘‘ To walk worthily
of the calling wherewith ye are called.”’
κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν. What is the differ-
ence between these two?

in Gospels = “' bid toa feast”. κλητοί

would, therefore, imply those bidden; ,

ἐκλεκτοί = those who have become true
partakers of God’s salvation. Cf. Matt.
xxii. 14. Not all who hear the Divine
Voice (κλῆσιν) progress in Christian con-
duct, which is the token of ἐκλογήν.
ov py πταίσητε, as a blind or short-
sighted person might do.

Ver. 11. Note the accumulation in
this verse of words suggesting splendour

καλέω used |

and fulness. ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται. Cf.
note on v. 5. Mayor says that here the
word ‘‘ suggests the ordering of a trium-
phal procession,’ and compares Plut. Vit.
994, 6 δῆμος ἐθεᾶτο τὰς θέας ἀφειδῶς
πάνυ χορηγουµένας. εἴσοδος. Cf. Heb.
x. Ig. Ina theatre, εἰσ. is the place of
entrance for the chorus (Ar. Nub. 326:
Av. 296), and in Ῥ. Par. ii. 41, we find
εἴσοδος κοινήΞ-οξ the door of a house.
The great description of the entrance of
the pilgrims into the celestial city in
Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Pt. i., may
be quoted in illustration. αἰώνιον βασιλ-
είαν. does not occur elsewhere in N.T.
or Apostolic Fathers (cf. Aristotle’s Afol.
xvi., and Clem. Hom. x. 25), but αἰωγίου
ἀρχῆς Occurs in the Stratonicean inscrip-
tions already quoted (Deissmann, of. cit.
Ρ. 361).

Vv. 12-15. The aim of the writer, and
the urgency of his message. ‘‘ You are
already acquainted with and established
in the truth, so far as revealed to you,
but, in view of the great issues, I shall
always be prepared to awaken you toa
sense of these things. In my lifetime I
feel bound to do so, especially as I know
that death is imminent, as Jesus declared
tome. I shall also do my best to enable
you to refer to these things as oppor-
tunity occurs, even after my decease.”

Ver. 12. µελλήσω. What is the exact
significance of the future? It can hardly
be simply a periphrastic future. ‘* The
idea is rather that the writer will be
prepared in the future, as well as in the
past and in the present to remind them
of the truths they know, whenever the
necessity arises” (Zahn. Introd., ii., p.
211; quoted with approval by Nestle.
Text. Criticism of N.T. pp. 333-34).
ἐστηριγμένους. This word is used by
Jesus in the warning given of Peter’s
fall, and its spiritual result. και σύ ποτε
ἐπιστρέψας στήρισον τοὺς ἀδελφούς
σου (Lk. xxii. 32). Cf. © Pee ου το.
Pet. iii. 17, where στηριγµός = “ stead-

10---15.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ :Β

129
Ἀκαίπερ εἰδότας καὶ ἐστηριγμένους ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ ἀληθείᾳ. μὴν
/ A > ον, J “s
δίκαιον δὲ ἡγοῦμαι, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον εἰμὶ ἐν τούτω τῷ σκηνώµατι, διε- Y- 8, vil.

5, ΧΙ], 17.

γείρειν ὑμᾶς ἐν ὑπομνήσει, 14. εἰδὼς ὅτι ταχινή ἐστιν ἡ ἀπόθεσις i For con-

struction

τοῦ σκηνώµατός µου, καθὼς Kal ὁ κύριος ἡρῶν ‘Ingots Χριστὸς of ἔχειν
ἐδή , , 1 Ν SL ua i>» oe τν \ with

ἠλωσέν por. 15. σπουδάσω] δὲ καὶ ἑκάστοτε ᾿ ἔχειν ὑμᾶς μετὰ ios, eee
att.

Xviil. 25,
Eph. iv. 28

lomovdalw 31, arm., syrP, ‘fan intentional alteration . .. copyists and trans-
lators could not bring themselves to read here again a promise of Peter’s, which he

seemed not to have fulfilled? (Zahn, Introd. ii. p. 212).

to variants for µελλησω (ver. 12) (ibid. cf.

fastness of mind”. ἐν παρούσῃ
ἀληθείᾳ.-- ‘‘in the present truth,” i.e.
in so far as you yet have experience of
it. Cf. note on v. 8

Ver. 13. δίκαιον δὲ ἡγοῦμαι. “I
consider it a duty.” The language in
vv. 13, 14, is studiously solemn and im-
pressive. σκηνώµατι, used in literal
sense of “tent” in Deut. xxxiii. 18. In
Acts vii. 46, it is used of the Tabernacle
of God. Elsewhere in N.T. σκῆνος is
used in the metaphorical sense of human
existence. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 4. A similar
use of σκήνωµα is found in Ep. ad
Diogn. 6. ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχὴ ἐν θνητῷ
σκηνώµατι κατοικεῖ. σκηνή is the word
used by Peter in the transfiguration story
(Matt. xvii. 4; Mark ix. 5; Luke ix. 33).
διεγείρειν ὑμᾶς ἐν ὑπομνήσει' Srey.
is always used in N.T. = “awaken” or
“rouse from sleep” (except in Jn. vi. 18
of the sea); significant in view of the
reference to the Transfiguration in wv.
16 ff. Cf. διαγρηγορήσαντες (‘fully
awake’’) in St. Luke’s account; Introd.
- 95.
3 Ver. 14. ταχινή “imminent,” cf. ii. 1.
A poetical word peculiar to 2 Peter in
N.T. The process described by ἀἄπόθεσις
can hardly be ‘sudden,’ Plat. Rep.
553D, but there is always an impression
of suddenness to the onlooker, who lifts
up his eyes some morning, and finds
the tent or the encampment gone where
he had seen it yesterday. An inscrip-
tion in C.I.A. III. 1344, reads ζωῆς
καὶ καµάτου téppa δραμὼν ταχινόν,
where sense can only be “Ὀσίιε[” (but
see discussion in Zahn. Introd., Π., pp. 212
Ε). ἀπόθεσιν τοῦ σκην. ἀποτίθεμαι is
used of “ putting off a garment” (Acts
vii. 58); and might here be connected
with the idea of taking off a tent-cover
(So Spitta). Probably “‘ removal” is the
proper translation. In B.G.U. 6065 (iv.
A.D.) [πρὸς ἀ]πόθεσιν ἀχύρου (for re-
moval of a chaff-heap) is found. Cf. 1
Pet. iii. 21, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπον.

These remarks apply also
Nestle, Textual Criticism of N.T. p. 324).

καθὼς Kal... ἐδήλωσέν por. There
seems no reason to doubt the reference
here to John xxi. 18, 19, as Spitta and
others have done (see Introduction, pp.
96 f.).

νο 15. σπουδάσω. The form is
used by Polybius and later writers for
the classical σπουδάσοµαι. ἑκάστοτε
goes with ἔχειν = “on each occasion
when you have need”. The word is
found apparently in the same sense in
P. Gen. 315/. (ii, Α.Ρ.), ἑκάστοτέ σοι
κατ ἐπιδημίαν παρενοχλῶν (‘‘ causing
you annoyance on each occasion when
you are at home’’). τὴν τούτων μνήμην
ποιεῖσθαι. What is the reference in
rovtwv? It must have the same refer-
ence as in verse 12, viz. to the practice
of the Christian graces, and the larger
reference must be to some systematic
body of instruction. This might easily
take the form of reminiscences of the
example of Jesus Himself, and the allu-
sion may be to the Petrine reminiscences
contained in the Gospel of St. Mark
(cf. μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων (Peter and Paul)
ἔξοδον Mapxos τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσ-
σόµενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν
Iren. iii. 1. 1.).. “Ἠε has already referred
to Christ (v. 3), as having called them ἰδίᾳ
δόξῃ καὶ aperq’”’ ; surely nothing could be
more appropriate, more helpful to a godly
life, than that Peter should leave behind
the picture of this δόξα καὶ ἀρετή drawn
from his own recollection. And the
following words, οὐ yap σεσοφισµένος
κ.τ.λ. (ν. 16) seem to imply a statement
of facts ” (Mayor, cxliii., where see whole
discussion against Zahn. Introd. II. pp.
199 ff.). ἔξοδον. Thesame word is used
in Luke ix. 31 of the death of Christ. It
seems to include the thought of subse-
quent glory (cf. Exposttor, vi. ii. pp.

73 f. Smith, Days of His Flesh, pp.
274 f.) The meaning “death” is found
in B.G.U. 1684. (ii-iii, A.D.). ém-

γνοῦσα τὴν (το)ῦ Εὐδαίμονος ἔξοδον.
τὴν τούτων µνήµην ποιεῖσθαι: “ reler

τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον τὴν τούτων μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B L

16.

οὗ γὰρ

k Amos ii. σεσοφισµένοις µύθοις * ἐξακολουθήσαντες ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ

4, Isa. lvi.
11, of.2
Peter ii.
2, 15.

κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπόπται
γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου µεγαλειότητος.

17. λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ

A Q A Ν , - > / 2 A a
Θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν, φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε

(ο: always in Greek writers, from Hero-
dotus down = ‘“mentionem facere,
‘“¢make mention of” (cf. Grimm-Thayer
under μνήμη). The sense here seems
much thesame. The document “referred
to” would be an authentic source of in-
formation. Cf. P. Fay, 19}° (ii. A.D.)
[ἀκριβ]εστάτην µνήµην ποιούµενος.
Vv. 16-18. The fact of the Trans-
figuration a guarantee of the writer's
truthfulness. ‘‘ For we are not without
facts to rest upon. Our preaching of
the power and coming of Jesus Christ
was not based on sophistical myths.
We were eye-witnesses of His Majesty.
For He received from God the Father
honour and glory, a voice coming to
Him through the splendour of the glory,
‘ This is my beloved Son in whom I am
well pleased’. This voice we heard, as
it was borne from heaven, when we were
with Him in the Holy Mount.” (Fora
comparison of this passage, with the

Synoptic account, see Introduction,
pp- 94 ff.).
Ver. 16. σεσοφισµ. µύθ. ϐ/.σεσο-

Φισμένη µήτηρ.: '' suppositious mother ”’.
Greg. Nyss.i.171 D. Thisis evidently the
character attributed to the facts of the
Christian Gospel by the False Teachers.
They specially sought to discredit the
outlook for the Second Advent. pt@or
is often used in the Pastoral Epistles or
the fanciful Gnostic genealogies (τ Tim.
i. 4, iv. 7; Tit. i. 14). ἐγνωρίσαμεν.
Used in N.T. of preaching the Gospel
(e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 1). δύναμιν καὶ παρ-
ουσίαν. For collocation of words, cf.
Matt. xxiv. 30, Mark ix. 1. For δύναμις,
see note on verse 3. παρουσίαν. Chase
(op. cit. 797a) regards the word here as
denoting the first coming of Christ, be-
cause (1) the context speaks of history
and not of prophecy; (2) the word itself
naturally bears this meaning. He
admits, however, that elsewhere in the
N.T and in this Epistle it is used of the
Second Coming (cf. Ignat. Philad. 9).
Justin (Dialogue 32) distinguishes ‘ two
advents,—one in which He was pierced
by you; a second, when you shall know
Him, Whom you have pierced’, There
is, however, no real difficulty here in
taking παρ. in the usual sense, which,

indeed, is more in harmony with the
context. The Transfiguration itself, as
used by this writer, is regarded as a
basis for belief in the Second Advent,
against the False Teachers.

Dr. Milligan, in his recent edition of
Thessalonians, gives a valuable note on
παρουσία (p. 145). He mentions that it
occurs frequently in the Papyri as a
kind of terminus technicus with reference
to the visit of the king, or some other
official. (P. Petr. ii. 39 (e), 18 (iii. B.c.).
P, Τέδε. 48, το, (i Bie) πο eee)
P. Gren., ii. 14 (6), 2 (iii. B.c.)). Ditten-
berger, Sylloge, 226, 84 ff. (iii. BC.). τῶν
δὲ ἀρχόντων συναγαγόντων ἐκλησίαν
καὶ τήντε παρονσίαν ἐμφανισάντωντοῦ
βασιλέως. ‘ We fall back upon” these
examples of the word “the more gladly
because for this particular sense of the
word the Jewish sacred writings give us
little help ’’ (tbid.). The word must, there-
fore, have come into use, in this applica-
tion to the Second Advent, in apostolic
times, as faithfully representing the
meaning of Jesus Himself (cf. Matt. xxiv.
3, 27, 37,39). The usual classical sense
of the word as “presence”’ must not be
disregarded. Taken together with the other
meaning illustrated by the Κοινή, παρου-
aia would thus seem to combine in itself
the meaning of “actual presence,’”’ and a
near “coming”. This combination of
meaning in the consciousness of the
early Church, with its perplexity as to
the interpretation of our Lord’s promise,
would seem to be reflected in John xvi.
16-18. ἑπόπται : used of those who had
attained the highest degree of initiation
into the Eleusinian mysteries. Judging
from the use of ἐποπτεύω in 1 Peter, the
word may have passed into ordinary
speech, but no doubt is used here to en-
hance the splendour of the vision, and the
honour done the disciples, at the Trans-
figuration—“ admitted to the spectacle of
His grandeur’ (Moffat, H. N. T. p. 600).
ἐπόπτης is applied to God in Esth. v. 1,
2 Mace. vii. 35, cf. O.G.I.S., 666% τὸν
Ἠλιον "Αφμαχιν ἐπόπτην καὶ σωτῆρα
(reference to απ Egyptian Sun-god). Hof-
mann holds that the reference is rather to
the Resurrection and Ascension. µεγαλε-
ίοτητος. Cf. Luke ix. 43, Acts xix. 27.

er

16—1I09. TIETPOY B 131
ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς } δόξης Ὁ vids µου ὁ ἀγαπητός µου οὗτός | ας oe
ἐστιν, eis ὃν ἐγὼ ‘ed8Sdxnoa,—18. καὶ ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἡμεῖς Μακ
ἠκούσαμεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ "' ἐνεχθεῖσαν σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντες ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ iii. 22.
ὄρει: I9. καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς aso A
ποιεῖτε " προσέχοντες ὡς λύχνω haivovTe ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, °éws οὗ xxv 13,

ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις Spay’ is.

n 3 Johnvi.,
Acts x.3

Phil. iv. 14. ο Mark xiv. 32 Luke xiii. ἒ,

lato της µεγαλοπ. ΦΥΓΙο

Ver. 17. λαβὼν. It is well-nigh im-
possible to say what is the case agreement
of the participle here. It is at least cer-
tain that the subject is Jesus. Dietlein,
Schott, Ewald, and Mayor agree that
the writer intended to go on, ἐβεβαίωσεν
τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, for which he
substitutes καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον, after
the parenthetic 18th verse. παρὰ Θεοῦ
πατρός. See Hort’s note, 1 Pet. i. 2.
The usage (without the article) indicates
the growth of a special Christian ter-
minology. The two words are treated as
one proper name. τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν. A
frequent combination, cf. Ps. viii. 6, Job.
xl, το, r Peter 1. 7, Rom. ii. 7, 10, x Tim.
i. 17, Heb. ii. 7,9. τιµή is the personal
honour and esteem in which Jesus is held
by the Father, cf. Hort’s note on r Pet.
1. 7. ‘Honour in the voice which spoke
to Him; glory in the light which shone
from Him” (Alford). φωνῆς. . . τοιᾶσδε.
This is the only instance of τοιόσδε
in N.T. =“to the following effect’’.
ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης. Re-
taining reading ὑπὸ, we may regard
pey. δόξα as a vehicle of expression.
The voice expresses its significance. It
is not a mere accompanying phenomenon
of the voice. Cf. the instrumental dative
in i, 21 after ἠνέχθη. pey. δόξης corres-
ponds to “the bright cloud” (νεφέλη
Φωτεινὴ) of the Synoptics. οὐραγός is
used in verse 18 to describe the source
from which the voice came ; “ the sky,”
cf. iii. 12, 13. εἰς dv ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα.
Moulton (Proleg. p. 63) points out that
tendency in N.T. is for eis to encroach
on the domain of ἐν. Cf. John i. 18,6 ὤν
εἰς τὸν κόλπον (ib. p. 235).

Ver. 18. ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ ἁγίῳ. The
phrase indicates a view of the place and
incident which has been taken up into and
sanctified in the religious consciousness of
the Church. The Gnostic Acts of Peter
use the phrase “in monte sacro”’. ἅγιος
signifies a place where Jehovah manifested
Himself, cf. Exod. iii. 5, Isa. lii. 1.

Vy. 19-21. The Transfiguration con-

firms Prophecy. ‘‘Thus we have still
further confirmation of the words of the
prophets, a fact to which you would do
well to give heed, as to a lamp shining
in a murky place, meant to serve until
the Day break and the Day-Star arise in
your hearts. Recognise, above all, this
truth, that no prophecy is restricted to
the particular interpretation of one
generation. No prophecy was ever
borne through the instrumentality of
man’s will, but men spoke, direct from
God, impelled by the Holy Spirit.”

Ver. 19. βεβαιότερον. Originally alegal
term. See note v. το: cf. Phil. 1. 7, 2
Cor. i. 21. τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, {.6.
allin the Ο.Τ. scriptures that points to
the Coming of the Messiah. The pro-
phecy is now supported by its partial
fulfilment in the Transfiguration. ©
καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες. “to which
ye do well to take heed”. “ak.
ποιήσεις C. aor. part. is the normal way
of saying ‘please’ in the papyri, and is
classical’? (Moulton Proleg. p. 228). ὡς
λύχνῳ . . . καρδ. ὑμῶν. Spitta would
eliminate the words ἕως οὗ . . . ἀνατείλῃ
as a gloss founded on Ps. cxix. 105
and 4 Esdras xii. 42. αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ,
properly=‘‘dry”’ or “parched’’: then
‘“‘squalid”’ or “rough’’. Here it means
‘““murky’’. In Aristot. de Color. 3 τὸ
αὐχμηρόν is opposed to τὸ λαμπρόν.
φωσφόρος. ‘* Morning - star.” Not
found elsewhere in Biblical Greek. The
LXX word is ἑωςφόρος. In the poets,
the word is always applied to Venus
(Cicero, Nat. Deorum, 2, 20).

This verse has been much discussed.
It may be well to mention three gram-
matical points that emerge. (1) The
reference of 6. It is simplest to under-
stand it as referring to the content of the
preceding clause, and not to τὸν προφ"
λόγον alone, viz. the fact that the προφ.
λογ. is now Bef. on account of the Trans-
figuration. (2) ἕως οὗ κ.τ.λ. is to be
taken with Φαίνοντι, not with προσέχ-
οντες. (3) ἐντ. κ. ὑμῶν is connected

[32

__Peter

111, Ss z ᾳ 2 , > /

Tim. ii. 1.7 ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται '
q Heb. xii.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

I. 20—27.

20. τοῦτο " πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας
21. οὐ γὰρ θελήµατι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη

11 X39. προφητεία ποτέ, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν
rt.

absent ἀπὸ Θεοῦ 1 ἄνθρωποι.
owing to

growth of

a special Christian terminology. Cf. Jude 8, 2 Peter ii. ro, ii. 18, i. 20. (Mayor, Ed. xxvii. ff.).

lato Θεου BP, syrh, boh., WH, Ti.;
sah.; αγιοι του Θ. A; αγιοι απο ϐ. Ο.

with ἀνατείλῃ alone, and not with διανγ-
doy. With these presuppositions we
may briefly consider the two leading in-
terpretations.

1. Mayor may be taken as representa-
tive of the view that the verse is wholly
an exhortation to “search the Scrip-
tures’’, There are three stages: the
prophetic lamp (τὸν προφ. . . . τόπῳ);
the Gospel dawn (ἡμέρα Siavy.); the
nner light of the spirit (φωσφόρος ...
ὑμῶν.). “ The lower degree of faith in
the written word will be followed by
divine insight”. He compares Euth.
Zig. 6 προφητικὸς λόγος τοὺς ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ
φΦωταγωγεῖ ἕως καθαρὸν ὑμῖν τὸ φῶς τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου διαφανῇῃ καὶ 6 νοητὸς ἕωσφ-
όρος, τουτέστι Χριστός, ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις
ὑμῶν ἀνατείλῃ. (cf Huther, Alford).
The objection to this view is that it
seems to ignore the place given to the
Transfiguration as a religious fact for
writer and readers alike (ἔχομεν).

2. Another and more probable view
naturally takes ἕως οὗ . . . ὑμῶν as τε-
ferring to the Second Advent. This pre-
serves the usual meaning of ἡμέρα in the
Epistle, and it also gives point to the
striking sequence of metaphors. The
λύχνῳ Φφαίνοντι is the confirmation of
the prophetic word by the Transfigura-
tion which the writer has given them
(cf. v. 16); and this is made all the more
probable if we take the reference sug-
gested for @ in (1) above. The αὐχμ.
τόπῳ would be the world in which they
live (cf. Ps. cxix. 105). This lamp is meant
to serve until the glorious appearing.
One objection to the eschatological in-
terpretation of ἕως οὗ κ.τ.λ. is the phrase
ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν which implies an
inward Coming. This is largely repelled
if we accept its grammatical connection
with ἀνατείλῃ alone ((3) above). ‘The
Morning-Star arises in their hearts, when
the σημεῖα of the approaching Day are
manifest to Christians. The fulfilment
of their hope is at the door: the Lord
is at hand” (von Soden). See note on
σεν ο)

pwn generation.

jernment’’ (Mayor, p. 196).

αγιοι Θεου SYKL, syrp + Treg. ; αγιοι

Ver. 20. τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες.
“ Recognising this truth above all else”’
(in your reading of Scripture). The
False Teachers appealed to the O.T.
scriptures in support of their doctrine.
ὅτι Taga... ov yiveTar. Waoa...
ov need not be regarded as a Hebraism.
It is as normal as in I Jn. ii. 21, Jn.
iii. 16. iSfas ἐπιλύσεως. This passage
is a noted crux. (1) Hardt, followed by
Lange, Spitta and others interpret ἐπι-
Avo. = dissolutio. ‘No prophecy of 5.
is of such a kind that it can be annulled”.
But no satisfactory instance of ἐπιλνσ.
in this sense can be adduced. (2) Ac-
cepting the sense of 18. ἐπιλ. = “ pri-
vate,” or “human interpretation,” Von
Soden sees a reference to the methods
of the false teachers in their attitude
to Scripture (cf.v. 16, ii. 1). ἰδίας
“is opposed to the φωνὴ ἐνεχθεῖσα of
i. 17’’. (3) It seems most satisfactory to
understand i8. ἐπιλ. as the meaning of
the prophet himself, or what was in the
prophet’s mind when he wrote; the ful-
filment in any particular generation or
poch. ‘‘ The special work of the prophet
s to interpret the working of God to his
But in doing this, he is
aying down the principles of God’s action
generally. Hence there may be many
fulfilments of one prophecy, or to speak
more exactly, many historical illustrations
of some one principle of Providential Gov-
The geni-
tive ἐπιλύσεως is gen. of definition and
not of origin. “Νο prophecy is of such
a nature as to be capable of a particu-
lar interpretation.”

Ver. 21. οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου
ἠνέχθη προφητεία ποτέ. With ἠνέχθη
cf. vy. 17, 1δ. ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ πνεύμ....
depdpevor, cf. Acts ii, 2. ὥσπερ
Φερομένης πνοῆς Bratas. Here we
have the only reference to the Holy
Spirit in the Epistle, and only in this
connexion, viz. as the source of prophetic
inspiration. The spirit is an agency
rather than an agent. The men speak.
The spirit impels. It is of much signific-

aT. τ.

II. 1. ᾿Εγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν τῷ had,
ὑμῖν ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, οἵτινες παρεισάξουσιν αἱρέσεις * ἄπω-

Yd
λείας, καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσ
v

ance for the interpretation of the whole
passage that ἄνθρωποι accupies a position
ot emphasis at the end of the sentence,
thus bringing into prominence the human
agent. The prophets were not ignorant
of the meaning of their prophecies, but
they saw clearly only the contem-
porary political or moral situation, and
the principles involved and _iliustrated
therein.

Όμαρτεκ II.—Vv. 1-3. The False
Teachers and their Fudgment. “Yet
there were also false prophets in the
ancient community, just as among you
there will be false teachers. They will not
hesitate to introduce alongside the truth
corrupting heresies, even denying their
Redeemer, and bringing on themselves
swift destruction. Many. will imitate
their vicious example, and thereby the
way of truth will be discredited. Nay,
further, actuated by covetousness, they
will make merchandise of you by lying
words. Yet you must not think that the
judgment passed on all such long ago is

inactive. Their destruction is awaiting
them.”
Ver. I. ψευδοπροφῆται: ἐν τῷ had.

ἐν τῷ λαῷ is used for the chosen people
in LXX. µΨψευδοπροφῆται. A class of
False Proohets is frequently mentioned
in the Ο.Τ. In the earlier ages it is not
suggested that there was conscious deceit
on the part of the prophet. His pro-
phecy is false, if it is proved so by the
event (Jer. xxviii. g). ‘* When a prophet
lies, without being inspired by a false or
impotent god, it is because God in His
anger against Israel’s sin means to destroy
him, and therefore put into the prophets
3 Ίνα spirit Ὁ. 7 (Schulz; O17. ΤΗ.
i. 257). Cf. 1 Kings xxii. 5 ff. These
are the prophets who cry “ peace, peace,”
when’ God is really going to bring judg-
ment. In the later period superstitious
acts and pagan practices, such as spiritu-
alism, ventriloquism, professional sooth-
saying, became common (e.g. Jer. xxvii.
g; Isa. viii. το). The cardinal distinction
between the true and the false prophet lay
in the moral character of their teaching
(Jer. xxiii. 21, 22). Ψψευδοδιδάσκαλοι.
The characteristics of their teaching are
well-marked in this Epistle. See Intro-
duction, pp. 115 ff. Compare Phil. iii. 18
f., ‘‘ enemies of the Cross,’’ who brought
tears of shame to the eyes of the Apostle ;

VOL. V. 9

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

133,
ὡς καὶ ἐνα Vv. 4, το,
Jas. 1. 25.
See

, 3 , , Moulton,
πότην ἀρνούμενοι, ἐπάγοντες Proleg.74.
the abuses of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor.
xi.; also Galat. ii. 4, 2 Cor. xi. 13.

παρεισάξουσιν. What is the force
of wapa-? The idea of “stealth” or
“secrecy ’—“ stealthily to introduce”’
—is hardly in accord with their character
described elsewhere as τολμηταὶ av-
θάδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέµουσιν βλασφη-
μοῦντες (ii. το). Rather the idea seems
to be of the introduction of false teaching
alongside the true, whereby the 680s
ἀληθείας is brought into disrepute. Cf.
παρεισενέγκαντες, i. 5. The idea of
stealth is present in παρεισάκτους
(Gal. ii. 5). αἱρέσεις. Clearly αἴρεσις
here is used ἵπ original sense of
“tenet? (“ animus,’ ‘ sententia ’’)
(So Spitta, von Soden, Weiss; but
cf. Zahn., op. cit. ii. 233). In Galat.
νο WL COL. κι πο tae) uSense7 1S
“‘ dissensions,”’ arising from such di-
versity of opinion. It is used in the
sense of “sect” in Acts v. I7, xv. 5,
xxiv. 5. The ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι were
within the Church. Even the “ Alogi,”
who disputed the fourth Gospel in
second century, were not excommuni-
cated. They were, as Epiphanius says,.
‘one of ourselves”. Cf. MME., Expos.
Feb. 1908. αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας. The
Genitive contains the qualifying idea—
“ corrupting tenets’. Our identification
with a gréat cause may be maintained, as
in the case of the false teachers, but per-
sonal motives may sadly deteriorate, and
the influence of the life may breed corrup-
tion, Cf. Ignat. Trall. vi. 1; Eph. vi.
καὶ τὸν Gyop. . . . Gpvovpevor. καὶ =
“even”. Cf. Ματ] i. 27. If the ordinary
use of δεσπότης in early Christian writers
is followed here, viz., as referring to
God, ἀγοράζω would also be used of
God, who redeemed Israel out of Egypt
(2 Sam. vii. 23). The reference here,
however, is to Christ (cf. Mayor, p. xvii.).
The N.T. use of ἆγορ. is illustrated in r
Cor. vi. 20, where reference might be to
God; but in ib. vii. 23 reference is,
clearly to Christ. Soin Rev.v.g. Cf.
our Lord’s words in Mark x. 45, about
“ giving his life a ransom”’ and Jude v.
4. The ‘denial’? seems to have con-
‘sisted in an inadequate view of the Person
and Work of Christ, and their relation to
the problem of human sin. Cf. Epp. of
Peter, J. H. Jowett, pp. 230 ff. ταχινὴν.
See note on i. 14. ἐπάγοντε. The

PA

“ae

134 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B Il,
br Tim. i, ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν ' 2. καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν αὐτῶν
, 2 Cor. A ο ig
τν κ. ταῖς ἀσελγείαις, δι οὓς ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας βλασφημηθήσεται ' 2.
2, Luke i. ns ye
ση καὶ ’ ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ πλαστοῖς λόγοις ὑμᾶς “ἐμπορεύσονται ’ ois τὸ
c Ezek. νι μ
xxvii. 21. Κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν οὐ 3νυστάζει. 4.
d Acts iii. 3 9 < en pes , ε , ας ορ > x rove |
13, 1 Cor. εἰ yap 6 Θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ σειραῖς
viii. 6.

Ίσειραις KLP, vulg., syrr., boh. +; σειροις ABC, WH, Treg.; σιροις §, Ti.
The two last are mere variations in spelling: the last gives a different word which

seems less applicable to ζοφον.

The difficulty is, however, partially explained by
regarding σειραις as suggested by δεσµοις of Jude 6.

σειρος Or σιρος is a pit for

the storage of grain, and so far as known, the word “does not seem to suggest

anything awful or terrible’? (Mayor).

The presumption, considering dependence

of whole chapter on ideas of Jude, is in favour of σειραις.

middle might have been expected. Cf. ν,
5, where the active is suitably used.

Ver. 2. ἀσελγείαις. are “acts of
Jasciviousness”’. 680s τῆς ἀληθείας.
ἀληθεία contains the root-idea of ‘ gen-
uineness”’. It combines the ideas of
the knowledge of God and His purposes
in Christ; and of the human obligation
to right living that springs from it. ‘ He
that doeth truth cometh to the light.”
The writer of 2 Peter is, as always, con-
cerned to oppose a merely intellectual
Gnosticism, which has its ultimate fruit
in immorality. Cf. Ps. cxix. 29, 30.
βλασφημηθήσεται. The whole Church
suffered in reputation because of these
men. Cf. Rom. ii. 24, 1 Tim. vi. I.

Ver. 3. ἐν is causal. πλεονεξίᾳ =
CIEOVELOUSMESS 2 6) ο Ueuke (xii, πο.
πλαστοῖς: here only in N.T., “ manu-
factured,”’ ‘‘ feigned,” ‘‘artificial”’. ép-
πορεύσονται Originally used in intrans.
sense = “‘go a-trading’”’. Cf. Jas. iv.
13. Then = ‘import,’ in trans. sense.
Here = ‘make gain of,” “exploit”.
ο) COL at. τη Πτα νι. 5

ots τὸ κρίµα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ:

‘whose judgment has for long not been

tnactive,” although there is an appear-
ance of delay. This delay is the argu-
ment used by the false teachers. €k-
παλαι occurs in O.G.1.S., 584° (ii. a.p.),
SU ὧν ἔκπαλαι αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν πατρίδα)
εὐεργέτ[ησεν]. (Cf. iii, 4 and ii. 1,
ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαγ.)
For ἀργεῖ see note on i. 8. The judg-
ment has long been gathering, and is
impending. νυστάζει. The word used
of the slumbering virgins in Matt. xxv. 5.
In Isa. v. 27 it is used of the instruments
of God’s anger employed against those
guilty of social abuses.

Vv. 1-τοα. A historical illustration of
the Divine judgment on the wicked, and
care of the righteous.

“God spared not angels who sinned,

but having cast them into Tartarus, gave
them over to chains of darkness, reserving
them for judgment. He spared not the
ancient world, but guarded Noah, with
seven others, while the impious world
was overwhelmed by a flood. So Divine
judgment was extended to the cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah, which were over-
whelmed by ashes, and overthrown by
earthquake, as an example of what is in
store for impious persons, while righteous
Lot was delivered, grieved and wearied
as he was by the profligate life of the
lawless. For day after day this man
with his righteous instincts, in his life
among them, was vexed with the sight
and sound of their lawless deeds. In all
this we have a proof that the Lord
knows how to deliver the godly out of
trial, and to keep the ungodly under dis-
cipline until the day of judgment, especi-
ally those who follow the polluting lusts
of the flesh and despise authority.”

Ver. 4. εἰ γὰρ 6 θεός. . . introducing
a series of conditional sentences. The
apodosis is found in οἶδε κύριος
εως Οἱ v. g. σειρας. No doubt a
rendering of δεσμοῖς in Jude 6, agree-
ably to the practice of this writer, who
is somewhat fond of using rarer words,
instead of the more commonplace. σειρά
usually means a “cord” or “rope”
(Homer, Il, xxiii., 115, Od. xxii., 175).
It would seem to mean “a _ golden
chain” in Π. vili., το, 5, 5, Εἰσιο.
Theatetus, i. 53 Ὁ. The meaning
“fetters” is peculiar to 2 Peter (for
var. lect. σειροῖς, see textual note).
ταρταρώσας = “cast into Tartarus”.
The verb is a ἅπαξ ey. τάρταρος
occurs in three passages of LXX. (Job
xi το (20), xii. 5» (23), Prov. amv. 55
(xxx. 16): but in none of these is there
any corresponding idea in the Heb-
rew. The word also occurs in Enoch
xx. 2, where Gehenna is the place of

πω

2—7.

HETPOT 5B

135

ζόφου 1 ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν THpoupevous,” 5. καὶ dpxa-¢ Plato,

Legg. 3,

fou κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ 5 ὄγδοον ’ Νῶε δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα 6956,
uf,

ἐφύλαξεν, κατακλυσμὸν κόσµω ἀσεβῶν Sémdgas” 6.

καὶ πόλεις Pelop.c.

13, Dem.

, , , a ene, 3
Σοδόµων καὶ Γομόρρας τεφρώσας “kataotpody κατέκρινεν, ὑπόδειγμα i. 812, 3

µεΧλόντων ἀσεβέσιν ὃ τεθεικώς, 7.

A , A ‘|
καὶ δίκαιον Λὼτ καταπονού- 27.

Macc. v.

Art.

eo Xs a a ἀθέ .. > λ 4 > a ried f -
μενον υπο της των ἄνεσμων εν ἄσελγεια ἀναστροφῆς ερυσατο;”-- absent ii.

G. pp. 571.

1ζοφου SBCKLP, Ti., Treg., WH; ζοφοις ΝΑ.

g Luke xiii. 34, Acts xiv. 27.

ιο,
Abbott, J.
h Matt. xx. 18. it Pet. iii. 2.

“The latter reading may

have arisen from a marginal -οις intended to connect σειραις, but wrongly applied

to fodov”’ (Mayor, Ed. p. cxciv.).

2 rnpoupevous BCKLP, syrh + Ti., Treg., WH; κολαζοµενους typew A, latt.,

ΘΥΤΡ, boh., sah.

ὃασεβεσιν BP, syrh, syrP, WH; τοις ασεβεσιν sah., boh.; ασεβειν SSACKL,

vulg., Treg., Ti.

punishment for apostate Jews, and Tar-
tarus for the fallen angels. In Homer
(e.g. Il. viii. 13) Hades is the place of
confinement for dead men, and Tartarus
is the name given to a murky abyss be-
neath Hades in which the sins of fallen
Immortals (Kronos, Japetos, and the
Titans) are punished (cf. Salmond, H.B.D.
ii. 344α). Hence 2 Peter uses this word
in agreement with the Book of Enoch
and Greek mythology, because he is
speaking of fallen angels and not of men.
As regards the cosmology that is here
implied, it has been suggested that the
earth is not regarded as flat, but the
universe is conceived as two concentric
spheres, the outer heaven, the inner the
earth. The nether half of heaven is
Tartarus, and the nether half of the earth
is Hades (St. Clair, Expositor, July, 1902).
The use ο: the word by 2 Peter is remark-
able as implying an atmosphere of Greek
thought in the circle in which he moved,
and for which he wrote. ζόφος in Homer
is used of the gloom of the nether world,
Od xx.) 350, ο. Heb. ση, 18. | Also
ν. 17 and Jude 6,13. It is implied that
fallen angels and unrighteous men alike
undergo temporary punishment until the
day of their final doom, cf. νετ.ο. Enoch
meas το σον, 2.

Ver. 5. ἀρχαίου κόσμου. ΤΠε article
is omitted, which is not a mark of illi-
teracy. This chapter is prophetic in form,
and the omission of the article is character-
istic of that style. Cf. Job. iii. το, Judges
v. 5. (See Mayor, Ed. xxxiv. xxxv.).
δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα. κηρ. in this sense
is used in N.T. only here, and in 1 Tim.
ii. 7,2 Tim.i. 11. 2 Peter again borrows
from Jewish tradition as to the preaching

‘ of Noah. Cf. Jos. Antiq.i. 3, 1, Clem.

Rom. i. 7. κατακλυσμόν, cf. Matt. xxiv.
38, 39, Luke vii. 27, Gen. vi. 17. ἐπέξας.
Aorist participle implies co-incident ac-
tion. ‘He saved Ν.. . . while he sent,
etc.” ἐπάγω is used of “setting-on,”
“Jetting loose,” e.g. “dogs”. Odyssey,
xix. 445, Xen. Cyr.x.19. ὄγδοον. “with
seven others”. Classical Greek usage is
toadd αὐτόν. Thereis much difficulty as
to the significance of the numeral. The
reference is no doubt to the sumber of
Noah’s family. The numeral is placed in
a prominent place in the sentence to lay
stress on the small number saved out
of the inhabited world, as a striking ex-
ample of mercy in the midst of judgment,
cf. 1 Pet. iii.20. Cf. P. Petr. ili. 28. ὅτι
ἐδραγματοκλέπτει τρίτος ὤν (bis), cf.
Abbott, J. G. § 562

Ver. 6. πόλεις Σοδ. καὶ Γομορρ. Not
genitive of apposition, but cities of the
district, where Sodom and Gomorrah were
situated. Cf. Jude 7. Σ. καὶ Γ. καὶ ai

A > ΔΝ όλ ~ /
«περὶ αὐτᾶς πόλεις καταστροφῇ κατέκρι-

νεν. καταστροφῇ is dative of instrument,
‘*condemned them by overthrow”’. Gen.
xix. 24, 25 seems to imply some further
destruction after the fire. Perhaps an
earthquake is meant, a common accom-
panying phenomenon of volcanic dis-
turbance. ὑπόδειγμα . + τεθεικώς,
“constituting them an example to un-
godly persons of things in store fot
them.” With µελλ. cf. Heb. xi. 20, Col.
ii. I7. τεφρώσας = “cover up with
ashes ”’ (not ‘‘ reduce to ashes ”’”) —found
in a description of the eruption of Vesu-
vius. (Dio. Cass. ἱχνί. p. 1094).

Ver. 7. καταπονούµενον, the word
applied to the condition of the slave whom
Moses delivered, Acts vii. 24. It implies
outward discomfort. ἀθέσμων. Cf. iii. 17,

136

k Infinit.
with οἶδα

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

II.

8. βλέμματι γὰρ καὶ ἀκοή δίκαιος ] ἐνκατοικῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡμέραν ἐξ

1 Τα. iii. ἡμέρας ψυχὴν δικαίαν ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασάνιζεν,---Ο. οἶδεν Κύριος

5, Jas. iv.

17,Matt. εὐσεβεῖς ἐκ πειρασμοῦ "ῥύεσθαι, ἀδίκους δὲ cis ἡμέραν κρίσεως

Vii. 11,

Phil. iv. κολαζοµένους τηρεῖν, 10. μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ

12, 1

1 ~ ‘ A
Thess. iv, μιασμοῦ πορευοµένους καὶ κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας. τολμηταὶ

4, Classi-
cal.
I Luke iv. 22, Col. i. 13, Rom. i. 26.

1ο δικαιος SACKLP, syrr., Treg., Ti.; om. ο B, vulg., WH.

“a stronger word than ἄνομος, because
θεσμός is used especially of a divine or-
dinance, a fundamental law ” (Mayor).

Ver. 8. βλέμματι γὰρ καὶ ἀκοῃ. Two
interpretations are possible (1) Instru-
mental dative after ἐβασάνιζεν. ‘He
vexed his righteous soul by what he saw
and heard.”” The objections are (a) the
long interval that separates βλ. κ.τ.λ.
from ἐβασάνιζεν, (b) that βλέμμα is never
elsewhere used of the thing seen, but is
used of sight from the subjective, emo-
tional, and volitional point of view.
Hence (2), reading δίκαιος without the
article, and taking βλ. κ.τ.λ. with that
word, we may translate with the Vulgate
“a:pectu et auditu justus’”. His in-
stincts of eye and ear were nobler than
those of the society around him. ἡμέραν
ἐξ ἡμέρας. “ Day in, day out.” Cf. hpepa
καθ ἡμέραν in Ps. Ixviii. το. ἐβασάνιζεν.
It is somewhat peculiar that the active
should be used. ‘“ He vexed, distressed
his righteous οι... May it not be that
in the use of the active a certain sense of
personal culpability is implied? Lot was
conscious that the situation was ulti-
mately due to his own selfish choice (cf.
von Soden).

Ver. 9. οἶδεν Κύριος, κ.τ.λ. Apo-
dosis to protasis begun in ver. 4.
πειρασμοῦ. See Mayor’s note on Jas.
i. 2. The idea here is primarily of those
surroundings that try a man’s fidelity
and integrity, and not of the inward
inducement to sin, arising irom the de-
sires. Both Noah and Lot were in the
midst of mockers and unbelievers. This
πειρασμός is the atmosphere in which
faith is brought to full development. It
was a condition even cf the life of Jesus.
ὑμεῖς δὲ ἐστε of διαµεμενηκότες pet ἐμοῦ
ἐν τοῖς πειρασμοῖς µου (Luke xxii.
28). It is the word used by St. Luke of
the Temptation (Luke iv. 13). On the
one hand, πειρασμός is not to be lightly
sought (Luke xi. 4), or entered into care-
lessly (Mark xiv. 38); the situation of
πειρασμός may itself be the result of sin
(t Tim. vi. 9). On the other hand, it is

a joyous opportunity for the development
of spiritual and moral strength (Jas, i. 2,
12). πειρασμός becomes sin only when
it ceases to be in opposition to the will.
The word is peculiar to the N.T.
ἀδίκους δὲ εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως κολα-
ἵομένους τηρεῖν: "(ο keep the unrigh-
teous under punishment until the day of
judgment’’. The reference may be the
same as in I Pet. ili. 19, τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ
πνεύμασιν, if we interpret “spirits in
prison ’’ as meaning those who had dis-
obeyed the preaching of Noah, and {ο:
whom Christ preached. Cf. Book of
Enoch, x. 4 f. ἡμέραν κρίσεως. This
day is also the day of Parousia. The
same expression is used in iii. 7. It
is called ημέρα κυρίου (iii. 10); ἡ τοῦ
θεοῦ ἡμέρα (ili. 12). Three great results
are brought about on that day. (1) The
ungodly will suffer ἀπώλεια (iii. 7; cf. ii.
I, ΠΠ. 16). It is noteworthy that the
ultimate fate of the fallen angels is
not described except as κρίσις (ii. 4).
(2) Dissolution of the material universe by
fire (iii. 11, iii. 7, lii. 12, iii. το). (3) The
righteous are promised ‘new heavens
and anewearth’’. In this new universe,
or environment, righteousness has its
home (iii. 13). The difficult passage (i.
το), about the day-star, has reference to
this ἡμέρα κυρίου, when the great Day
shall dawn, and the sign of it shall cheer
the hearts of the faithful, and the lamp
of prophecy will be no longer needed.
Ver. 10a. µάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω
σαρκὸς . . . πορευοµένους, ‘especially
thosewho follow the flesh as their ]εαάετ”..
Cf. Matt. iv. 19,1 Tim. v.15. In Isa. Ixv.
2 we have πορευοµένοις . . . ὀπίσω τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. The writer now passes
from the sin of Sodom to the sin of the
Libertines. ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ. ἐπιθυμίᾳ
is used of strong desire generally ; “ lust”’
in its older meaning. £.g. Luke xxii. 15.
μιασμοῦ is a qualitative genitive, as in
li. I. αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας: “a polluting
desire’’. κυριότητος καταφρονοῦῖντας.
kup. Cannot be taken in a purely abstract
sense, ‘‘despising authority”. κνριότης:

8—II.

αὐθάδεις, δόξας oF τρέµουσιν βλασφημοῦντες.

> fee ‘ , ” >
ἰσχύὶ καὶ δυνάµει μείζονες ὄντες οὐ

is used in the abstract sense of the Lord-
ship of Christ in Didache iv. 1. Honour
him who speaks the word of God, ὡς
κύριον, ὅθεν yap 4 κυριότης λαλεῖται,
ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν.

As is suggested by this passage in the
Didache, we may conclude that by
κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας is meant a
despising ofthe Lordship of Christ, which
was the central theme of the apostolic
teaching and preaching. The writer in
ver. 10b, goes on to speak of their attitude
towards δόξας, or ‘‘angelic beings”.
Cf. Jude 8, xvptornta δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν,
δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῖσιν. It is true that
in Col. i. 16, κυριότητες form one of
the ranks of angels in the false Gnostic
teaching, but there is no indication that
the Libertines here spoken of taught any
elaborate angelology. On the contrary,
they spokelightly of the Unseen Powers
generally. Their teaching seems to have
been materialistic in tone. They were
ὡς Goya ζῷα γεγεννηµένα hvorka (ver.
12)—creatures of natural instinct, not
employing the higher powers of reason
(ἄλογα).

Vv. 10b-14 Further description of the
False Teachers. “' Presumptuous and ar-
rogant, they do not shrink from irreverent
speech about the unseen powers, while
even angels, who are far superior to these
false teachers in greatness and might, do
not dare to bring against these powers an
irreverent accusation. Their irreverence
is therefore of an ignorant type, as of un-
reasoning animals, who are born creatures
of instinct, and are fitted only for capture
and destruction. Their destruction will be
in keeping, and they will be defrauded of
what is really the wages of fraud. Their
notion of pleasure is to spend the day
in delicate living. They are spots and
blemishes, luxuriating in their pleasures,
while they feast with you. Their eyes are
full of adultery, and they are insatiable
in sin, alluring unstable souls. With
hearts experienced in covetousness, they
are children of the curse.”

Ver. τοῦ. τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις. avd. is
to be taken as an epithet of τολμηταὶ.
The idea in roAp. is of shameless and
irreverent daring. αὐθάδεις (αὐτὸς and
ἥδομαι) = “ self-willed,’’“‘arrogant”. In
1 Tim. i. 7, the ἐπίσκοπος must not be
αὐθάδης, where the thought seems to be
of irresponsibility in regard to the com-
munity. Cf. Didache iii. 6, μὴ γίνου

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

137

11. ὅπου ἄγγελοι
Φέρουσιν Kat αὐτῶν παρὰ

γόγγυσος: ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν βλασ-
dypiav: μηδὲ αὐθάδης μηδὲ πονηρόφρων.
ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων βλασφημίαι
γεννῶνται. The false teachers push for-
ward their views, regardless of conse-
quences. Cf. Ρ. Amh. 78, 13 f. (ii. a.D.),
µ[ου] πλεονεκτὶ ἄνθρωπος ἀ(υ)θάδης.
«Απ audacious man is taking advantage
of me.” δόξας οὐ τρέµουσιν βλασφη-
μοῦντες. δόξας is used of Unseen Powers
whether good orevil. Howcan BAaognp.
be used of evil powers? It is obvious
that we must find some sense for βλασ-
φημεῖν here; and also in Jude 8, that
will be applicable to δόξας, apart alto-
gether from their moral character. In
Plato, Rep. 381 E, there occurs a passage
dealing with the popular conception of
the gods, which holds that they may
sometimes change their form, and “in
the likeness of wandering strangers, bodied
in manifold forms, go roaming from city to
city ” (cf. Homer, Od. xvii. 485). By such
notions, as taught for example by mothers
to their children, men may be said,
‘eis θεοὺς βλασφημεῖν ”. Not only are
these a misrepresentation of the Divine,
but their tendency is to make light of it,
belittle it, detract from its dignity. Some
such sense of βλ. seems to be required
here. ‘The false teachers may have scoffed
at the idea both of angelic help, and of
diabolic temptation. Their tendency
seems to have been to make light of
the Unseen, to foster a sense of the
unreality both of sin and of goodness,
and to reduce the motives of conduct to
a vulgar hedonism (cf. Mayor’s note,
Ρ. 74).

Ver. 11. ὅπου = “whereas”. The
interpretation of this verse turns on the
meaning of kat’ αὐτῶν. Does it refer to
the false teachers, or to a distinction be-
tween two sets of angels, which finds an
illustration in the contest between Michael
and Satan for the body of Moses? (Jude,
ϱ). Inthe latter case kat’ αὐτῶν would
refer to the fallen angels. Another pos-
sible interpretation is that ἄγγελοι ἰσχύϊ
καὶ δυνάµει μείζονες ὄντες are a superior
class of archangels (Spitta), and κατ’
αὐτῶν would refer to the δόξαι in general.
Chase suggests that the reference is to
the false teachers, and angels are re-
presented as bringing before the Lord
tidings as to the conduct of created
beings, whether angels or men (of. ctt.
797 6).

135

m Use of
dat. in-
stead of
accus.
indicates
progress
towards
extinc-
tion of

™Kupiw βλάσφημον κρίσιν.

prepp. with three cases (Moulton, Proleg. 106).

Luke v. 25.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

ή,

= , ς ” lol ,
12. οὗτοι δέ, ὡς ἄλογα Loa γεγεννηµένα
φυσικὰ εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ Φθοράν, ἐν “ois ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες,
ἐν τῇ Φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται, 13. ἀδικούμενοι) μισθὸν
> , ο c x c , ‘ > ς / , / A A
ἀδικίας ' ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι τὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφήν, σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι

n Rom. x. 14, vi. 21, xiv. 21, John xix. 37,

1 αδικουµενοι δὴ BP, syrh + WH; xoptovpevoe ACKLN¢, boh., spec., syrh +

ee ceg.

We may note the tendency in 2 Peter
exemplified here to put in general terms
what Jude states in the particular, in the
story of Michael and Satan. The par-
ticulars of Jude are omitted (as also the
name Enoch afterwards) in order to avoid
direct reference to apocryphal writings.
Accordingly the sentence, οὐ φέρουσιν
kat’ αὐτῶν βλάσφημον κρίσιν, is only
intelligible by reference to Jude 9, where
Michael does not himself condemn Satan,
but says ἐπιτ'μήσαι cot κύριος. Cf. note
on βλασφημουντες, ν. 10.

Ver. 12. γεγεννηµένα φυσικὰ---'' born
creatures of instinct’’. Instinct is here
distinguished from the rational centres of
thought and judgment. They are ἄλογα
{6a. Their chief characteristic is that
they are ‘‘alive,”’ and have no sense of
the moral issues of life. Like animals,
they exist eis ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν. ἐν ols
ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες-- ἐν τούτοις ἃ
... “Speaking lightly of things they
are ignorant of’. Spiritually they are
incapable. They know not what they do,
in thus clouding moral issues. ἐν τῇ
φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ Φθαρήσονται. Here is
a subtle example of the dependence of
this epistle upon Jude. In Jude 10, we
have ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται, referring to
ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ... ἐπίστανται. The
sense in 2 Peter is confused, and there
is no distinction between the two kinds
of knowledge, although the intended
meaning in both passages is the same.
Cf. Rom. viii. 5, 6.

Ver. 13. ἀδικούμενοι μισθὸν ἀδικίας
(cf. ν. 12). This playing upon words is
characteristic of 2 Peter, ἀδικεῖν has
usually the sense of ‘doing harm to”’
(cf. Acts xxxv. 10; Galat. iv. 12). Here
it would seem to mean “ being defrauded
of the wages of fraud,” or “being done
out of the wages of wrong-doing’’. It
has been customary to see in this phrase
an illustration of the irresponsible use of
words in 2 Peter. “' Another example
of the author’s love of far-fetched and
~stificial expressions”? (Mayor). In P.

Eleph., however 27a*4/ (iii. B.c.), the
writers ask for a receipt with reference
toa certain business transaction. τούτου
δὲ yevopevou ἐσόμεθα οὐκ ἠδικημένοι
ἔεελὶς having been arranged, we shall not
be defrauded”’. To this may be added
Mayor’s citation of Plut. Cato Mi. 17
(p. 766) εὗρὼν xpéa παλαιὰ τῷ δηµοσίῳ
πολλοὺς ὀφείλοντας καὶ πολλοῖς τὸ
δηµόσιον, Gua τὴν πόλιν ἔπαυσεν ἆδι-
κουµένην καὶ ἀδικοῦσαν. The accusative
yet after ἀδικ. is very unusual. In classical
writers it is found only with ἀδίκημα.
μισθὸν ἀδικίας suggests the experience of
Balaam, of whom the same expression
is used in ver. 15, who never received his
promised hire from Balak (Num. xxiv. 11).
Death deprives the false teachers of all
their reward. For significance of the
name “' Balaam,”’ in connexion with the
false teachers, see Introduction, p. 118.
ἡδονὴν in N.T. only in a bad sense, cf.
Luke ; viii.. τὴ, Tit. αμ, 3, Jase νο τη,
τρυφή only in N.T. in Luke vil. 25 where
it is used of “ delicate living,’ a luxurious
life, but with no special blame attached.
The word is also used of gifts of wisdom
in Prev. iv. 9, cf. Ps. xxxvi. 8, ‘the river
of thy pleasures’’, Eden is called παρά-
δεισος τῆς τρυφῆς, Gen. ii. 15, iii. 13, 24.
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ‘in the day-time,”, ‘in broad
day-light”’. σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι, cf. Ephes.
ν. 27. 2 Pet, iii. τὰ, Pets 1. το dessa.
μῶμος “reproach,” “disgrace”. Cf,
Hort. on 1 Pet. i. το, where he traces the
way in which μῶμος and ἅμωμος, came
to be used with superficial meaning of
‘“blemish,’’ cf. |Ephes: 1: ανν. ο Που,
ix. 14. ἐντρυφῶντες: ‘ to be luxurious,”
cf. Xen. Hell. iv. 1, 30. ἐν ταῖς ἁπάταις
αὐτῶν: tobe taken with ἐντρυφ. ἁπάτη
is a favourite word of Hermas (Mand.
viii. 5) and is frequently joined by him
with τρυφή (Mand. xi. 12 and throughout
Parable 6). According to Deissmann,
ἀπάτη in popular Hellenistic has the
meaning “pleasure”. Cf. Matt. xiii. 22
= Mark iv. 19 (Luke viii. 14), (see his
Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheis-

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

12—15.

[39

14. ο Matt. x.
4 10, Heb.
Π.χ,
Eph. ii.
12.

1 Peter iv.
1, Jas. i.

ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν συνευωχούµενοι ὑμῖν,

ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς ° porxadidos Kal ἀκαταπαύστους 3
P¢ 4 ὃ λ ῃ \ > , Si ,
ἁμαρτίας, θελεάζοντες ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους, καρδίαν yeyupvacperny

οἱ Ἡ
Ὀπλεονεξίας ἔχοντες, κατάρας τέκνα” 15. καταλείποντες εὐθεῖαν

NX 3 7 can a A 13.
ὁδὸν ἐπλανήθησαν, ἐξακολουθήσαντες TH ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ τοῦ Bécop ® , Heb. iii.
12.

άαπαταις SACKLP, syrh (mg. αγαπαις), WH, Ti.; αγαπαις A®B, sah., syrP
4. Treg., WHm. At first sight it would seem probable that 2 Peter has misread
ἄγαπαις in Jude 12. Confusion is common in MSS. of Ο.Τ. between ἄγαπαω and
ἁπαταω, ἄγαπη and ἅπατη (e.g., Ps. Ixxviii. 36). Yet ἅπατη, ἅπαταω has been
proved to be the correct reading in many cases. avtwv here is an argument in its
tavour. Nestle (of. cit. pp. 324 ff.) and Zahn (of. cit. ii. p. 235 f.) argue strongly
for αγαπαις and omission of υμιν (συνευωχουµενοι = “feasting with one another’’)
(Mayor, Ed. cxcvii).

ἑακαταπαυστους SCKLP, 13, 31, Ti., Treg. ; ακαταπαστους AB, WH. The
latter reading ‘“‘may have originated in a faulty pronunciation on the part of the
reader, or the v may have been accidentally omitted at the end of the line, as in B,
where one line ends with wa- and the next begins with -στους ” (Mayor, Ed. cxcvii.
ef. Moulton, Proleg. p. 47).

3 Booop ScACKLP, boh., syrh, Ti., Treg.; Bewp B, syrp, sah., WH, Weiss;
Βεωορσορ &. There can be little doubt that Βοσορ 's the correct reading. The
reading of & is manifestly due to a combination of Booop and a marginal correc-
tion -ewp. Zahn. (of. cit. ii. p. 292) says that everywhere in LXX, Josephus, Philo,
only the forms Beop or Βαιορ occur, and that Bogop is inexplicable except as a mis-
take on the part of 2 Peter due to ‘‘ imperfect pronunciation or defective hearing”.
Nestle, however (of. cit. p. 244), after Holmes-Parsons, cites νιον του Bogop in the
Georgian version of Jos. xiii. 23. Booop also occurs as name of a place in Deut.
iv. 43, 1 Sam. xxx. 9, 1 Macc. v. 26. ‘‘The support of the ordinary name by B
against the other MSS. may be compared with its support of Zipwv against Ἔνμεων

in i. 1’? (Mayor, Ed. cxcviii.).

mus, (Neue Fahrb. f. d. Klass, Altertum,
1903), p. 165, n. 5).

Ver. 14. ἀκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας.
For use of genitive with this verb, cf. 1
Pet. iv. 1. See Grammatical Note.
SedeaLovtes. Cf. ν. 18 and Mayor’s
note on Jas. i. 14, ‘“‘entice or catch bya
bait’. κατάρας τέκνα. Cf. τέκνα ὑπα-
κοῆς, I Pet. i. 14.

Vv. 15, 16. Example of Balaam.
“They have left the straight way and
wandered from it, having followed the
way of Balaam, who loved the ways of
wickedness, and was rebuked for his
transgression, when a dumb ass spoke
with a man’s voice, and forbade the in-
fatuation of the prophet.”

Ver. 15. TH 686 τοῦ Βαλαὰμ. The
comparison of the conduct of the False
Teachers to that of Balaam is significant
as determining their character and motive
(see Introduction, pp. 115 ff.). The
writer of 2 Peter takes the miraculous
narrative in Numbers xxii. 21-35 literally.
It is no disparagement of the value of the
illustration that we, in our day, can no
longer do 5ο. Balaam had the gift of
real spiritual vision. He is described in

Numbers xxiv. 36 as one ‘‘ whose eye
was closed,” i.e. to outer things, and
also as one ‘ which seeth the vision of
the Almighty, falling down and having
his eyes open,” 7.e. to spiritual vision.
Balaam was one who allowed the greed
of gain to become stronger than the
prophetic impulse. He is conscious that
he is tempting God, and an evil con-
science makes him irritable. He fears
lest God may yet interfere to rob him of
his reward. When the ass starts aside
he beats it, but ultimately his passion is
subdued by the momentary triumph of
his higher spiritual instincts, when he
begins to suspect that in the stubbornness
of the animal there is really the power
of God exercised to hinder him in his
course. The angel with the drawn sword:
is often the form that men’s religion takes
who are disobeying the voice of con-
science. ‘“ There is a strange depth of
meaning in the appealing eye of an ill-
treated animal. It is an appeal, in the
first place, to whatever remnant of pity
and generosity may still survive in the
heart of the man who ill-treats it, but it
is an appeal, in the second place, to the

140

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

GE

ὃς μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγάπησεν, 16. ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρα-

vopias: ὑποζύγιον ἄφωνον ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ Φθεγξάμενον ἐκώλυσεν

9 An , ,
THY τοῦ προφήτου παραφρονίαν.

a , 3 κ. ae,
17. οὗτοί εἶσιν πηναὶ ἄνυδροι
‘

καὶ ὁμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι, ots 6 ζόφος τοῦ σκότους

τετήρηται. 18.

2 > ,
ow ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις

ὑπέρογκα γὰρ µαταιότητος φθεγγόµενοι δελεάζου-
σαρκὸς ἀσελγείαις τοὺς ὀλίγως 1 ἀποφεύγοντας τοὺς

ἐν πλάνη ἀναστρεφομένους, 19. ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι,

Ἰολιγως ABN¢, vg., syrr., sah., boh., Treg., Ti., WH; οντως ΜΟΚΙ,Ρ; οντως

would require aor. ; αποφυγοντας (‘clean escaped”’ A.V.), read by KLP.

In the

MSS. οντως is hardly distinguishable from ολιγως (Mayor, Ed. cxcviii.).

justice of the God who made them both,
a cry of which we may be sure it has
entered into the ears of the Lord of
Sabaoth. When animals are put to un-
necessary suffering, either in the shambles
or as beasts of burden, or in the interests
of science or sport, or for any other
reason, cases are Sure to arise in which
we may justly apply the words of our
Epistle, and say of such poor tortured
creatures that with their dying gaze, no
less clearly than if they had spoken with
man’s voice, they forbade the madness
of their torturers’ (Mayor, p. 203). Cf.
F. W. Robertson, Seyvmons, Ser. iv. pp.
40 f.

Ver. 16. ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν, a periphrasis
for the passive of ἐλέγχω, = ‘“ was re-
buked”’. i8tas παρανοµίας, emphatic,
‘“‘his own transgression’’. Two inter-
pretations of ἰδίας are possible. (1) The
παρανοµ. is a characteristic trait in
Balaam (Keil. Weiss). (2) As prophet,
Belaam was expected to do and teach
Ged’s law. He whose duty it is to
rebuke others is himself rebuked for his
own transgression’ (Hundhausen, Wie-
singer). παρανομία = ‘‘a_ particular
transgression”? as distinct from ἀνομία
= ‘‘disobedience in general”. παρα-
φρονίαν, “infatuation”. Balaam is pro-
ceeding against what he knows to be
the Divine will.

Vv. 17-19. The Libertines ave them-
selves slaves. ‘‘ They are like waterless
wells, and mists that the wind disperses.
For them is reserved the fate of gloomy
darkness. They utter ponderous no-
things, and allure through their lusts
those who were just escaping from the
temptations of heathen life. Promising
freedom to others, they are themselves
slaves of corruption. Every one is a
slave to that which has mastered
him.” .

Ver. 17. πηγαὶ . . « ἐλαυνόμεναι. It
is interesting to compare the expressions

in 2 Peter here with Jude 12. It would
appear as though he had felt that νεφέλαι
ἄννδροι was a contradiction in terms,
and instead he substituted πηγαὶ. dat-
λαπος is a strong expression = “ gale,”’
a ‘storm of wind’. Cf. Mk. iv. 37,
Lk. viii. 23. οἷς ὁ ζόφος . . . τετήρηται
is somewhat out of place here, and is
used appropriately of meteors in Jude 13.

Ver. 18. ὑπέρογκα. Cf. Jude 16.
No doubt the reference is to the use of
Gnosticterms. µαταιότης, used specially
of moral insincerity. Cf. µαταίας ava-
στροφῆς, “' heartless conduct,” r P. i. 18.
There is no corresponding reality behind
their words. σαρκὸς, to be taken with
ἀσελγείαις, which is in apposition to
ἐπιθυμίαις. τοὺς ὀλίγως ἀποφεύγοντας :
“those who are just escaping’’; who
have been impressed with Christian truth,
and have had strength to separate them-
selves from their old surroundings and
customs ; but are led to return through
the compromises suggested by the false
teachers. The phenomenon is not un-
common in all missionary work, of men
who have escaped from ‘ Gentile vices,
but are not yet established in Christian
virtues” (Bigg). τοὺς ἐν πλάνῃ ἄναστρε-
φομένους = governed by ἀποφεύγοντας:
“(escaping from) those who live in
error ’’; 7.¢. from their old heathen com-
panionships. ‘‘ There is great passion
in the words. Grandiose sophistry is
the hook, filthy lust is-the bait, with
which these men catch those whom the
Lord had delivered, or was delivering ”’
(Bigg).

Ver. 19. ἐλευθερίαν. Doubtless that
Antinomianism is indicated to which the
doctrine of Grace has ever been open.
Cf. Galat. ν. 13. It arises from the ever-
recurring confusion of liberty and license.
The training of conscience is contem-
poraneous with the growth of Christian
character. The Pauline teaching, which
abrogated external legality, was open to

‘their former faith.

16—22.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B 141

αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς: ᾧ γάρ τις ἥττηται, τούτῳ r Acts xi. 17

δεδούλωται.

> , A , \ a 3 a A , τον ,
ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τούτοις * δὲ πάλιν
ἐμπλακέντες ἠττῶνται, Ὑέγονεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα Χείρονα τῶν

πρώτων.
αὐτοῖς ἁγίας ἐντολῆς"

abuse, and might easily be dangerous
to recent converts from heathenism.
Φθορᾶς. See Mayor’s note, ed. p. 175.
φθορά is that gradual decay of spiritual
and moral sense that follows on wilful
self-indulgence. ᾧ γάρ . . . διδούλωται.
Cf. Rom. vi. 16, viii. 21, John viii. 34.

Vv. 20-23. The consequences of fall-
ing away. ‘The case of their victims
is a serious one. They have escaped
from the pollutions of the world through
the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and are
once more entangled and worsted by
these. Their last state becomes worse
than the first. It were better for them
not to have known the way of righteous-
ness, than in spite of such knowledge, to
depart from the holy commandment com-
mitted to them. They illustrate the
truth of the proverb: ‘the dog that
turned back to his own vomit, and
the sow that went to bathe to wallowing
in the mud’.”

Ver. 2ο. Here, again, yap loosely
introduces the subject of the victims
allured by the false teachers away from
τὰ pidopata τοῦ
κόσμου. (Lev. vii. 8, Jer. xxxix. 34),
occurs only here in N.T. In LXX the
word seems to have a technical religious
sense, the profanation of flesh by ordinary
use which is set apart for sacrifice. This
sense lingers here. The body is sacred
to God, and to give licentious rein to the
passions is placpea. Cf. pracpéds, v. 1ο,
and µιαίνω, Jude 8. τοῦ κόσμου is the
world in the sense of the heathen society
and its practises. ἐπιγνώσει. See note
oni. 2. τούτοις is governed by ἐμπλακ-
έντες = “‘entangled by these”. Cf. 2
Tim. ii. 4, Ὑέγονεν αὐτοῖς, κ.τ.λ. Cf.
Matt. xii. 45, Luke xi. 26, and Heb. vi.
4-8, x. 26.

Ver. 21. 680v τῆς δικαιοσύνης. Also
called ‘the way of truth,” ii. 2, ‘ the
straight way,” ii. 15. ἐντολῆς. Else-
where in N.T. the singular is used to
mean a particular precept. Cf. Rom.
να το 0 Dim. vi. τα. (It ‘ie’ ‘charac-

‘teristic of this writer to emphasise the

21. κρεῖττον γὰρ "ἠν αὐτοῖς "μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν

(Rec.).

20. εἰ γὰρ ἀποφυγόντες τὰ µιάσµατα τοῦ κόσμου ἐν 5 Rom. ix.

3, 2 Cor.
xii. 11,
Matt.xxv.
27, ΧχνΙ.
9, 24,
Arist.
Nub. 1215,

τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν ὑποστρέψαι ἐκ THs παραδοθείσης Xen.

Anab. 7,

22. συµβέβηκεν αὐτοῖς τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς 7.40,

ia t Luke
XVil. I (om. (2) rové).

aspect of Christianity, not only as faith,
but as the moral law aylas ἐντολῆς.
Cf. i. 5. ἐν τῇ πίστει ὑμῶν τὴν ἀρετήν.
A strong ethical note pervades the teach-
of 2 Peter.

Ver. 22. τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιµίας:
έχε content of the true proverb” has
been ‘verified,’ or ‘‘realised’’ in their
case. The first proverb is found in
Prov. xxvi. 11. The second is ap-
parently not derived from a Hebrew
source. Both are quoted familiarly in
an abbreviated form (cf. WM. p. 443).
The interpretation of the second is an
exegetical crux. Bigg takes λουσαµένη
= “having bathed itselfin mud”. The
sense is, “not that the creature has
washed itself clean in water (so appar-
ently the R.V.), still less that it has been
washed clean (as A.V.), and then returns
to the mud; but that having once bathed
in filth it never ceases to delight in it’’.
This, however, is to force the meaning
ΟΓλουσαμένη, which is consistently used
of washing with water. Again, the point
of the proverb is to illustrate τὰ ἔσχατα
χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. The dupes of the
false teachers were cleansed and returned
to pollution.

The question is important whether
λουσαμένη is Middle or Passive? Dr.
Rendel Harris (Story of Ahikar, p. |xvii.)
may have discovered the original proverb
in the following, appearing in some texts
of Ahikar. ‘ My son, thou hast behaved
like the swine which went to the bath
with people of quality, and when he
came out, saw a stinking drain, and went
and rolled himself in it”. If this be the
source of the παροιμία, A. is Middle
(Moulton, Proleg. pp. 238-39). ;

A friend of my own, with a knowledge
of animals, tells me that the pig is often
washed in certain forms of dishealth, to
open the pores of the skin. The animal,
being unprotected by hair, finds the
sun’s heat disagreeable, and wallows
again in the mud for coolness. The
dried mud protects the skin from the
rays. βόρβορος found only here and in

142

u Luke xx.
25, JaS.iv. :
1 Cor. vii. µένη εἰς κυλισμὸν βορβόρου.

33.
Μιά. 2
Matt.

<

NETPOY Β

ΠΠ.

ια
Ἱπαροιμίας, Κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα, καί “Ys ” λουσα-

III. 1. Ταύτην ἤδη, ἀγαπητοί, δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολήν,

xxvii.5. ἐν ais διεγείρω ὑμῶν ἐν ὑπομνήσει τὴν εἰλικρινῆ διάνοιαν, 2.

a For this

a - ~ , -
use of 5ο-΄ μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρηµένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν

called
epexe-
getical
infinitive T

~ ~ lol ~ n , A
καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος, 3.

οὔτο πρῶτον ᾿ γινώσκοντες ὅτι ἐλεύσονται em ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶ-

see Moul-3_ 35 ο > a 8 Sa IR 5 , μα ,
ἐν ἐμπαιγμονή ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόν

ton, Pro-
leg. pp.
205-201. ος ον,
b Col. iii. 16, 2 Cor. vii. 5, ix. 10, Phil. i. 29.

Jer. xxxviii. 6. Cf. Acta Thomae, 53.
εἶδον βόρβορον . . . καὶ ψυχὰς ἐκεῖ
κυλιοµένας. In the Legends of Pela-
gia, which, though late, are written in
good vernacular Greek, both noun and
corresponding verb are found. «ἐλθοῦσα
περιστερὰ µελάνη καὶ βεβορβορωμένη
περιεπέτατό µοι, καὶ τὴν δυσωδίαν τοῦ
βορβόρου αὐτῆς οὐκ ἠδυνάμην Φέρειν.
(Die Pelag. Legend., ed. Usener, p. 21).
Bishop Wordsworth suggested that the
double proverb is an inexact quotation
of two iambic lines—

εἰς ἴδιον ἐξέραμ’ ἐπιστρέψας κύων
λελουμένη 6 ts εἰς κύλισμα βορβόρου

If he is right, 2 Pet. cannot be charged
with the use of the two rare words,
βορβόρου and ἐξέραμα. Bigg suggests
(ed., p. 228) that the Proverbs of Solomon
had been unified by some Jewish
paraphiast, and this one of the pig added
to the canonical collection.

ΟΗαρτεκ III.—Vv. 1-4. Prophets and
apostles have warned us that de-
lay will lead to denial of the Second
Advent.

“Tam now writing my second letter
to you. In both I seek to rouse you to
honest reflection on the words formerly
spoken by the holy prophets, and on the
commandment of our Lord delivered by
your missionaries. Especially realise
the truth of their warning, that there
will come in the last days scoffers, with
scoffing questions, walking after their
own lusts, and saying, ‘ Where is the pro-
mise of His appearing? For,’ say they,
‘from the time the fathers fell asleep,
everything remains as it has been from
the beginning of creation ’.”

Ver. 1. For ἤδη with numeral, cf.
John xxi. 14. δευτέραν ἐπιστολήν. Does
this refer to 1 Peter? See Introduction,

p. 113. ἐν ats: ‘in both of which,”
constructio ad sensum. διεγείρω...
ὑπομνήσει: cf. i. 13.

εἰλικρινῆ: cf. x Cor. v. 8, 2 Cor. i. 12,
ii. 17, Phil. i. το. εἰλικρινῆ διάνοιαν is a
technical philosophic term used by Plato.
Phaed. 66 A =‘‘pure reason,’”’ such as
the geometer employs. In Phaed. 81 C,
εἰλικρινῆς ψυχή is opposed to ψ. µεμιασ-
µένη καὶ ἀκάθαρτος. 2 Peter here cannot
be acquitted of a confusion in the use of
philosophic terms, probably picked up
loosely in conversation. At the same
time, διάνοια is also used in the philo-
sophic sense of ψυχή in Gen. xvii. 17,
Deut. vi. 5, Num. xv. 39; also in N.T.
Coloss. i. 21, 1 Pet. 1. 13. εἰλικρινής is
of doubtful etymology, and signifies ethi-
cal purity, a mind uncontaminated and
unwarped by sensual passion. The oppo-
site state is described in Plato, Phaed.
81, “She thinks nothing true, but what
is bodily, and can be touched and seen,
and eaten and drunk, and used for men’s
lusts ”’.

Ver. 2. Borrowed from Jude 17.
µνησθῆναι: epexegetical infinitive. See
grammatical note. καὶ τῆς τῶν ἄποσ-
τόλων, κ.τ.λ. Double possessive geni-
tive ‘‘ of the Lord’s command delivered by
your apostles ’’. Chase (of. cit. p. 811 a)
suggests that διά should be inserted after
τῆς, and compares the title of the Didache,
διδαχἠ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποσ-
τόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. évTokn=teaching of
our Lord on the fulfilment of the moral
law, cf. ii. 21, John xii. 50. ἀποστόλων :
Are the Twelve meant? cf. Introd. pp. 103-
4. Probably ἀπ. signifies just those from
whom they received the first knowledge of
the gospel, accredited missionaries of the
Church. The word is used of Epaphro-
ditus, Phil. ii. 25, and of other than
apostles, 2 Cor. viii. 23.

Ver. 3. τοῦτο πρῶτον Ὑγινώσκοντες.
Accusative is required, but all MSS. have
nominative, cf. Jude 18. én ἐσχάτων
τῶν ἡμερῶν. Mockers are one of the
signs of the approach of the end, cf. 1
John ii. 18. ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται :

I—6.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

143

A ” a“ - ~ ..
µενοι, 4. καὶ λέγοντες Ποῦ ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπανχελία τῆς παρουσιας ΄᾿ αὐτοῦ; ¢ x John ii.

Gp’ ἧς yup οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, πάντα οὕτως Ἀδιαμένει dw 6

ἀρχῆς κτίσεως.

ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι ὕδατος συνεστῶσα τῷ τοῦ
Θεοῦ "λόγω: 6. δι ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετω"

ἐμπαίκτης is an unclassical form. cf.
Mark xv. 20. ‘This verse is not part of
the prophetic or apostolic message of ver.
2, but a particular caution of the writer,
based on Jude.

Ver. 4. ποῦ ἐστὶν, κ.τ... The com-

ing ot our Lord in the near future was
evidently an integral part of the apostolic
teaching, cf. i. 16. ‘There is no sure
evidence that Jesus sought to undermine
the assumption of His followers, that the
tusal glory would be manifested in their
day ; and even this we may fairly qualify
with the remembrance that amain motive
of the principal eschatological discourse,
reported by the Synoptists, is to warn
the disciples against premature expecta-
tions” (J.H- Muirhead, Fschatology of
Yesus. pp. 126, 127). τῆς παρουσίας:
See note on i. 16. ad’ ἧς γὰρ. κ.τ.λ.
‘‘ The fathers,’” must mean those of the
preceding generation, in whose lite-time
the παρουσία was expected. ottws=in
statu quo. am ἀρχῆς κτίσεως, {.ε.,
“‘contrary to all previous human ex-
perience’’, The Teaching of our Lord
Himself in one aspect would imply
that the actual παρονσία, would be at-
tended with no outward previous dis-
turbance of life to act as a warning.
Men would be engaged in their ordinary
occupations and pleasures (Matt. xxiv.
36-42). The development and ripening
of the moral and spiritual issues of men’s
lives are often not outwardly apparent
(cf. Paget’s “ Studies in the Christian
Character,”—‘* The Hidden Issues,” pp.
89 ff).
Vv. 5-7. The first part of the argu-
ment against the scoffers. ‘‘It is not
true that the course of the world is un-
changing. They have wilfully forgotten
that the heavens existed originally, and
the earth was formed out of water, and
by means of water, by the Word of God.
By th s very water and Word the world,
as it then was, was overwhelmed and
perished. The present heavens and
earth, by the same Word, are treasured
up for fire, being reserved for the day
when impious men shall meet their doom
and destruction.”

5+ λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοῦτο θέλοντας ὅτι οὐρανοὶ

12 2 John
, d John xv.
27, Vili.
58, 1 John

iii. 8, Jer.
Ss hss
Ixxxix. 2.

e Rom. iii.
24, Eph.
ii. 8.

Ver. 5. λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοῦτο.
‘‘ This escapes their notice.” τοῦτο is
nominative. θέλοντας ' “ wilfully” ** of
their own purpose”’. ἔκπαλαι (cf. note,
ii. 3): ‘‘ originally,” t.e. before the crea-
tion of the world. The Rabbinical school
of Shammai held that Gen. i. 1, ἐν ἀρχῇ
ἐποίησεν 6 θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
meant that the heaven was in existence
before the six days’ work, i.e. ἔκπαλαι.
Perhaps this notion is present here.
ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι ὕδατο. Two kinds
of water are meant. The first may refer
to the primeval watery chaos—“‘ the face
of the waters’ (Gen. i. 2). The secord
is perhaps connected with the formation
of the dry land by ‘the gathering to-
gether of the waters into one place”
(Gen.i.g). But the meaning is obscure
(cf. Mayor, ed. Ixxxiii.; Chase, of. cit.
797). συνεστῶσα-ί΄' wasformed’’. Cf.
Philo, i. p. 330. ἐκ γῆς καὶ ὕδατος καὶ
ἀέρος καὶ πυρὸς συγέστη ὅδε ὁ κόσμος.

The above interpretation is in sub-
stantial agreement with Alford’s, who
distinguishes ‘tthe waters above the
firmament,” and ‘the fountains of the
great deep’. The Hebrew had πο’
notion of evaporation. ‘The rivers run
into the sea, and the water returns sub.
terraneously to their sources again (Ec-
εἰες ο η].

Ver. 6. δι ὧν. Μαγοτ απἀ Schmeidel,
against the evidence of nearly all manu-
scripts, read δι’ ὄν.. This is rendered un-
necessary (1) if the above rendering of
ἐξ ὕδατος κ.τ.λ. is taken, and the plural
δι ὧν refers to the two waters. δι’ dv
would refer to λόγῳ alone, or (2) if δι
ὧν reiers to t8dtwv and λόγῳ taken to-
gether, which would in some ways suit
the sense of the whole passage better.
The false teachers had ignored the
agency of the Divine word. κατακλνι-
σθείς; am. Ney. in N.T.; found several
times in P.Tebt. e.g. 54! (B.c. 86)
[ὥστε] . .. συµβεβηκότων κατακλυσθῆ-
ναι. ‘“Sothat in consequence of what
happened, it was flooded’’; 56°/ (late ii.
B.C.) γείνωσ]κε δὲ περὶ τοῦ κατακεκ-
λΏσθαι τὸ πεδίον “but know about ous
plain having been inundated”’.

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

Ill.

c Se a > ΔΝ Ay Le a ~ ων λό θ , Ieee,
7. οι οε νυν ουρανοι και η YN τῷ αυτῷ ογῳ τε ησαυρισμ.ενοι εισιν

4 , > ς / , ‘ 3 , ~ ο)
πυρὶ τηρούµενοι eis ἡμέραν κρίσεως καὶ ἀπωλείας τῶν ἀσεβῶν

8. “Ev δὲ τοῦτο μὴ λανθανέτω Spas, ἀγαπητοί, ὅτι μία
ἡμέρα παρὰ Κυρίῳ ὥς χίλια ἔτη καὶ Χίλια έτη ὡς ἡμέρα µία.

ο.

οὐ βραδύνει Κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται,

144
ἀνθρώπων.
‘f WM. iii.
§ Xix. 2 , > , an
b). πάντας εἰς µετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι.

ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς pas, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ

10. ξει δὲ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς

1τῳ αντῳ ABP, vulg., sah., boh., WH, Ti.; τῷ αυτου SCKL, syrr., Treg.

Ver. 7. πυρὶ typovpevor. According
to the Jewish conception of the rainbow
promise, water would not again be the
destructive agency. The heaven and the
earth are reserved for destruction by fire.
τεθησαυρισµένοι: ‘“‘setapart for”. The
writer means that both the rainbow pro-
mise and the delay are not to be regarded
as implying that there will be no more
great cosmical changes.

The idea of the association ofa great
cosmical change with the coming of
Christ is an interesting one. It involves
the question of our environment when
the natural is exchanged for the spiritual
body. This writer evidently expects not
complete annihilation of the present en-
vironment, but a ‘“‘new heaven and a
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteous-
ness’ (v. 13). St. Paul speaks of ‘the
deliverance of the creation itself from the
bondage of corruption into the glory of
the liberty of the children of God”.
‘‘ We are not informed as to the nature
of our future environment, yet it must be
such as to satisfy all the longings, and
give scope for all the activities of a per-
fected humanity’ (Mayor, ed. p. 207.
See also his most interesting and sug-
gestive note: ‘ Answer to the objection
that no change is possible in the material
universe’; and with whole passage, vv.
5-7, cf. Ruskin, Sesame and Lilies, p.
24.
Vv. 8-10. A further argument to ex-
plain the apparent delay. ‘ One thing
beloved, you must not forget. The sense
of the duration of time in the Divine
Mind is not the same as in the human.
One day is the same to God asa thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day.
God must not be judged as slack by human
standards, in the fulfilment of His pro-
mise. He is better than the promise.
He is long-suffering to usward, not
willing that some should perish, but
that all should come to repentance. We
know not when His long-suffering will be
exhausted. The day of the Lord will

come asa thief. Then the heavens will
pass away with hurtling noise, and the
elements being burned, shall pass away,
and the earth and the works of men con-
tained in it, will be made manifest.”

Ver. δ. pia ἡμέρα, κ.τ.λ. Cf. Ps.
xl. 4. The literal application of this
statement to the story of creation, em-
ployed by patristic writers, in which one
day is interpreted as τοοο years, and
therefore the creation ‘in six days really
means 6000 years, is of course absurd.
On the other hand, it can scarcely be
said that the writer of 2 Peter has attained
to the conception that the category of
time does not exist for the Divine Mind.
Rather the meaning is that infinite com-
passion overrides in the Divine Mind all
finite reckoning. Cf. Barnabas, 15, Jus-
tin, Dialogue, 81.

Ver. g. οὐ βραδύνει .. . ἡγοῦνται.
The idea that is combated is that God
has made a promise and has not kept it,
He is, however, better than His promise.
The additional element of His µακροθυ-
µία is brought into play. God is greater
than men’s conception of Him, especially
if theirs is a mechanical view of the uni-
verse.—@s τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται.
As nowhere else in the Epistle, here the
writer of 2 Peter enables us to view the
summit of the Christian Faith, and to
rise to a magnificent conception of God.
py βουλόμενός, κ.τ.λ. Delay does not
spring from an unwillingness or impot-
ence to perform. His will is not even
that “some’’ should perish, though that
is regarded by the writer as inevitable.
Are we to see here opposition in the
writer’s mind to the purely logical inter-
pretation of the Pauline teaching on
Predestination? Some will perish, but
itis not His Will. His Will is that all
should come to repentance. The good-
ness of God should lead to repentance.

Ver. 10. *pépa Κυρίου. No distinc-
tion is made between the Day of the
Lord, and the Coming of Christ. This is
remarkable, as excluding any idea of mil-

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B 145

pil.

/ > 9 ε > ‘ ς ‘ g , a Se h .
ἵ οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν ἕ παρελεύσονται, στοιχεία δὲ g John xix.

κλέπτης, ἐν ῃ : ος, ty oe antec bance x pe Tr, Rev.

καυσούµενα λυθήσεται, καὶ yi καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ έργα εὑρεθήσεται.

Xxi. 12, I
τς - ή ος πα Tim. v.
II. Τούτων οὖν πάντων λυομένων ποταποὺς δεῖ ὑπάρχειν ὑμᾶς 25, Luke

XXiv. 11,
Xen.
Anab. 1, 7, 17.

1 evpeOnoerar SBKP, syrP; ουχ ευρεθησεται sah. ; κατακαησεται AL, syrh, Ti. ;
καυθησεται vel.; κατακανθησονται al.; αφανισθησονται C; om. και γη... ευρε-
θησεται vulg.; om. ενρεθησεται spec. Both Nestle and Mayor agree in suggesting
the passive of a compound of pew (καταρνησεται or διαρρνησεται. 1 am indebted
to Professor J. H. Moulton for the information that the late Henry Bradshaw, of
Cambridge, suggested the reading εργα αργα ευρεθησεται. As against this, and
in favour of the text as it stands, we have 2 Clem. xvi. 3, which seems to be a

paraphrase of this passage.

καὶ πᾶσα ἡ yi ὡς μόλυβδος ἐπὶ πυρὶ τηκόµενος, Kal

τότε φανήσεται τα κρύφια καὶ φανερὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

lenarian teaching, which speedily made
its appearance inthe Early Church. ὡς
κλέπτης, cf. I Thess. v. 2, Matt. xxiv.
43, Luke xii. 39, Apoc. iii. 3, xvi. 15.
That day will surprise those who are
clinging to the idea that no change is
possible. ῥοιζηδὸν, onomatopoetic, ex-
pressing the sound produced by rapid
motion through the air, e¢.g., flight of a
bird, or an arrow. It is also used of the
sound of a shepherd’s pipe. No doubt
the sound of afierce flame is meant.
“Tt is used of thunder in Luc. Fup.
Trag. 1; of the music of the spheres in
Iamblich, Vit. Pyth. ο. 15 ; Oecumenius
says the word is especially used of the
noise caused by a devouring flame”
(Mayor, ed. p. 157). στοιχεῖα. Spitta
interprets στ. as being the spirits that
preside over the various parts of nature.
But the situation of στ. between γῆ
and οὐρανοὶ makes it practically cer-
tain that the heavenly bodies are meant.
The universe consists of ovpavol, στοι-
χεῖα and yi. οὐρανοὶ is the vault of
heaven, ‘‘ the skies”. στ. would therefore
mean sun, moon and stars. Cf. Justin.
Apol. ii. 5, Trypho. 23. Cf. Isa. xxxiv. 4,
Joel ii. 30, 31, Matt. xxiv. 29, Apoc. vi. 12-
14 in illustration of the Jewish belief that
the stars will share in the final destruc-
tion of the Last Day. kavootpeva. A
medical term, used of the heat of fever
(καῦσος). This is the only known use
of the word applied to inanimate objects.
Whether the writer of 2 Peter has here
indulged a fondness for unusual words,
or whether kavodopat was ever used in
other than a medical sense in the Κοινὴ,
it is impossible as yet to say. In any
case it denotes a violent consuming heat.
εὑρεθήσεται. The only alternative read-
ing that is worthy of notice in con-
nexion with this difficult passage is κατα-
καήσεται, but one would expect a word

expressing dissolution, like παρελεύσον-
ται, or Ἀνθήσεται. εὑρεθήσεται is found
in an absolute sense in Clement, Cor. ix.
3 (of Enoch) οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῦ θάνα-
τος, “ his death was not brought to light”.
In 2 Clem. xvi. (see textual note) φανήσ-
erat is the paraphrase of εὑρεθήσεται (cf.
Introd. pp. 90 f.).

Vv. 11-16. The ethical value of the
Parousia expectation. ‘‘Seeing then
that all these things are to be dissolved,
how great an effect it ought to exercise
on our whole moral and religious life, as
we look forward to and hasten the com-
ing of the day of God. The skies shall
be set on fire and dissolved, and the ele-
ments shall melt with fiercest heat, but
we look for new skies and a new earth
according to His promise, in which
righteousness shail finda home. Where-
fore, beloved, with such expectations,
endeavour to be found in peace, spotless
and blameless. Do not reckon the long-
suffering of our Lord as an opportunity
for licence, but as a means of salvation,
as our beloved brother Paul wrote you in
the wisdom granted to him. He indeed
spoke in all his letters of these things, in
which there are some things hard to be
understood, which ignorant and unstable
persons wrest, as they do the other
Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Ver. 11. λυομένων. Present used for
a future. Mayor translates ‘are in pro-
cess of dissolution,” as though the prin-
ciple of φθορά were already at work ; but’
this is a conception foreign to the mind
of the writer, who uses it only ina moral
significance. Nature is ‘‘ reserved”
(θησαυρίζεσθαι) for destruction. Dis-
solution is the goal in sight. ποταπούς.
‘““ What sort of men.’’ A later form of
ποδαπός. ὑπάρχειν implies not merely
existence, but existential character.
ἀναστροφαῖς καὶ evoeBelais. The use

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

111

> c , > ο) Δ 3 / ral 8
ἐν ἁγίαις dvactpopais καὶ εὐσεβείαις, 12. προσδοκῶντας καὶ

, ‘ , na a a vate’) Jae > a 3 ‘
σπεύδοντας τὴν παρουσίαν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμέρας, δι ἣν οὐρανοὶ

: ν
πυρούµενοι λυθήσονται καὶ στοιχεῖα καυσούµενα τήκεται.

13.

‘ A > ‘ Ν a“ ‘ x x > , > aA
καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν Kawhy κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ

προσδοκῶμεν, ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ.
σπουδάσατε ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι

h efor xii ταῦτα προσδοκῶντες

14. Awd, ἀγαπητοί,

E αὐτῷ

εὑρεθῆναι ἐν εἰρήνη, 15. καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν µακροθυµίαν

σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, καθὼς καὶ 6 ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος

κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, 16. ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις!

1πασαις ταις SKLP, Ti.; om. ταις ABC, Treg., WH, Weiss.

of the plural in cases of abstract nouns is
peculiar to the writer andto1 Peter. He
emphasises once more the close connexion
between morality and religion.

Ver. 12. σπεύδοντας. Either (1)
“‘earnestly desiring,” cf. Isa. xvi. 5,
σπεύδων δικαιοσύνην, or (2) preferably,
“hastening the coming ’’. “‘ The Church
may be said to bring the day nearer
when it prays, ‘Thy kingdom come’ ”
(Bigg). The writer is here referring to
the Jewish idea that the sins of men
prevented Messiah from appearing. ‘‘ Si
Judaei poenitentiam facerent una die,
statim veniret Messias, filius David.”

The words are capable of a still more
spiritual meaning, which, however, is
rather beyond the consciousness of this
writer. The kingdom of God is ‘‘ with-
in’’ us, and Christians may be said to
hasten this coming by holiness of life.
Christian conduct is itself both a rebuke
to vice and a realisation of the presence
of Christ in the hearts of His disciples.

τήκεται. Again present for future.
The phrases in this verse are repeated
from ver. 10 in order to introduce the more
impressively the idea in ver. 13.

Ver. 13. καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς .. .
προσδοκῶμεν. Cf. Isa. Ixv. 17. ἔσται
γὰρ © οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ 7 YH καινή.
Enoch και. 16. "See mote ου ver: 7-

οὐρανός might appropriately be trans-
lated ‘‘sky”’. ἐν ots δικαιοσύνη κατοι-
«ket; ‘wherein righteousness dwells,”
or ‘“‘has its home”. In the word there
is both the sense of permanence and of
persuasive influence. Both in the hearts
of men, and the new environment, there
will be nothing that militates against
righteousness. The Parousia is both
judgment on the wicked and triumph for
the kingdom. Cf. v. 7.

Ver. 14. ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι αὐτῷ.
αὐτῷ is dative = “in relation to Him,”
or “in His sight”. Cf. Rom. vii. το.
εὑρέθη por ἡ ἐγτολὴ ἡ εἰς Conv αὕτη

εἰς θάνατον; Ephes. i. 4, εἶναι ἀμώμους
κατενγώπιον αὐτοῦ. For ἄσπιλοι καὶ
ἀμώμητοι, cf. note ON v.13. ἁἀμώμητος
occursin Epistle of Aristeas (ed. Wend-
land), with reference to sacrificial victims.
ἐν εἰρήνῃ. Peace and righteousness are
one. Cf. Ps. lxxxv. το. The “‘well-
doers ’’ will be able to meet the Parousia
with calm expectation.

Ver. 15. καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου...
ἡγεῖσθε. Cf. ν. 9. The Divine long-
suffering is capable of interpretation as
‘“* slackness,”’ or as opportunity for license
instead of as σωτηρίαν, an opportunity
for repentance. Kaos καὶ 6 ἀγαπητὸς
. «+ ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν. The interpretation
here largely depends oh (1) whether the
reference of καθὼς is confined to the idea
in the first clause of the verse, or (2) is
to be extended to include ἄσπιλοι καὶ
ἀμώμητοι . . . εἰρήνῃ in νετ. 14, or (3)
is still further extended to include the
whole treatment of moral disorder aris-
ing from delayed Parousia. In the case
of (1) Romans would be the most ap-
propriate among the known canonical
epistles. In that epistle the idea of
God’s long-suffering is most prominent
(Gf. 11.4, 11. 25, 26, ix. 22,29) πι ορ ολ).
(2) Almost any of St. Paul’s epistles
might be meant. (3) If the question
of moral disorder arising from difficulties
about the παρουσία is placed in the
foreground, ‘none of the existing Pau-
line Epistles can be in question except
1 Corinthians (in this Church there were
very similar extravagances, and the
Resurrection was by some denied) and
Thessalonians” (Bigg). A decision on
this point involves the discussion on the
destination of the epistle, for which see
Introduction, pp. 205 f. (¢f. Zahn., Introd.
Π,, pp. 211-2). ὁ ἀγαπητὸς . . . Παῦλος
need not imply that Paul ννας alive. κατὰ
τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν. Cf. 1 Cor.
iii. το, Gal. ii. 9, 1 Cor. ili. 66, Col. i. 28.

Ver. 16. ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς

μια) αγ

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B

147

α > a ~ > > “a ‘ , > e > 8 ὃ , ,
ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων, ἐν ais ἐστὶν Ὀυσνόητά

τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς

γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν ! αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν.

i Acts ii. 8,
Tit..a- το,

17. Ὑμεῖς οὖν, ἀγαπητοί, προγιγώσκοντες φυλάσσεσθε iva μὴ τῇ

ἐπιστολαῖ. This statement implies
neither the inclusion of all the epistles
that have come down to us, nor the
formation of acanon. It is much more
natural to take it as referring to a collec-
tion of letters made not long after Paul’s
death, and read in the churches. The
term 6 ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς in ver.
15 would seem to refer to one whose
memory is still quite fresh in the hearts
of the readers. λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ
τούτων: “where he touches on these
subjects” (Mayor). περὶ τούτων indi-
cates a widening of the reference to in-
clude Paul’s treatment of the whole
question of the Second Coming. The
mention of Paul’s name here implies a
desire on the part of the writer to show
that on this point the Pauline and Petrine
teaching are atone. The false teachers
founded their Antinomian doctrine on
Paul’s teaching about the Grace of God.
ἐν ais, κ.τ.λ. This clearly involves
that a collection of letters is meant.
δυσνόητά τινα. ‘What are the δυσν-
όητά referred to? ‘“ Probably'St. Paul’s
doctrine of God’s free grace (Rom. iii.
5-8), with his apparent disparagement of
the law in Rom. iii. 20-28, iv. 15, v. 20,
vi. 4, vii. 4-11; his teaching with regard
to the πνευματικοὶ, 1 Cor. i. 15 ; with re-
gard to the strong, whom he seems to
just fy in their neglect of the rule made
at the Apostolic Council, as to εἰδωλόθυτα
(Acts xv. 29; Rom. 14; 1 Cor. vili., x.
25); as regards the Resurrection in bap-
tism (Rom. vi. 3-11; Col. iii. 1; 1 Cor.
xv. 12); perhaps as regards predestination
(Rom. ix. 11-21), and the Parousia (2
Th. ii.)”? (Mayor). οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστή-
Ρρικτοι. ἀμαθής is not used elsewhere in
the N.T. It signifies not so much “ un-
learned” as “uneducated”; a mind un-
trained and undisciplined in habits of
thought, lacking in the moral qualities
of a balanced judgment. ἀστήρικτοι
refers more to conduct, those whose
habits are not fully trained and estab-
lished. The reference of ap. καὶ ἄστηρ.
is of course not to the Libertines, but
to a class among the readers. In ver.
17 στηριγµός is used of the readers, in
distinction to the False Teachers, who are
called ἀθέσμων. στρεβλοῦσιν: of per-
sons, ‘to torture,”’ of things, “to wrest”
or “twist ”’.

ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς. (1) There
has been much discussion among com-
mentators as to the meaning of γραφάς.
Spitta takes γραφάς in sense of ‘ writ-
ings,’’ and concludes that these were by
companions of the Apostle Paul; but
this is a very unusual sense of γραφή
unless the name of an author is given.
Mayor and others interpret as the O.T.
Scriptures ; while some who are prepared
to assign a late date in the second cen-
tury to the epistle, think that both Old
and New Testament Scriptures are
meant. On every ground the hypothesis
of γραφάς - Ο.Τ. Scriptures is to be pre-
ferred. (2) The difficulty in connexion
with the meaning of γραφάς is largely
occasioned by the phrase τὰς λοιπὰς yp.
Does this mean that the Epistles of St.
Paul are regarded as Scripture? At-
tempts have been made (e.g., by Dr.
Bigg) to cite classical and other parallels
that would justify the sense for tas
λοιπὰς, “‘the Scriptures as well’. In
these, certain idiomatic uses of ἄλλος
and other words are referred to, but no
real parallel! to this sense of λοιπός can
be found, and the connexion implied in
λοιπός is closer than ἄλλος. The result
of the whole discussion is practically to
compel us to take τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς in
the obvious sense “‘ the rest of the Scrip-
tures,’ and we cannot escape the con-
clusion that the Epistles of Paul are
classed with these. The intention of the
author of 2 Peter seems to be to regard
the Pauline Epistles, or those of them
that he knew, as γραφαὶ, because they
were read in the churches along with the
lessons from the O.T.

Vv. τη 28. Final exhortation.
‘“‘Having then, brethren, been fore-
warned, be on your guard lest you fall
from your own foundation, carried away
by the error of lawless men. Grow in
the grace and knowledge of Our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him,
be glory both now and in the day of
eternity.”

Ver. 17. This verse gathers up various
thoughts that appear elsewhere in the
epistle. Προγινώσκοντες repeats ταῦτα
πρῶτον γινώσκοντες Of i. 20, iii. I;
ἀθέσμων occurs ii. 7; πλάνη ii. 18.
συναπαχθέντες (cf. Galat. ii. 13), ‘car-
tied away". ἀθέσμων, see note ii. 7.

145

METPOY B

Ili, 18.

k Gal. ii. 13. τῶν ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ * συναπαχθέντες ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου στηριγμοῦ,

19. αὐξάνετε δὲ ἐν χάριτι καὶ γνώσει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος
μ

᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

στηριγμοῦ, “steadfastness”; perhaps
“foundation”’ is better, although in this
sense we would expect otyjprypa. There
is, however, a tendency in N.T. to con-
fuse words in -μα -μος. Cf. κύλισμα
(2 Pet. ii. 22). ἁρπαγμός (Phil. ii. 6).
The foundation is the χάρις and γνῶσις of
v. 18. ἰδίου is in emphatic contrast to
the untrustworthy basis of the Libertine
teaching.

Ver. 18. ἐν χάριτι καὶ γνώσει τοῦ
Κυρίον, κ.τ.λ. The genitive is to be
taken with both words. yvéou.s here
means ‘spiritual instruction,’? a know-
ledge that has its source in Christ Him-
self, as distinct from ἐπίγνωσις, which is
personal communion with Christ (see
note i. 5). Ὑγνῶσις is the privilege of the

Staten te δόξ Nha es ac] εν 2A
αυτῷ η οςα και νυν και εις ημεραν σίιωγος.

“friend” of Christ. Cf. John vii. 17,
xv. 15. αὐτῷ. Note that the doxology
is addressed to Christ, and, therefore,
κυρίου ἡμῶν. also refers to Him. eis
ἡμέραν αἰῶνος: “in the day of eter-
nity’. The meanings of eis and ἐν
in later Greek are somewhat interchang-
able (cf. Moulton, Proleg. 234 f.). ἡμ.
ai@vos is a very rare phrase not found
elsewhere in N.T. It is found in Sir.
xviil. Io, where the phrase is ἐν ἡμέρᾳ
ai@vos. The more usual expression is
eis τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. “' εἰς τοὺς
αἰῶνας becomes so immediately the rul-
ing phrase that this Petrine doxology
cannot have been written after liturgical
expressions had become in any degree
stereotyped’ (Bigg).

INTRODUCTION.

ΤΗΕ First EPISTLE.

Tue first Epistle differs from all the other N.T. Epistles save the
Epistle to the Hebrews in this, that it is anonymous. The author,
however, claims to have been an eye-witness of the Word of Life
(i. 1-3) and speaks throughout in-a tone of apostolic authority, and
there is abundance of primitive and credible testimony that he was
St. John, ‘‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,” and the last survivor of
the Apostle-company.

1. The MSS. Titles.—AB Ἰωάνου (-άννου) a: S “lwdvvou ἐπιστολὴ
a: L ἐπιστολὴ καθολικἠ τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου Ἰωάννου: P Ιωάννου τοῦ
εὐαγγελιστοῦ καὶ ἀποσίτόλου ἐπιστολὴ) a. Two later MSS. have inter-
esting titles—13 ἐπιστολὴ α Ἰωάννου: εὐαγγελικὴ θεολογία περὶ xu: f
βροντῆς vids Ἰωάννης τάδε χριστιανοῖσιν.ὶ

2. Patristic Evidence.—Polycarp. ad Philipp. viii.: was γὰρ ὃς ἂν
μὴ ὁμολογῇ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστικ---α mani-
fest echo of 1 John iv. 2,5. This proves the early date of our Epistle
and the esteem in which it was held, and if it does not attest the
Johannine authorship, it at least suggests it. Polycarp had known
several of the Apostles and of those who had seen the Lord; he had
been a disciple of St. John and had been ordained by him bishop of
Smyrna; and he was the leading ecclesiastic in the whole of Asia.
Cf. Jer. Script. Eccles.; tren. ΤΠ. iii. 4.

Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) says that Papias, whom Irenzus had
called “a hearer of John and a comrade of Polycarp, an ancient man

1St. Augustine’s discourses on the First Epistle are entitled ‘‘ Ten Treatises on
the Epistle of John to the Parthians (In Epistolam ¥oannis ad Parthos Tractatus
Decem),” and he elsewhere quotes from the Epistle under this strange title (Quest.
Ev. ii. 39). Probably the Epistle was entitled in some MS. Ἰωάννου τοῦ παρθένον,
as the Apocalypse is entitled in 30 αποκαλυψ. του aytov ενδοξοτατου αποστολου
και εναγγελιστου παρθενου ηγαπηµενου επιστηθιον twavvov θεολογου, and TOY-
ΠΑΡΘΕΝΟΥ was mistaken tor ΠΡΟΣΠΑΡΘΟΥΣ. The Latin frag. of Clem. Alex.’s
exposition of the Second Epistle begins: ‘* Secunda Joannis epistola que ad virgines
Scripta,” where “ Joannis ad virgines’’ probably represents *lwavvov τοῦ παρθένου.

152 ΟΙ INTRODUCTION

(Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονὼς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ),
“used testimonies from the first (former) epistle of John (κέχρηται δ᾽
ὁ αὐτὸς µαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς) . προτέρας is
merely a grammatical inaccuracy, as conversely πρῶτος for πρότερος
in Matt. xxi. 36; Acts i. 1; 1 Cor. xiv. 30; Heb. x. 9; Rev. xxi. 1.
Cf. Eus. H. E. tii. 24; ἡ προτέρα τῶν ἐπιστολῶν . . . at λοιπαὶ δύο.

Irenzus, a disciple of Polycarp! and bishop of Lyons, quotes 1
John ii. 18, 19, 21, 22, iv. 1, 3, v. 1, and says expressly that he is.
quoting from the Epistle of St. John.?

The Muratorian Canon (about Α.Ρ. 170) includes our epistle and
ascribes it to St. John: ‘‘ Quid ergo mirum si Johannes tam constanter
singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat, dicens in semetipso: Que
vidimus oculis nostris, et auribus audivimus, et manus nortre pal-
paverunt, hec scripsimus ?” Cf. 1 John i. 1.8

These testimonies are primitive, and there is no need to adduce
in addition the later and abundant testimonies of Clement of Alex-
andria, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Athanasius.

With no less unanimity and emphasis does ancient tradition.
ascribe the Fourth Gospel to St. John, and it hardly admits of
reasonable doubt that the Gospel and the Epistle are from the one
pen. They agree in style, language, and thought. They have the
same Hebraistic style, abounding in parallelism (e.g. cf. 1 John ii.
10, 11 with John iti. 18, 20, 21) and parataxis (the co-ordinating καί is.
the favourite conjunction). Their style is identical, and it is unique
in the N.T. They have, moreover, common phrases and expressions
Cf. Ep. i. 1, 2 with Gosp. i. 1, 2, 4, 14: Ep. i. 4 with Gosp. xv. 11,
xvi. 24; Ep. ii. 1 with Gosp. xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7; Ep. ii. 8 with
Gosp. xili. 34, xv. 10,12; Ep. ii. 11 with Gosp. xii. 35; Ep. iii. 8, 15
with Gosp. viii. 44; Ep. iii. 11, 16 with Gosp. xv. 12, 13; Ep. iii. 12
with Gosp. vii. 7; Ep. iii. 13 with Gosp. xv. 18,19; Ep. iii. 14 with
Gosp. v. 24; Ep. iv. 6 with Gosp. viii. 47 ; Ep. iv. 12 with Gosp. i. 14 ;.
Ep. iv. 14 with Gosp. iii. 17; Ep. v. 3 with Gosp. xiv. 15, 21; Ep. v.
6-8 with Gosp. xix. 34,35; Ep. v. 9 with Gosp. v. 32, 34, 36, viii. 17,
18; Ep. v.10 with Gosp. iii. 33; Ep. v. 12 with Gosp, iii. 15, 36;
Ep. v. 13 with Gosp. xx. 31; Ep. v. 14 with Gosp. xiv. 13, 14, xvi. 23;
Ep. v. 20 with Gosp. xvii. 3. Then they have in common certain
fundamental conceptions which are thus defined and enumerated by
Dr. H. J. Holtzmann: “the Son of God in the Flesh, the Life, which.
has its source in Him and is identical with Him, the Being in Him,
the Abiding in God, the Love of God actualised in the Sending of.

4 Jer. Script. Eccles. 2Tren. III. xviii. 5, 8.
*The Mur. Can. is given in Routh’s Relig. Sacr., i. pp. 394 seq.

a

INTRODUCTION 153

the Son, the resultant Commandment of Brotherly Love, the Walking
in the Light, the Begetting of God, the Overcoming of the World,
etc. ; the antitheses of Life and Death, Light and Darkness, Love and
Hate, Truth and Lying, Father and World, God and Devil, Children
of God and Children of the Devil.’’ Thus inextricably are the two
works intertwined. ‘Our Epistle,” says Rothe, ‘has throughout as
its presupposition the peculiar conception of the person and history
of the Redeemer, in general the peculiar conception of Christianity,
which prevails in the Gospel. Consequently, if the Fourth Gospel is
a work of the Apostle John, our Epistle also belongs as indubitably to
him ; as in the contrary case our Epistle could be no composition of
the Apostle John.”

The common authorship has nevertheless been called in question
on the ground of certain alleged divergences which, says Schmiedel,
‘““are explained much more easily on the assumption that the two
writings come from different writers though belonging to one and the
same school of thought.” The divergences are (1) linguistic, and (2)
doctrinal.

(1) The words ἀγγελία, ἐπαγγελία, διάνοια, παρουσία, ἐλπίς, ἀνομία
and others occur in the Epistle and not in the Gospel. But what
then? A writer need not exhaust his entire vocabulary in a single
writing: that would argue extreme barrenness of mind. Does it
follow that the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts are by different
authors because ἐλπίς never occurs in the former and eight times in
the latter, or that the Epistle to the Romans is not St. Paul’s because
ἱλαστήριον occurs in it and in no other of his Epistles? The only
reasonable inference from the occurrence of words in the Epistle
which are absent from the Gospel is that the former is not an imita-
tion of the latter.

(2) The following instances of doctrinal divergence are adduced :
(a) thacpds in Ep. ii. 2, iv. 10 and nowhere else in the N.T.; whereas,
says Martineau, ‘the gospel knows nothing of an atoning or pro-
pitiatory efficacy in the blood of Christ”. It is true that the word is
not found in the Gospel, but the idea is. Cf. i. 29, x. 11, 15, xi. 49,
52. (b) χρῖσμα (Ep. ii. 20, 27) is another ἅπαξ λεγόμενο. The very
idea, however, is found in the Gospel (xiv. 26, xvi. 19). (ο) The
Gospel is more spiritual in its eschatology, representing the Judgment
not as future but as present (11. 18) and the Coming of Christ as
happening in the experience of each believer (xiv. 3); whereas the

1See Holtzmann’s Εἰπί. in das N.T., and his elaborate discussion: Das Prodl,

des erst. johann, Br. in sein. Verhalt. zum Ev. in Fahrb. f. prot. Theol. (1881-82) ;
Martineau’s Seat of Auth., p. 509; Schmiedel in Encycl. Bibl., vol. ii., cols. 2556-7.

154 INTRODUCTION

Epistle represents the παρουσία (ii. 28) as ‘a visible individual occur-
rence” on a particular day (iv. 17). This is simply erroneous. The
Gospel also speaks of a final and universal Judgment (ν. 29), ‘‘the
last day” (vi. 39, 40, 44,54; xi. 24), and a personal Coming of Christ
(xxi. 22, 23).1 (d) The Παράκλητος is the Holy Spirit in the Gospel,
Jesus in the Epistle. Here, however, there is no divergence. The
doctrine of the Epistle explains the Gospel’s ἄλλον Παράκλητον (xiv.
16). See commentary on Π. 1.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that the Epistle and the Gospel are
from the same pen. ‘The identity of authorship in the two books,’
says Lightfoot,? ‘‘though not undisputed, is accepted with such a
degree of unanimity that it may be placed in the category of acknow-
ledged facts.”” And they have a very intimate connection. This is
abundantly apparent from internal evidence. The Epistle opens with
a reference to the Gospel-narrative, and there is an unmistakable
relation between 1 John v. 13 and John xx. 31 (see commentary).
Indeed the Epistle throughout has the Gospel as its background and
is hardly intelligible without it. It is, in the language of Lightfoot,’
«κα devotional and moral application of the main ideas which are
evolved historically in the sayings and doings of Christ recorded in
the Gospel”. And it is significant that the Muratorian Canon men-
tions the First Epistle in connection with the Gospel, and the Second
and Third Epistles after an interval in their natural place among the
other Epistles of the N.T.

The precise connection between them is nowhere indicated, but
it appears from a consideration of the historical situation. The
fall of Jerusalem in Α.Ρ. 70 dispersed the Church, and a colony of
disciples found a home in Asia Minor. It was a considerable and
increasingly influential community, including, in the phrase of Poly-
crates of Ephesus, “great luminaries (μεγάλα otoyeia)”’—not only
the Apostles Philip and Andrew® but, according to abundant and
trustworthy tradition, St. John. The fatter fixed his residence at
Ephesus, where there was a church founded by St. Paul.’ It was
the proudest boast of Ephesus that she was “the Temple-sweeper
(νεωκόρος) of Artemis” (Acts xix. 35), and the Temple which she had
reared for her goddess was one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient

1John xxi. is an addition to the Gospel. but it is by the same hand, ‘‘a post-
script from the same pen as the rest” (Renan).

2 Ess. on Sup. Rel., pp. 186 f. 3 Tbid., p. 188.

4Eus. H. £. tii: 31, ν. 24. 5 Mur. Can.

60η the credibility of this tradition see Drummond, The Char. and Auth. of the

Fourth Gospel, pp. 814 ff.
7Tren. III. iii. 4.

INTRODUCTION ιός

world; and in that historic and brilliant city St. John exercised his
ministry to the end of his long life, which lasted until the reign of
Trajan (Α.Ρ. 98-117).}

It was an active and gracious ministry. It had Ephesus for its
headquarters, but it comprehended a wide area. St. John took over-
sight of all the Christian communities in the surrounding country—
such as the churches of Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis,
them by letters and visitations. ‘He would go away when invited,”
says Clement of Alexandria,? “to the neighbouring districts of the
Sentiles, here to appoint bishops, there to form new churches, and
there to put into the office of the ministry some one of those that
were indicated by the Spirit.” And Clement proceeds to relate an
interesting story, μῦθον οὗ μῦθον. The Apostle once visited a neigh-
bouring city—Smyrna, according to the Alexandrian Chronicle—and
saw there a lad of stalwart form, charming face, and ardent spirit.
«1 deposit this lad in thy keeping,” he said to the bishop, “ with all
earnestness, taking the Church and Christ to witness.” The bishop
accepted the trust and, when St. John returned to Ephesus, took the
lad home, nurtured him, and finally baptised him. Then, thinking
he had done enough, he let him alone, and the lad fell into evil
company, committed a crime, and, fleeing to the mountains, became
the captain of a band of brigands. By and by St. John revisited that
city, and after settling the business which had brought him, he said:
“‘ Now then, bishop, restore us the deposit which the Saviour and |
entrusted to thee”. The bishop was thunderstruck, supposing that

he was being accused of some pecuniary intromission. “It is the
lad that I am requiring,” explained St. John, ‘and the soul of the
brother.” The bishop groaned and wept: “He is dead!” “How?

When? And whatdeath?” “Πε is dead to God,” said the bishop,
and told the story. The Apostle rent his robe and with a loud cry
smote his head. ‘A fine guardian of the brother’s soul did | leave
in thee! Let me have a horse forthwith and some one to show me
the way.” And he rode off and found the lost youth, and by tender
entreaties won him to penitence and brought him back to the
Church.

Such was the ministry of St. John at Ephesus, and it was far on
in the course of it that he wrote his Gospel, ‘‘ having employed all
the time an unwritten message’’. He wrote it, says the Muratorian
Canon, “at the exhortation of his fellow-disciples and bishops,” {.ε.,
his own congregation at Ephesus and his colleagues in the neigh-

αἹτεη. ILI. iii. 4. 2 De Div. Serv. 42. 8 Eus. H. Ε. iii. 24.

156 INTRODUCTION

bouring churches within the circuit of his supervision. It was
intended for the instruction and edification of the Christians all over
that extensive area. And the Epistle is, in the phrase of Lightfoot,
a ‘“commendatory postscript’ to the Gospel. This explains the
circumstance of its having neither address nor signature. It was
not sent to a particular community, and since it was an appendix to
the Gospel, it had no need to be inscribed with the author’s name.

The aim of the Epistle is twofold—polemical and religious.
Irenzeus says! that ‘‘John the disciple of the Lord desired by the
declaration of his Gospel to remove the error which had been sown
among men by Cerinthus and, much earlier, by those who are called
Nicolaitans’’. And this is borne out by the companion Epistle. It
is against these two heresies that the polemic of the latter is directed.

1. It is said that the Nicolaitans were the followers of Nicolas,
one of the seven deacons (Acts vi. 5),” and this strange story is told
of him by Clement of Alexandria’: ‘‘ He had, they say, a beautiful
wife, and after the Ascension of the Saviour, being taunted by the
Apostles with jealousy, he brought the woman forward and gave who
would permission to marry her. This, they say, is in accordance
with that expression of his: ‘We must abuse the flesh’. And indeed
the adherents of his sect follow up the incident and the saying abso-
lutely and unquestioningly and commit fornication without restraint’.
Clement proceeds to attest the moral purity of Nicolas and explain
his action as an inculcation of ascetic self-restraint, but certainly the
sect which bore his name was given over to licentiousness. Clement
says elsewhere‘ that they were ‘dissolute as he-goats,” and others
bear like testimony. They were Antinomians, disowning moral
obligation, nullam differentiam esse docentes in mechando et idolothy-
ton edere ;® herein being forerunners of the Gnostics and justifying
Tertullian’s classification of them with the Cainites.’ This heresy
was rampant among the churches of Asia Minor in St. John’s day
(cf. Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15), and he deals with it in our Epistle. See i. 5-
ii. 6, 15-17, iii. 3-10.

2. Cerinthus also was an Antinomian,® but his distinctive heresy
was a theory of the Person of Christ. He taught in Asia, but he
had been trained in Egypt,? and the foundation of his system, as of

ο xis. 2 Tren. Ἱ. xxiii.

3 Strom. iii. 4; cf. Eus. H. E. iii. 29. 4 Strom. ii. 20,
5 Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. i. 29; Hippol. Phil. vii. 36.
6Ίτεῃ., l.c. ’ De Prescript. Her. 33.

8 Dionysius of Alexandria in Eus. H. E. iii. 28,
® Theodoret. H. E. ii. 3.

INTRODUCTION 157

Marcion’s, was that postulate of Greek philosophy—the inherent and
necessary evil of matter. ‘He said that the world had not been
made by the First God, but by a power which is separate from the
Authority which is over the Universe and ignorant of the God who
is over all. And he supposed that Jesus had not been begotten of a
virgin, but had been born of Joseph and Mary asa son in like manner
to all the rest of men, and became more righteous and prudent and
wise. And after the Baptism the Christ descended into him from
the Sovereignty which is over the Universe, in the form of a dove ;
and then He proclaimed the unknown Father and accomplished
mighty works, but at the end the Christ withdrew from the Jesus,
and the Jesus had suffered and been raised, but the Christ had
continued throughout impassible, being spiritual.”1 The essence of
this is the dissolution (λύσις) of the Person of our Lord, the distinc-
tion between the human Jesus and the divine Christ. St. John
encountered Cerinthus at Ephesus, and strenuously controverted his
error. Irenzeus and Eusebius quote a story of Polycarp’s that the
Apostle once visited the public baths, and, seeing Cerinthus within,
sprang out of the building. ‘‘Let us flee,” he cried, “lest the
building fall, since Cerinthus, the foe of the Truth, is within it!” ?
And all through our Epistle he has the heresy in view. See ii. 18-
23, iv. 1-6, 13-15, v. 1-12.

The Epistle has also a religious purpose. Its key-note is Love.
‘‘Locutus est multa,” says St. Augustine, ‘et prope omnia de
caritate.” Its doctrine of love is distinctive and profound. The
love which it inculcates is love for God and love for the brotherhood
of believers—love for God manifesting itself in love for the brother-
hood, and love for the brotherhood inspired by the love wherewith
the Father has loved all His children. Special emphasis is laid on
the latter. It is the whole of religion, it is all that God requires (cf.
ii. 8-11, 11. 10-18, iv. 7-v. 2); for it implies love for God, and love
for God implies a right attitude of heart and mind toward Him.
This is the dominant doctrine of the Epistle, and it was the constant
message of the Apostle’s later ministry, so much so that, it is said,
_ his people grew weary of its incessant reiteration. See St. Jerome’s
story quoted in commentary on iv. 7. ‘

This had not always been his manner. He had not always been
the Apostle of Love. He had once been the precise opposite—
self-seeking (cf. Mark x. 35-45= Matt. xx. 20-28), fiery, passionate,
and vindictive (cf. Luke ix. 51-56), meriting the title which Jesus
gave him “the Son of Thunder” (Mark iii. 17). His doctrine of

1Ἱτεῃ. I. xxi. 2Tren. III. iii. 4; Eus. H. E. iv. 14.

158 / INTRODUCTION

the Supremacy of Love was a late discovery, and he proclaims it
as such (see commentary on ii. 7-11). It was not merely an article
of his polemic, a protest against the loveless intellectualism where-
with St. Ignatius charges the heretical teachers (τοὺς ἑτεροδοξοῦντας),
who had ‘“‘no concern for love, none for the widow, none for the
orphan, none for the distressed, none for the bondman, none for the
hungry or the thirsty.” 1. It was a personal confession. That was
an aspect of the Gospel which St. John had himself too long failed
to perceive; and it may be that it had been revealed to him by two
life-transforming experiences. (1) His Exile in Patmos (Rev. i. 9).?
During that season of retirement he could look back over his inter-
rupted ministry and review his methods. Incidents like his encounter
with Cerinthus would recur to him, and would appear to his chastened
spirit ill accordant with “the meekness and sweet reasonableness of
Christ” (2 Cor. x. 1). It was right that he should contend for the
Truth, but had not his intemperate zeal too often caused needless
offence and defeated its own end by hardening the hearts of his
opponents? He would discover the truth of St. Paul’s precept that
“the Lord’s servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all” (2
Tim. ii. 24). (2) The writing of his Gospel. As he lived over again
those three years of blessed fellowship and told ‘‘ what he had heard
and seen concerning the Word of Life,’ he would realise the pity
and patience of the gentle Jesus, and feel as though he had never
until that hour understood the Gospel-story. And he would address”

himself to what remained of his ministry in a new spirit. “ Little
children, love one another.” ‘‘Master, why do you always say
this?” ‘Because it is the Lord’s commandment, and if only it

be done, it is enough.”

ΤΗΕ SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES.

There is no doubt that the Second and Third Epistles are from
the same hand. Cf. 2 John 1 with 3 John 1; 2 John 4 with 3 John
3, 4; 2 John 10 with 3 John 8; 2 John 12 with 3 John 13, 14. Are
they also the work of St. John?

This was a disputed question in the early Church. Eusebius in
his chapter “ On the Acknowledged Divine Scriptures and those that

1Ad Smyrn. vi. Cf. Barn. Ep. xx. 2: οὐκ ἐλεῶντες πτωχόν, οὐ πονοῦντες ἐπὶ
καταπονουµένῳ . . « ἀποστρεφόμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμενον Kal καταπονοῦντες τὸν
θλιβόμενον.

2 Put by Eus. Η. Ε. ili. 23 in the reign of Domitian (Α.Ρ. 51-06), by Epiphan.
Her. li. 33 in that of Claudius (A.p. 41-54).

INTRODUCTION 159

are not such (περὶ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων θείων γραφῶν καὶ τῶν μὴ τοιούτων) }
includes the Second and Third Epistles of John (ἡ ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα
καὶ τρίτη Ἰωάννου) among “those that are controverted yet recognised
by most (τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων, Ὑνωρίμων 8 οὖν ὅμως τοῖς todos)’. So
Origen:? “He (John) has left an epistle of a very few lines; also,
let it be granted, a second and a third, since not all allow that these
are genuine. However, there are not a hundred lines in them both.”
And in the fourth century an opinion was put forward, which still
finds favour, that their author was indeed John, only not John the
Apostle but another John denominated “the Presbyter ”’.

There is, however, very strong evidence, both internal and ex-
ternal, on the other side. They exhibit coincidences of thought and
language which link them with the First Epistle. Cf. 1 John ii. 7
with 2 John 5; 1 John ii. 18, iv. 1-3 with 2 John 7; 1 John ii. 23
with 2 John 9; 1 John iii. 6, 9 with 3 John 11. And the external
testimony, though scanty, is weighty. The Muratorian Canon,
despite the corruption of the passage, plainly attests the two epistles
as works of the Apostle John and as accepted in the Catholic Church
(superscripti Fohannis duas in catholica habentur). Irenzeus* quotes
2 John 11 with the preface Ἰωάννης δὲ 6 τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητὴς ἐπέτεινε τὴν
καταδίκην αὐτῶν μηδὲ xalpew αὐτοῖς ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν λέγεσθαι βουληθεί. And
again, after a reference to the First Epistle, he quotes 2 John 7, 8 as
a saying of the Lord’s disciple John “in the aforesaid epistle’’.°
This slip of memory only makes the attestation more effective.
Irenzeus knew that it was a saying of St. John that he was quoting:
the Second Epistle no less than the First was the Apostle’s. Clement
of Alexandria too recognised more than one Epistle of St. John, for
in one place he quotes 1 John v. 16 as occurring ‘in his larger
Epistle (ἐν τῇ µείζονι ἐπιστολῇ), © and elsewhere he speaks of “ the
Second Epistle of John”’.?

The ground for the ascription of the two smaller epistles to John
the Presbyter is the fact that their author styles himself 6 πρεσβύτ-
epos. But it can hardly be maintained in view of his self-revelation
in the Third Epistle. He appears there as exercising authoritative
supervision over a wide circle of churches, writing to them, visiting
them, interfering in their dissensions and settling these by his per-,
sonal and solitary arbitrament, sending deputies and receiving their

DH. BE. iti. 25:

2 Comm. in Ev. ¥oan. v. 3 (ed. Lommatzsch, vol. i., p. 165).

3Eus. Η. Ε. iii. 39; cf. Jer. Script. Eccles. under F¥oannes Apostolus; Ραβίας.
OT ix) 3. 5 III. xvii. 8, 8 Strom. ii. 15.

7 Adumbrat. in Ep. Foan. ii.

φ
160 INTRODUCTION

reports. This is precisely the sort of ministry which, as we have
seen,! St. John exercised in Asia Minor, and it would have been
impossible for any lesser personage than an Apostle? It may,
moreover, be questioned whether such slight compositions as these
two little letters would have won recognition had they not been
recommended by the name of the Apostle John. And it was natural
that the latter should style himself 6 πρεσβύτερο. The term was
not only an official designation (cf. 1 Tim. v. 1, 17, 19). The second
generation of Christians used it of their predecessors, “the men
of early days,” Mdnner der Vorzeit, who had witnessed the great
beginnings. Thus, Papias uses it of the Apostles,? and Irenzeus in
turn uses it of Papias and his contemporaries. It was therefore
natural that St. John, the last of the Apostles, the sole survivor of
“the elder men,” should be known among the churches of Asia as
6 πρεσβύτερος.

And indeed it is very questionable whether this John the Pres-
byter ever existed. He was discovered by Eusebius in the preface
to Papias’ work Expositions of Dominical Oracles, but “it is well,”
remarks Barth, “to distinguish between what Papias really says and
what Eusebius has made of his words”. Here are the words of
Papias: “I shall not hesitate to incorporate for you with my inter-
pretations as many things as I once learned well from the elders
(τῶν πρεσβυτέρων) and remembered well, guaranteeing their truth.
Por I did not, like so many, take pleasure in those that have so
much to say but in those that teach the truth, nor in those that
remember alien commandments but in those that remember the
commandments that have been given by the Lord to the Faith and
come from the Truth itself. Now if anywhere one came in my way
who had been a follower of the elders (τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις), I would
search® the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said
(εἶπεν), or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or any
other of the Lord’s disciples; and (I would search) the things which
Aristion and the elder John (6 πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης), the Lord’s dis-
ciples, say (λέγουσιν) ”’.6

ρε ρ τος

* Cf. Barth, Die Hauptprobl., S. 26: “In der That nun ist diese ‘ patriarchalisch-
monarchische’ Autoritaét unerklarlich bei einem einfachen Presbyter einer Local-

gemeinde; sie erklart sich aber vollkommen, wenn der πρεσβύτερος wie Paulus ein
Apostel gewesen ist.”

Bus. Ἡ. Β. iti. 39. 4V. xxxvi. et passim. Similarly in Heb. xi. 2.

ὃ ἀνέκρινον, not “enquire about”. Jerome (Script. Eccles. under Ραβίας) rightly
tenders considervabam.

SEs. Ἡ. (2. i. 5ο.

INTRODUCTION 161

And this is what Eusebius makes of the passage: “ Here it is
worthy of observation how he twice enumerates the name of John.
The former of these he reckons along with Peter and James and
Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, plainly indicating the Evan-
gelist ; and the other John after an interval he ranks with others
outside the number of the Apostles, having put Aristion before him,
and he plainly names him ‘an elder (πρεσβύτερον)᾽; so that the
truth of their story is hereby demonstrated who have said that two
persons in Asia have had the same name, and there are two tombs
in Ephesus and each is called John’s to this day.”"! Eusebius had a
theological interest in putting this construction on the passage. He
disliked the Chiliasm of the Apocalypse, and he was glad to find a
second John to whom he could ascribe its authorship. And he has
certainly perverted the passage. Papias is here defining the plan of
his work. His method was (1) to quote a logion of Jesus, (2) to
interpret it, and (3) to illustrate it by any story which he had gleaned
from oral tradition. Such stories he derived from two sources.
One was their followers’ reports of what they had heard from the
lips of “the elders,” i.e., as Papias used the term, the Apostles.
These reports he “searched” for suitable illustrations. But he was
not wholly dependent on hearsay. Two of the men who had been
with Jesus were still alive in the earlier years of Papias—Aristion,
not an Elder or Apostle but a disciple of the Lord, and the Elder
John; and he enjoyed the advantage of hearing their living voices,
and he “would search” their discourses for the material he required.
The transition from “had said (etwev)”’ to ‘‘say (λέγουσιν),᾽ though
ignored by Eusebius, is significant and explains the double mention
of St. John. Papias had derived his knowledge of St. John’s teach-
ing from two sources: (1) from the reports of men who had com-
panied with him and the other Apostles while they still tarried at
Jerusalem, and (2) from his own lips after his settlement at Ephesus,
where, Irenzeus says,2 Papias had been one of his “hearers”’.
6 πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης must mean “the Apostle John,” since the
Apostles have just been called “the Elders”’ (τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις),
and it is impossible that the term should bear different meanings
within the compass of a single sentence. In his phrase “from the
Truth itself (am αὐτῆς τῆς adnfeias)”? Papias echoes 3 John 12,
and this renders it more than likely that he called St. John 6

1 Eusebius probably had this story from Dionysius of Alexandria (cf. H.E. vii.
25). It means simply that in the fourth century there were two rival sites for St.
John’s burial-place.

SCG |p. D5.

~

162 INTRODUCTION

πρεσβύτερος because the latter had so styled himself in each of the
Epistles.!

' The Second Epistle is addressed ἐκλεκτῇ kupia καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις
αὐτῆς, and the meaning of the address is a disputed question.? It
was supposed by St. Jerome,® and the idea is approved by many
moderns, that “ {πε elect lady’’ 4 is a figurative appellation, signifying
either the whole Church (Hilgenfeld, Mangold) or a particular
community (Hofmann, Ewald, Huther, Wieseler). The main argu-
ments are that the universal affection spoken of in verse 1 could
hardly have been felt for an individual, and that it is “not impro-
bable”’ that this is the Epistle referred to in 3 John 9. The meta-
phor is indeed paralleled by Eph. v. 22-33 and Rev. xxi. 9; but it is
the Church which is thus designated, not a particular community,
and, on the ecclesiastical interpretation, it is a particular community
that is here addressed, since St. John sends greetings to the “elect
lady” from “the children of her elect sister’ (verse 13), 7.e., pre-
sumably, his own congregation. And, moreover, the simplicity of the
little letter precludes the possibility of so elaborate an allegory, while
the tenderness of its tone stamps it as a personal communication.

It is therefore not a church but a lady that is addressed, and
there are authority and reason for regarding Κυρία as her name.‘
The name was common in those days, and it occurs, ε.ρ., in the
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 498: ᾿Αντωνίᾳ ᾿Ασκληπιάδι τῇ καὶ Κυρία. 914:
Αὐρήλιος ᾽Απϕοῦτος vids ᾿Αρεοῦτος μητρὸς Κυρίας. It is the Greek form
of Martha, which means “mistress (domina)”. The objection has
been urged that, if it be a proper name, St. John must have written
not ἐκλεκτῇ Κυρίᾳ but Kupia τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ on the analogy of Γαϊῷ τῷ
ἀγαπητῷ in 3 John 1; but either construction is permissible. The
former is paralleled by 1 Peter i. 1: ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήµοις, and if

* On the identity of John the Presbyter and John the Apostle see Barth, Haupt-
probl., S. 26-29; Farrar, Early Days, Exc. xiv.

* Cf. scholium quoted by Euth. Zig.: ἢ πρὸς ἐκκλησίαν γράφει ἢ πρός τινα
γυναῖκα διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν ἐντολῶν τὴν ἑαυτῆς οἰκίαν οἰκονομοῦσαν πνεν-
ματικῶς.

3 Ep. ad Ageruchiam.

+ The words, however, can hardly mean more than “an elect lady”.

5 Schmiedel in Encyci. Bibl., vol. ii., col. 2560. Cf. Β. Weiss, Exnleit.

® Others take ᾿Εκλεκτῇ as the name (“the lady Electa”). Clem. Αἶεχ.: “ad
quandam Babyloniam (probably a confused reference, for which the translator is
responsible, to 1 Peter v. 13) Electam nomine”. Clement apparently took Electa
as the Church personified, for he proceeds: “ significat electionem ecclesiz sanctz ”’.
But then ᾿Ἐκλεκτῆς in verse 13 must also be a proper name, and two sisters can
hardly have borne the same name.

[

INTRODUCTION 1623

there be any irregularity, it is in the latter, where τῷ ἀγαπητῷ is a
defining after-thought (cf. 1 John 1. 2: τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, “the life,
the eternal life’). Carpzov would identify Kyria (Martha) with the
sister of Lazarus and Mary. The family of Bethany disappear from
the Gospel-story after the feast in Levi’s house at the beginning
of the Passion-week. They probably fled to escape the fury of the
rulers, and it is just possible that they had found a home in Asia
Minor like so many other refugees from Palestine! And now
Martha is living in one of the cities of St. John’s diocese, a widow
with a grown-up family; and it is natural that she should be dear to
the Apostle and honoured by the whole Church. This is a pleasant
fancy, but it is nothing more.

The facts are sufficiently interesting. The epistle is addressed
to a devout lady named Kyria, who resided in one of the cities near
Ephesus with a grown-up family. It is remarkable how large a part
was played by women in the life of the primitive Church, especially
in Asia Minor,? and Kyria was an honourable and influential person-
age not only in her own community but all over that wide area
(verse 1). It is probable that, like that of Nympha at Colossz,’ her
house was the meeting-place of the Church, according to the custom
of those days when there were no ecclesiastical edifices; and it
appears from verse 10 that she afforded hospitality to the itinerant
evangelists of whom the Third Epistle speaks. A sister of Kyria,
presumably deceased, had a family resident at Ephesus and con-
nected with St. John’s congregation; and several of Kyria’s sons
had visited their cousins. The Apostle had met with them and
found them earnest Christians, and in the gladness of his heart
he wrote to their mother, testifying his gratification, giving some
kindly counsel very needful in those days of intellectual unrest, and
expressing the hope that he might ere long visit her.

The Third Epistle is addressed to “Gaius the beloved”. Gaius
(never Caius) was one of the commonest of names, and there
are three who bear it in the N.T. (1) Gaius of Macedonia (Acts xix.
29), (2) Gaius of Derbe (Acts xx. 4), and (3) Gaius of Corinth
(Rom. xvi. 23; 2 Cor. i. 14). The name being so common, our
Gaius may very well have been different from all these, but it is
affirmed in the interesting Synopsis Sacre Scripture ascribed to St.
Athanasius that St. John composed his Gospel during his exile in
Patmos and that Gaius of Corinth acted as his amanuensis and

1See p. 154. 2 Cf. Ramsay, The Church in the Rom. Emp., p. 67.
* Col. iv. 15: Νύμφαν καὶ τὴν kat’ αὐτῆς ἐκκλησίαν (WH Nest).

164 INTRODUCTION

published it at Ephesus! And it appears from the “ Apostolic
Constitutions” (vii. 46) that one Gaius was ordained by St. John
first ‘‘ bishop” of Pergamum.

Whatever be the value of these traditions, it is evident that
Gaius was a prominent personage, probably bishop or presbyter, in
one of the churches of Asia Minor, and St. Paul’s description of
Gaius of Corinth, “the host of me and of the whole Church,” might
have been written of him. Trouble had arisen in his congregation,
the ringleader being Diotrephes, probably a wealthy layman. The
primitive Church was rent by factions, each swearing by one or
other of the great teachers (cf. 1 Cor. i. 10-17), and it may be that
Diotrephes belonged to the Pauline faction and abjured St. John
and disowned his authority.2— The actual truth, however, is that he
was an opinionative and domineering man who insisted on having
his own way in everything. The occasion of the trouble was a visit
which had been paid to the Church of Gaius by a company of
itinerant evangelists (wandernde Glaubensboten). This order of
“ prophets ’’ was a recognised institution. Their office was to travel
about preaching to the Gentiles and seeking to win them to the
Faith. There were sometimes unworthy men among them who
traded on the Gospel and merited the stinging epithet of “ Christ-
traffickers (χριστέµποροι),᾽ and very stringent regulations are laid
down regarding them in the Didache ;* but their ministry was a
needful and heroic one. They abandoned everything for Christ’s
sake and, to obviate misrepresentation, took nothing from the Gen-
tiles—no food, no lodging. Thus they were dependent on the good
offices of the believers wherever they went, and it was a debt of
honour to see that they suffered no lack. Gaius had given a hospit-
able welcome to that company of “prophets”; but Diotrephes,
disowning the Apostle’s authority, opposed the reception of his
emissaries and would have denied them entertainment. On their
return to Ephesus they reported the incident at a meeting of the
Church; and St. John wrote this letter and sent it by Demetrius,
commending the action of Gaius and intimating his intention of

1 τὸ δὲ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην εὐαγγέλιον ὑπηγορεύθη τε Um αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Ιωάννου
τοῦ ἀποστόλου καὶ ἠγαπημένου, ὄντος ἐξορίστου ἐν Matpw τῇ νήσῳ, καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ
αὐτοῦ ἐξεδόθη ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ διὰ Γαΐου τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ καὶ ξενοδόχου τῶν ἀποστόλων,
περὶ οὗ καὶ Παῦλος 'Ῥωμαίοις γράφων φησί" ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Γάϊος ὃ ξένος µου
καὶ ὅλης τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

21: has been thought incredible that the great Apostle should have been so
cavalierly treated (cf. verses 9, 10), but great men are usually less honoured by their
contemporaries than by after generations.

3 xi-xiii. Cf. 2 John το, 11.

INTRODUCTION 165

visiting his Church at an early date and reducing the recalcitrant
Diotrephes to order.

Tue TRxT OF THE EPISTLES.

The accompanying Greek text is the regia editio (1560) of Robert
Stephanus (Etienne), commonly known in England as the Textus
Receptus.1 Constructed from a few late and inferior MSS. when the
science of Textual Criticism was yet unborn, it is far from satisfac-
tory; and the principal variants are presented in the critical notes,
The long and patient labours of Mill, Bentley, Griesbach, Lachmann.
Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort have cleared away
the rubbish of corruption and reduced uncertainty to a minimum;
and Dr, Eberhard Nestle’s text (British and Foreign Bible Society)
is probably a very close approximation to the sacred autographs. It
is “the resultant of a collation” of the monumental recensions of
Tischendorf (8th edition, 1869-72), Westcott and Hort (1881), and
Bernhard Weiss (2nd edition, 1905). ‘‘ The readings adopted in the
text are those in which at least two of these editions agree.”

The materia critica is copious and excellent. 1. Greek MSS. :—

:Ν Codex Sinaiticus, 4th ο. Discovered by Tischendorf in
1844 and 1859 in the monastery of St. Catherine at the
foot of Mount Sinai. Now at St. Petersburg.

A Codex Alexandrinus, 5th c. Brought from Alexandria to
Constantinople by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople
(d. 1638), and sent by him to King Charles I. in 1628 by
the hand of Thomas Roe on the return of the latter from
a Turkish embassy. Now in the British Museum.

B Codex Vaticanus, 4th ο. In the Vatican Library at Rome.

C Codex Ephraemi, 5th ο. A rescript or palimpsest, written
over in 12th c. with a Greek version of thirty-eight

treatises of Ephraemus Syrus. In the National Library’

at Paris. In 1834-35 the librarian Carl Hase had the
original writing revived by a chemical process, the applica-
of Giobertine tincture. The codex was written, probably
in Egypt, in Sth c.; corrected first, probably in Palestine,
in 6th ο. (03), then, probably at Constantinople, in 9th c.
(09).

K Codex Mosquensis, 9ί1 ο. Brought to Moscow from the
monastery of St. Dionysius at Mount Athos.

+See C. R. Gregory’s Pwdegomena to Tischendorf’s Nov. Test. Gr., pp.
212 sqq.
VOL. VY. II

~

166 INTRODUCTION

L Codex Angelicus Romanus, 9thc. In the Angelic Library
of the Augustinian monks at Rome.

P Codex Porfirianus, 9th ο. A palimpsest found by Tischen-

- dorf in 1862 among the books of Bishop Porfirius
Chiovensis.

D Codex Beze, 5th or 6th ο. In the Library of the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, to which it was presented by
Theodore Beza in 1581. The Greek text with a slavish
Latin translation. Much mutilated, our Epistles being
represented only by the Latin version of 3 John 11-15.

These manuscripts are uncials,? and there are besides upwards of
two hundred minuscules or cursives, ranging in date from 9th c. to
16th c.8

2. Ancient Versions : #—
Syriac—

(1) Syrvg Peshitto or Vulgate, 3rd (?) c. Contains the
First Epistle.

(2) Syrph Philoxenian or Heraclean Version, 6th c. The
three Epistles.

(3) Syrbo Pococke’s edition (1630) of 2 Pet. and 2 and 3
John from codex in Bodleian Library, Oxford.

Vg Latin Vulgate, St. Jerome’s revision (Α.Ρ. 382-84). The
three Epistles.

Egyptian—

(1) Cop Memphitic Version, θεά (ο. The three Epistles.

(2) Sah Thebaic Version, 3rd (?) c. The three Epistles.
Aeth Ethiopic Version, from 4th to 6thc. The three Epistles.
Arm Armenian Version, 5th c. The three Epistles.

These versions have no small value for the determination of the
original text. It is usually plain which of several disputed readings
the translator had before him, and whether his MS. contained a
word or passage of doubtful authenticity.

LITERATURE.

Clem. Alex. Adumbrationes in Epp. Foan. i., ii. (a rude Latin
translation) ; Didymus, the blind teacher of St. Jerome in the Cate-
chetical School of Alexandria (Α.Ρ. 308-95), commentary on the

1 Gregory, ΡΡ. 345 Seq.
2 The signs * ? 3 a bc affixed to uncials denote corrections by later hands.
ὃ Gregory, pp. 616 seq. 4 Tbid., pp. 803 seq.

INTRODUCTION 167

Cath. Epp., translated into Latin by Epiphanius Scholasticus : Aug.,
In Epistolam Foannis Tractatus Decem (1st Ep., stopping abruptly-
at v. 3); Bede, Expos.; Euthymius Zigabenus (12th c.),

Erasmus, In Ν. Τ. Annotat.; Luther; Calvin (1st Ep.); Βεζα:
Carpzov, Commentatio in Ep. 2 $oan.; in Foan. Ep. 3 Brevis Enar-
ratio ; Wetstein; Bengel; Liicke; Olshausen; Neander (1st Ep.)
Disterdieck; Huther in Meyer (translated by T. & T. Clark) ;
Braune in Lange; Alford; Haupt (lst Ep., translated by S&T.
Clark) ; Rothe, Der erste Brief Fohannis practisch erklart (a beautiful
work) ; Alexander in Speaker's Commentary ; Plummer in Cambridge
Bible ; Westcott, The Epistles of St. FYohn ; H. J. Holtzmann in
Hand-commentar zum Neuen Testament ; Bernhard Weiss, Die drei
Briefe des Ap. Foh.; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, chaps.
xxxi-vii.; Cox, Private Letters of St. Paul and St. Fohn ; Maurice,
Epistles of St. fohn ; Findlay, Fellowship in the Life Eternal ; Law,
Tests of Life (Lectures on Ist Ep.).}

.
]

1 The two last appeared after this commentary was written.

πα ᾗ 5
yi aha
ry j 1

(Tew

hy

’ 7
OL | ‘
« arr,

άν κ ai

.

ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΔΟΥ

ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ KAOOAIKH ΠΡΩΤΗ].

I. τ. Ὅ "ΗΝ ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ' ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλ-5 Rev. is +

μοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ

1 See Introd., p. 151,

2Tert. (de Anim. 17; adv. Prax. 15) quotes thus:

d 26 , 6 V2 ς a < a
ἐθεασάμεθα, KaL~ al χειρες ἡμῶν

»ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ 5 b John i sf
16.

dJohni.14, κε Luke xxiv. 39; John xx. 27.

quod vidimus, quod audivi-

mus, oculis nostris vidimus et manus nostre contrectaverunt de sermone vite, as
though reading 6 ἐθεασάμεθα, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, κ.τ.λ.

ΤΗΕ First ΕΡΙΡΤΙΕ.

ΟΗδρτεκ I,—Vv. 1-4. The Preface.
‘“ That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard, which we have
seen with our eyes, which we beheld and
our hands felt, concerning the Word of
Life—and the Life was manifested, and
we have seen and testify and announce
to you the Life, the Eternal Life, which
was with the Father and was manifested
to us—that which we have seen and
heard, we announce to you also, that ye
also may have fellowship with us. Yea,
and our fellowship is with the Father and
with His Son Jesus Christ. And these
things we are writing that our joy may
be fulfilled.”

The Apostle here characterises and
commends his Gospel (cf. Introd. p. 154).
1. Its theme—the earthly life of Jesus.
No mere biography, since Jesus- was not
one of the children of men but the Eter-
nal Son of God, the Word made flesh.
(a) An ineffable wonder but no dream, an
indubitable reality. His readers might
doubt it, since they belonged to a later
generation and had never seen Jesus ;
but St. John had seen Him, and he as-
sures them, with elaborate iteration, that
it is no dream : ‘‘ These eyes beheld Him,
these hands felt Him”. “ Because,”
says Calvin, ‘‘the greatness of the thing
demanded that its truth should be certain
and proved, he insists much at this point”.
(6) His narrative was necessarily incom-
plete, since the infinite revelation was
larger than his perception or understand-
ing of it. ‘‘ He would give only a little

drop from the sea, not the sea itself”
(Rothe). A complete biography of Jesus
is impossible, since the days of His flesh
are Only a segment of His life, a moment
of His eternal years. 2. His purpose in
writing it: (a) that his readers might
share his heavenly fellowship; (b) that
his joy might be fulfilled.

Ver. 1. 6, i.e. the Logos and the
Eternal Life which He manifested, Cf.
ν. 4: πᾶν τὸ γεγεννηµένον with note.
ἦν, “«νετραπι eternitatis significativum
non habentis initium ” (Clem. Alex.).
It ‘‘ was” ere it ‘‘was manifested”. am’
ἀρχῆς, TWN TVD (Gen. i. 1). The
Logos already was when time began.
“The desiyn of the Apostle is to remove
the idea of novelty which could lessen
the dignity of the Gospel” (Calvin). Cf.
Athan., Synops. Script. Sacr. : θεολογῶν
δὲ ἐξηγεῖται μὴ νεώτερον εἶναι τὸ Kad’

ἡμᾶς µυστήριον͵ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν
ἀεὶ τυγχάνειν αὐτὸ viv δὲ πεφανερῶσθαι
ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ. ἀκηκόαμεν, ‘we have
heard”; either the editorial “we” (cf.
Rom. i. 5; Col. iv. 3); or, with Lightfoot,
St. John and the elders of Ephesus who
had certified the authorship and authen;
ticity of the Gospel (xxi. 24); or “1 and
the rest of the Apostles ””—not hearsay
but the testimony of eye - witnesses.
ἐθεασάμεθα, “we beheld”—a spectacle
which broke on our astonished vision.
This seems to be the force of the transi-
tion from perfect to aorist, though it may
be simply an instance of the decay of
the distinction between perfect and aorist

170

f Johni. 1,
4.

6 Johni. 7,
XXi. 24 5

Acts i. 8,
ii. 32.

h Heb. viii. ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς
ος na της , p Var eel / A A x x x
µεθ᾽ ἡμῶν: καὶ ' ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ

6; Mark
iv. 20;
Phil. iv. 3.

IQANOY A 1.

Γτοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς: 2. καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν,
καὶ ς μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ἵωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον,
he a i x x , be | ’ αι ae ‘
ἥτις ἣν i πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἐφανερώθη Huiv: 3. ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ

k , ”
κοινωνίαν εχητε

- . a A An A A ” A a
iJohni.1, τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 4. καὶ ταῦτα ™ γράφομεν ὑμῖν, ἵνα
2

k Acts ii. 42.

lii. 24; John xvii. 21 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 13.

m ii. 12, 13.

1και υμιν SABCP, Syrvg, Sah., Aeth., Arm., edd.

(see Moulton’s Gram. of Ν.Τ. Gk., i.
pp. 142f.). ἐψηλάφησαν : the word is
used of the fumbling of a blind man in
Gen. xxvii. 12 LXX py ποτε ψηλαφήσῃ
µε ὁ πατὴρ. περὶ, in Betreff des Wortes
des Lebens (Holtzmann); i.e. “‘ We did
not grasp all the wonder but only its
skirts”. ‘ Vom Worte des Lebens will
er verktindigen, denn thn selbst verktin-
digen zu Κόππεπ, dazu fihlte er sich
nicht in Stande” (Rothe). τοῦ Λόγου
τῆς ζωῆς, “the Word who gives life,”
“des Wortes, ohne welches es kein
Leben gibt” (Holtzmann). Calvin:
‘* Genitivus loco epitheti pro Vivifico”’.
Rothe’s “‘ das Wort vom Leben (the word
concerning life)” is Pauline (cf. Phil. ii.
16) but not Johannine.

Ver. 2. A parenthesis reiterating the
assurance of the reality of the manifesta-
tion. The Apostle heaps assurance upon
assurance with elaborate emphasis, and
the cumbrousness of his language should
not be removed by devices of construc-
tion or punctuation, making ver. I a
complete sentence: (1) ‘ That which
was from the beginning (is) that which
we have heard, etc.”; (2) ‘‘ That which
was from the beginning, which we
have seen... beheld, our hands also
handled”. Cf. Tert. in crit. Π. pap-
τυροῦμεν, according to the Lord’s parting
charge (cf. John xv. 27; Luke xxiv. 48;
Acts i. 8). 4 paptupta ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
(Rey. i. 2, 9, xix. 10) was the apostolic
ἀπαγγελία. ἀπαγγέλλομεν, κ.τ.λ. :
6 ΎΝπεποε we gather that Christ cannot
be preached to us without the Heavenly
Kingdom being opened to us, so that,
being wakened from death, we may live
the life of God” (Calvin). Observe the
note of wonder in the Apostle’s language.
Speech fails him. He labours for ex-
pression, adding definition to definition.

Ver. 3. 6 éwp. καὶ ἀκ., not merely a
resumption but a reiteration of the pro-
tasis. καὶ ὑμεῖς, “ye also” who have
not seen Jesus. µκοινωνίαν, not merely
knowledge through hearsay of what the
Apostles had known as eye-witnesses,

but personal and direct communion with
the living Lord. This St. John proceeds
to make plain. The phrasexat.. « δὲ,
et... vero, atque etiam, introduces an
important addition or explanation (cf.
John vi. 51, viii. 16, 17, xv. 27; Acts
xxl, 29; Heb: ix. 205 ο ο ος].
‘Christ walks no longer in the flesh
among us, but He appears still continu-
ally to the world of men and reveals Him-
self to those who love Him. Through faith
a real personal contact with the Christ
now glorified in the Spirit is possible”
(Rothe). There is a gracious constraint
on all who know this blessed fellowship
to bring others into it. Cf. 1 Cor. ix.
16. Bunyan, preface to The Ferusalem-
Sinner Saved : “JT have been vile my-
self, but have obtained mercy, and I
would have my companions in sin par-
take of mercy too, and therefore I have
writ this little book”.

Ver. 4. ‘pets, clearly the editorial
plural. The reading ὑμῶν seems at the
first glance more attractive than ἡμῶν as
evincing a generous solicitude on the
part of the Apostle for the highest good
of his readers, viz., the fulfilment of their
joy. Rothe: ‘ Wer es weis, dass das
uranfangliche Leben erschienen ist und
er mit demselben und dadurch mit dem
Vater Gemeinschaft haben kann, dessen
Herz muss hoch schlagen”. In truth,
however, ἡμῶν evinces a still more gener-
ous solicitude—the very spirit of Jesus.
As He could not be happy in Heaven
without us, so the Apostle’s joy was in-
complete unless his readers shared it.
Cf. Samuel Rutherford :—

“Oh! if one soul from Anwoth
Meet me at God’s right hand,

My heaven will be two heavens
In Immanuel’s land.”

Vv. 5-10. The Message of the Incar-
nation and the Duty which it brings.
“And this is the message which we
have heard from Him and are announc-
ing to you, that God is light, and dark-
ness—in Him there is none. If we say

2---7.

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Α

171

"i χαρὰ ἡμῶν 1 4 πεπληρωμµένη. 5. Kal αὕτη éotiv®? ἡ ° ἐπαγγελία 55 pe iii.

ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν dm αὐτοῦ, καὶ ” ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι 6 Geds φῶς
ἐστι, καὶ Ἱ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὖὐδεμία.
κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, Ψευ-
δόµεθα, καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν :
περιπατῶμεν, ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ wri, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ

οσο Te
xvi. 24,
i u νά oe 13
ré 2 John
6. "ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι ΕΕ ΜΗ
ἡμῶν cf.
85 2 . n ‘ 3 John, si
7. ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ wrt ο iii. 11.
p Matt.
XXVili. 11;
John iv.

> , \ A of md a .. 1
ἀλλήλων, καὶ "τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ὃ 25, xvi. 12,

1 Peter i. 12.

T2, ΧΙ]. 35, 36. s Exod. x. 22, 23.

Syrvg, Sah., edd.
2 eotw αντηΝ ΒΟΚΙ;Ρ, edd.

q John i. 4, 5, 8, 9, viii. 12, ix. 5; Jamesi. 17.
t Heb. ix. 13, 14.

Ίνμων ACKP, Syrph., Vg., Cop., Aeth.,

ο. ο SATS 9
τ ii. 4, John iii. 19-21 ; John, viii.

Arm., Aug. ; ημων BL, many minusc.,

ο. NCABKL, Syrve., Vg. (annuntiatio), Aeth., Arm., Aug. (annuntiatio),
edd.

‘Inoov Χριστου AKL, Syrph, Vg., Cop., Tert. (de Pudic. 19), Aug.; om. Χρισ-

του BCP, Syrvg, Sah., Arm., edd.

"καθαρισει or καθαριει some lesser authorities, Cop., Sah., Aug. (purgabit).

that we have fellowship with Him and be
walking in the darkness, we lie and are
not doing the Truth; but if we be walk-
ing in the light, as He is in the light, we
have fellowship with one another, and
the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us
from every sin. If we say that we have
not sin, we are deceiving ourselves and
the Truth is not in us. If we confess
our sins, faithful is He and righteous to
forgive us the sins and cleanse us from
every unrighteousness. If we say that
we have not sinned, we are making Him
a liar and His Word is not in us.”

Ver. 5. ἀγγελία in N.T. only here
andiii. ΙΙ. ἐπαγγελία could only mean
“promise” (cf. ii. 25). ἀπαγγέλλειν and
ἀναγγέλλειν both mean “ announce ” the
former with reference to the source of
the message (ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ) and
the latter to its destination. ‘ Quod
Filius annunciavit, renunciat apostolus”’
(Haupt). οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία : the double
negative makes a stronger negative (cf.
Luke xxiii. 53). The manifestation of
God in Christ was to those who beheld it
a splendid glory, the breaking of a great
light into the darkness of a sinful and
sorrowful world. Cf. Matt. iv. 14-16.
Light means warmth, health, sight, in a
word “ life”’ (cf. ver. 2).

Light is given that we may “ walk in
it” and enjoy its blessings. It is thus
that the Gospel attains its end and ful-
fils its purpose in us. The Apostle now
proceeds to warn his readers against two
heresies which ignored this condition of
heavenly fellowship.

Vv. 6,7. The, heresy of Antinomian-
ism, represented by the Nicolaitans (cf.
Introd. Ῥ. 156). ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, a gentle

and charitable hypothesis. He does not
charge his readers with actually hold-
ing this pernicious doctrine, and he
includes himself (νε, not ‘‘ ye”).

περιπατεῖν, Heb. “J Prt, of the whole

course of life. The Greek phrase is
ἀναστρέφεσθαι (conversari). God is
light and sin darkness, peccata tenebre
sunt (Aug.), and it is impossible to be
living in sin or compromising with it and
at the same time be enjoying fellowship
with God. ψευδόµεθα: we may believe
the lie, being self-deceived (ver. 8) ; for
disobedience to the Truth blinds us to it.
Knowledge comes by doing (cf. John vii.
17). τὴν ἀλήθειαν, see note on ver. 8.
‘* Walking in the light ” has two blessed
results: (1) ‘‘fellowship with one
another,” which may mean either fellow-
ship with God—He with us and we with
Him (Aug., Calv.), or communion of
saints—our fellow-believers with us and
we with them. In fact the one idea im-
plies the other. They are inseparable.
Communion with our brethren is the
consequence and evidence of communion
with God. Cf. iv. 20. (2) ‘‘ Cleansing
in the blood of Jesus.” τὸ αἷμα Ἴησου,
God’s Infinite Sacrifice for the sin of the
world—a N.T. phrase of peculiar poig-
nancy and fragrance. Cf. Ignat. ad’
Rom. vii.: τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη
ἄφθαρτος. When we walk in the light,
that demonstration of the length to
which God has gone in sacrifice for our
sakes, is ever before us, and the amazing
spectacle subdues our hearts, takes pos-
session of them, and drives out every evil
affection. Cf. Catherine of Siena: ‘‘ The
blood and tears ofthe Divine Son are able

IQANOY A

1. 8—1o. II.

8. ᾿Εὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι" ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ

ο.

I. " Τεκνία µου, ταῦτα ypddw ὑμῖν, ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε' καὶ

ai. δ, ii. 4; John v. 38, viii. 37. a Gal. iv. 19

172

ο ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας.

η ρηή ἔχομεν, ἑαυτοὺς ᾿ πλανῶμεν, καὶ " ἡ ἀλήθεια οὖκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.
{άν ο) ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστι καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα
20, xii, 9; ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας.
xxii.29, 1Ο. ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν, ” ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτόν,
ΑΦΗ καὶ 3 ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.

ος i:

ΜΗ y Rom. iii. 26. z Rom. iii. 4.
(T.R., WH). Cf, comm.

to cleanse us from head to foot”. πάσης
ἁμαρτίας, ‘every sin,’ i.e. every out-
break of the sinful principle; not ‘all
sin” (πάσης τῆς ἁμαρτίας). Cf. Rom.
iil, 19: wav στόµα . . . Tas ὁ κόσμος.
Vv. 8-10. The heresy of Perfec-
tionism. Some might not say, with the
Antinomians, that they were absolved
from the obligation of the moral law, but
they maintained that they were done
with sin, had no more sinful propensities,
committed no more sinful acts. In op-
position hereto the Apostle asserts two
facts: (1) Inherent corruption. Dis-
tinguish ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν (“to have sin”)
and ἁμαρτάνειν (‘‘ to sin’’), corresponding
to the sinful principle and its manifesta-
tion in specific acts. Our natures are
poisoned, the taint is in our blood.
Grace is the medicine, but recovery is a
protracted process. It is begun the
moment we submit ourselves to Christ,
but all our lives we continue under treat-
ment. πλανῶμεν, “lead astray” (cf.
Matt. xviii, 12). 4 ἀλήθεια, in Johan-
nine phraseology not simply ‘‘ der Wahr-
heitssinn, die Wahrhaftigkeit der
Selbstpriifung und der Selbsterkennt-
niss” (Rothe), but the revelation of
“the True God” (ver. 20; John xvii. 3),
which came ‘through Jesus Christ”

(John i. 17), Himself ‘‘the Truth”
(John xiv. 6). Nearly equivalent to
6 λόγος (νετ. 10), The Truth is a

splendid ideal, never realised here, else
it would cease to be an ideal; always as
we pursue it displaying a fuller glory,
And thus the nearer we approach it the
further off it seems; when we walk in
the light we see faults which were hidden
in the darkness. Self-abasement is a
characteristic of the saints. When Juan
de Avila (A.D. 1500-69) was dying the
rector of his college approached him and
said: “ What joy it must be to you to
think of meeting the Saviour!” “Ah!”
said the saint, ‘‘ rather do I tremble at
the thought of my sins.” (2) The fre-
quent falls of the believer. We all
“have sinned (jpaptyxaperv),” 1.ε., com-
mitted acts of sin (ἁμαρτίας) manifesting

the strength and activity of the sinful
principle (j ἁμαρτία) in our souls. This,
however, is no reason fordespair. There
is a remedy—forgiveness and cleansing
in the blood of Jesus; and there is a
way of obtaining it—confession. πιστός,
i.é., to His promise (cf. Heb. x. 23).
δίκαιος: He would be unrighteous if
He broke His promise ratified by the
blood of Jesus. Peace is not got by
denying our sinfulness and our sins, but
by frankly confessing them and availing
ourselves, continually and repeatedly, of
the gracious remedy. ‘‘ Woe to that
soul which presumes to think that he
can approach God in any other way
than as a sinner asking mercy. Know
yourself to be wicked, and God will wrap
you up warm in the mantle of His good-
ness” (Juan de Avila). ‘‘ Remission of
sins cannot be sundered from penitence,
nor can the peace of God belong to con-
sciences where the fear of God does not
reign ” (Calv.).

Perfectionism has two causes: (1) The
stifling of conscience: ‘‘we make Him a
liar, z.e., turn a deaf ear to His inward
testimony, His voice in our souls. (2)
Ignorance of His Word: it ‘‘is not in
us”. Such a delusion were impossible
if we steeped our minds in the Scriptures.
Consider the lapses of the saints, e.g.,
David, Peter.

CHAPTER IJ.—Vv. 1, 2. The Remedy
for the Sins of Believers. ‘ My little
children, these things I am writing to
you in order that ye may not sin. And
if any one sin an Advocate have we with
the Father—Jesus Christ, a righteous
One. And He is Himself the propitia-
tion for our sins, and not for ours only
but also for the whole world.”

Ver. 1. Observe the sudden change in
the Apostle’s manner. His heart is very
tender toward his people, and he adopts
an affectionate and personal tone: (1)
He passes from the formal ‘‘we” to
““—”, (2, He styles them τεκνία pov,
jilioli mei, meine Kindlein—his favourite
appeliation (cf. ii. 12, 28; iii. 7, 18; iv.
4; πι 21). Not only was it very suitable

π---ᾱ.

ἐάν τις ἁμάρτη,

f ~ -
Χριστὸν " δίκαιον" 2. καὶ αὐτὸς "ἱλασμός ἐστι ΄περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν

Luke xxiii. 47; Acts vii. 52, xxii. 14: 1 Peter iii, 18. n
Rom. iii. 25 ; Heb. ix. 5; ἱλάσκεσθαι Luke xviii. 13 ; Heb. ii. 17.

on the lips of the aged teacher, but it
was a phrase of Jesus (cf. John xiii. 33).
St. John had caught the phrase and its
Spirit. He remembered how the Master
had dealt with His disciples, and he
would deal with his people after the
same fashion and be to them what Jesus
had been to himself—as gentle and
patient.

He assumes this tone because he is
about to address a warning to them, and
he would fain take the sting out of it and
disarm opposition. He foresees the
possibility of a two-fold perversion of his
teaching: (1) ‘‘ If we can never in this
life be done with sin, why strive after
holiness? It is useless; sin is an abid-
ing necessity”. (2) ‘‘If escape be so
easy, why dread falling into sin? We
may sin with light hearts, since we
thave the blood of Jesus to cleanse us.”
6. No,” he answers, ‘‘I am not writing
these things to you either to discourage
you in the pursuit of holiness or to em-
bolden you in sinning, but, on the con-
trary, in order that (ἵνα) ye may not sin.”
Cf. Aug.: ‘‘Lest perchance he should
seem to have given impunity to sins,
and men should now say to themselves,
*Let us sin, let us do securely what we
will, Christ cleanses us; He is faithful
and righteous, He cleanses us from all
iniquity,’ he takes from thee evil security
and implants useful fear. It is an evil
‘wish of thine to be secure; be anxious.
For He is faithful and righteous to for-
give us our sins, if thou art always dis-
pleasing to thyself and being changed
until thou be perfected.” Asa physician
might say to his patient: ‘‘ Your trouble
is obstinate ; the poison is in your blood,
and it will take a long time to eradicate
it. But I donot tell you this to discourage
you or make you careless; no, on the
contrary, to make you watchful and dili-
gent in the use of the remedy”; so the
Apostle says: ‘‘ My little children, these
things I am writing to you in order that
ye may not sin”.

If, however, we fall into sin, let us not
lose heart, for Παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς
τὸν Πατέρα. παράκλητος, ‘one called
to your side,” so, in a forensic sense,
‘one who undertakes and champions
your cause,” ‘“‘an advocate”. Vulg.,
Advocatus ; Luth., Firsprecher bei dem
Vater. Here of the ascended Jesus; in
John xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, of the
Holy Spirit, where Vulg. simply trans-

IQANOY A

173

b , 2 ο x x / 2 ων bCf.comm.
παράκλητον εχοµεν προς τον πατερα, Ιησοῦν bf.

d Matt.
XXV1i. 19:

e In N.T. only here and iv. 10, ἱλαστήριον
f Rom. viii. 3.

literates Paracletus, and both our ver-
sions give ‘‘ Comforter,” Luth., Tvdster
—an impossible rendering, since the
word is not act. but pass. Render
** Advocate” in every case. Cf. saying
of R. Li‘ezer ben Jacob: ‘‘ He who does
one commandment has gotten him one

advocate (dob, παράκλητος),
and he who has committed one trans-
gression has gotten him one accuser

(1110Ρ, κατήγορος). Repentance and
good works are as a shield in the face of
punishment.” In the days of His flesh
Jesus was God’s Advocate with men.
He told the Eleven in the Upper Room
that, though He was going away, God
would not be left without an Advocate
on the earth to plead His cause and win
men to faith (John xvi. 16, 17). The
Holy Spirit has come in the room of
Jesus, and still from age to age performs
the office of God’s Advocate with men.
Nor has the advocacy of Jesus ceased.
He is our Advocate in Heaven, pleading
our cause with God. The history of
redemption is thus a progressive economy
of grace: (1) the Ο.Τ. dispensation,
when God was conceived as remote in
high Heaven; (2) that of the Incarna-
tion, when He revealed Himself as a
Father and, by the advocacy of His
Eternal Son, made His appeal to the
children of men; (3) that of the Holy
Spirit, under which we live in the enjoy-
ment of a double advocacy—our Glorified
Redeemer’s, who ‘‘ maketh intercession
for us” (Rom. viii. 34) in the Court of
Heaven (cf. Christina Rossetti’s Verses,
p. 41: ‘‘Day and night the Accuser”),
and the Holy Spirit’s down here, wooing
us to faith by His gracious importunities.
δίκαιον, Rothe: ‘Only the righteous
One, the guiltless, the One that is sepa-
rate from sin, can be the Advocate with
God for sinners, in general the Mediator
of salvation, and make His friendship for
us prevalent with God, because only such
a one has access to God and fellowship
with God (Heb. vii. 26; 1 Peter iii. 18;
John xvi. 8, 10)”. ‘‘ What better advo-
cate could we have for us, than He that
is appointed to be our judge?” (Jer.
Taylor, The Great Exemplar, I. i. 3).
Ver. 2. Our Advocate does not plead
that we are innocent or adduce extenu-
ating circumstances. He acknowledges
our guilt and presents His vicarious

174

& John 1,29, ἡμῶν: οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ µόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ Shou §

lii. 16
h John xiii. άμα

ο Καὶ '

35.
i John xiv.
15, 21, XV

10; Rev. τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ bli ψεύστης ἐστί, καὶ

xii. 17,
xiv. 12;
Matt.

XXVili. 20; 2 Cor. vii. 19.

οὐκ έστιν :
Εαν 68,

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Α

‘tas ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν. 4.

1 John viii. 51, 52, 55,

iT.

~

τοῦ

ἐν τούτω γινώσκοµεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν
” η

ὁ ο. Gr dai αὐτόν, καὶ

΄ ε Ss ,
* ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια

5. ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ' τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον, ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ,

Xiv. 23, XV. 20, xvii. 6: Rev. iii. 8.

1 λεγων οτι SAB, edd.

work as the ground of our acquittal. He
stands in the Court of Heaven ἀρνίον ὡς

ἐσφαγμένον (Rey. v. 6) and the marks of

His sore Passion are a mute but eloquent
appeal: “I suffered all this for sinners,
and shall it go for naught?’’ περὶ ὅλου
τοῦ κόσμου, pro totius mundi (Vulgate),
‘‘for the sins of the whole world”. This
is grammatically possible (cf. Matt. v.
20), but it misses the point. There are
sins, special and occasional, in the be-
liever ; there is stm in the world; it is sin-
ful through and through. The Apostle
means “for our sins and that mass of
sin, the world”. Cf. Rothe: “Die
‘Welt’ ist ihrem Begriff zufolge tber-
haupt stindig, ein Sindenmasse, und hat
nicht blos einzelne Stinden an sich”.
The remedy is commensurate with the
malady. Bengel: '' Quam late patet
peccatum, tam late propitiatio”.
Observe how the Apostle classes him-
self with his readers: ‘‘ we have,” ‘‘ our

sins’”’—a rebuke of priestcraft. Cf.
Aug.: “But some one will say: ‘Do
not holy men pray for us? Do not

bishops and prelates pray for the people?’
Nay, attend to the Scriptures, and see
that even the prelates commend them-
selves to the people. For the Apostle
says to the common folk ‘ withal praying
for us’. The Apostle prays for the folk,
the folk for the Apostle. We pray for
you, brethren; but pray ye also for us.
Let all the members pray for one an-
other, let the Head intercede for all.”
Vv. 3-6. The Proof of our Interest
in Christ’s Propitiation and Advocacy.
“And herein we get to know that we
know Him—if we observe His command-
ments. He that saith ‘I know Him,’
and observeth not His commandments,
is a liar, and in this man the Truth is
not; but whosoever observeth His Word,
truly in this man the love of God hath
been carried to its end. Herein we get
to know that we are in Him; he that
saith he abideth in Him is bound, even
as the Lord (ἐκεῖνος) walked, himself also
so to walk.” The Apostle foresees a
question which may be raised: “ How
can I be assured that Christ is all this

to me—my Propitiation, my Advocate ?
And how can | be assured that I have
an abiding interest in Him?” He an-
swers: (1) We attain to personal and
conscious acquaintance with Christ by
observance of His commandments (3-52) :
(2) we attain to assurance of abiding
union with Him by “walking even as
He walked” (56, 6).

Ver. 3. The principle is that it is not
enough to understand the theory; we
must put it into practice. Ε.ρ., what
makes an artist? Not merely learning
the rules of perspective and mixture of
colours, but actually putting one’s hand
to brush and canvas. First attempts.
may be unsuccessful, but skill comes by
patient practice. Cf. Rembrandt’s ad-
vice to his pupil Hoogstraten: ‘Try to
put well in practice what you already
know; and in doing so you will, in good
time, discover the hidden things which
you inquire about’. To know about
Christ, to understand the doctrine of His
person and work is mere theory; we get
to know Him and to know that we
know Him by practice of His precepts.
γινώσκω (cognosco) is to οἶδα (scto) as
γίνομαι (fio) to εἰμί (sum). ἐγνώκαμεν,
ο μι “we have got to know,”

1.6. “we know” - τηρεῖν, “keep a watch-
ful eye upon” of. Matt. XXVii. 36: Kal
καθήµενοι ἐ ἐτήρουν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ.

Ver. 4. μὴ τηρῶν, in classical Greek
a gentle hypothesis, merely suggesting a
possible case; but in later Greek py is
the regular negative with participles. It
was an actual error, else the Apostle
would hardly have spoken so emphatic-
ally about it. ψεύστης, see note on i, 6.
ἀλήθεια, see note on i. 8.

Ver.5. Ἡἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, “ the love of

God,” is ambiguous like mim Nl,

amor Det, l’ amore di Dio, Lamour de
Dieu, die Liebe Gottes. It might be
objective genitive, “ love for God,” “die
Liebe zu Gott” (Rothe). But the be-
liever’s love for God is never perfected in
this life. The genitive is subjective (cf.
iv. 9), amor Dei erga hominem, per
Christum nobis reconciliatus (Bengel),

3---δ,

”"ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται.

n an a
ἐσμεν.] 6. ὁ λέγων ° ἐν αὐτῷ µένειν, ? ὀφείλει, καθὼς 4 ἐκεῖνος περιε-
πάτησε, καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτω 3 " περιπατεῖν. 7. ἀδελφοί,ι οὐκ ἐντολὴν
’ καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐντολὴν παλαιάν, ' ἣν εἴχετε ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς'
ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν 6 λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς.' 8.
> ΔΝ 4 ε 3 ϱ 5 > Q Β SUA nM
πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, 6 ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν

4-7.
Heb. ν. 12.

q Cf. comm.
Mark i. 27.

1 Punct. éopev* WH, Nest.

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ A

nD

IVs το, τη

ἐν τούτω γινώσκοµεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ῃ
oY μ. t 18; Luke

Xili. 32;
John iv.
34, ν. 36,
XVii. 4, 23
Heb. ii.
TO; X. I;
14, Xi. 40

n 2 Cor. v.
17.

ο John xv.

p ili. 16, iv. 11; 3 John § ; John xiii. 14; Matt. xxiii. 16,18; Luke xvii. το; Rom. xv. 1
r Eph. v. 2; Col. ii. 6.
t John xiii. 34, xv. 12; Mark xii. 29-31.

s Matt. xiii. 52, xxvi. 28, 29, xxvii. 60

? ka. αντος ουτως ΝΟΚΡ, Syrph, Cop., Arm., Tisch., Nest.; om. ουτως AB, Vg.

Sah., Aeth., Aug., WH.

3 αγαπητοι ΝΑΒΟΡ, Syrvg ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Arm., Aug., edd.
‘am αρχης om. SABCP, many minusc., Syrvg ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm.

Aug., edd.

and the idea is that the redeeming love
of God has attained its end in the man
who observes His Word. Cf. Isa. ΠΠ.
Ir. St. Augustine understands ‘‘ the love

of God” as His love for sinners, a for- -

giving love like that of Jesus when He
prayed on the Cross ‘“ Father, forgive
them”. ‘What is the perfection of
love? It is both to love one’s enemies
and to love them in order that they may
be brethren.” By cultivating a love like
this we get to know that we know Him.
ἐν τούτῳ (b) points forward to 6 λέγων,
κ.τ.λ., introducing a second assurance.
It is not enough to know Him; we must
be sure of continuing in fellowship with
Him, of “abiding in Him” to the end.
This assurance comes by “ walking even
as He walked”; 1.ε. the conformation
of our lives to His is an _ evidence
of our abiding interest in Him, our
vital union with Him. We get like
Him by imitating Him, and our likeness
to Him is an irrefragable evidence to
ourselves and the the world that we are
His, as a son’s likeness to his father
proves their relationship. ὀφείλει, “is
bound,” “ist schuldig ” (Rothe), of moral
obligation. The claim (λέγων) must be
honourably attested. αὐτὸς in this sec-
tion refers grammatically to Jesus Christ
vv. I, 2). The change of pronoun (ἐκεῖ-
vos) does not imply a change of person,
since here as in fii. 3, 5, 7, 16, iv. 17,
ἐκεῖνος is not a mere pronoun. It is
used like 1211ε, and signifies ‘that great
One, the Master”) Cf. 2 Timi. 22,
13. περιπατεῖν,δεε note oni.6. Aug.:,
“‘ Perhaps He admonishes us to walk in
the sea. Far from it! He admonishes
us to walk in the way of righteousness.”

Vv. 7-11. A New Meaning in an Old
Commandment. ‘ Beloved, it is no new
commandment that I am writing to you,

but an old commandment which ye had
from the beginning. The old command-
ment is the word which ye heard. Again,
it is a new commandment that I am
writing to you—a thing which is true in
Him and in you, because the darkness is
passing away and the light, the true
light, is already shining. He that saith
he is in the light and hateth his brother
is in the darkness even until now. He
that loveth his brother abideth in the
light, and there is no stumbling-block in
his way; but he that hateth his brother
is in the darkness, and walketh in the
darkness, and knoweth not where he is
going, because the darkness hath blinded
his eyes.”

St. John has lately discovered the
supremacy of Love in the Christian
revelation (see Introd. pp. 157 f.). His im-
perfect realisation of this has been the
defect of his teaching hitherto, and he
would now repair it: “It is not a new
commandment that I am writing to you;
it is part of the Gospel which I have
been preaching to you all along. But I
have never adequately understood it, and
therefore it is new to your ears as it is to
my heart.”

Ver.7. ἀγαπητοί, St. John’s favourite
Style (οὗ πμ, ο \20,) τν. 1,7, τα)”. About
to enjoin love, he begins by loving.
Katvds, “novel,” ‘new in kind” (novus)
as distinguished from véos, “new in
time” (vecens). am ἀρχῆς, here not as
in i. 1, but ‘‘ from the beginning of your
Christian life”. ἡ évroAn ἡ παλαιά, cf.
i. 2: τὴν Conv τὴν αἰώνιον.

Ver. 8. πάλιν, “again,” 1.6. in an-
other sense, from another point of view,
not in itself but in our recognition of it,
“itis a new commandment”. 6 ἐστιν
ἀληθές, in apposition to ἐντολήν---''α
thing which is true,” viz., the paramount

176

ui. 5-7.
νπε

31

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Α

Il,

[ο ~~ , .
ὑμῖν > ὅτι "ἡ σκοτία "παράγεται, καὶ "τὸ has τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη "ϕαίνει.
1Cor. vii. g, 7 ὅ λέγων ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι, καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν, ἐν τῇ

w John i. 9. σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν ἕως ἄρτι. 10. ” ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, ἐν τῷ φωτὶ

x John i. 5,
ν. 35 }
Rev. i. 16,
viii. 12,
xviii. 23,
ΧΧΙ. 23.

y iv. 20.

Zi. 5-7; Ps. xxxvi. 9.

b John iii. 8, viii. 14, xii. 35, xiii. 36, xiv. 5, xvi. 5.
X11. 40).

4 -
µένει, καὶ " σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν.] πτο ο

ες

δὲ μισῶν τὸν

a ~ ~ - ‘
ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, ” ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστί, καὶ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ, καὶ
οὐκ οἶδε ° ποῦ ὑπάγει, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία ἐτύφλωσε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ.

a Johann. only here and Rev. ii. 14; σκανδαλίζειν John vi. 61, xvi. I.

ο John xi. g, 10, xiv. 35, 36; Is. vi. το (John

lev αυτω ουκ εστιν BKLP, WH, Nest.; ουκ εστιν εν αντω ΑΟ, Tisch., WH

(marg).

necessity of Love. This truth, though
unperceived, is contained in the revela-
tion of Jesus Christ (ἐν αὐτῷ) and proved
in the experience of believers (ἐν ὑμῖν).
It is a fact that hatred of one’s brother
clouds the soul and shuts out the light.
ΣΙ know this,” says the Apostle, ‘‘ be-
cause the darkness is passing away and
the light, the true light, is already shin-
ing,” 1.6. my eyes are getting accustomed
to the light of the Gospel-revelation,
and I have seen this truth which at first
was hidden from me. Adjectives in
-ινγός denote the material of which the
thing is made; and ἀληθινός is used of
the real as opposed either to the type
(cf. John vi. 32, xv. 1; Heb. viii. 2, ix.
24) or to the counterfeit (cf. Symb. Nic. :
Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ “ very
God of very God,” i.e. the real God as
opposed to false gods, idols, which were
“things of naught”). The opposite of
τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν is, on the one hand,
the dim light of the Jewish Law (the
type) and, on the other, the false light of
human speculation (the counterfeit).

Ver. 9. He says and perhaps thinks
he is in the light, but he has never seen
the light; it has never shone on him.
ἀδελφόν, on the lips of Jesus a fellow-
man (cf. Matt. v. 45; Luke xv. 30, 32),
in the apostolic writings a fellow-Chris-
tian (cf. v. 1-2, 16)—one of the apostolic
narrowings of the Lord’s teaching. Cf.
‘neighbour ”—with the Rabbis, a fellow-
Jew; with Jesus, a fellow-man (cf. Luke
x. 25-37). There is no contradiction be-
tween this passage and Luke xiv. 26.
The best commentary on the latter is
John xii. 25.

Ver. το. ἐν τῷ φωτὶ péver: he does
not merely catch glimpses of the light
but ‘‘abideth in it,” being of one mind
with God, the common Father, who ‘‘is
light” (i. 5). σκάνδαλον οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν
αὐτῷ, ‘ there is no occasion of stumbling,
nothing to trip him up and make him
fall, in his case ’—an echo of John xi.
9,10. Another interpretation, less agree-
able to the context but more consonant

with the common use of σκάνδαλον (cf.
Matt. xiii. 41, xvili. 7; Rom. xiv. 13), is:
Because he is winsome and gracious,
there is in him no stumbling-block to
others, nothing to deter them from
accepting the Gospel. The love of
the primitive Christians impressed the
heathen. Cf. Tert. Apol. 39: “ Vide,
inquiunt, ut invicem se diligant: ipsi
enim invicem oderunt ; et ut pro alterutro
mori sint parati: ipsi enim ad occidendum
alterutrum paratiores erunt”. Ep. ad
Diogn. 1: καὶ τίνα Φιλοστοργίαν ἔχ-
ουσι πρὸς ἀλλήλους. This spirit disap-
peared, and in view of the bitter contro-
versies of the 4th century the Pagan
historian Ammianus avowed that ‘the
enmity of the Christians toward each
other surpassed the fury of savage beasts
against man”. Another interpretation
takes αὐτῷ as neuter: ‘There is no
occasion of stumbling in it,” z.e., in the
light. Cf. John xi. 9.

Ver.11. St. John recognises no neutral
attitude between ‘‘love” and ‘‘ hatred”.
Love is active benevolence, and less than
this is hatred, just as indifference to the
Gospel-call amounts to rejection of it (cf.
Matt. xxii. 5-7). Observetheclimax: “in
the darkness is, and in the darkness
walketh, and knoweth not where he is
going”. ἐτύφλωσεν, aor. of the inde-
finite past, where we would use the perf.
(cf. Moulton, Gram. of N. T. Gk., i. pp.
135 ff.). The penalty of living in the
darkness is not merely that one does not
see, but that one goes blind. The neg-
lected faculty isatrophied. Cf. the mole,
the crustacea in the subterranean lakes
of the Mammoth Caves of Kentucky.

Observe how St. John emphasises and
elaborates the old-new commandment
‘‘ Love thy brother,” reiterating it, put-
ting it negatively and positively.

Vv. 12-17. The Appeal of Experience.
“T am writing to you, little children, be-
cause your sins have been forgiven you
for His name’s sake; I am writing to
you, fathers, because ye Fave got to
know Him that it is from the beginning

Ο---Ι4.

A - [
12. γράφω ὑμῖν, τεκνία, ὅτι ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν at ἁμαρτίαι :διὰ τὸ

” > A
ονομα αυτου.
ἀρχῆς.

γράφω” ὑμῖν, | παιδία, ὅτι μονος τὸν πατέρα.

3

ών ὅτι ας τὸν ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς.

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Α ;

13. Γράφω ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν

ας. h
άφω ὑμῖν, ‘veavioxor, ὅτι ὃ νενικήκατε
γράφω ὑμῖν,

μμ -
τή
d Matt. x

22, XXiv.
®am ο) John

XV. 21

A

τὸν | πονηρόν. Rev il. 3.

14. Ἔγραψα ὁ όρων fate, xix.
Ἔγραψα 6 τν νεανίσκοι, ὅτι Acts, ii.

ἰσχυροί ἐστε, kai’ 6 λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, καὶ νενικήκατε τὸν g John Xvi.

33; Rom.
xii, 21. h iii. 12, v. 18, 19; John xvii. 15; Matt. v. 37, vi. 13, xiii. το, 38. i Ver. 18,
11, 17 (ν.].). k Eph. vi. 1ο. 11. το reff,
1το 9.
2 ypadw K, Vg., Aug.; εγραψα ΝΑΒΟΙ.Ρ, Syrve ph, Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm.,
edd.
3 ro B.

I am writing to you, young men, because
ye have conquered the Evil One. I
wrote to you, little ones, because ye
have got to know the Father; I wrote
to you, fathers, because ye have got to
know Him that is from the beginning; I
wrote to you, young men, because ye
are strong, and the Word of God abideth
in you, and ye have conquered the Evil
One. Love not the world, nor the things
that are in the world. Ifany one loveth
the world, the love of the Father is not
in him; because everything that is in
the world—the lust of the flesh, and the
lust of the eyes, and the braggart boast
of life—is not of the Father but is of the
world. And the world is passing away
and the lust of it, but he that doeth the
will of God abideth for ever.”

The Apostle has been setting forth
searching truths and is about to make
an exacting claim; and here he pauses
and with much tenderness reassures his
readers: “I am not addressing you as
unbelievers or casting doubt upon the
sincerity of your faith. On the con-
trary, it is because I am assured thereof
that 1 am writing this letter to you and
wrote the Gospel which accompanies it”

Ver. 12. Texvia, all the Apostle’s
readers, his customary appellation (see
n. on ii. 1). ἀφέωνται, perf., the Doric
form of ἀφεῖνται. τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, the
character, mind, purpose of God revealed
in Christ. ‘‘The name of God” is
‘‘ whatsoever there is whereby he makes
himself known” (Westm. Larg. Catech.).

Ver. 13. He now subdivides τεκνία
into πατέρες, i.e., mature believers with
a long and ever-deepening (ἐγνώκατε)
experience behind them, and νεανίσκοι,
who, though 4 ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός is
strong within them, have conquered the
Evil One by the aids of grace—an evid-
ence of the reality of their interest in
Christ. dm ἀρχῆς, as in i. t. The
ancient interpreters took Texvia, πατέρες,

νεανίσκοι as a threefold classification,
according to age (Aug., Athan.) or ac-
cording to Christian experience, κατὰ
τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον (Euth. Zig.); but the
order would then be either τεκνία, γεα-
νίσκοι, πατέρες ΟΙ πατέρες, νεανίσκοι,
τεκνία. According to the variant γράφω
ἡμῖν, παιδία, τεκνία is a general appella-
tion subdivided into πατέρες, νεανίσκοι,
παιδία. Ver. 14 should begin with
ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, παιδία. [ο aor. ἔγραψα
is most simply and reaSonably explained
as a reference to the Apostle’s Gospel
(see Introd. p. 154). Having assured them
of his present conviction of the sincerity
of their faith, he now goes on to assure
them that he had entertained a like
opinion when he wrote the Gospel for
their instruction. His tone is much like
that of 2 Pet.i.12. Other explanations:
(x) The reference is to a former epistle
(cf. 3 John g)—a gratuitous and un-
necessary hypothesis. (2) The Apostle
resumes after a pause whether in com-
position or in thought, and reiterates

what he “has written”. (3) An em-
phatic form of expression, like ‘we
decree and have decreed”. ”, (4) Calvin,

reading γράφω ἡμῖν, παιδία, regards
πατέρες . . . πογηρόν as an interpola-
tion. This is to cut the knot instead of
untying it. παιδία, a general appella-
tion for all the Apostle’s readers, prac-
tically identical with τεκνία. Strictly
τεκνία carries the idea of relationship by
birth-regeneration ; cf. Aug.: “Quia re-
mittuntur vobis peccata per nomen Ejus,
et regeneramini in novam vitam, ideo
filii”., παιδία, on the other hand, are
merely “children,” puert (Aug.), infantes
(Vulg.), and the distinction is ὅτι
ἐγνώκατε τὸν Πατέρα. All men are
children of God, believers are children
who “ have got to know the Father’
Ver. 14. The Apostle gives the same
reason as before for writing to the
fathers, as though there could be none

178

m James iv. 5
πο ον.
; νηρ

1ΩΑΝΟΥ A

Il.

τς. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ Kdopm: ™ ἐάν

see > - a , 3 34 ς > / A 4 1 = > ~ P
πω “ii-tig ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ εστιν η ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αυτῷ

14; Gal
ν. 16, 24;

Thre a ,
2 ΡειετΗ. ἀλλ᾽ ὃ 4 ἐκ τοῦ κόσµου ἐστι.
το, 10'5

- Leal , ς 3 [ή ~ , 4 ε > ,
f 16. ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσµω, "ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία
de a a , a /
τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἡ "ἀλαζονεία τοῦ Ρβίου, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός,

Ms. τς , Xe
17. καὶ 6 κόσμος "TapdyeTat, καὶ ἡ

A lol A a > fA
2 Peter ii. ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ: 6 Sé* ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, µένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

14; Mark
iv. 19.

q iv. 5; John viii. 23, xv. 19. r Ver. 8 reff.

ο James iv. 16; Rom. i. 30; 2 Tim. iii. 2 (ἀλαζών). iy i 3
5 John iv. 34; Matt. vii. 21, xxiv. 39; 1 Peter iv. 2.

p Luke viii. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 4

1 rou πατρος SBKLP, Syrvg ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Arm., Aug., edd.; του θεου AC,
several minusc., Aeth.; του θεου και πατρος, several minusc.

2 adafovera B°K ; αλαζονία SAB*LP, edd.

greater. He gives the same reason also
for writing to the young men, but he
amplifies it: they have the strength of
youth, but it is disciplined by the in-
dwelling Word, and therefore they have
conquered.

Ver. 15. He is dealing with believers
who have a large experience of the
grace of Christ, and on this fact he pro-
ceeds to base an appeal, a call to further
advancement and higher attainment:
‘‘ Love not the world”. Yet God “loved
the world” (John iii. 16). Observe that
the Apostle does not say that the world
is evil. It is God’s world, and ‘“ God
saw every thing that He had made, and,
behold, it was very good” (Gen. i. 31).
His meaning is: “The things in the
world are transient. Do not set your
affection on them, else you will sustain
a bitter disappointment. The worldisa
good and beautiful gift of God, to be
used with joy and gratitude; but it is
not the supreme end, it is not the home
of our souls”. ‘Let the Spirit of God
be in thee,” says St. Augustine, ‘‘ that
thou mayest see that all these things
are good; but woe to thee if thou love
created things and forsake the Creator |
. . . Ifa bridegroom made a ring for his
bride and, when she got it, she were
fonder of the ring than of the bridegroom
who made the ring for her, would not an
adulterous spirit be detected in the very
gift of the bridegroom, however she
might love what the bridegroom gave?
. . .God gave thee all those things:
love Him who made them. There is
more which He would fain give thee,
to wit, Himself who made these things”’.
Again: ‘There are two loves—of the
world and of God. If the love of the
world inhabit, there is no way for the
love of God to enter. Let the love of
the world retire and that of God inhabit,
let the better get room. . . . Shut out
the evil love of the world, that thou
mayest be filled by the love of God.

αλλ ΝΑΚΙ,; αλλα BC, edd.

Thou art a vessel, but thou art still full ;
pour out what thou hast, that thou
mayest get what thou hast not”. 4
ἀγάπη τοῦ Πατρός, like ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ
Θεοῦ (νετ. 5), either (1) “love for the
Father,” in antithesis to ἀγαπᾷ τὸν
κόσμον, or (2) “the love which the
Father feels for us”. In fact the one
implies the other. The sense of the
Father’s love for us awakens in us an
answering love for Him. Cf. iv. το.

Ver. 16. 4 ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, not
object. gen. (Aug.: ‘‘desiderium earum
rerum qu pertinent ad carnem, sicut
cibus et concubitus, et cetera hujus-
modi,”) but subject.: ‘‘the lust which
the flesh feels, which resides in the flesh”.
Cf. ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. ἁλαζονία,
vain pretension, claiming what one really
has not. Def. Plat.: ἕξις προσποιητικὴ
ἀγαθοῦ ἢ ἀγαθῶν τῶν μὴ ὑπαρχόντων.
Suid.: ἀλαζόνας τοὺς ψεύστας ἐκάλουν,
ἐπεὶ λέγειν ἐπαγγέλλονται περὶ ὧν μὴ
ἴσασιν. Theophr. Char. vi. : προσδοκία
τις ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ὄντων. ζωή, the vital
principle (vita qua vivimus), βίος, the
outward life (vita quam vivimus) or live-
lihood (victus). There is here a sum-
mary of all possible sins, exemplified in
the temptations of Eve (Gen. iii. 1-6)
and our Lord (Matt. iv. 1-11). Cf. Aug.;
Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., on Matt. iv. 1.
(1) The lust of the’ flesh4-¢7.) "τε
tree was good for food”; ‘* Command that
these stones become loaves”. (2) ‘‘ The
lust of the eyes”: cf. ‘It wasa delight
to the eyes”; “Cast thyself down ”—a
spectacular display. (3) ‘“‘ The braggart
boast of life”: cf. ‘* The tree was to be
desired to make one wise”: “ All the
kingdoms of the world and the glory of
them”.

Ver. 17. An explanation, especially
of ἡ ἁλαζονία τοῦ βίου. Το set one’s
affection on the things in the world is
‘‘braggart boasting”; for they are not
ours, they are transient. Cf. Moham-
med: ‘‘ What have I to do with the

πσ- 15,

J
18. ἵ Παιδία, " ἐσχάτη ” dpa ἐστί : καὶ καθὼς " ἠκούσατε ὅτι
a ,
τίχριστος 7 ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν -

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Α 179

162 x gy.t Ver. 13
FEM) |
Ζ0θεν Ὁ John vi.

30, 40, 445
94, αἰ, 24 ACES! 11, της χα. Cor. αν. 5ο: ο Lim.) 1. 25) Jamesiv. 25a ‘Peter i. 6» 2 Peter iti. 3.
~ John ν. 28. w Matt. xxiv. 5, 24. x Ver. 22, iv. 3; 3 John 7. y John iv. 25. z Acts xxvi.

τος Heb, il, 17, iii. I, vil. 25,,1x. 18.

1οτι NBCKP, Syrvg ph, Vg., Cop., Aug., edd.; om. AL, several minusc.

20 WcCAKL; om. S*BC, Arm., edd.

comforts of this life? The world and I
—what connection is there between us ?
Verily the world is no otherwise than as
a tree unto me: when the traveller hath
rested under its shade, he passeth on.”
Aug. on iv. 4: ‘Mundus iste omnibus
fidelibus quzrentibus. patriam sic est,
quomodo fuit eremus populo Israel”.
αὐτοῦ, subjective genitive like σαρκός
and ὀφθαλμῶν. τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ,
alone permanent amid the flux of tran-
sitory things. Cf. Aug.: ‘‘ Rerum tem-
poralium fluvius trahit: sed tanquam
circa fluvium arbor nata est Dominus
noster Jesus Christus. Assumpsit car-
nem, mortuus est, resurrexit, ascendit in
celum. Voluit se quodammodo circa
fluvium temporalium plantare. Raperis
in praeceps? tene lignum. Volvit te
amor mundi? tene Christum.”

Vv. 18-29. A Warning against Here-
tical Teaching. ‘‘ Little ones, it is the
last hour; and, as ye heard that Anti-
christ is coming, even now have many
antichrists arisen; whence we recognise
that it is the last hour. From our com-
pany they went out, but they were not of
our company; for. if they had been of
our company, they would have abode in
our fellowship; but the purpose of it was
that it may be manifested that they all
are not of ourcompany. And ye havea
chrism from the Holy One, and ye all
know. I did not write to you because
ye did not know the Truth, but because
ye know it and because every lie is not
of the Truth. Who is the liar but he
that denieth that Jesus is the Christ ?
This is the Antichrist—he that denieth
the Father and the Son. Every one
that denieth the Son neither hath he the
Father; he that confesseth the Son hath
the Father also. As for you, that which
ye heard from the beginning, let it abide
in you. If that abide in you which ye
heard from the beginning, ye also in the
Son and in the Father will abide. And
this is the promise which He Himself
promised us—the Life, the Eternal Life.
These things I wrote to you regarding
them that would lead you astray. And
as for you, the chrism which ye received
from Him abideth in you, and ye have
no need that any one should teach you;
but, as His chrism is teaching you re-

garding all things, and is true and is not
a lie, and even as it taught you, abide
in Him. And now, little children, abide
in Him, that, if He be manifested, we
may have boldness and not be shamed
away from Him at His advent. If
ve know that He is righteous, recog-
nise that every one also that doeth
righteousness hath been begotten of
Him.”

A heresy had arisen in the bosom of
the Church (see Introd. pp. 156 f.). It was
a fatal heresy, a denial of the possibility
of the Incarnation, and therefore of the
relation of fatherhood and sonship Ῥε-
tween God and man. St. John’s empha-
tic condemnation of it was justified, but
his apprehension was groundless. He
shared the prevailing expectation of the
imminence of the Second Advent (cf.
© (Cor ixs tty αν. ος Phill ivi5/ x Thess:
σι εν ση.» Περ x. 255 Jamesrv. Ss) x
Peter iv. 7; Rev. 1. I, 3, 11. 1, xxii. 7.
το, 12, 20), and saw in the heresy an
evidence that the end was at hand. It
was rather an evidence that the Gospel
was winning its way. The era of simple
and unquestioning faith in the apostolic
testimony was past, and men were be-
ginning to enquire and reason. A heresy
has the same use in theology as a mis-
taken hypothesis in science: it provokes
thought and leads to a deeper under-
standing. What seemed to the Apostle
the pangs of dissolution were in reality
“ growing pains”.

Ver. 18. Aug.: ‘“‘ Pueros alloquitur, ut
festinent crescere, quia novissima hora
est. . . . Proficite, currite, crescite, no-
vissima hora est”. Ver. 28 puts it be-
yond doubt that ἐσχάτη Spa means “ the
end of the world,” and rules out various
attempts which have been made to give
it another reference and absolve the,
Apostle from the current misconception :
(1) Aug. says vaguely: ‘the last hour is
of long duration, yet it is the last” (novts-
sima hora diuturna est ; tamen novissima
est). And Calv.: ‘‘ Nothing any longer
remains but that Christ should appear
for the redemption of the world... .
He calls that ‘the last time’ in which all
things are being so completed that no-
thing is left except the last revelation of
Christ”. (2) Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., on

15Ο

a Acts xv.

24,
b John iii.
I

c Matt. i.
23, XXVi.

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ A

XX. 30, ο πμ ὅτι ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν.

II.

19. "ἜἘξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον,] add”

οὐκ ἦσαν ef ἡμῶν : εἰ γὰρ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν,” µεμενήκεισαν ἂν opel ἡμῶν -
GAN * ἵνα "φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶ πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν.

20. Καὶ ὑμεῖς

5ο, 3858, χρίσμα ὃ ἔχετε ἀπὸ Ξ τοῦ ἁγίου, Kal» οἴδατε πάντα." 21. οὐκ ἔγραψα

69; Acts
i26. di Cor xi. 1ο.

1 εξηλθον SKLP; εξηλθαν ABC, edd.

e John iii. 21; 2 Cor. iii. 3.

f Ver.27. gCf.Comm. hx Cor. ii. 15.

2noav εξ ηµων NAKLP, Tisch. ; εξ nuwv ησαν BC, WH, Nest.

Σχρίσμα WH; χρῖσμα Tisch., Nest. ;

Cf. ο. 5η.

4παντα ACKL, Syrvg (understanding πάντα ἄνθρωπον) ph, Vg., Cop., Aeth.,

Arm. ; παντες NEP, Sah., edd.
John xxi. 22, compares O97 TTS

i.e., ‘‘the last times of the Jewish city,
nation, and dispensation,” and remarks:
‘“‘Gens ista vergit jam quam proxime in
ruinam, cum enatus jam sit ultimus et
summus apex infidelitatis, apostasiz et
nequitie”. (3) Beng. with unwonted in-
eptitude: The advanced age of St. John
and his contemporaries in contrast to his
“little children”. “‘Ultima, non respectu
omnium mundi temporum: sed in anti-
theto puerulorum ad patres, et ad juve-
nes”. (4) Westcott: ‘‘a last hour,” z.e.,
“a period of critical change”. This is
possible but improbable. The omission
of the def. art. in the pred. is regular.
᾽Αντίχριστος (anarthrous) is a proper
name. Nowhere in N.T. but in the Jo-
hannine Epp. It may mean (1), on the
analogy of ἀντιφιλόσοφος, ἀντικάτων,
ἀντικείμενος, ἀντίθεσις, “adversary of
Christ,”’ Widerchrist (Luth.); cf. Orig.
C. Cels. vi. 45: τὸν τούτῳ κατὰ διάµετ-
pov ἐναντίον, Tert. De Praescript. Her.:
‘*antichristi, Christi rebelles,” Aug.:
‘“‘Latine Antichristus contrarius est
Christo”; (2), on the analogy of ἄντι-
βασιλεύς, ἀνθύπατος (proconsul), ‘ anti-
pope,” a ‘rival of Christ,” usurping His
name, a ψευδόχριστος (cf. Matt. xxiv. 24
= Mark xiii. 22); cf. Aristoph. Eq. 1038
Sq.: ἐγὼ γὰρ αντὶ τοῦ λέογτός εἰμί σοι.
/ καὶ πῶς p ἐλελήθης ᾽Αντιλέων γεγεν-
npevos; St. John seems to combine both
ideas. The heresy arose in the bosom
of the Church and claimed to bean en-
lightened Christianity ; yet, while calling
themselves Christians, Cerinthus and his
followers were adversaries of Christ.
Wetst. : ‘ Qui se pro Christo gerit, ideoque
ei contrarius est”. ἀντίχριστοι πολλοί,
the exponents and representatives of the
antichristian movement were a numerous
party. υὙεγόνασιν, ‘‘have arisen,” in
contrast to the true Christ who “ was in
the beginning”. Cf. the contrast between
the Word and the Baptist in John i. 1, 6.

Ver. 19. Cf. Aug.: ‘‘Sic sunt in cor-

pore Christi quomodo humores mali.
Quando evomuntur, tunc relevatur corpus:
sic et mali quando exeunt, tunc Ecclesia
relevatur. Et dicit quando eos evomit
atque projicit corpus: Ex me exierunt
umores isti, sed non erant ex me. Quid
est, non erant ex me?’ Non de carne
mea precisi sunt, sed pectus mihi preme-
bant cum inessent”. tva, sc. ἐξῆλθαν
or yéyove τοῦτο--α frequent Johannine

ellipse) cfs John Ἱ. δ, ο κας τδ
XV. 25.
Ver. 20. An expression of confidence

in his readers: they will not be led
astray; they have received ‘‘a chrism,”
the enlightening grace of the Holy Spirit,.
‘‘which He poured forth upon us richly
through Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Tit.
iii. 6). Baptism was called χρῖσμα in
later days (Greg. Naz. Orat. xl. 4) be-
cause of the r:te of baptismal] anointing
(cf. Tert. De Bapt. 7: ‘“‘ Exinde egressi
de lavacro perungimur benedicta unctione
de pristina disciplina, qua ungi are de
cornu in sacerdotium solebant”; Aug.:
‘“‘Unctio spiritalis ipse Spiritus ‘sanctus
est, cujus sacramentum est in unctione
visibili”); but there is no reference here
to this rite, which was of a later date and
was derived from our passage. χρῖσμα is
suggested by ἀντίχριστοι. “ They are
ἀντίχριστοι, you are χριστοί.' Cf.
Ps. cv. (civ. LXX) 15: pH ἄψησθε τῶν
χριστῶν µου. τοῦ Ἁγίου, not the Holy
Spirit. St. John has τὸ Πνεῦμα in Epp.
and Rey., but never τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ "Αγιον.
Either (1) Christ (cf. Rev. iii. 7) or (2)
God the Father (cf Acts x. 38; Heb.
i.g). The latter is preferable. The Spirit
παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται (John xv.
26)—from (ἀπό) the Father through (διά).
Christ (cf. Tit. iii. 6).

Ver. 21. ἔγραψα, ‘‘I wrote,” may refer
to the Gospel, which is an exposition of
the Incarnation, mu] τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
᾽Ρησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἔνσαρκος οἰκονομία (c/.
note on νετ. 14); but more probably ‘“‘aor.
referring to the moment just past” (Jebb
on Soph. O.T. 337). The aor. is appro-

U4

19—27.

IQANOY A

19ἵ

Me 1 9 i
ὑμῖν, Str οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, GAN’ ὅτι οἴδατε αὐτήν, καὶ ὅτι ον

πᾶν ψεῦδος " ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστι.

εἰ μὴ 6 ἀρνούμενος ὅτι Ιησοῦς ™ οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός ;

ἀντίχριστος, ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα

> , ‘ cer Ελ] A , ” 2
ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱόν, οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει.

> , Cyc) Bat > a > ο. ,
ηὐκούσατε “dm ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὕμιν µενέτω.

Δ 3
ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον.
ὑμᾶς.

22. Τίς ἐστιν 6! ψεύστης, Fe 16,
οὗτός ἐστιν 6 ™ Luke xx.

27; Gal,
c ~
καὶ τὸν υἱόν. 23. "Tas aN as
. ’
24. Ὑμεῖς οὖν 5 ὃ ο στο
ἐὰν ἐν ὑμῖν µείνη ὃ ο ος,
Atel 15 , Pp NU E/E RAL ο μεις > a \ a 33 :
ἀρχῆς ἠκούσατε, } καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν τῷ vid καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ μενεῖτε. | 7,23,
25. καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν 1% ἐπαγγελία, ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν, τὴν ος 9
ru οί cts i. 4;
26. ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν περὶ τῶν πλανώντων τν
_ i IK ; 2 Tim.
27. Καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρίσμα” 6 ἐλάβετε Gr αὐτοῦ, ἐν μῖν ir;
IG ας κο 9 aes ele λλ᾽ ὡς ἐτὸ 6 Sia Ee eke Da lar
μένει,’ καὶ οὐ " χρείαν ἔχετε ἵνα τις διδάσκη ὑμᾶς * ἀλλ ὡς "τὸ ὃ αὐτὸ εἰ. 8 το,
s eb. v.12.

, A
χρίσμα ὃ διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων, καὶ ἀληθές ἐστι, καὶ οὐκ EoTLt John

Ίεστιν edd.

4 hy xiv. 26:
xvi. 13; Gal. i. 12; Heb. viii. 11 (Jer. xxxi. 34)

3 Add 6 ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει ΜΝΑΒΟΡ, many minusc., Syrvg ph.

Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Aug., edd.

2 ovv om. S8ABCP, Syrph, Vg., Arm., edd.
5 ever εν υμιν S8ABCP, ΥΡ., Cop., Sah.

δαλλ ws το ΜΑΟΚΙ.Ρ, Υρ., Sah., edd. ;

αχαρισμα B.

, Aeth., Arm., edd.

αλλα το B, Aeth.

Ίαυτο AKL, Cop.; αυτου ΝΒΟΡ, Syrvg ph, Vg., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Aug., edd.

Sarveupa ΑΝ", Cop., Aeth.

priate. No sooner has he spoken of the
antichrists than he hastens to reiterate
his assurance of confidence in his readers.
τὴν ἀλήθειαν, see note on i. 8. ἐκ, of
parentage (cf. iii. 8-10). His readers had
only to be reminded of their experience
(οἴδατε), and it would keep them from
being led astray. An experience is an
anchor to the soul in time of storm.
“Tell me,” said the dying Cromwell to a
minister, ‘‘is it possible to fall from
grace?” .‘*No, it is not possible.”
“Then I am safe, for I know that I was
once in grace” (Morley’s Oliver Crom-
well, V. χ.).

Ver. 22. Wevorns, cf. n. oni.6. The

the Father; through Him we reach the.
Unseen Father (cf. John xiv. 9).

Ver. 25. ἐπαγγελία, repromissio, ‘ pro--
mise”; only here in the Johannine writ--
ings (see note oni. 5). αὐτός, 1.8., the:
Father. God is the Promiser, and His.
promises are made in Christ (cf. 2 Cor.
i. 20).

Ver. 26. ἔγραψα, see note on ver. 21.
τῶν πλανώγτων, the heretical teachers.
Pres. partic., ‘‘are leading astray” but
unsuccessfully.

Ver. 27. The ground of the Apostle’s
confidence in his readers. They need
not be taught but only reminded. αλλ᾽
ὧς, κ.τ.λ., a single sentence with one

Cerinthian distinction between Jesus and _apodosis, Vulg. makes it a double sen-
the Christ was a denial of the possibility tence with two apodoses: ‘“‘as His chrism

of the Incarnation, 1.Ε., of the filial rela-
tion of man to God. ov« in dependent
clause after ἀρνεῖσθαι is a common Gk.
idiom, not unknown in English; cf.
Shakespeare, Comedy of Errors, tv. ii. 7:
‘He denied you had-in him no right”.

Ver. 23. Since the Father is manifested
and interpreted in the Son. Cf. Johni.
τὴ, xiv. 0.

Ver. 24. am’ ἀρχῆς, as in ver. 7. The
significant iteration of pévew is lost in
A.V. (‘abide ... remain... continue”).
ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ Πατρί: observe the
order. The Son is the manifestation of

ΝΟΕ ΗΝ. το

is teaching you regarding all things, it is
indeed true and is not a lie; and even as
it taught you, abide in Him”. Reading
ἀλλά, translate: ‘ye have no need that
any one should teach you, but His chrism’
is teaching you... a lie; and evenas,
etc.” διδάσκει, of the continued teach-
ing by the grace of the Spirit; ἐδίδαξεν,
of the illumination at the hour of con-
version. µένετε, plainly imperat. in next
ver., can hardly be indicat. here (‘‘ ye are
abiding”). The reading pevetre (‘‘ye
shall abide”) would express the Apostle’s
confidence in the steadfastness of his

192

u John xvii.
5.

vi.2; John

i. 31, Χχἰ.

I, 14;

Col. iii. 4;

IQANOY A

K A a > 96 > > 3 - 5 ~ y , > nA
αι μη αισχυν WILEV απ αυτου, εν τη παρουσιᾳ αυτου.

II. 28—29. III.

ψεῦδος ' καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς, μενεῖτε] ἐν αὐτῷ. 28. “Kal νῦν,

, ~ ~
7 τεκνία, µένετε ἐν αὐτῷ ' ἵνα Stay” " φανερωθῇ, ἔχωμεν ὃ " παρρησίαν,

20. , ἐὰν

3 nw ~ -
1 Peter ν. εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστι, " γινώσκετε ὅτι * πᾶς 6 ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην,

ie i
W ili. 21, iv.
17, V. T4*
Eph. iii.
12; Heb.
iv. 16, x.

το.
x Mark viii.
z Phil. ii, 1.

ἐδ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται.

Ty.

I. “Sete

38; Rev. iii. 18.
a John xv. 18.

ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ὃ ἡμῖν 6 πατήρ, ἵνα
τέκνα Θεοῦ Ὁ κληθῶμεν δ: διὰ τοῦτο ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι

y Matt. xxiv. 3, 27, 39; 1 Cor xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19; iii. 13.
a Matt. viil.27; Mark xiii. 1; Luke i. 29, vii. 39; 2 Peter iii. 11.

Ὦ Matt. v. 9, xxiii. 7, 8, 9, xxvii. 8; Luke 1. 32, 35; Johni. 43.

Tpevertre KL; µενετε SABCP, many minusc., Syrvg ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth.,

Arm., Aug., edd.

2 orav KL, Syrvg ph, Vg., Aug. ; εαν S8ABCP, Cop., Sah., Arm., edd.

3 exopev SQ*KL ; σχωµεν CBCP, edd.

‘ort BKL, Syrph, Cop., Aeth., Arm., Aug., WH; οτι και ΝΔΟΡ, Syrve, Vg.,

‘Sah., Tisch., Nest.
5 Se8wxev MABCKP, edd. ; εδωκεν AL.

ὄκληθωμεν και εσµεν SABCP, Syrvs,

edd.

readers, like ‘‘ England expects every
man to do his duty”. Cf. Matt. v. 48:
ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι. ἐν αὐτῷ, in co
(Vulg), “in Him,” ¢.e., in Christ and
therefore in God (cf. ver. 24). According
to Aug., ‘‘in it,” z.e., the chrism, unctio
(permanete in tpsa).

Ver. 28. καὶ νῦν, continuing and rein-
forcing the exhortation. ἐὰν φανερωθῇῃ :
the uncertainty is not in the manifesta-
tion but in the time of it, and this is the
reason for steadfast abiding in Him. Cf.
unwritten saying of Jesus: éd’ ots γὰρ
ἂν εὕρω ὑμᾶς, φησὶν, ἐπὶ τούτοις καὶ
κρινῶ. σχῶμεν, aor. marking the sud-
denness of the crisis. παρρησία, pro-
verly ‘‘ freedom of speech” (cf. Mark viii.
2; John vii. 13, xvi. 29, xviii. 20; Acts
il. 29, iv. 29, 31, xxvili. 31); then ‘“con-
fidence,” ‘‘ boldness,” especially before
God (cf. Heb. iv. 16; 1 John iii. 27, iv.
I7, v. 14), the attitude of children to
their father in contrast with that of
slaves to their master (cf. Sen. Ef. xlvii.:
‘‘Infelicibus servis movere labra ne in

hoc quidem ut loquantur licet. Virga
murmur Omne compescitur: ... nocte
tota jejuni mutique perstant”). καὶ μὴ

αἰσχυνθώμεν, in contrast to σχώμεν
παρρησίαν. mapovoia, frequent in N.T.
but only here in the Johannine writings.
Not simply “presence” but ‘‘ arrival,”
“Cadvent” (adventus); cf. Luke xiii. 1:
παρῆσαν, Matt. xi. 50, John xi. 28.

Ver. 29. In view of the preceding
verse δίκαιος must refer to Christ (cf. ii.
I), and it is equally certain that ἐξ αὐτοῦ
refers to the Father, since ‘‘ begotten of
Christ” (cf. Tennyson 5 ‘“‘our fair father
Christ”) is not a Scriptural idea. The

Vg. (et simus), Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arms,

abrupt transition evinces St. John’s sense
of the oneness of the Father and the
Son (cf. ver. 24; John x. 30). γινώσκετε,
scitote (Vulg.), rather cognoscite (Calv.),
‘get to know,” “recognise” (see note on
ver. 3); perceive the blessed inference,
appropriate your birthright. It enfeebles
the sentence to take the verb as indicat.

ΟΗΑΡΤΕΚ III. Vv. 1-3. Our Present
Dignity and Our Future Destiny. “See
what unearthly love the Father hath
given us, in order that we may be styled
‘children of God’; and so we are. It is
for this reason that the world doth not
recognise us, because it did not recognise
Him. Beloved, now are we children of
God, and it was not yet manifested what
we shall be. We know that, if it be
manifested, we shall be like Him, be-
cause we shall see Him even as He is.
And every one that hath this hope rest-
ing on Him purifieth himself even as the
Lord is pure.”

Ver. 1. St. John has been speaking of
the salvation which Jesus has brought—
His Propitiation and Advocacy, and he
sees and would have his readers see in it
an amazing expression of the love of God.
Cf. John iii. 16. ποταπός (ποδαπός),
properly cujas, “οἱ what country,”
though approximating in late Greek to
motos, qualis, ‘of what sort” (cf. Moul-
ton, Gram. of N.T. Gk., i. p. 95), retains
something of its proper and original
signification. The love of God in Christ
is foreign to this world: ‘‘ from what far
realm ? whatunearthly love?” Cf. Matt.
vill. 27: ‘‘ What unearthly personage ? ”
2 Peter ili. 11: ‘‘ How other-worldly”.
ἵνα, κ.τ.λ., the purpose of this amazing

I--3.

> ” ή > , a
OUK εγνω αυτον. 2, αγαπήητοι, γυν

᾿ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα: οἴδαμεν δὲ 1 ὅτι ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ
ἐσόμεθα, ὅτι ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστι.

> ’ Pa a i ,
ἐλπίδα ταύτην ‘ew αὐτῷ, * ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ' ἁγνός ἐστι.

iii. 21; Exod. xxxiv. 29.

IQANOY A

183

τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμεν, καὶ οὕπω ον 26,
3

XVii. 25.

d Rom. viii.
16, 17:

e Col. iii. 4;
2 Cor. ΠΠ.
18; Phil.

3. Καὶ πᾶς 6 ἔχων τὴν

Ετ Tim. iv. 10; Acts xxiv. 15; Col. iv. 27; Ps. Ixxviii. 7, cxlvi. 5.
g John xi. 55; Acts xxi. 24; James iv. 8; 1 Peter i. 22.

h 2 Cor. xi. 2; 1 Tim. v. 22.

1 $e om. ΝΔΒΟΡ, Syrph, Vg., Sah., Arm., edd.

gift; a wise, holy love, concerned for our
highest good; not simply that we may
be saved from suffering and loss but ‘in
order that we may be styled ‘children of
God’”. And wehave not only the name
but the character: ‘‘so we are”. Vulg.
and Aug. give simus, as though reading
ὦμεν for ἐσμὲν : ‘ that we should be styled
and be”. Cf. Aug. : ‘“‘Nam qui vocantur
et non sunt, quid illis prodest nomen ubi
res non est? Quam multi vocantur
medici, qui curare non norunt? quam
multi vocantur vigiles, qui tota nocte
dormiunt?’’ διὰ τοῦτο, not anticipative,
of ὅτι, but retrospective: ‘‘ for this rea-
son,” viz., because we are children of
God. ὅτι explains the inference: ‘ (and
no wonder) because it did not recognise
Him,” z.e. the Father as revealed in His
Son (cf. note on ii. 29). We must accept
‘what our high dignity as children of God
involves in a world alienated from God.
On 6 κόσμος see note on ii, 15. Cf.
Aug. : “Jam cum auditis mundum in
mala significatione, non intelligatis nisi
dilectores mundi, . . . Ambulabat et ipse
Dominus Jesus (Christus, in carne erat
Deus, latebat in infirmitate. Et unde
non est cognitus ? Quia omnia peccata
arguebat in hominibus. Illi amando de-
lectationes peccatorum non agnoscebant
Deum: amando quod febris suadebat,
injuriam medico faciebant.”

Ver. 2. Having spoken of our present
dignity, the Apostle goes on to speak of
our future destiny. The Incarnation
manifested our standing as children of
God, but ‘it was not yet manifested
what we shall be”. The aorist éda-
νερώθη (cf. ἔγνω in previous verse) refers
to the historic manifestation in Jesus
Christ. The N.T. says nothing definite
about the nature of our future glory.
With our present faculties we cannot
conceive it. It must be experienced to
be understood. Jesus simply assures us
of the felicity of the Father’s House, and
bids us take His word for it (cf. John xiv.
2). ἐὰν φανερωθῇῃ, ‘if (cf. note on ii. 28)
it may be manifested,” taking up οὕπω
ἐφανερώθη. This obvious connection 1s
decisive against the rendering ‘if He
shall be manifested” (cf. 11. 28 ; Col. iii. 4).

ὅτι, κ.τ.λ.: What we shall be was not
manifested, but this we know that we
shall be like Him. And how do we
know it? From His promise that “we
shall see Him even as He is” (cf. John
xvii. 24). The argument is two-fold: (1)
Vision of God implies likeness to Him in
character and affection (cf. Matt. v. 8);
(2) the vision of God transfigures (cf.

_2 Cor. iii. 18), even in this life.

‘“* Ah! the Master is so fair,

His smile so sweet to banished men,
That they who meet it unaware

Can never rest on earth again.”

And how will it be when we ‘‘see Him
facentoniace | (x (Con. η. τον δε.
Augustine expresses much of the Apostle’s
thought in a beautiful sentence: ‘‘ Tota
vita Christiani boni sanctum desiderium
este

Ver.3. The duty which our destiny im-
poses. ἐπ) αὐτῷ, ‘resting on Him,” #.e.,
on Godas Father. Cf. Luke v.5: ἐπὶ τῷ
ῥήματί σου, “relying on Thy word”.
ἐκεῖνος, Christ; see note on ii. 6. ἄγνός
also proves that the reference is to Christ.
As distinguished from ἅγιος, which im-
plies absolute and essential purity, it de-
notes purity maintained with effort and
fearfulness amid defilements and allure-
ments, especially carnal. Cf. Plat. Def.:
ayveia εὐλάβεια τῶν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς
ἁμαρτημάτων ' τῆς θεοῦ Tins κατὰ
φύσιν θεραπεία. Suid.: ἐπίτασις σωφρο-
σύνης. God is called ἅγιος but never
Gyvos. Christ is ayvés because of His
human experience. The duty of every
one in view of his appearing before God,
his presentation to the King, is ἁγνίζειν
ἑαντόν, like the worshippers before the
Feast (John xi. 55), like the people before
the Lord’s manifestation at Sinai (Exod.
xix. 10-11, LXX). It is his own work,
not God’s, or rather it is his and God’s.
ΕΙ ΙΙ ποτο. «Απ Videte
quemadmodum non abstulit liberum arbi-
trium, ut diceret, castificat semetipsum.
Quis nos castificat nisi Deus? Sed Deus
te nolentem non castificat. Ergo quod
adjungis voluntatem tuam Deo, castificas
teipsum.”

154

i Matt. vii. nace

oes . ag o
23; ο 4 : z ee ς
νὰ ομία.
x. 17 (Jer. Eva, πα er ee
XXX1. 34).

k Jobn i. 4

IQANOY A

11.

A , / a ,
ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ ‘thy ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ: καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία
Ν 3/, 5! > a 1 5 η 2 \
5. καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐκεῖνος | ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς
a , na A
ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν 1 “don καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὖκ ἔστι. 6. πᾶς
,

1 Cor.xv.6 "éy αὐτῷ µένων, ' οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει: πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων, οὐχ ἑώρακεν

250:
1Η. 28 reff. αὐτόν, οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν.

m Johni.
29; Col. ii. 14.

n ii. 6 ref. ο Rom. vi. 14.

7. Texvia,” μηδεὶς πλανάτω 2 ἡμᾶς:
pi. 8 reff.

Ἱαμαρτιας ημων SCKL, Syrvg, Vg., Sah.; om. ημων ABP, Syrph, Cop., Aeth.,

Arm., Tert. (de Pudic. το), Aug., edd.

* rexvia SYBKL, edd. ; παιδια ACP, WH (πιατρ.).

Vv. 4-12. The Obligation of our
Dignity as Children of God. ‘‘ Every
one that doeth sin doeth also lawless-
ness; and sin is lawlessness. And ye
know that He was manifested that He
might take away the sins; and sin in
Him there is not. Every one that abideth
in Him doth not keep sinning; every one
that keepeth sinning hath not seen Him
nor got to know Him. Little children,
let no one lead you astray: he that doeth
righteousness is righteous, even as He is
righteous; he that doeth sin is of the
Devil, because from the beginning the
Devil keepeth sinning. To this end was
the Son of God manifested, that He might
undo the works of the Devil. Every one
that hath been begotten of God doeth
not sin, because His seed in him abideth;
and he cannot keep sinning, because of
God he hath been begotten. Herein are
manifest the children of God and the
children of the Devil: every one that
doeth not righteousness is not of God,
and he that loveth not his brother. Be-
cause this is the message which ye heard
from the beginning, that we love one
another. Not as Cain was of the Evil
One and slew his brother. And where-
fore did heslayhim? Because his works
were evil, but his brother’s righteous.”

Vv. 4-8. The Incompatibility of Son-
ship with Continuance in Sin.

Ver. 4. 6 ποι. τὴν ap., the converse
of 6 ποι. την δικ. (ii. 20). νόμος, the
revelation of God’s will, the Father’s
requirement of His children, an expres-
sion of the true law of their nature. 4
Gp. ἐστ. ἡ Gv. : the article in both subject
and predicate make “sin” and ‘‘ lawless-
ness” convertible and co-extensive terms.

Ver. 5. The purpose of the Incarna-
tion was to “ take away the sins ”—atone
for the sins of the past and prevent sins
in the future. αἴρειν, properly “ lift up
and carry away” (cf. Mark vi. 29; John
ii. 16), but the idea of expiation is in-
volved since it is ‘the Lamb of God”
that ‘‘ taketh away the sins”. ἐκεῖνος,
see note on ii. 6. ἁμαρτία, ‘sin,” ἐ,ε.
the sinful principle; see note oni. 8.

Ver. 6., This seems a stark contradic-
tion of i, 8-ii. 2. (xz) St. Augustine first
limits the statement: ‘‘In quantum in
ipso manet, in tantum non peccat,” and
then narrows the idea of ‘‘sin” by defin-
ing it as “not loving one’s brother”
(vers. το). (2) St. Bernard (De Nat. et
Dign. Am. Div. vi.) compares Rom. vii.
17, 20: “secundum hoc quod natus est
ex Deo, id est secundum interioris
hominis rationem, in tantum non peccat,
in quantum peccatum quod corpus mortis
foris operatur, odit potius quam approbat,
semine spiritualis nativitatis quo ex Deo
natus est eum interius conservante ”.
(3) Romanists limit ‘‘sin” to ‘“ mortal
sin”. (4) Many commentators say that
St. John is thinking only of the ideal.
All these simply explain away the em-
phatic declaration. There is really no
contradiction, and the Apostle’s meaning
appears when account is taken of the
terms he employs with accurate preci-
sion. In the earlier passage hesays that
there is indwelling sin in the believer.
The sinful principle (ἁμαρτία) remains,
and it manifests its presence by lapses
from holiness—occasional sins, definite,
isolated acts of sin. This is the iorce ot
the aorists, ἁμάρτητε, ἁμάρτῃ in ii. 1.
Here he uses the present ἁμαρτάνειν
(varied by ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν) with the
implication of continuance in sin. The
distinction between present and aorist
is well exemplified by Matt. vi. 11: 885
σήμερον as contrasted with Luke xi. 3:
δίδου τὸ Kad’ ἡμέραν, and Matt. xiv. 22:
ἐμβῆναι .. . καὶ προάγει. The dis-
tinction was obvious to St. John’s Greek.
readers, and they would feel no difficulty
when he said, on the one hand: ἐάν τις
ἁμάρτῃ, Παράκλητον ἔχομεν, and, on the
other: was 6 ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν
αὐτόν. The believer may fall into sin
but he will not walk in it. ‘‘ Hath not
seen Him,” because he is ‘in the dark-
ness” (cf. i. 5-7).

Ver. 7. Απ΄ affectionate warning
against Nicolaitan Antinomianism (cf.
note oni. 6-7). The Apostle cuts away
vain pretences by a sharp principle: a

4—I2.

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ A 185

x rs
6 Αποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, δίκαιός ἐστι, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός 11 20, ver.

στι. 8. 6 ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν,

--. Αν

3 ~
am ἀρχῆς 6 διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει.
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα “Avon "τὰ ἔργα τοῦ

"ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν: ὅτι: ii. 7 reff.

ο

εἰς τοῦτο " ἐφανερώθη ὁ υἱὸς dha viii.

διαβόλου.

a ς *
ο as yeyerin τας.

4 x fol fol , A ὃς ῃ
μένος ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ w Matt. xi.

, a A
μένει: καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται.
TO. ἐν τούτῳ "φανερά ἐστι τὰ τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ

διαβόλου.

καὶ ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ.

ἣν ᾿ ἠκούσατε dm ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους :

2; John
vii. 7, ix.
3, 4, Χ. 37/
Rom. xiii.
12; Gal.

Nas 6 μὴ * ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, v.19.

Xx iv. 7, ν.

II. ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ " ἀγγελία 18.

y 1 Cor. iii.
13. Xi. 193
Gal. v. το.

12. οὐ καθὼς

*Kdiv ἐκ * τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν, καὶ ° ἔσφαξε τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ: καὶ χάριν z Ver. 7.

, » > 2 9 . 9 > A ΑΝ 8 N Se mal. 5.
τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτόν; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν, τὰ δὲ τοῦ bii.7; John

χν. 12, c Gen. iv. 8.

righteous character expresses itself in
righteous conduct. Christ (ἐκεῖνος) is
the type. He was ‘‘the Son of God,”
and if we are ‘children of God,” we
must be like Him.

Ver. 8. 6 ποι. τὴν Gp., an emphatic
and interpretative variation of 6 ἅμαρτ-
avev—‘‘he that makes sin his business
or practice”. ἐκ of parentage (cf. vers.
g); ‘“‘ hoc est, ex patre diabolo” (Clem.
Alex.). ἀπ᾿ ἀρχ., a vague phrase. In
πι ετο time ρεραα shin ο πω πη
“from the beginning of your Christian
life”. Here ‘“‘ from the beginning of his
diabolic career’’; ‘‘a quo peccare ccepit
incontrovertibiliter in peccando perse-
verans” (Clem. ΑΙεχ.). λύσῃ, ‘‘ loose,”
metaphorically of ‘loosening a bond,”
“relaxing an obligation” (Matt. v. 19;
John ν. 18), ‘‘ pulling to pieces” (John
ii. το).

Ver. ο. The Reason of the Impossi-
bility of a Child of God continuing in
Sin. The germ of the divine life has
been implanted in our souls, and it grows
—a gradual process and subject to occa-
sional retardations, yet sure, attaining at
length to full fruition. The believer’s
lapses into sin are like the mischances
of the weather which hinder the seed’s
growth. The growth of a living seed
may be checked temporarily; if there be
no growth, there is no life. This is the
distinction between ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ and
6 ἁμαρτάνων. Alexander in Speaker’s
Comm. understands: ‘“ His seed,” 4.ε.,
whosoever is born of God (ef. Isa. liii.
το, lxvi. 22), “ abideth in Him,” i.e., in
God. This is Pauline but not Johann-
ine. ‘ He cannot keep sinning,” as the
seed cannot cease growing.

Vv. 10-12. The Evidence of Divine
Sonship, viz., Human Brotherhood.

d ii. 13 reff.

.. ΧΙ. 34,
e Rev. ν. 6, 9, 12, xiii. 3, 8, xviii. 24.

Ver. to. The Apostle reiterates the
“old commandment” (ii. 7-11) as not
only the paramount duty of believers
but the evidence of their divine sonship.
He has said that the evidence lies in
κα doing righteousness,” and now he de-
fines ποιεῖν δικαιοσύνην as ἀγαπᾶν τὸν
ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. See note onii.g. The
‘*righteousness ” of the Pharisees con-
sisted in ritual observance, that of Jesus
in love. δίκαιος had the meaning
“kind,” ‘sweetly reasonable”. See
Hatch, Ess. in Β1δ. Gk., p. 50 ff. On
Matt. i. 19 St. Chrysostom remarks :
δίκαιον ἐνταῦθα τὸν ἐνάρετον ἐν ἅπασι
λέγει. ἔστι μὲν γὰρ δικαιοσύνη καὶ τὸ
μὴ πλεονεκτεῖν ' ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ καθόλου
ἀρετή. . « . δίκαιος οὖν Ov, τούτεστι
χρηστὸς καὶ ἐπιεικής.

Ver. 11. ἵνα ecbatic, expressing not
the aim but simply the substance of the
message. Cf. John xvii. 3. See Moul-
ton’s Gram. of N.T. Gk., p. 206; Moul-
ton’s Winer, p. 425.

Ver. 12. ov καθὼς, κ.τελ., a loose,
almost ungrammatical expression, analo-
gous to John vi. 58. Were there no ov,
ver. Ir might be regarded as a paren-
thesis: “Πε that loveth not his brother,
even as Cain was, etc.”. The phrase
is elliptical: “' We must not hate our
brethren, even as Cain was, etc.”. τοῦ
πον., see note on ii. 18. ἔσφαξεν, a
strong word, ‘“‘slaughtered,” ‘‘ butchered,”
properly by cutting the throat (jugulare),
like an ox in the shambles.

Vv. 13-24. The Secret of Assurance.
“Wonder not, brethren, if the world
hateth you. We .know that we have
migrated out of the domain of death into
the domain of life, because we love the
brethren. He that loveth not abideth in
the domain of death. Everyone that

ΡΛ
186
fJohnxv. 2 a αὔγοα δι
πο ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια.
Matt.v. Guec é ‘ ~
a ὑμᾶς ὁ κόσμος.
Ε η ν.

h Mate iv. τὸν ἀδελφόν.ὃ

co ο. 4k
k Only here ov αὐτοῦ,
and John οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ ὃ
Vili. 44 in
H: ee καμεν τὴν ἀγάπην:'
11. 0.
πι Johnx. καὶ ἡμεῖς "
πα το αγ «δα
18, xiii. ὃς 5 ἂν ἔχη τὸν
37. 38, Xv
13. n il. 6 reff. ο Mark xii. 44; Luke viii. 43; xv. 12, 30.

Matt. xxvii. 55, xxviii. 1;

IQANOY A

µένει ἐν τῷ θανάτω.

) ὅτι ! ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν

ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς τιθέναι.ῖ

111.

13. μὴ 1 θαυµάζετε, ἀδελφοί pou,? εἰ * μισεῖ
LA: ee οἴδαμεν ὅτι "µεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ
θανάτου eis τὴν ζωήν, ‘Sti ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς : 6 μὴ ἀγαπῶν

15. πᾶς ὁ μισῶν τὸν aded-

ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστί : καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι Tas ἀνθρωποκτόνος

µένουσαν. 16. Ἐν τούτω ἐγνώ-
t
τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ €OnKe-

1].

βίον τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ ? θεωρῇ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ

p John xvii, 24, xx. 6, 12, 14,

Mark v. 15, 38; Luke x. 18.

Ίμη ABCKL, Syrph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aug., WH, Nest.; και µη SQC*P, Syrve,

Aeth., Arm., Tisch.

ἆμον om. ΝΑΒΟΡ, Vg., Arm., Aug., edd.
3 τον αδελφον om. NAB, Vg., Arm., Aug., edd.

4 εαντου B.

ὃτην αγαπην του θεου one minusc., Vg.

hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye
know that every murderer hath not life
eternal abiding in him. Herein have we
got to know love, because He laid down
His life for us; and we are bound to lay
down our lives for the brethren. But
whosoever hath the world’s goods, and
beholdeth his brother in need. and locketh
up his compassion from him, how doth
the love of God abide in him? Little
children, let us not love with word nor
with the tongue, but in deed and truth.
Herein shall we get to know that we are
of the Truth, and in His presence shall
assure our heart, whereinsoever our
heart may condemn us, because greater
is God than our heart, and He readeth
everything. Beloved, if the heart con-
demn not, we have boldness toward
God, and whatever we ask we receive
from Him, because we observe His com-
mandments and do the things that are
pleasing in His sight. And this is His
commandment, that we believe the name
of His Son Jesus Christ and love one
another, even as He gave a command-
ment to us. And he that observeth His
commandments in Him abideth and He
in him; and herein we get to know that
He abideth in us—from the Spirit which
He gave us.”

Ver. 13. Itis natural that the world
(see notes on ii. 15, iii. 1) should hate
those whose lives contradict its maxims
and condemn its practices. John
frequently addresses his readers as τεκνία
and ayamnrot, here only as ἀδελφοί.
The term suits the context, where he
enforces love of the brethren. It is no
wonder if the world hate us, and its

5 eautw NACLP, Tisch., WH (marg.); αντω BK, WH, Nest.

Τθειναι SSABCP, edd.

judgment is not decisive. Nevertheless
our business is not to be hated by the
world, but to commend Jesus to it and
win it. We must not impute to the
world’s hostility to goodness the conse-
quences of our own unamiability or tact-
lessness. ‘It is not martyrdom to pay
bills that one has run into one’s self”
(Geo. Eliot).

Ver. 14. ἡμεῖς emphatic: ‘* Whatever
the world may say, we know”. The
test is not its hatred but our love.
µεταβεβήκαμεν, “have migrated”. The
word is used of transition from one place
to another (John vil. 3, xiii. 1), of passing
from one form of government to another
(Plat. Rep. 550 D), of the transmigra-
tion of souls (Luc. Gall. 4).

Ver. 15. An echo of the teaching of
Jesus. See Matt. v. 21-22 and cf. Smith,
The Days of His Flesh, pp. 96-98.

Ver. 16. τὴν ἀγάπην, ‘the thing
called ‘love’”. The love of God in
Christ Jesus our Lord is the perfect
type. ‘Till the world saw that, it never
knew what love is. ἐκεῖνος, Christ; see
note Onii. 6. ‘pets emphatic, "νε on
our part”. ὀφείλομεν, see note on ii. 6.

Ver. 17. Love must be practical.
It is easy to “lay down one’s life”
martyrdom is heroic and exhilarating ;
the difficulty lies in doing the little things,
facing day by day the petty sacrifices
and self-denials which no one notices
and no one applauds. τὸν βίον τοῦ
κόσμον, ‘the livelihood of the world”;
see note onii. 16. θεωρῇῃ, of a moving
spectacle ; cf. Matt. xxvii. 55. κλείσῃ,
schliesst; the metaphor is locking the
chamber of the heart instead of flinging

13—20.

* xpelay ἔχοντα, καὶ ” κλείση τὰ ' σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, tras ἡ 4
ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ µένει ἐν αὐτῷ; 18.
Ἀλόγῳ μηδὲ” γλώσση, GAN Epyw? καὶ ἀληθεία.
τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὃ ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσμέν, καὶ ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ
πείσοµεν τὰς καρδίας © ἡμῶν 20. ὅτι" ᾿ ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν ἡ i
καρδία, ὅτι ὃ pretLav ἐστὶν 6 Θεὸς ' τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν, καὶ γινώσκει

Phill 1. 8, ii, τ. tiv. 20; James ii. 15, 16.

IQANOY A

187

Mark ii.
25; Eph.
iv. 28.
Matt.
XXili. 14,
Χχν. I0;
Luke iv.
25; John
XX. 19, 26.
Luke i.
78; 2 Cor.
vi. 12;

v Mark vi. 23 (0, τι ἐάν).

τεκνία µου, μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν |
19. Καὶ” ἐν

u James i, 22, 23, 25.

1μου om. ΝΑΒΟΡ, Syrph, Arm., Aug., edd.

2 unde Tn ABCKL, edd.

WH, Nest.

ὕγνωσομεθα SSABCP, Cop., Sah., Arm.,
Stas καρδιας SA2CKLP, Syrph, Vg.,

Syrvg, Sah., Aeth., Aug., WH, Nest.
7 Punct. ημων ο τι.

δοτι om. A, several minusc., Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Aug.

it wide open and lavishing its treasures.
σπλάγχνα, OTT , viscera, “the in-
ward parts,” viewed by the ancients as
the seat of the affections. Cf. Coll. iii.
12: σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ. ἢ ay. T. Θ.,
“love for God” (objective genitive), in-
spired by ard answering to the love which

God feels (subjective genitive). Cf. note
On li. 5.
Ver. 18. Observe the transition from

instrumental dative to preposition ἐν:
‘not with word and the tongue but in
the midst of deed and truth’—not in
empty air but amid tangible realities.
Cf. Bunyan, Good News: ‘ Practical
love is best. Many love Christ with
nothing but the lick of the tongue.”
Sheridan, Sch. for Scand. ν. Ἱ.: Πε
appears to have as much speculative
benevolence as any private gentleman in
the kingdom, though he is seldom so
sensual as to indulge himself in the exer-
cise of it”.

Vv. 19-20. Acrux interpretum. Read
τὴν καρδίαν ἡμῶν ὅ, τι ἐάν (i.e. ἄν), and
take the subsequent ὅτι as ‘‘ because”.
The foregoing exhortation may have
awakened a misgiving in our minds:
“Am I lovingaslought?” Our failures
‘in duty and service rise up befcre us,
and ‘‘our heart condemns us”. So the
Apostle furnishes a grand reassurance:
* Herein shall we get to know that we
are of the Truth, and in His presence
shall assure our heart, whereinsoever
our heart may condemn us, because,
etc.”. The reassurance is two-fold: (1)
The worst that is in us is known to God
(cf. Aug. : Cor tuum abscondis ab homine ;
a Deo absconde si potes), and still He

ὅεν εργω SABCLP, Arm., edd.
4 kat ΝΟΚΙ.Ρ, Syrvg, Sah., Aeth., Arm.,

Tisch. ; om. AB, Syrph, Vg., Cop., Aug.,

edd.
Cop., Arm., Tisch.; την καρδιαν A*B,

® kuptos C.

cares for us and desires us. Our dis-
covery has been an open secret to Him
all along. (2) He ‘‘readeth everything”
—sees the deepest things, and these are
the real things. This is the true test of
a man: Is the deepest that is in him the
best? Is he betterthanheseems? His
failures lie on the surface: is there a
desire for goodness deep down in his
soul? Is he glad to escape from super-
ficial judgments and be judged by God
who ‘‘readeth everything,” who sees
‘““with larger other eyes than ours, to
make allowance for us all”? Cf. F. W.
Robertson, Lett. lvi. : ‘‘I remember an
anecdote of Thomas Scott having said
to his curate, who was rather agitated
on having to preach before him, ‘ Well,
sir, why should you be afraid before me,
when you are not afraid before God?’
But how very easy it was to answer!
He had only to say, God is not jea ous,
nor envious, nor censorious ; besides,
God can make allowances”. So Brown-
ing :—

‘* Thoughts hardly to be packed
Into a narrow act,
Fancies that broke through language and
escaped ;
Ail I could never be,
All, men ignored in me,
This, I was worth to God, whose wheel
the pitcher shaped.”

΄

ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ, and what matter how
We appear ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων
(Matt. vi. i.)? πείσοµεν, ‘ persuade,’
i.e. pacify, win the confidence, soothe
the alarm, of our heart. Cf. Matt. xxviii.
14. Otherwise: ‘ we shali persuade our
heart . . . that greater is God”. But

155

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Α

III, 21---24. IV.

w ii. 28 reff. ο Lae £ , ea,1 λ ,
x John xiv. πάντα. 21. ἀγαπητοί, ἐὰν ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν] μὴ καταγινώσκῃ
» ς - 7” ’ ” ~
ieee ἡμῶν,” ""παρρησίαν ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, 22. καὶ *6 ἐὰν αἰτῶμεν,
74 ~ lol Lol
νο oi λαμβάνομεν παρ᾽ ὃ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηροῦμεν, καὶ 7 τὰ
20. a LS ie ey 3 int A ‘ a > ‘ ε > LA
εἰ μοι ἀρεστὰ ΄ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ποιοῦμεν, 23. καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ
. > ~ 5 , ~ > [ων lol Lol [ο a
6.x. 10, αὐτοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύσωµεν * τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
oe 1. ‘ a A
ae καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, "καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡμῖν. 24. καὶ 6
a iii, τηρῶν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ µένει, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν αὐτῷ. καὶ ἐν
ajohnvi. τούτῳ γιώσκομεν ὅτι µένει ἐν ἡμῖν, ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος οὗ ἡμῖν
20, XV. 17.
δΐν.1; ἔδωκεν.
Rom. viii. IV 4 μα cl : 5 2 4
Be . I. Αγαπητοί, μὴ παντὶ πνεύµατι πιστεύετε, ἀλλὰ * δοκιμάζετε
a KOM, 1].

18; 1 Cor. iii, 13, xi. 28; Gal. vi. 4; 1 Thess. v. 21.

Ίημων SCKL, Syrrg ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Tisch. ; om. AB, several

minusc., Aug., WH, Nest.

Ἕημων BS
minusc., WH, Nest.

3 amNABC, edd.

AKL, Syrvg ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Tisch.; om. BC, one

Samiotevowpeyv BEL, WH, Nest. ; πιστευωµεν SAC, Tisch., WH (marg.).

how can love for the brethren yield this
inference ? Ὑγινώσκει πάντα, “ readeth
every secret”. Cf. Johnii. 25. A quite
diferent and less satisfying sense is got
by punctuating τὴν καρδίαν ἡμῶν. ὅτι
ἐάν, κ.τ... The second ὅτι is then a
difficulty and has been dealt with in three
ways: (1) It has been ignored as redund-
ant: * For if our heart condemn us, God
is greater, etc.” (A.V. fortified by the
omission of the participle in some inferior
MSS.). (2) Anvellipse has been assumed
—either of the substantive verb: ‘‘ be-
cause if our heart condemns us, (it is)
because God, etc.” (Alford), or of δῆλον
(Field, who compares τ Tim. vi. 7) : ‘‘ it
is plain that God, etc.”. (3) ὅτι has
been conjecturally emended into ἔτι
(Steph., Bez.): ‘“ still greater is God,

Vv. 21-22. παρρησίαν, see note on
ii. 28. 6 ἐὰν αἰτῶμεν AapBavopev, though
not always in the form we expect or
desire ; the answer may be different from
but it is always better than our prayer.
St. Augustine draws a distinction between
the hearing of prayer ‘‘ad salutem” and
‘‘ad voluntatem,” comparing the experi-
ence of St. Paul (2 Cor. xii. 7-9): “ Ro-
gasti, clamasti, terclamasti: ipsum semel
quod c!amasti audivi, non averti αυτες
meas a te; novi quid faciam; tu vis
auferri medicamentum quo ureris; ego
novi infirmitatem qua gravaris. Ergo
iste ad salutem exauditus est, ad volun-
tatem non est exauditus. ... Tu morbum
confitearis, ille medicamentum adhibeat.”’
Cf. Juan de Avila: * Go to prayer rather

to hearken than tospeak. Bend humbly
and lovingly before God, expecting.”
τηροῦμεν, See Note ON ii. 3.

Ver. 23. Cf. our Lord’s summary of
the commandments in Matt. xxii. 34-40
= Mark xii. 28-31, and observe the apos-
tolic narrowing of τὸν πλησίον σου (cf.
Luke x. 29-37) to ἀλλήλους, 7.2. τοὺς
ἀδελφούς (see note onii.g). τῷ ὀνόματι,
see note on 1. Τ2.

Ver. 24. τὰς ἐντ. αὐτ., ‘the com-
mandments of God,” resuming ver, 22.
Cf. iv. 15. ἐκ, the assurance is begotten
of the Spirit ; see note on ii. 21. οὗ for
ὅ, by attraction to the case of the ante-
cedent (cf. Luke ii. 20; Rev. xviii. 6).
ἔδωκεν, “gave,” ἐ.ε., when first we be-
lieved. For the thought cf. 2 Cor. i. 21,
22; Eph.i. 13, 14; also Rom. viii. 15, 16.

Οµαρτεκ IV.—Vv. 1-6. The Spirit of
Truth and the Spirit of Error. ‘‘ Be-
loved, believe not every spirit, but prove
the spirits, whether they are from God ;
because many false prophets have gone
forth into the world. Herein ye get to
know the Spirit of God: every spirit
which confesseth Jesus as Christ come
in flesh, is from God; and every spirit
which confesseth not Jesus, is not from
God. And this is the spirit of the Anti-
christ, whereof ye heard that it is coming,
and now it is in the world already. Ye
are from God, little children, and have
conquered them, because greater is He
that is in you than he that is in the
world. They are from the world; there-
fore {rom the world they talk, and the
world hearkeneth tothem. Weare from

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Α

I—3.

189

b Ver. 2-6.
Cf.comm.

2. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκετε] τὸ Πνεῦμα ¢ Matt.
z Vii. 15,

τὰ πνεύματα, εἰ Ὁ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ' ὅτι πολλοὶ 5 ψευδοπροφῆται

“ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

τοῦ Θεοῦ ΄ way πνεῦμα ὃ ° ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυ- xxiv. 11,
Odra,” ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ο. Ni at et ον ὃ μὴ case: sae 26 a
ο t , Acts xiii.
Incotv Χριστὸν ΄ ἐν σαρκὶ edpuddta,® ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι " καὶ, ο.
‘TOUTS ἐστι τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἵ ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἐν 3 John 73
xiii. 3, xvi. 27, 28, 30, xvii. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 36. e John ix. 22; 2 John 7. fii 8 reff,

1 ywooKete NCABCL, Syrph, Cop., Sah., Aeth., edd. ; γινωσκεται K, Syrvg, Vg.,
Aug.—an itacism.

*eAnAv9oTa ΜΝΑΟΚΙ,, edd. ; εληλυθεναι Β, Vg., WH (marg.).

3m οµολογει all Gk. MSS. and all versions except Vg.; Aver Socr. H. E. vii.
32 (of Nestorius) : αὐτίκα you 7 ἠγνόησεν ὅτι ἐν τῇ «καθολικῇ Ἰωάννου ἐ ἐγέγραπτο ἐν
τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις ¢ ὅτι way πνεῦμα ὃ Aver τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι.
ταύτην γὰρ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν «ἀντιγράφων περιεῖλον ot χωρίζειν ἀπὸ
τοῦ τῆς οἰκονομίας ἀνθρώπου βουλόμενοι τὴν θεότητα " διὸ καὶ of παλαιοὶ ἑ ἑρμηγεῖς
«αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐπεσημῄναντο, ὥς τινες εἷεν ῥάδιουργήσαντες τὴν ἐπιστολήν, λύειν ἀπὸ

τοῦ θεσοῦ τὸν ἄνθρωπον θέλοντες. Iren.
Tesum, non est ex Deo.

omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum. Aug.:

Orig. in Matth. Comm. Ser. 65 (Lomm. iv. p. 360).

III. xvii. 8: e¢ omnis spiritus qui solvit

Vg.:
omnis spiritus qut solvit Christum (after

quoting omnis spiritus qui non confitetur Fesus Christum in carne ventsse).

3Χριστον om. AB, Syrvgph, Vg., Cop., Aeth., Arm.,

κυριον RY.

Iren., Orig., Socr., edd. ;

5 2y σαρκι εληλυθοτα om. AB, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., edd.

God; he that is getting to know God
hearkeneth to us; one who is not from
God, hearkeneth not to us. From this
νε get to know the Spirit of Truth and
the spirit of error.”

1. The Apostle has just said that the
Spirit begets in us the assurance that
God abidethin us. And this suggests a
warning. The Cerinthian heresy also
had much to say about “the spirit”. It
boasted a larger spirituality. Starting
“with the philosophical postulate of an
irreconcilable antagonism between mat-
ter and spirit, it denied the possibility of
the Incarnation and drew a distinction
between Jesus and the Christ (see Introd.,
Ῥ. 157). Its spirit was not ‘‘the Spirit of
Truth” but ‘‘a spirit of error,” and thus
‘the necessity arises of ‘‘ proving the
spirits”. δοκιµάζειν, of “proving” or
“testing” a coin (νόμισμα). If it stood
the test, it was δόκιµον (cf. 2 Cor. x. 18) ;
if it was found counterfeit (κίβδηλον), it
τς ἀδόκιμον (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 27 ; 2 Cor. xiii.
5-7). Cf. Jer. vi. 30 LXX: ἀργύριον
ei ο ης .» + ὅτι ἀπεδοκί-
µασεν αὐτοὺς Κύριος. ἐκ, here of commis-
sion, not parentage ; ‘‘ from God,” as His
messengers. Cf. John i. 24; xviii. 3;
Soph., O.C., 735-737: amweordAnv...
οὐκ ἐξ ἑνὸς στείλαντος. πολλοί: Cer-
inthus had a large following. ἐξεληλ.
-eis τ. κόσµ., a monstrous reversal of
John xvii. 18. They went forth from the

Church into the world not to win but to
deceive it.

2. The Test of the Spirits. γινώσκετε,
as in ii. 29, may be either indicat. («γε
recognise”) or, like πιστεύετε, δοκιμάζετε,
imp -rat. (“recognise”). The former seems
preferable. ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν
σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, ‘“confesseth Jesus as
Christ come in flesh,” an accurate defini-
tion of the doctrine which the Cerinthian
heresy denied. The argument is destroyed
by the false variant ἐληλυθέναι, “con-
fesseth that Jesus Christ hath come,” con-
jitetur Fesum Christum in carne venisse
(Vulg.)

Ver. 3. The Test negatively expressed.
Omit Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα. τὸν
᾿Ιησοῦν, "πε aforementioned Jesus,”
“ Jesus as thus described”. py makes the
statement hypothetical: “every spirit, if
such there be, which doth not confess”
The variant Aver τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. solvit
Fesum (Vulg., Aug.), “dissolveth” or
“severeth Jesus,” {.ε., separates the dr
vinity and the humanity, aptly defines
the Cerinthian heresy. It was much
appealed to in later days against Nesto-
tius. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates
(see crit. note) says it was the primitive
reading, and was altered by “those who
wished to separate the deity from the
man of the Incarnation”. St. Augustine,
defining heresy as schism due to lack of
brotherly love, comments: “Το venit

10ο

g ]οῦπ xvi. -ὁ κ ἐστὶν 4
ὡς τῷ κόσµῳ ἐστὶν ἤδη.
h John xiv.
iii, 16 τεβ. 5. Αὐτοὶ ͵ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἰσί '
k John iii. A Ἡ
vase ε , νι ρε 3 ,
31, Vill. ὁ κοσμος αυτων ἄκουει.
44.
1 John viii.
43, 47: 2 .
mi.Sreff; Ex τούτου
Matt.
XXVii. 64; ™ πλάνης.
Eph. iv.

LQANOY A

iV:

3 a“ - - , ‘
4. ὙΥμεις ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστε, τεκνία, καὶ
=e > Pia. εἰ /. Δ - a ,
Σγενικήκατε adtous*! ὅτι µείζων ἐστὶν 6 ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ 3" ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσµω.

διὰ τοῦτο * ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλοῦσι, καὶ

6. ἡμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσμεν ᾽ 6 γινώσκων
a , 5 , ς - . λα > ” 3 - - 3 > , cia
τὸν Θεόν, ἀκούει ἡμῶν ΄ ᾿ ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκ ἀκούει ἡμῶν.
γινώσκοµεν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς

2 , A 9 a
7. Ayatrntot, " ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους ΄ ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ

ον tae | ‘ ~ ας τα a ο 5 a A / ‘ ’
14; James Θεοῦ ἐστι, και TAS ὁ ἀγαπῶν, ἐκ του Θεού γεγεννηται, και γινώσκει

ν. 20.

Ώ ii. 7, ili. 11: ο ii. 29, ili. 9.

lautous Aug. eum., 1.6., Antichristum.

colligere, tu venis solvere. Distringere
vis membra Christi. Quomodo non negas
Christum in carne venisse, qui disrumpis
Ecclesiam Dei, quam ille congregavit ?”
On the Antichrist see note on ii. 18.
ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἔρχεται, '' which ye have
heard that it is coming”—the regular
Greek idiom. Cf. Luke iv. 34: ot8a σε
τίς el.

Ver. 4. tpets emphatic (cf. ii. 20, 27,
iii. 14), aS contrasted with the deluded
world. The faithtul are God’s delegates
(ἐκ), bearing their Master’s commission
and continuing His warfare (John xx.
21), and they have shared His victory
(νενικήκατε). αὐτοὺς, 1.6., the false pro-
phets (ver. 1). Eum (Vulg.); “Quem
nisi Antichristum?” (Aug.). 6 ἐν ὑμῖν,
i.e., God (cf. iil. 24); 6 ἐν τῷ Kécpa, 7.¢.,
6 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (John xii.
31 xiv. 30).

Ver. 5. αὐτοὶ (as opposed to ὑμεῖς) ἐκ
τοῦ κόσμου εἰσίν, as its delegates, mes-
sengers, representatives, and as such
ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλοῦσιν. λαλεῖν, not
“speak” (λέγειν), ut “Stalk,” with a
suggestion of prating (cf. John iv. 42).
ἀκούειν takes accus. of the thing heard,
genit. of the person from whom it is
heard. Cf. Luke v. 1; Acts i. 4 (where
both are combined). The world listens
to those who sreak its own language.

Ver. 6. Conversely, those who are get-
ting to know God, understand the lan-
guage of His messengers and listen to it.
ἐκ τούτου, {.ε, from their hearkening or
not hearkening. Men’s attitude to the
message of the Incarnate Saviour ranks
them on this side or on that—on God’s
side or the world’s. Of course St. John
does not ignore St. Paul’s ἀληθεύοντες
ἐν ἀγάπῃ (Eph. iv. 15). The message
may he the truth and be rejected, not be-
cause of the hearers’ worldliness, but
because it is wrongly delivered—not
graciously and winsomely. Cf. Rowland
Hill’s anecdote of the preaching barber
who had made a wig for one of his

hearers—badly made and nearly double
the usual price. When anything parti-
cularly profitable escaped the lips of the
preacher, the hearer would observe to
himselt: “ Excellent! This should touch
my heart; but oh, the wig!’ τῆς
ἀληθείας, see note on i. 8. τὸ πν. τῆς

πλάνης, ‘the spirit that leadeth astray”,

Vv. 7-21. The Blessedness of Love.
‘« Beloved, let us love one another, be-
cause love is of God, and every one that
loveth of God hath teen begotten and is.
getting to know God. He that loveth
not did not get to know God, because
God is love. Herein was manifested the
love of God in us, because His Son, His
only-begotten, hath God commissioned
into the world, that we may get life
through Him. Herein is the love, not
that we have loved God, but that He
loved us and commissioned His Son as a.
propitiation for our sins.

‘* Beloved, if it was thus that God loved
us, we a.so are bound to love one another.
God—no one hath ever yet beheld Him:
if we love one another, God abideth
in us and His love is perfected in_us
Herein we get to know that we abide in
Him and He in us, because of Hls Spirit
He hath given us. And we have beheld
and testify that the Father hath commis-
sioned the Son as Saviour of the world.
Whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the
Son of God, God in him abideth and he
in God. And we have got to know and
have believed the love which God hath
in us.

‘“*God is love, and he that abideth in
love in God abideth, and God in him
abideth. Herein hath love been per-
fected with us—so that we may have
boldness in the Day of Judgment—
because, even as He is, we also are in
this world. Fear there is not in love, but
the perfect love casteth out fear, because
fear hath punishment; and he that feareth
hath not been perfected inlove. We love
because He first loved us. If one say,

4---τΙ.

τὸν Θεόν ᾿
3 /
ἐστίν.
εν > ~ ‘
υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν
, > Β a
{ήσωμεν δι αὐτοῦ.

ἠγαπήσαμεν }

τειλε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ᾿ ἱλασμὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμορας ἡμῶν.

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Α
8. 6 μὴ ἀγαπῶν, ’ οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν Θεόν ᾿

~ ,
ΓΣ µονογενῆ "ἀπέσταλκεν 6 Θεὸς εἰς τὸν μή ἵνα

ΤΟ. ἐν τούτω ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, "

19!

ὅτι 16 Θεὸς ἀγάπη P Fe ον

0. Ἐν τούτω ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν 4 ἵν. 16.

r Johni. 14,
18, ili. 16,
18,

6 ι τ ον x.
οὐχ ὅτι ἡμεῖς μας

τὸν Θεόν, GAN ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἀπέσ- hi. 17, XX.

τπτ. ἀγαπη- t John iii.

τοί, εἰ “ οὕτως 6 Θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, "καὶ ἡμεῖς 5 ὀφείλομεν ἀλλήλους u Ver. το.

w John iii. 16.

x Rom. xiii. 8; Matt. xviii. 33; Rom. xv. 7; Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 13.

ν ii. 2 reff.
y ii. 6 reff.

1ηγαπησαμεν ΜΕΚΙ,, Tisch., WH (marg.)—an assimilation to the other 4018. ;

ὐηγαπηκαµεν B, WH, Nest.

‘I love God,’ and hate his brother, he is
a liar. For he that loveth not his brother
whom he hath seen, God whom he hath
not seen, he cannot love. And this com-
mandment have we from Him, that he
that loveth God love also his brother.”

Ver. 7. St. John reiterates the “old
commandment” (ii. 7-11). It is so all-
important that he cares not though his
readers be tired of hearing it. Cf. the
anecdote which St. Jerome relates on
Gal. vi. 10: “ Beatus Joannes Evangelista
cum Ephesi moraretur usque ad ultimam
senectutem, et vix inter discipulorum
manus ad Ecclesiam deferretur, nec posset
in plura vocem verba contexere, nihil aliud
per singulas solebat proferre collectas
nisi hoc: Filioli, diligite alterutrum.
Tandem discipuli et fratres qui aderant,
teedio affecti quod eadem semper audi-
rent, dixerunt: Magister, quare semper
hoc loqueris? Qui respondit dignam
Joanne sententiam: Quia preceptum
Domini est, et si solum fiat, sufficit.”
Love is the divine nature, and those who
love have been made partakers of the
divine nature (2 Peter i. 4); and by the
practice of love they “‘ get to know God”
more and more.

Ver. 8. Conversely, a stranger to love
is a stranger to God. οὐκ ἔγνω, “did not
get to know,” 2.6., at the initial crisis of
conversion. On μὴ see note on ii. 4.

Ver. 9. The Incarnation is a manifes-
tation of the love of God because it is a
manifestation of the divine nature, and
the divine nature is love. ἐν ἡμῖν, “in
our souls”—an inward experience. Cf.
Gal. i. 16: ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν vidvy αὐτοῦ
ἐν ἐμοί. μονογενῆ, cf. Luke vii. 12, viii.
42, ix. 38. St. John applies the term ex-
clusively to Jesus. It carries the idea
of preciousness; cf. LXX Pss. xxiii 20,

xxxv. 17, where RRA “my dear life,”

is rendered τὴν μονογενῆ µου. ἀπέσ-
ταλκεν. “hath sent as an ἀπόστολος”

(cf. Heb. iii. 1). An apostle is not simply
nuntius, but nuntius vices mittentis ge-
rens. Cf. Bab. Ber. 34, 2: ‘‘ Apostolus
cujusvis est sicut ipse a quo deputatur”
The perf. is used here because the in-
fluence of the Incarnation is permanent.
{yowpev, ingressive or inceptive aor.
Cf. Luke xv. 24, 32; Rev. xx. 4) 5” ἵνα
ζήσωμεν reconciles ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη
with ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη (i. 2). The Incar-
nation manifested the love of God, and
the love was manifested that we might
get life. Eternal Life is not future but
present: we get it here and now. Cf.
John xvii. 3. Amiel: ‘‘ The eternal life
is not the future life; it is life in harmony
with the true order of things—life in God”.

Ver. 10. The love which proves us
children of God is not native to our
hearts. It is inspired by the amazing
love of God manifested in the Incarna-
tion—the infinite Sacrifice of His Son’s
life and death. Aug.: ‘Non illum di-
leximus prius: nam ad hoc nos dilexit, ut
diligamus eum.” ἀπέστειλεν: the aor.
is used here because the Incarnation is
regarded as a distinct event, a historic
landmark.

Having inculcated love, the Apostle
indicates two incentives thereto: (1)
God’s love for us imposes on us a moral
obligation to love one another (11-16a);
(2) lf we have love in our hearts, fear is
cast out (16b-18).

Ver. 11. Here, as in John iii. 16, οὕτως
may denote either the extent or the
manner of God’s love—‘‘to such an ex-
tent,” going such a length (cf. Rom. viii.
32); ‘‘in such a manner,” righteously,
not by a facile amnesty but by a propi-
tiation. ὀφείλομεν: see note on ii. 6.
Noblesse oblige. If we are God’s chi'-
dren, we must have our Father’s spirit.
Cf. Matt. v. 44-48. Thus we requite His
love. Aug.: “Petre, inquit, amas me?
Et ille dixit: Amo. Pasce oves meas”
(John xxi. 15-17).

192 IQANOY A

IV.

12. Oedv οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται ' ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλή-
ous, *6 Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν µένει, καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ ᾿ τετελειωµένη ἐστὶν
ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ µένομεν, καὶ αὐτὸς

d A
τεθεάµεθα, καὶ " μαρτυροῦμεν ὅτι 6 πατὴρ ἀπέσ-

15. "ὃς ἄν ὁμολογήσῃ ὅτι

"Ingots ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ Θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ µένει, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ

Ζπ Ἱτεετι se ~
Johni. 8, Ὕσπαν.
a Ver. 16,
ili. 24
b ii. 5 reff. ν
a 24 reff. ἐ ἡμῖν" 13. a
i.tref. ἐν ηµιν, ὅτι "ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ δέ τν.
ο ἡμῖν, : ἐκ ύματος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν
f John iii. Ι4. Kat ἡμεῖ
17, iv. 42. of μα : ες ΜΗ,
dp ae xvi. TaNKE τὸν υἱὸν ‘ cwrfpa τοῦ κόσμου.
16, 17.
h John vi.
i Ver. 9. Θεῷ.
k Ver. 12.

1Η, 28 reff. ἔχει 6 Θεὸς | ἐν iv.
m Matt. x. xX ἡμ

15, Xi. 22,
24, ΧΙΙ. 36 ;
2 Peter ii. 17.
ο, iii ~
n' John xx. εχώμεν
21. i
ο Matt.v. ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ τούτῳ.
13, ΧΙ]. 48; ε
Alay xiv.
p kom. viii, 6 δὲ φοβούμενος οὐ
15; Heb. .
ii. 15. q Matt. xxv. 46. r Jamesi. 4.

1εν ημιν εστιν NB, edd.

ο

16. Καὶ ἡμεῖς " ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαµεν τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν
ς ‘ > , > / Ne , > a 3 ,

6 Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστί, καὶ 6 µένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ,
“év τῷ Θεῷ μένει, καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ.”

> , b x , ε , + δρ ρα ¢ 1 ,
Εν τούτῳ "τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη pel ἡμῶν, ἵνα | παρρησίαν
™ év τῇ ημέρα τῆς κρίσεως, ὅτι " καθὼς ἐκεῖνός ἐστι, καὶ ἡμεῖς
18. φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ sa peal ἀλλ᾽
ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ° έξω βάλλει τὸν Ρ φόβον, ὅτι 6 φόβος ἆ κόλασιν "έχει *
Ὀτετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ.

19. "ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶ-

s Ver. 10.

Σεν αντω µενει SBKL, Syrph, Cop., Sah., Arm., Aug., Tisch., WH (brack.),

Nest.

Ver. 12. ‘‘God—no one hath ever yet
beheld Him”. By and by ‘‘ we shall see
‘Him even as He is”’ (iii. 2), but even now,
if we love, we are no strangers to Him:
He abides and works in us. τετελειωμένη,
‘¢ carried to its end” ; see note on il. 5.

Ver. 13. Cf. iii. 24. The argument
is that God would not have granted us
this priceless gift if he were ‘hot in in-
timate relation with us and had not a
steadfast purpose of grace toward us.

Ver. 14. The apostolic testimony (cf.
i. 1-3). pets, either the editorial “we”

or “I aed the rest of the Apostles who
were eye-witnesses”. ἀπέσταλκεν, see
note on ver. 9.

Ver. 15. ὁμολογήσῃ, aor. of a definite
confession born of persuasion. Such a
conviction implies fellowship with God.

Ver. 16. ‘pets, here “ you and I,” we
believers. Observe the three stages: (1 )
“get to know” (γινώσκειγ), (2) ‘ believe”
(πιστεύειν), (3) ‘‘confess” (ὁμολογεῖν).
-év ἡμῖν, see note on ver. 9.

Another incentive to love: it casts out
fear. τῇ ἀγάπῃ. ‘the love just men-
tioned”. Cf. τὸν φόβον, 6 φόβος (ver. 18).

Ver. 17. τετελείωται, cf. ver. 12. μεθ᾽

ἡμῶν: love is a heavenly visitant so-
journing with us and claiming observ-
ance. Love has been “carried to its
end” when we are like Jesus, His visible
representatives. ὅτι resumes ἐν τούτῳ,
ἵνα . . « κρίσεως being parenthetical:
‘herein. . . because” (ili. 16, iv. g, 10).

παρρησίαν, see note on ii. 28. ἐκεῖνος,
see note on ii. 6. ἐστιν, “is,” not ἦν,
“was”. Jesus is in the world unseen,
and our office is to make Him visible.
We are to Him what He was to the
Father in the days of His flesh—* Dei
inaspecti aspectabilis imago”

Ver. 18. Bern.: ‘Amor reverentiam
nescit”. Φόβος, the opposite of παρρη-
gia. κόλασιν ἔχει, ‘implies punish-

ment,” the portion of slaves. The portion
of slaves is punishment (κόλασις) and
their spirit fear; the portion of sons 1s
chastisement (παιδεία) and their spirit
boldness (παρρησία). Cf. Heb. xii. 7,
Clem. Alex.: ‘‘ Perfectio fidelis hominis
caritas est”. Aug.: ‘‘ Major charitas,
minor timor; minorcharitas, majortimor”.
Bengel has here one of his untranslatable
comments: ‘‘ Varius hominum status:
sine timore et amore; cum timore sine
amore; cum timore et amore; sine timore
cum amore”

ες, το: ΄ ἀγαπῶμεν has no accus.
The thought is that the amazing love of
God in Christ is the inspiration of all the
love that stirs in our hearts. Itawakens
within us an answering love—a grateful
love for Him manifesting itself in love
for our brethren (cf. ver. 11). The in-
sertion of αὐτόν is a clumsy and unneces-
sarygloss. Neithershould οὖν beinserted
and ἀγαπῶμεν taken as hortat. subjunc-
tive. Vulg.: “Νο ergo diligamus
Deum, quoniam Deus prior dilexit nos”

12—21. V. I—3.

ον μΠ]
μεν αυτον,

IQANOY A

ὅτι αὐτὸς ΄ πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς.

193.

tii. 9, iii.

20. ' Εάν τις εἴπη, τος

ov ~ ”” fol ~ H
“Ot ἀγαπῶ τὸν Θεόν, καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ µισῇ, " ψεύστης 1.6 rel.

a a a
ἐστίν ' 6 γὰρ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Sv ἑώρακε, τὸν Θεὸν * ὃν

ν Ver. 12
reff.
w ii. 7 reff.

οὐχ ἑώρακε, πῶς δύναται ἀγαπᾶν ;ὃ 21. καὶ "ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν 2 iv. 15 ref

b ili. 9 reff.

A a cal Δ .
ἔχομεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ," ἵνα 6 ἀγαπῶν τὸν Θεόν, ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν «1 Peter i.

αὐτοῦ.

22, 23.
d 1 Cor.
Xiil. 4, 5.

V. 1. Mas 6 πιστεύων ὅτι 3 ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν 6 Χριστός, °€k τοῦ Θεοῦ ε John xiv.
η 2

‘ A A ~ Ν
γεγέννηται ' καὶ “mas 6 ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἄγαπᾷ Kal τὸν

γεγεννηµένον © ἐξ αὐτοῦ. 2.

ο τοι σαι ση.

d 25 , , «/ > Αα x
εν TOUTW γινὠώσκομεν οτι αγαπωµεν τα

/ lol A eo Q a > nw ΔΝ At > λὸ 3 A
τεκνα του Θεοῦ, οταν τον Θεον GAYAT WHEY, και τας EVTOAGCS αυτου

τηρῶμεν.'

1 αυτον om. AB, Aeth., Aug., edd. ;

3. ᾿ αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς

τον θεον 9, Syrve ph, Vg., Cop., Arm.

2 avtos NSBKL, Syrvg ph, Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Aug., edd. ; 0 @eos A, Vg.

3 ov δυναται αγαπαν 39Β, Syrph, Sah., edd.

4 ato του θεου A, Vg.

δαγαπα και SAKLP, Syrvg ph, Vg., Aeth., Arm., Tisch. ; om. και B, Sah., Aug.,

WH, Nest.
5 το yeyevynpevov WY.

Ττηρωμεν SKLP—an assimilation to τηρωµεν in v. 3; ποιωµεν B, Syrvg ph, Vg.

Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Aug., edd.

Ver. 20. Lest the vagueness of the
objectless ἀγαπῶμεν encourage false
security, St. John reiterates the old test :
Love for the invisible Father is mani-
fested in love for the brother by our
side, the image of the Father. Cf.
Whittier :-—

“ Not thine the bigot’s partial plea,
Nor thine the zealot’s ban;

Thou well canst spare a love of thee
Which ends in hate of man”,

wWevorns, see note on i. 6.

Ver. 21. The Old Commandment. Cf.
rile, Gia

CuHaPTER V.—Vv. 1-5. What makes
the Commandments of God easy.
“Every one that hath faith that Jesus
is the Christ hath been begotten of
God; and every one that loveth Him
that begat loveth him that hath been
begotten of Him. Herein we get to
know that we love the children of
God, whenever we love God, and do His
commandments. For this is the love
of God, that we should observe His
commandments; and Hiscommandments
are not heavy, because everything that
hath been begotten of God conquereth
the world. And this is the conquest
that conquered the world—our faith.
Who is he that conquereth the world
but he that hath faith that Jesus is the
Son of God?”

Vv. 1-2. A reiteration of the doctrine
that love for God = love for the brethren.
Where either is, the other is also. Love
for God is the inner principle, love for
the brethren its outward manifestation.
The argument is ‘‘an irregular Sorites ”’
(Plummer) :—

Every one that hath faith in the
Incarnation is a child of God;
Every child of God loves the Father;
.*. every one that hath faith in the
Incarnation loves God.
Every one that hath faith in the
Incarnation loves God;
Every one that loves God loves the
children of God;
.*. every one that hath faith in the
Incarnation loves the children
of God.

These are the two commandments of
God, the fundamental and all-embracing
Christian duties—love God and love the
brotherhood. And faith in the Incarna-
tion (ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν 6 Χριστός) is an
inspiration for both.

πιστεύων Corresponds to πίστις (νετ.
4). The lack of a similar correspondence
in English is felt here as in many other
passages (e.g., Matt. viii. το, 13; ix. 28,
29). Latinis similarly defective: ‘‘ omnis
qui credit,” “ fides nostra”.

Ver. 3. ἢ ἀγ.τ. Θεοῦ, here objective
genitive; contrast ii. 5. ἵνα ecbatic (see

194 ΙΩΑΝΟΥ A ice 3

μα. αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν : καὶ ‘at ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν. 4. ὅτι 1
€ αι John § πᾶν τὸ * γεγεννηµένον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, νικᾷ τὸν κόσμον ΄ καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν
eed ea νίκη ἡ νικήσασα τὸν κόσμον, ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν. 5. τίς ἐστιν ὃ 6
κο κ τες κῶν τὸν κόσμον, εἰ μὴ 6 πιστεύων ὅτι "Ingots ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
1 Heb. ix. Θεοῦ;

Ii, 12.
a xix. 6, Οὗτός ἐστιν 6 ἐλθὼν | δι᾽ "' ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος,ὸ Ιησοῦς 6

6

'Punct. εισιν, οτι edd. ἔημων ΝΔΒΚΡ, Vg., edd. ; Όμων L, Aeth.

Sais εστιν AL, Vg., Sah., Tisch., Nest.; τις εστι δε B, WH (δε brack.); Syrve
quis enim, Aeth. εἰ quis.

4 © χριστος ο vios two minusc., Arm.

ὅκαι αιµατος BKL, Syrvs, Vg., Tert. (de Bapt., 16: venerat enim per aquam et
sanguinem, sicut Ioannes scripsit), edd.; add. και πνευµατος ΜΑΡ, many minusc.,
Syrph, Cop., Sah.

®o om. ΜΑΒΙ,, Arm., edd.

Moulton’s Gram. of N. T. Gk., i. pp. of God” (ver. 1). So now he asks:
206-9), where the classical idiom would ‘Who is he that conquereth the world
require τὸ ἡμᾶς τηρεῖν. Cf. Johnxvii.3; but he that hath faith that Jesus is the
Luke i. 43. τὰς évt., the two command- Son of God?” (‘Son of God” being
ments—‘“ love God” and ‘‘love one an- synonymous with “ Christ,” 7.e., ‘‘ Mes-
other” (cf. iii, 23, where see note; iv. 21). siah”. Cf. John xi. 27, xx. 31). His
καὶ ai ἐντ., κ.τ.λ.: cf. Herm. Past. doctrine therefore is that faith in the
M. xii. 4, § 4: ot δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν Incarnation, believing apprehension of
ἔχοντες τὸν κύριον, τὴν δὲ καρδίαν αὐτῶν the wonder and glory of it, makes easy
πεπωρωµένην, καὶ μακρὰν ὄντες ἀπὸ τοῦ the commandments of God, {.ε., love to
κυρίου, ἐκείνοις αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὗται σκληραί God and love to one another. The τε-
εἰσι καὶ δύσβατοι. Aug. In Foan. Ev. membrance and contemplation of that

Tract. xlviii. 1: ‘‘ Nostis enim qui amat amazing manifestation drive out the
non laborat. Omnis enim labor non affection of the world and inflame the
amantibus gravis est.” heart with heavenly love. ‘‘ What else

Ver. 4. The reason why “‘ His com- can the consideration of a compas:ion
mandments are not heavy”. Punctuate so great and undeserved, of a love so
οὐκ εἰσίν, ὅτι wav, κ.τ.. The neut. free and in such wise proved, of a con-
(wav τὸ yey.) expresses the universality descension so unexpected, of a gentleness
of the principle, “' driickt die unbedingte so unconquerable, of a sweetness so
Allgemeinheit noch starker aus als ‘Jeder, amazing—what, I say, can the diligent
der aus Gott geboren ist’” (Rothe). Cf. consideration of these things do but
John iii. 6. τὸν κόσμον, the sum of all deliver utterly from every evil passion
the forces antagonistic to the spiritual the soul of him that considers them and
life. ‘Our faith” conquers the world hale it unto them in sorrow, exceedingly
by clinging to the eternal realities. affect it, and make it despise in compari-
‘Every common day, he who would be son with them whatsoever can be desired
a live child of the living has to fight the onlyin their despite?” (Bern. De Dilig.
God-denying look of things, to believe Deo). ‘‘ There is no book so efficacious
that, in spite of their look, they are towards the instructing of a man in all
God’s, and God is in them, and work- all virtue and in abhorrence of all sin as
ing his saving will in them” (Geo. the Passion of the Son of God” (Juan de
MacDonald, Castle Warlock, xli.). St. Avila). ‘ Fix your eyes on your Crucified
John says first “15 conquering ” (νικᾷ) Lord, and everything will seem easy to

because the fight is in progress, then u” (Santa Teresa}.
“that conquered ” (ἡ νικήσασα) because Vv. 6-8. The Threefold Testimony to
the triumph is assured. the Incarration. ‘‘ This is Hethat came

Ver. 5. St. John says: “ Everything through water and blood, Jesus Christ ;
that hath been begotten of God con- }not in the water only, but in the water
quereth the world”. But he has already / and in the blood. And it is the Spirit
said: ‘‘ Every one that hath faith that/ that tes‘ifieth, because the Spirit is the
Jesus is the Christ hath been begotten| Truth. Because three are they that

——

πμ πώ.

4—s.

Χριστός * οὐκ ™ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι µόνον,

καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι Ὁ τὸ μαρτυροῦν

IQANOY A

195
ἀλλ’ ἐν τῶ ὅ τος ο μμον ita a
ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ | τῷ αἵματι πα
co ‘ A 8 p © gq 2 , πο.
ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν Ὁ ἡ Ἱ ἀλήθεια. ee

7. ὅτι TpEis” ciow οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 6 Πατήρ, 6 Λόγος, 1} 6 ret.

9 x o ~ . ‘ μα ς ον a >
και τὸ Aytov [yeupa* καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεις ἐν ELoL.

8. καὶ τρεῖς

~ - μὲ ος An ‘ 5, A ‘
εἶσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ yi,” TO πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ

leat εν ABLP, edd.

δεν τω ουρανω. .

Έοι τρεις NY.
.εν τη γη a Latin interpolation, certainly spurious.

(1) Found

in no Gk. MS. except two late minuscules—162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Ve.

Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c.
Had they known it, they would have employed

Quoted by none of the Gk. Fathers.

it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian).
early versions—in Vg. but not as it left the hands of St. Jerome.
Latin weiter until Priscillian (close of 4th c.).

(2)

(3) Found in none of the
(4) Quoted by no
Apparet igitur ... verba quae

de tribus testibus caelestibus dici solent nullam prorsus fidem, auctoritatem nullam
habere, nec a gravi libtdinis aut imprudentiae crimine liberari posse cos qut etiam-

num, falsa quippe pretate ducti, libris sacris obtrudi patiuntur.

. Error vero

longe est gravissimus, si qui, quod de sancta trinitate ecclesia Christi praecepit, a
verbis illis ¥ohanni obtrusis vel maxime pendere opinati sunt (Tisch.).

testify—the Spirit and the water and
the blood, and the three are for the one
end.”

St. John has said that faith in the In-
carnation makes the commandments
easy, and now the question arises: How
can we be assured that the Incarnation
is a fact? He adduces a threefold at-

. testation: the Spirit, the water and the
blood. His meaning is clear when it is
‘understood that he has the Cerinthian
\heresy (see Introd. pp. 156 f.) in'view and
states his doctrine in opposition to it.
Peon distinguished between Jesus
nd the Christ. The divine Christ
ya ο upon the human Jesus at the
Baptism, z.e., He “came through water,”
and left him at the Crucifixion, t.e., He
did not ‘‘come through blood”. Thus
redemption was excluded; all that was
needed was spiritual illumination. In
opposition to this St. John declares that
the Eternal God was incarnate in Jesus
and was manifested in the entire course

' of His human life, not only at His Bap-

tism, which was His consecration to His
ministry of redemption, but at His Death,
which was the consummation of His in-
finite Sacrifice: ‘‘through water and
blood, not in the water only but in the
water and in the blood”.

Ver. 6. οὗτος, i.e., this Jesus who is
the Son of God, the Messiah whom the
prophets foretold and who “came” in
the fulness of the time. 6 ἐλθών, not
6 ἐρχόμενος. His Advent no longer an
unfulfilled hope but an historic event.
Sid, of the pathway or vehicle of His
Advent. ᾿Ιησοῦς Xpiotds, ‘Jesus

Christ,” one person in opposition to the
Cerinthian “dissolution” (λύσις) of Jesus
and Christ (see note oniv. 3). ἐν: Henot
nly “came through ” but continued ‘‘in
e water and in the blood,” 7.e., His
inistry comprehended both*the Baptism
of the Spirit and the Sacrifice for sin.
erhaps, however, the prepositions are
interchangeable; ε[. 2 Cor. vi. 4-8; Heb.
jx. 12,25. ἡ ἀλήθ.: Jesus called Him-
self ‘the Truth ” (John xiv. 6), and the
Spirit came in His room, His alter ego
(vv. 16-18).
—WVv. 7-8. The Water (the Lord’s con-
ecrated Life) and the Blood (His sacri-
ficial Death) are testimonies to the Incar-
nation, but they are insufficient. A third
testimony, that of the Spirit, is needed
to reveal their significance to us and
bring it home to our hearts. Without His
enlightenment the wonder and glory of
that amazing manifestation \ ill be hidden
from us. It will be as unintelligible to
us as “ mathematics to a Scythian boor,
and music toacamel”. τρεῖς οἱ µαρτυ-
ροῦντες, masculine though Πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ,
and αἷμα are all neuter, because agreeing
κατὰ σύνεσιν with τὸ Mvetpa—a testi-
mony, the more striking because involun-
tary, to the personality of the Spirit.
εἰς τὸ ἕν, “ior the one end,” i.e. to bring
us to faith in the Incarnation (ὅτι Ιησοῦς
ἐστιν 6 Yids τοῦ θεοῦ). This was the
end for which St. John wrote his Gospel
(John xx. 31). There is no reference in
the Water and the Blood either to the
effusion of blood and water fiom the
Lord’s pisrced side (John xix. 34) or to
the two Sacraments.

196

τ John xi. en
ay xvii. eid ite
6 τος γ.

ε joke ν.
26; Heb.
viil. 16, x. 6
16 (Jer.

IQANOY A

A ε Ln} r > 4 J 3
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ‘eis τὸ Ev εἶσιν.
μα Ἰομβάνομεν, ἡ παν τοῦ Θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν
31-37, Vill. ἐστὶν * ἡ ος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν

Ve

9. Ei τὴν µαρτυρίαν τῶν
ὅτι αὕτη
1 μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.

a id A
ΙΟ. 6 πιστεύων cis τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔχει τὴν µαρτυρίαν t ἐν ἑαυτῷ -*
x. , a ~3u , , Sue > ,
μὴ πιστεύων τῷ Od, ης πεποίηκεν αὐτόν, ὅτι OU πεπίσ-

ΧΧΧΙ. 33). Τευκεν εἲς τὴν µαρτυρίαν, my ο. 6 cds περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ

ui. 10.

vi.2; John αὐτοῦ.
v. 26. none P ὶ

w Johniii. uty 6 Θεός κα
36; 1 Cor. Ae
iii. 21-23. τὸν υἱόν, ἔχει τὴν Loy’

ἔχει.

γ ov ε A. cal Ca > “a 3
αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.

ΤΙ. Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν

12. "6 ἔχων

ς Ae uae a ει A A ‘ Ν 3
ὁ μὴ έχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὴν ζωὴν οὐκ

1ην KLP; οτι SAB, Ve. (testimonium Dei, quod majus est, quoniam testificatus

est), Cop., Sah., Arm., edd.
*eauTo NS;

Punct. ο τι.
αντω ABKLP; αὐτῷ Tisch., WH (marg.), Nest. ;

αὐτῷ WH.

ὃπω θεω SSBKLP, Syrvg, Cop., edd.; τω viw A, Syrph, Vg.

Vv. g-12. Our attitude to the Three-
fold Testimony. ‘“ If we receive the
testimony of men, the testimony οἱ God
is greater, because this is the testimony
of God—what He hath testified concern-
ing His Son. He that believeth in the
Son of God hath the testimony in him-
self. He that believeth not God hath
made Him a liar, because he hath not
believed in the testimony which God
hath testified concerning His Son. And
this is the testimony, that God gave us
life eternal; and this life is in His Son.
He that hath the Son hath the life; he
that hath not the Son of God the life
hath not.”

Ver. 9. According to the Jewish law
threefold testimony was valid (Deut. xix.
15; ¢f. Matt. xviii. 16; John viii. 17-18).
Read (as in iil. 20) ὅ,τι pepaptupykey,
‘‘what He hath testified concerning His
Son,” i.e. the testimony of His miracles
and especially His Resurrection (Rom.
i. 4). The variant qv is a marginal gloss
indicating the reative (6, τι), not the
conjunction (ὅτι). The latter is incap-
able of satisfactory explanation. The
alternatives are: (1) ‘‘ Because the te ti-
mony οἱ God is this—the fact that He
hath testified,” which is meaningless and
involves an abrupt variation in the use of
ὅτι. (2) ‘‘ Because this is the testimony
of God, because, I say, He hath testi-
fied,” which is intolerable. The Apostle
appeals here to his readers 10 be as
reasonable with God as with their fellow
men. Cf. Pascal: “' Would the heir to
an estate on finding the title-deeds say,
‘Perhaps they are false’? and would he
neglect to examine them ?”

Ver.10. A subtle and profound analy-

sis of the exercise of soul which issues
in assured faith. Three stages: (1) ‘‘ Be-
lieve God” (πιστεύειν τῷ Θεῷ, credere
Deo), accept His testimony concerning
His Son, {.6., not simply His testimony
at the Baptism (Matt. iii. 17) but the
historic manifestation of God in Christ,
the Incarnation. God speaks not by
words but by acts, and to set aside His
supreme act, and all the forces which it
has set in operation is to ‘make Hima
liar” by treating His historic testimony
as unworthy of credit. (2) ‘‘ Believe in
the Son of God” (πιστεύειν εἰς τὸν Υἱὸν'
τοῦ Θεοῦ, credere in Filium Dei), make
the believing s2lf-surrender which is the
reasonable and inevitable consequence of
contemplating the Incarnation and reco 2-
nising the wonder of it. (3) The Inward
Testimony (τὴν µαρτυρίαν ἐν αὐτῷ,
testimonium in seipso). '' Fecisti nos ad
te, et inquietum est cor nostrum donec
requiescat in te” (Aug.). The love of
Jesus satisfies the deepest need of our
nature. When He is welcomed, the
soul rises up and greets Him as ‘‘all its
salvation and all its desire,” and the
testimony is no longer external in history
but an inward experience (cf. note on
iv.Q: ἐν ἡμῖν), and therefore indubitable.
These three stages are, according to the

etaphor of Rev. iii. 20, (1) hearing the
Saviour’s voice, (2) opening the door, (3)
communion.

Ver. 11. The Testimony of the Incar-
nation. Cf.i.2. ἔδωκεν, “gave,” aorist
referring to a definite historic act, the
Incarnation.

Ver. 12. µή with the participle does
not necessarily make the case hypothetical
(cf. note on ii. 4). St. John would have

0---τθ.

13. Ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν eis τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Α

197

X ii. 12 reff.,
ili. 23.

τοῦ Θεοῦ,! ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν € έχετε αἰώνιον, καὶ ἵνα aa a Xe

εἰς τὸ Σ ὄνομα 7 τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

>
ἣν €xomev πρὸς αὐτόν, ὅτι " ἐάν τι αἰτώμεθα κατὰ Td θέληµα αὐτοῦ,

> , [=a
ακούει NOV

µεθα, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἔχομεν τὰ 4 ήμοα & ἠτήκαμεν el αὐτοῦ.
16. “Edy τις iy τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ * ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸςε Gia
d Luke xxiii. 24; Phil. iv. 6.

ili. 8 (ἐὰν στήκετε).
i. 18; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Col. ii. το; 1 Peter iii. 14.

a a
15. καὶ «ἐὰν οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀκούει ἡμῶν, ὃ ἂν ὃ

14. Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ” παρρησία 2 i, 28 ref

a iii. 21
John xiv.
13, XVi.

αἰτώ- 23.

b Matt. vi.
10; Luke
XXii. 42.

hess.
e ii. 25; Mark iv. 41 ; John vii. ae 1 Tim.

‘sous πιστευουσιν εις το ονοµα του viov Tov θεου KLP; om. SAB, Syrve Ph,

Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., edd.

2 kat ινα πιστευητε KLP; τοις πιστευουσιν 3 Β, Syrve ph, edd.

ΝΑ.
3 eav SQLP, edd.

only too many actual instances before
him in those days of doctrinal unsettle-
ment.

Vv. 13-21. The Epistle is finished,
and the Apostle now speaks his closing
words. ‘‘ These things I wrote to you
that ye may know that ye have eternal
life, even to you that believe in the name
of the Son of God. And this is the bold-
ness which we have toward Him, that it
we request anything according to His
will, He hearkeneth to us. And if we
know that He hearkeneth to us whatever
we request, we know that we have the
requests which we have made from Him.
If any one see his brother sinning a sin
not unto death, he shall make request,
and he will give to him life, even to them
that are sinning not unto death. There
{5 a sin unto death; not concerning that
do I say that he should ask. Every sort
of unrighteousness is sin, and there is a
sin not unto death. We know that every
one that hath been begotten of God doth
not keep sinning, but the Begotten of
God observeth him, and the Evil One
doth not lay holdon him. We know that
we are of God, and the whole world lieth
in the Evil One. And we know that the
Son of God hath come, and hath given
us understanding that we may get to
know the True One; and we are in the
True One, in His Son Jesus Christ.
This is the True God and Life Eternal.
Little children, guard yourselves from the
idols.”

Ver. 13. The purpose for which St.
John wrote his Gospel was that we
might believe in the Incarnation, and so
have Eternal Life (xx. 31); the purpose
of the Epistle is not merely that we may
have Eternal Life by believing but that
we may know that we have it. The
Gospel exhibits the Son of God, the

VOL. Ὑ,

3 οι πιστενοντες

ὃπαρ AKLP; απ WB, edd.

Epistle commends Him. Itis a supple-
ment to the Gospel, a personal applica-
tion and appeal. ἔγραψα, “I wrote,”
looking back on the accomplished task.
εἰδῆτε, “know,” not γινώσκητε, “ get to
know”. Full and present assurance.

Ver. 14. Ἀπαρρησία, see note on ii, 28.
As distinguished from αἰτεῖν the middle
αἰτεῖσθαι is to pray earnestly as witha
personal interest (see Mayor’s note on
James iv. 3). The distinction does not
appear her-, since αἰτεῖν αἰτήματα (cog-
nate accusitive) i is a colourless periphrasis
for αἰτεῖσθαι. A large assurance : our
prayers always heard, never unanswered.
Observe two limitations ; (1) κατὰ τὸ
θέλημα αὐτοῦ, which does not mean that
we HHonld first ascertain His will and
then pray, but that we should pray with
the proviso, exp:ess or implicit, ‘If it be
Thy will”. Matt. xxvi. 39 is the model
prayer. (2) The promise is not ‘‘ He
granteth it” but ‘‘ He hearkeneth to us ”.
He answers in His own way.

Ver. 15. An amplification of the
second limitation. ‘We have our τε-
quests ”’ not always as we pray but as

we would pray were we wiser. God
gives not what we ask but what we
really need. re Shak., Ant. and Cleop.
Toit

‘‘ We, ignorant of ourselves,
Beg often our own harms, which the wise
powers
Deny us for our good; so find we profit,
By losing of our prayers ”

Prayer is not dictation to God but dva-
βασις vod πρὸς Θεὸν καὶ αἴτησις τῶν
προσηκόντων παρὰ Θεοῦ (Joan. Damasc.
De. Fid. Orthod., iii. 24). Clem. ΑΙεχ.:
‘* Non absolute dixit quod petierimus sed
quod oportet petere ”

Ver. 16. After the grand assurance

13

198

f Matt. xiii. 6/7
sae θάνατον,
Heb. vi.
4-6.

g ili. 4.

b iii. 9.

+ JOB xvii. πρὸς θάνατον.

θάνατον.

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ A

Vv.

> , ‘ , > ~ / A, c LA x Α,
αἰτήσει, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν, τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι μὴ πρὸς

»” f , Ν η A 3 ΜΑΙ , , eg

ἔστιν ΄ ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον ' οὗ περὶ ἐκείνης λέγω ἵνα
> η 3 g A > 5 , Π , > Rie a’ ae η , >
ἐρωτήσῃ ' 17. "πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστί ' καὶ €otw ἁμαρτία οὗ
19. Οἴδαμεν ὅτι "was 6 γεγεννηµένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ,
ΚΙ. 13 reff. οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει ' ἀλλ᾽ 6 γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ! τηρεῖ ἑαυτόν,!

καὶ *6

1αντον A*B, Vg. (generatio Dei conservat eum), edd.

that prayer is always heard, never un-
answered, the Apostle specifies one kind
of prayer, viz., Intercession, in the par-
ticular case of a “' brother,” i.e. a fellow-
believer, who has sinned. Prayer will
avail for his restoration, with one reserva-
tion—that his sin be ‘‘not unto death”.
The reference is to those who had been
led astray by the heresy, moral and intel-
lectual, which had invaded the churches
of Asia Minor (see Introd. pp. 156 f.) They
had closed their ears to the voice of Con-
science and their eyes to the light of the
Truth, and they were exposed to the
operation of that law of Degeneration
which obtains in the physical, moral, in-
tellectual, and spiritual domains. Ε.σ.,
a bodily faculty, if neglected, atrophics
(cf. note on ii. 11). Soin the moral do-
raain disregard ot truth destroys veracity.
Acts make habits, habits character. So
also in the intellectual domain. Cf.
Darwin to Sir J. D. Hooker, June 17,
1868: “I am glad you were at the
Messiah, it is the one thing that I should
like to hear again, but I daresay I should
find my soul too dried up to appreciate it
as in old days; and then I should feel
very flat, for it is a horrid bore to feel as
I consiantly do, that I am a withered
leaf for every subject except Science”’,
And so in the spiritual domain. There
are two ways of killing the soul : (1) The
benumbing and hardening practice of
disregarding spiritual appeals and stifling
spiritual impulses. Cf. Relig. Baxter, I.
i. 29: ‘‘ Bridgnorth had made me resolve
that I would never go among a People
that had been hardened in unprofitable-
ness under an awakening Ministry; but
either to such as had never had any
convincing Preacher, or to such as had
profited by him”. (2) Α decisive apos-
.asy, a deliberate rejection. This was
the case of those heretics. They had
ab ured Christ and followed Antichrist.
This is what Jesus calls ἡ τοῦ Πνεύ-
patos βλασφημία (Matt. xii. 31-32 =
Mark iti. 28-30). It inflicts a mortal
wound onthe man’s spiritual nature. He
can never be forgiven because he can
never repent. He is ‘“‘in the grip ofan

eternal sn (ἔνοχος αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήμα-
τος)”. Cf. Heb. vi. 4-6. This is “ sin
unto death”. Observe how tenderly St.
John speaks: There is a fearful possi-
bility of a man putting himself beyond
the hope of restoration; but we can
never tell when he has crossed the bound-
ary. If we were sure that it was a case
of ‘sin unto dea h,”’ then we should for-
bear praying ; but, since we can never be
sure, we should always keep on praying.
So long as a man is capable of repent-
ance, he has not sinned unto death.
**Quamdiu enim venie relinquitur locus,
mors prorsus imperium nondum occupat”
(Calv.). δώσει, either (1) “ he (the inter-
cessor) will give to him (the brother),”
τοῖς ἁμαρτ. being in apposition to αὐτῷ,
‘“to him, 2.6. to them that, etc.” ; or (2)
‘* He (God) will give to him (the inter-
cessor) life for them that, etc.” The
former avoids an abrupt change of sub-
ject, and the attribution to the intercessor
of what God does through him is paral-
leled by James v. 20.

Ver. 17. A gentle warning. “ Princi-
piis obsta.” Alsoa reassurance. ‘ You
have sinned, but not necessarily ‘ unto
death’.”

Vv. 18-20. The Certainties of Christian
Faith. St. John has been speaking of a
dark mystery, and now he turns from it:
‘‘Do not brood over it. Think rather of
the splendid certainties and rejoice in
them.”

Ver. 18. Our Security through the
Guardianship of Christ. οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει,
see note on ili. 6. The child of God may
tall into sin, but he does not continue in
it; he is not under its dominion. Why?
Because, though he has a malignant
foe, he has also a vigilant Guardian.
ὅ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, {.ε., Christ.
Cf. Symb. Nic. : Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν,
τὸν Yiov τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ
Πατρὸς. As distinguished from γεγεννη-
µένος the aor. γεγνήθεις refers to the
“Eternal Generation”. The rendering
“he that is begotten of God (the regen-
erate man) keepeth himself (ἑαυτὸν),
qui genitus est ex Deo, servat setpsum
(Calv.), is doubly objectionable: 6) It

17---21.

πονηρὸς οὐχ | ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ.

IQANOY A

1g. οἴδαμεν ὅτι " ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσμεν,

199

1 Luke vii.
14, 39;

καὶ 6 κόσμος ὅλος * ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται. 20, οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι 6 vids a xx.

τοῦ Θεοῦ ° ἤκει, καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα ’ γινώσκωμεν ! τὸν ™ iii. 8.

4 ο aes) 9 ~ q2 aA 3 an tn Cpe ey NC A

ἀληθινόν ' καί ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἃ ἀληθινῶ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ‘Inood
Χριστῷ' οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ 7 ἀληθινὸς Θεός, kal’ ἡ ” ζωὴ αἰώνιος.
Τεκνία, " φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ὃ ἀπὸ τῶν " εἰδώλων.

τι. 4.

q ii. 8.
tz Cor. x. 14; Eph. v. 5.

i. 12, 14.

n Luke ii.
12, 16.

ο John viii.
42.

P (-ομεν) 1
Cor. iv.6;
Gal.iv.17.

21.
ἁμήν."

5 Luke xii. 15; John xii. 25, xvii. 12; 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim.

1 γινωσκοµεν SAB*LP, edd.—an itacism.

24 om. SAB, edd.

5 eautous ΝΑΚΡ; εαυτα $Q*BL, edd.

4apnv KLP, Vg.; om. SQAB, Syrvg ph, Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., edd. A common

ecclesiastical addition.

ignores the distinction between perf.
and aor.; (2) there is no comfort in the
thought that we are in our own keeping ;
our security is not our grip on Christ but
His grip onus. Calvin feels this : “ Quod
Dei proprium est, ad nos transfert. Nam
si quisque nostrum salutis suz sit custos,
miserum erit presidium”. Vulg. has
generatio Dei, perhaps representing a
variant 4 Ὑγέννησις τοῦ Θεοῦ. τηρεῖ,
see note on ii. 3. ἅπτεται, stronger than
“toucheth,” rather “ graspeth,” ‘‘layeth
hold of”. A reference to Ps. cv. (LXX
civ.). 15: μὴ ἄψησθε τῶν χριστῶν µου,
Nolite tangere christos meos (Vulg.).

Ver. 19. Our Security in God’s Em-
brace. ὁ κόσμος: ‘Non creatura sed
seculares nomines et secundum concupis-
centias viventes” (Clem. Alex.). See note
on il. 15. τῷ πονηρῷ, masc. as in prev.
vers. κεῖται, in antithesis to οὐχ ἅπτεται.
On the child of God the Evil One does
not so much as lay his hand, the world
lies in his arms, On the other hand, the
child of God lies in God’s arms. Cf.
Deut. xxxiii. 27. Penn, Fruits of Solt-
tude: “If our Hairs fall not to the
Ground, less do we or our Substance
without God’s Providence. Nor can we
fall below the arms of God, how low so-
ever it be we fall.”

Ver. 20. The Assurance and Guarantee
of it all—the fact of the Incarnation (ὅτι
6 Yids τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥκει), an overwhelming
demonstration of God’s interest in us and
His concern for our highest good. Not
simply a historic fact but an abiding

operation—not “‘ came (ἠλθε),”΄ but “hath
come and hath givenus”. Our faith is
not a matter of intellectual theory but
of personal and growing acquaintance
with God through the enlightenment of
Christ's Spirit. τὸν ἀληθινόν, “ the real”
as opposed to the false God of the here-
tics. See note on ii. 8. ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ,
as the world is ἐν τῷ πογηρφῷ.

Ver. 21. Filioli, custodite vos a simu-
lacris (Vulg.). The exhortation arises
naturally. ‘‘This”—this God revealed
and made near and sure in Christ—‘‘is
the True God and Life Eternal. Cleave
to Him, and do not take to do with false
Gods: guard yourselves from the idols.”
St. John is thinking, not of the heathen
worship of Ephesus—Artemis and her
Temple, but of the heretical substitutes
for the Christian conception of God.
τεκνία gives a tone of tenderness to
the exhortation. Φυλάσσειν is used of
“ guarding” a flock (Luke ii. 8), a deposit
or trust (r Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 12, 14),
a prisoner (Acts xii. 4). Φυλάσσειν,
“watch from within” ; τηρεῖν (see note
on ii. 3), “watch from without”. Thus,
when a city is besieged, the garrison
φυλάσσουσι, the besiegers τηροῦσιν.
The heart is a citadel, and it must be
guarded against insidious assailants from
without. Not φυλάσσετε, “be on your
guard,” but φυλάξατε, aor. marking a
crisis. The Cerinthian heresy was a
desperate assault demanding a decisive ,
repulse.

ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ "TOY.

ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥ.

ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΑ.Ι

Bis yon % I. **O ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΣ ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ ” καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς

π Τι

ση τος A > a ὮὉ 35 3 , ‘ 3 ον / - BY Ν , c
1ag7 19) ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ "ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ pdvos, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ

eb.

221 Peter ἐγνωκότες "Thy ἀλήθειαν, 2. διὰ "Thy ἀλήθειαν τὴν "μένουσαν ὃ ἐν ἡμῖν,

v. I.

17, 9

η Ν d > c ~ ” 3 9 FA ο ” > ς ~
pages a καὶ ἆ μεθ) ἡμῶν ἔσται eis τὸν αἰῶνα ᾿ 3. eotar* pel ἡμῶν ὅ «χάρις,

di John iv. 17.

er Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 2.

luwavvov β SQ; twavov B B; επιστολη wavvov β P, 96; wavvov καθολικη

δευτερα 99; twavvov επιστολη καθολικη

K, τοἵ, 106; του αγιου αποστολου

twavvov του θεολογου επιστολη δευτερα L; του αυτου αγιου ιωαννου του θεολογου
επιστολη δευτερα Q5 ; επιστολη δευτερα twavvov του επι στηθους 4.

ἅτη εκλεκτη κυρια 73: εκλεκτη τη κυρια 31; εκλεκτη τη και κυρια Aeth.;
Κυρίᾳ Syrvg ph, Tisch. ; ᾿Ἐκλέκτῃ Κυρίᾳ WH (marg.).

3 wevovrav NBKLP, Vg., edd.; ενοικονσαν A.

teorar δε 15, 36, Euth. Zig.

ὅημων SBLP, Syrbo, Sah., Aeth., edd.; νµων K, Vg. (sit vobiscum gratia), Cop.,

Syrph,

THE SECOND EPISTLE.

Vv. 1-3. The Address. ‘The Elder to
elect Kyria and her children, whom I
love in Truth, and not I alone but also all
that have got to know the Truth, because
of the Truth that abideth in us; and with
us it shall be for ever. Yea, there shall
be with us grace, mercy, peace from God
the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son
of the Father in Truth and love.”

Ver. I. 6 πρεσβύτερος, see Introd.
pp. 159 ff. ἐκλεκτῇ Κυρίᾳ, see Introd.
ΡΡ. 162 f. ows, constructio κατὰ ovveov,

because τὰ τέκνα were or included sons,
not “weil an Gemeindeglieder gedacht
ist” (Holtzmann). ἐγώ: according to
the Greek idiom, when a man speaks of
himself in the third person, he passes im-
mediately to the first. Cf. Plat. Euthyphr.
5 A: οὐδέ τῳ ἂν διαφέροι Εὐθύφρων τῶν
πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων, εἰ μὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα
πάντα ἀκριβῶς εἰδείην. Soph. Aj., 864-
65. The construction is found in loose
English; cf. Thackeray, Barry Lyndon,
chap. xviii.: ‘‘I was a man who never
deserved that so much prosperity should
fall to my share”. ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (see note
on 1 John i. 8) defines the Elder’s love for

Kyria as fellowship in Christian know-
ledge and faith, in view perhaps of
heathen accusations of licentiousness.
His affection for her and her family was
not merely personal; it was inspired by
her devotion to the common cause and
was shared by all the Christians in his
extensive διοίκησις. Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 18:
οὗ 6 ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ πασῶν
τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. τὴν ἀλήθειαν, “the
Truth just mentioned”.

Ver. 2. µένονσαν ἐν ἡμῖν, not merely
apprehended by the intellect but wel-
comed by the heart. μεθ’ ἡμῶν, nobiscum,
bei uns, as our guest and companion.

Ver. 3. ἔσται μεθ) ἡμῶν, not a wish
(x Peter i. 2; 2 Peter i. 2) but a confident
assurance. Χάρις, the well-spring in the
heart of God; ἔλεος, its outpourings;
εἰρήνη, its blessed effect. They are
evangelical blessings: (1) not merely
“from God” but ‘‘from God the Father
and from Jesus Christ the Son of the
Father” who has interpreted Him and
brought Him near, made Him accessible ;
(2) not merely “in Truth,” enlightening
the intellect, but ‘‘in love,” engaging the
heart.

4—6.

A , A -
“eos, εἰρήνη παρὰ Θεοῦ πατρός, καὶ παρὰ Κυρίου] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
“~ ca - >
τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρός, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ.
fa , λί a ο] rs , & A 3
4. ΄ Εχάρην λίαν ὅτι εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου © περιπατοῦντας ἐν
, A
ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς ἐντολὴν ἐλάβομεν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός.

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ B

201

Matt. ii.
10; Mark
ιν αχ,
Luke
xxili. 8;
John xx.

Rid) om a
. και νυν 30 :
5 gi ]οῦη Ἱ,

ἐρωτῶ σε, κυρία, " οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν γράφω” σοι καινήνι ἀλλὰ ἣν 6,7, ii-6,
It

εἴχομεν ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους.

6. καὶ ᾿ αὕτη ἐστὶν Β 1 John
ii: 7, iii.

ς > - n~ A
ἡ ἀγάπη, ἵνα ἕ περιπατῶμεν κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ. * αὕτη ἐστὶν 11, 23.

1 κυριου
Christo Fesu), Aeth., edd.
* ehaBov NY. ὃΚυρια Tisch.

ir Johnv

3 reff. k 1 John iii. 23.

NKLP, Syrph, Cop., Arm.; om. AB, several minusc., Syrbo, Vg. (a

"γραφω several minusc., Aeth., Arm. ; γραφων NABKLP, Vg., edd.
ὄγραφων σοι καινην BKELP, WH, Nest.; καινην γραφων σοι SSA, Tisch.

δειχομεν BKLP; ειχαµεν WA, edd.

Observe the high tribute which the
Elder pays to Kyria: (1) He testifies to
the esteem in which she is held; (2) he
recognises her as a fellow-worker as
though she were a fellow-apostle—the
three-fold “us,” not ‘you’; (3) he is
about to speak of the danger from here-
tical teaching, but he has no fear of her
being led astray : ‘‘ You and I are secure
from the deceiver. The Truth abideth in
us; with us it shall be for ever; yea, there
shall be with us grace, mercy, peace.”

Ver. + The Occasion of the Epistle.
“T was exceedingly glad because I have
found some of thy children walking in
Truth, even as we received command-
ment from the Father.”

ἐχάρην, of a glad surprise (cf. Mark
xiv. 11). He had been too often disap-
pointed in lads like these (see Ιπίτοά,, p.
155). They had profited by the nurture
of their godly home, the best equipment
for the battle of life. “Νο man should
ever leave money to his children. It isa
curse to them. What we should do for
our children, if we would do them the
best service we can, is to give them the
best training we can procure for them,
and then turn them loose in the world
without a sixpence to fend for them-
selves” (Cecil John Rhodes). εὕρηκα,
““T have found”. He sits down at once
and writes to Kyria. How glad she
would be that her lads, far away in the
great city were true to their early faith!
ἐκ τῶν τέκνων, “some of thy children”
(a tenderer word than “sons,” υἱῶν),
“‘members of thy family,” not implying
that others had done ill; the lads who
had come to Ephesus. περιπατοῦντας,
κ.τ.λ., ambulantes in veritate, die in der
Wahrhett wandeln, “ordering their lives

according to the precepts of the Gospel”.
See note on 1 Johni. 6,

Vv. 5-6. The Comprehensive Com-
mandment. ‘“ And now I ask thee; Kyria,
not as writing a new commandment to
thee but the one which we had from the
beginning, that we love one another.
And this is love—that we walk according
to His commandments; this is the com-
mandment, even as ye heard from the
beginning—that we should walk in love,”

These counsels are just a summary of
the doctrines expounded at large in the
first Epistle. There is here a sort of
reasoning in a circle: The commandment
is Love; Love is walking according to
His commandments ; His commandments
are summed up in one—Love.

Ver. 5. am ἀρχῆς, “from the begin-
ning of our Christian life”. See note on
τ John ii. 7.

Ver. 6. ἡ ἀγάπη, “the love just re-
ferred to”. περιπ. κατὰ τὰς ἐντ. αὐτ.,
regulating our lives by their require-
ments; περιπ. ἐν αληθείᾳ (ver. 4), keep-
ing within the limits of the Christian
revelation and not straying beyond them
—not προάγοντες (ver. 9). αὐτῇ, {.ε.,
“love,” not ‘‘ the commandment ” (Vulg.:
Hoc est mandatum, ut... in eo ambu-
letis). περιπατεῖν ἐν ἀγάπῃ is synony-
mous with περιπατεῖν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, since
Love is Truth in practice. Cf. the story ,
of R. Hillel: A mocking Gentile pro-
mised to become a proselyte if he would
teach him the whole Law while he stood
on one foot—a gibe at the multitudious
precepts, reckoned at 613. “' What is
hateful to thyself,” said the Rabbi, “do
not to thy neighbour. This is the whole
Law; the rest is commentary.” Yalk.
Chad., κ. 2; ‘“‘ qui justum cibat frusto,

205

11 Johni. δ.

πι 1 John iy.
ΕΕΒΕ.

n 1 John iv. ,
2.

o x John ii.
18 reff.

ο 5 ,
αντι ιστος.
p μες πι, κοστος

9.
q Matt. x. 5

41, 42, XX. και

8; James | = διδαχή sx ate

Vv. 4. εν toa TOU ἵστου
r Matt. ii. ο, τη Χη P ?

xiv. 22; Markx. 32; 1 Tim. v. 24 (προάγωγ).
22, 23.

[QANOY B

peda, ἀλλὰ ἃ μισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολάβωμεν.ὃ

j=

> λή.1 θὰ > , aE ES a ° > en ~
evToAy,' καθὼς ἠκούσατε Gr ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ περιπατῆτε᾿ 7.
ὅτι πολλοὶ | πλάνοι”' εἰσῆλθον ” εἰς τὸν κόσμον, οἱ μὴ " ὁμολογοῦντες
[ An x > , > LAA μμ, > re , \
ησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί' οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ' πλάνος Kal 6
8. ? βλέπετε ἑαυτούς, ἵνα μὴ ἀπολέσωμεν ἃ εἰργασά-

ϱ. Tas ὁ " παραβαίνων,"

μὴ ᾽μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει ΄ ὁ µένων

2 RR ος / να εκ we
ουτος και τον πατερα και τον υιον εχει.

si Tim. ii. 15; 2 Tim. iii. 14. tx John ii.

εστιν η εντολη WLP; η εντολη εστιν ΒΚ, edd.
3εισηλθον KLP; εξηλθον SAB, Syrbo, Vg., Sah., Arm., Iren. (III. xvii. 8), edd.

(-αν A, Tisch., WH).

Samokeowpev απολαβωµεν KLP; απολεσητε απολαβητε 3’ (απολησθε) AB,

Syrvge ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Iren., edd. ;

ειργασαµεθα BKLP, Syrph

(marg.), Sah.; npy-B*, WH, Nest.; ειργασασθε SQA, Syrbo ph, Vg., Cop., Aeth.,

Arm., Iren., Tisch.

ἁπαραβαινων KLP, Syrbo ph, Vg. (qui recedit), Cop., Arm. ; προαγων SAB, Sah.,

Aeth., edd.

ὅτον.χριστου KLP, Cop., Aeth.; om. ΔΑΒ, Syrph, Vg., Sah., Arm., edd.

perinde est acsi totum Pentateuchum
servasset ”.

Vv. 7-3. A Warning against Heretical
Teaching. ‘‘ Because many deceivers
went forth into the world—even they
that confess not Jesus as Christ coming
in flesh. This is the deceiver and the
Antichrist. Look to yourselves, that ye
may not lose what we wrought, but re-
ceive a full wage.”

Ver. 7. ὅτι explaining ἐρωτῶ σε: ‘1
ask you to obey the old commandment
because seducers are at work”. ἐξῆλθον
εἰς τὸν κόσμον, See note on 1 John iv. 1.
ot py ὁμολογοῦντες, a definite and well-
known sect. See note on I Johnii. 4.
ἐληλυθότα (1 John iv. 2) of the Advent,
ἐρχόμενον of the continous manifestation
of the incarnate Christ. Cf. Johni. 14,
where σὰρξ ἐγένετο corresponds to ἐλη-
λνθότα and ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν to ἐρχόμ-
€vov.

Ver. 8. µισθόν, cf. Matt. xx. 8; James
v. 4. St. John here addresses not only
Kyria but her family and “ the Church in
her house”. He views them as his
fellow-labourers in the Lord’s vineyard :
‘‘We have worked together (ἠργασάμ-
εθα) : see that you do not forfeit the
reward of your labour. Get a full wage.
Be not like workmen who toward the
close of the day fall off, doing their work
badly or losing time, and get less than
a full day’s pay.” ἀπολέσητε .. «
ἠργασάμεθα ... ἀπολάβητε: '' We have
been fellow-workers thus far, and I mean
to be faithful to the last; see that you
also be so”. Their danger lay in taking
up with false teaching and losing the

comfort of the Gospel in its simplicity
and fulness.

Ver. g. Progress in Theological
Thought. ‘ Every one that ‘ progress-
eth’ and abideth not in the :eaching of
the Christ hath not God; he that abideth
in the teaching—this man hath both the
Father and the Son.”

6 προάγων : the Cerinthians (sec
Introd. pp. 156 f.) boasted of their en-
lightenment. They were ‘ progressives,”
“advanced thinkers”. τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ, the teaching which recognises
Jesus as the Christ (see note on 1 John iv.
1-2), i.e. the Messiah, the Saviour. θΘεὸν
οὐκ ἔχει, t.e. according to His true nature
as the Father manifested in the Son (καὶ
τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν Yidv). It is πεο:ς-
sary not merely to beleve in God but
to believe in Him ‘through Christ”
(t Peter ας ρε].

St. John does not here condemn theo-
logical progress, which is a necessity of
living and growing faith. A doctrine is
a statement of Christian experience, and
since there is always more in Christ than
we have ever experienced, our doctrines
can never be adequate or final. Theology
is to God’s revelation in Grace as Science
is to His revelation in Nature; and just
as Science is always discovering more of
the wonders of the First Creation, so
Theology is always entering more deeply
into the glory of the New Creation and
appropriating more of the treasures which
are hidden in Christ. Even the inspired
Apostles did not comprehend all His ful-
ness. Each saw only so much as was
revealed to him, and declared only so

11.

TO. "el τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν οὐ Φέρει, ὃ
ἡ λαμβάνετε αὐτὸν εἰς οἰκίαν, καὶ χαίρειν αὐτῷ μὴ λέγετε᾽
μὴ hap , καὶ χαίρ D μὴ λέγ

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ B

203

2 Thess.
ili. 6.
Ir. 6V 1 Johni.
3,6, 7;

γὰρ λέγων 1 αὐτῷ χαίρειν, ’ κοινωνεῖ " τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς. ολη

w 1 John iii. 12.

1ο yap λεγων KLP, Iren. (I. ix. 3); ο λεγων γαρ SAB, edd.

much as he saw. Each approached the
infinite wonder along the lines of his
temperament and experience. St. John
saw in it arevelation of Eternal Life; St.
Paul the Reconciliation of sinners to God,
the satisfaction of humanity’s long desire
and the completion of its long discipline
under the Law; the author of t e Epistle
to the Hebrews the rending of the Veil
and the opening of free Access to God.
St. John does not condemn theological
progress; he defines its limits: ‘ abide
in the teaching of the Christ”. (1) We
must never break with the past ; the new
truth is always an outgrowth of the old.
A theology which is simply old is dead;
a theology which is simply new is false
(cf. Matt. xiii. 52). (2) We must main-
tain ‘‘ the teaching of the Christ”. Jesus
is the Saviour, and no interpretation of
Christianity is true which eliminates
Redemption or obscures the glory of the
Cross.

Vv. το-11. Treatment of Heretical
Teachers. ‘‘ If any one cometh unto you
and bringeth not this teaching, receive
him not into your house, and bid him not
farewell. For he that biddeth him fare-
well hath fellowship with his works, his
evil works.”

Ver. τω. Φέρει, not ‘“‘endureth” (cf.
Rom. ix. 22; Heb. xii. 20), but ‘ bring-
eth” as a precious boon (cf. Rev. xxi. 24,
26). ets οἰκίαν (cf. Mark ii. 1; iii. το),
zu Hause; cf. ‘to church,” ‘to town,”
“to market,” “το bed”. See Moulton’s
Winer, pp. 148 ff. yatpe, like ave, salve,
was used of both the salutation at meet-
ing and the farewell at yarting. The
former is its prevailing use in N.T., but
here, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 11, the latter.
‘Zum Abschied, wenn der Abgewiesene
weiter ziehen muss” (Holtzmann).

Ver. Ir. κοινωνεῖ, cf. 1 Johni. 3. An
unholy κοινωνία. τοῖς épy. αὐτ. τοῖς
πον., cf. I John i. 2: τὴν Conv τὴν
αἰώνιον. The adjective is an emphatic
afterthought.

This counsel recalls the story of St.
John’s behaviour to Cerinthus (see Introd.
p. 157), and it was cited by Irenzus (1.
ix. 3) as inculcating intolerance of here-
tics. If so, it is certainly an unChristian
counsel, contrary to the spirit and teach-
ing of our Lord (cf. Mark ix. 38-39;

Luke ix. 51-56; Matt. χιπ. 28-209).
Heretics are our fell. w-creatures; Jesus
died for them also, and our office is to
win them. If we close our doors and
our hearts against them, we lose our
opportunity of winning them and harden
them in their opposition. There are two
thoughts which may well teach us for-
bearance and humility: (1) The patience
of the Lord. A Jewish fable tells how
Abraham thrust an aged wayfarer ‘rom
his tent because he asked no blessing on
his food and avow-d himself a fire-wor-
shipper. And the Lord said: ‘‘I have
suffered him these hundred years, al-
though he dishonoured Me; and couldst
not thou endure him for one night?”
(2) The mystery of the things of God
and the blindness of our intellects.
«ΤΗ, says St. Augustine (Contra Epis-
tolam Manichai, 2), ‘‘in vos saviant, qui
nesciunt cum quo labore verum inventa-
tur, et quam difficile caveantur errores”.
This counsel of the Apostle must be
read in the light of local circumstances.
There was need of caution and discrimin-
ation in receiving the itinerant ‘‘ aposties
and prophets” who went from church
to church, lest they should prove ‘“ false
apostles ” (ψευδαπόστολοι) and “false
prophets” (ψευδοπροφῆται).. See Di-
dache, xi.-xii., where the test is given:
ov πᾶς 6 λαλών ἐν πνεύµατι. προφήτης
ἐστίν, add’ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τοὺς τρόπους Kupiov.
It is not until the second century that
there is any appearance of buildings set
apart for worship. The primitive ἐκκλη-
σίαι met in private houses (cf Rom.
XVI ο στ αν. του 6ο]. αν. πο
Philem. 2); and when St. John warns
Kyria against “ receiving into her house”
a heretical teacher, it is not showing him
hospitality that he forbids, but affor ing
him an opportunity to unsettle the faith
of the brethren. She must neither let
him pervert ‘‘ the church in her house”,
nor send him on his way to a neighbour-
ing church ith the recommendation of
her confidence and goodwill. ‘This is
expressed, though somewhat vaguely, by
Clem. Alex.: ‘‘ Hoc in hujusmodi non
est inhumanum, sed nec conquirere vel
condisputare cum talibus admonet qui
non valent intelligibiliter divina tractare,
ne per eos traducantur a doctrina veri-

104

{3 John 14.

Σ1 Johni.
4 reff.

z Ver. I.

IQANOY B

12—I3.

12. Πολλὰ έχων ὑμῖν γράφειν, οὐκ HBovyOnv! διὰ χάρτου καὶ
µέλανος᾽ ἀλλὰ ἐλπίζω ἐλθεῖν " πρὸς Suds, καὶ Σ στόμα πρὸς στόµα

λαλῆσαι, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν ὃ WY πεπληρωμένη."

13. ἀσπίχεταί σε

τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου τῆς ΄ ἐκλεκτῆς. apy.”

1εβονληθην SABKLP, edd.
&

2 yeveoBar SQAB, Syrph, Vg., edd.

3 npwv SQKLP, Tisch., WH (marg.), Nest.; Όµων AB, Vg., WH.
4m πεπληρωµενη AKLP; πεπληρωµενη η NB, edd.
δαµην om. ABP, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., edd.

tatis, verisimilibus inducti rationibus.
Arbitror autem, quia et orare cum talibus
non oportet, quoniam in oratione que fit
in domo, postquam ab orando surgitur,
salutatio gaudii est et pacis indicium.”

Vv. 12-13. TheConclusion. ‘* Though
I have many things to write to you, I
would not by paper and ink; but I hope
to get to you, and talk face to face, that
our joy may be tulfilled. The children of
thine elect sister salute thee.”

Ver. 12. Explanation of the brevity of
the letter. ὑμῖν, z.e., Kyria, her children,
and the church in her house. γράφειν
connected ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with ἔχων and
ἐβουλήθην. χάρτης, a sheet of papyrus,
like those exhumed at Oxyrhynchus (see
Deissmann, New Light on the New Test.,
ΡΡ. 12 ff.), the common material for
letter-writing. µέλαν, atramentum ; in
N. T. only here, 3 John 13, 2 Cor. iii. 3.
γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (cf. John x. 35; Acts
x. 13: 1 Cor. Π. 3, xvi. ΙΟ): he was plan-
ning a visitation (see Introd. p. 155).
στόμα πρὸς στόµα, “mouth answering
mouth ”; cf. LXX. Num. xii. 8; Jer.
Xxxii. (xxxix.), 4.

Why would he not write all that was
in his mind? It was a deliberate deci-
sion ere he took pen in hand: this is the
force of οὐκ ἐβουλήθην. His heart was
full, and writing was a poor medium of
communication (Beng.: ‘“ Ipsa scribendi
opera non juvat semper cor affectu sacro
plenum”); he was an old man, and writ-
ing was fatiguing to him (Plummer).

The reason is deeper. The ‘‘many
things” which he had in his mind, were
hard things like his warning against in-
tercourse with heretics, and he would
not write them at a distance but would
wait till he was on the spot and had
personal knowledge. It is easy to lay
down general principles, but their ap-
plication to particular cases is a delicate
task, demanding knowledge, sympathy-
charity. (1) The sight of people’s faces
appeals to one’s heart and softens one’s
speech. (2) When one meets with
people and talks with them, one’s judg-
ment of them and their opinions is
often modified. Writing from Ephesus,
St. John might have condemned a teacher
in a neighbouring town whose teaching
he knew only by report; but perhaps, 1f
he met the man and heard what he had
to say, he might discover that there was
nothing amiss, at all events nothing
which called for excommunication. Dr.
Dale of Birmingham was at first inclined
to look with disfavour on Mr. Moody.
He went to hear him, and his opinion
was altered. He regarded him ever after
with profound respect, and considered
that he had a right to preach the Gospel,
‘* because he could never speak of a lost
soul without tears in his eyes”. St.
John shrank from hasty condemnation
that there might be no after-regret—
ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν πεπληρωμένη ᾖ.
Ver. 13. See Introd. pp. 162 f.

ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥ.

ΕΠΙΣΤΟΔΗ ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗ TPITH.!

*“O ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΣ Fatw τῷ οσα ὃν ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ” ἐν ahr Bet. aa J cr

2. ᾿Αγαπητέ, περὶ πάντων πι σε «εὐοδοῦσθαι καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, b2 Jona

καθὼς °edododTal σου H ψυχή. 4.

* ἐχάρην γὰρ” Mee, ἐρχομένων « 1 oe
ἀδελφῶν καὶ ο σα σου τῇ sulle καθὼς σὺ

ἐν ἀληθείᾳ d2 2 John 4.
ohn 4.

περιπατεῖς. 4. {μειζοτέραν τούτων οὐκ έχω xapay,” ἵνα ἀκούω Taf fi ολα, 4.

1 νωαννου
επιστολη καθολικη Υ IOI, 106;

Y N; wwavov Ύ B; wavvov επιστολη Ο, many minusc. ;

ιωαννου

επιστολη τριτη του αγιου αποστολου ιωαννου L ;

του αυτου αγιου ιωαννου του θεολογου επιστολη τριτη 05; επιστολη του αγιου
«ποστολου και ηγαπηµενου προς γαῖον ιωαννου 4.

γαρ ABCKLP, Syrbo ph, Cop., WH, Nest.; om. , Vg., Sah., Aeth., Arm.,

oer

3 yapav ΜΔΟΚΙ.Ρ, Tisch., WH (marg.), Nest. ;

ΤΗΕ ΤΗΙΕΡ EPISTLE.

Vv. 1-4. Address and Commendation.
“The Elder to Gaius the beloved, whom
I love in Truth. Beloved, in all respects
I pray that thou mayest prosper and be
in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
For I was exceedingly glad when breth-
ren would come and testify to thy Truth,
even as thou walkest in Truth. A
greater gladness than this I have not—
that I should hear of my children walking
in the Truth.”

Ver. 1. 6 πρεσβύτέρος, see Introd.
pp. 159 ff. éy#,seenoteon2Johni. ἐν
ἀληθεία, see note on 2 John i.

Ver. 2. Cf. Law, Ser. Call, chap. vii. :
“‘ Flavia would be a miracle of piety, if
she was but half as careful of her soul as
she is of her body. The rising of a
pimple on her face, the sting of a gnat,
will make her keep her room for two or
three days, and she thinks they are very
rash people that do not take care of
things in time.” Penn, Fruits of Soli-
tude: ‘* Heis curious to wash, dress and
perfume his Body, but careless of his
Soul. The one shall have many Hours,
the other not so many Minutes.” περὶ
πάντων, de omnibus, with εὐοδοῦσθαι καὶ
ὑγιαίνειν, not pre omnibus, “above all

χαριν B, Vg., Cop., WH.

things”. The latter use is epic (ε.ρ.,
Hom. Il. i, 287: περὶ πάντων ἔμμεναι
ἄλλων), and prosperity and health were
not the summa bona in the Apostle’s

estimation. εὐοδοῦσθαι, “prosper” in
worldly matters. Trouble tests char-
Άσε ones

ος knight is best known
a Christian in the time of
trouble and adversity”; and Gaius had
stood the test. The hostility of Dio-
trephes, probably a well-to-do member of
the Church, had lessened his maintenance
(εὐοδοῦσθαι) and affected his health
(ὑγιαίνειν), yet St. John has only ad-
miration for the spirit he has manifested
and commendation for the part he has
played.

Ver. 3. ἐχάρην, see note on 2 John 4.
ἐρχομένων, repeatedly, not on one par-
ticular occasion (ἐλθόντων). The itiner-
ant brethren (die reisenden Briider) were
always at work, going out from Ephesus
on their missions and returning with
their reports. Cf. vv. 5-6. See Introd.
Ρ. 155.

Ver. 4. Cf. Senec. Ep. xxxiv.: ‘Si
agricolam arbor ad fructum perducta de-
lectat, si pastor ex foetu gregis sui capit
voluptatem, si alumnum suum nemo
aliter intuetur quam adulescentiam illius

in battle, an

~

206

gi Tim.i. SAH
2:0 Cor.
iVers >
Philem.
10; Gal.
iv. 19.

h Matt.

_ XXVi. 10.

i Heb. xiii.1, — k 1 John iii. 22 reff.
1 Cor. xvi. 6, 11; 2 Cor. i. 16.

* ev SC°KLP; ev τη ABC*, edd.

IQANOY Γ

ἕἐμὰ τέκνα év! ἀληθείᾳ περιπατοῦντα.

12 Peter i. το.
n I Thess. ii. 12 ; Col. i. 10.

5—

5 , ‘ a
5. ᾿Αγαπητέ, πιστὸν ποιεις

ὃ ἐὰν " ἐργάσῃ ” εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ εἰς τοὺς ὃ | ξένους, 6. ot ἐμαρ-
τύρησάν σου τῇ ἀγάπῃ * ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας ' οὓς | καλῶς ποιήσεις
προπέμψας " ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ.

7. ὑπὲρ γὰρ ° Tod ὀνόματος ἐξῆλθον *

m Acts xv. 3, xx. 38, xxi. 5; Rom. xv. 24;
o Acts v. 40, 41; 1 Peter iv. 14, 16.

.

* epyaon SBCKLP, edd.; εργαζη A, Vg. (quidquid operaris).
% ets τους KLP; τουτο SABC, Υρ., Syrbo ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., edd.

4 e&nOav ΝΕ, edd.

Suam judicet: quid evenire credis his qui
Ingenia educaverunt, et que tenera for-
maverunt adulta subito vident?” Ev.
sec. Heb. (quoted by Jerome on Eph. v.
4): “Et numquam, inquit (Dominus),
lzti sitis nisi cum fratrem vestrum vide-
πες in caritate”. µειζοτέραν, a double
compar.; cf, ἐλαχιστοτέρῳφ (Eph. iii. 8) ;
our ‘“‘lesser”; Germ. mehrere. τούτων:
this use of the plur. (ταῦτα) rather than
the sing. (τοῦτο) iscommon. See Moul-
ton’s Winer, Ῥ. 201. ἵνα, epexegetic of
τούτων. Cf. Luke i. 43 and see note on 1
John iii. 11. τέκνα implies that Gaius
was aconvertofSt. John. Cf. marg. note.

Vv. 5-8. The Duty of Entertaining
Itinerant Preachers. ‘Beloved, it is a
work of faith that thou art doing in thy
treatment of the brethren, strangers
withal. They testified to thy love before
the Church; and thou wilt do well in
speeding them on their way worthily of
God. For it was for the sake of the
Name that they went forth, taking no-
thing from the Gentiles. We therefore
are bound to undertake for such, that
we may prove fellow-workers with the
Truth.”

A company of reisende Briider had
returned to Ephesus, and in reporting
of their mission at a meeting of the
Church had made special mention of
the hospitality of Gaius. The Apostle
commends him and bids him continue his
good offices.

Ver. 5. The adjective πιστός is either
act., “believing” (cf. John xx. 27), or
passive, ‘‘ worthy to be believed,” “ trust-
worthy ” (cf. 2 Tim. ii. 2). It is passive
here, and it is well explained by Cécu-
menius as equivalent to ἄξιον πιστοῦ
ἀνδρός. The peculiarity is that, by a sort
of hypallage, the adjective is transferred
irom the subjective to the objective.
Transitive: ‘‘ Thou makest whatever thou
workest on the brethren a believing act,
a work of faith”. It was not mere hos-
pitality but a religious service. West-
cott’s rendering: ‘thou makest sure

whatsoever thou doest ” gives πιστόν an
unexampled and indeed impossible mean-
ing. ποιεῖς, aor. of habitual and con-
stant hospitality; ἐργάσῃ, aor. of each
particular act. καὶ τοῦτο, ‘and that
to”; more commonly καὶ ταῦτα (cf.
Heb. xi, 12).

ver. 6. On the anarthrous ἐκκλησίας,
see note on 2 John το. καλώς ποιήσεις
has the sense of ‘‘ please” in the Oxy-
thynchus Papyri; ¢.g., 300, 3-6: ἔπεμψά
σοι διὰ τοῦ καμηλείτου Ταυρείνου τὸ.
πανάριον, περὶ οὗ καλώς ποιήσεις ὧν-
τιφωνήσασά por ὅτι ἐκομίσου, “I sent
you the bread-basket by the cameleer
Taurinus ; please let me have word again
that you got it”. προπέµψας: when a
Rabbi visited a town, it was customary
on his departure to escort him on his
way (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., on Matt. v.
41). The gracious usage was observed
in the primitive Church, and it appears
to have included the furnishing of p:o-
vision for the journey (cf. Tit. iii 13).
Cf. Hom. Od. xv.,74: χρὴ ξεῖνον παρεόντα.
Φιλεῖν, ἐθέλοντα δὲ πέµπειν. “ welcome
the coming, speed the parting guest ”.
ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ, “ in a manner wortny of
God,” t.e. (1) ‘Since they are God’s
representatives (John xiii. 20), weil thr
' vangelistenwerk Gottes Werk ist
(Holtzm.), treat them as you would treat
God”; (2) ‘‘Since you are God’s re-
presentatives, treat them as God would
treat them”.

Ver. 7. τοῦ ᾿Ὀνόματος, sc. of Jesus.
(cf. Acts v. 40, 41). There is perhaps a
reference to this verse in Ignat. ad Eph.
vii. 1: εἰώθασι γάρ τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ
ὄνομα περιφέρειν, ἄλλα τινὰ πράσσοντες
ἀνάξια Θεοῦ. Cf. iii. 1: δέδεµαι ἐν τῷ
ὀνόματι. ἐξῆλθαν, sc. from Ephesus, the
seat of the Apostle and therefore the
headquarters of the Church in Asia
Minor. Cf. Introd. p. 155. μηδέν, see
note on 1 John ii. 4. Winer (Moulton’s.
Winer, p. 463, note 1) draws a distinction,
perhaps too fine, between λαμβάνειν
παρά τινος and λαμβάνειν ἀπό τινος.

11.

μηδὲν λαμβάνοντες 9 ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν.ὶ 8. ἡμεῖς οὖν " ὀφείλομεν ἀπο-
λαμβάνειν τοὺς τοιούτους, ἵνα ' συνεργοὶ ' γινώμεθα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ.
Ἔγραψα ὃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ: ἀλλ᾽ ὁ " φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν Διοτρεφὴς οὐκ 15

ἐπιδέχεται ἡμᾶς.

” a - , ” w nw ς - ri a a > ,
ἔργα ἃ ποιεῖ, λόγοις πονηροῖς ” Φλυαρῶν Huds” καὶ μὴ ἀρκούμενος

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Tf

207

p Acts xx.
35 ; 1 Cor.
ΙΧ. 12-15.
ο qi John v.

5 ος
τΙ John ii.

1Ο. διὰ τοῦτο, ἐὰν ἔλθω, " ὑπομνήσω αὐτοῦ τὰ © reff.

5 Rom. xvi.

3) 9, 21 ;
1 Cor. iii.

ἐπὶ τούτοις, οὖτε αὐτὸς ἐπιδέχεται τοὺς ἀδελφούς, καὶ τοὺς βουλο- 9; 2 Cor.

Vili. 23.

µένους "κωλύει, καὶ ex THS ἐκκλησίας ” ἐκβάλλει. 11. Αγαπητέ, ΄ μὴ t Matt. v.

u Cf. Matt. xx. 27.
38, 39. y John ΙΧ. 34.

v John xiv. 26; 2 Tim. ii. 14; Tit. iii. 1.
z Rom. xii. 9; Ps. xxxvii. 27.

w 1 Tim. v. 13. x Mark ix.

1 εθνων KLP; εθνικων SQABC, edd.
απολαμβανειν KLP; υπολαµβανειν SABC*, edd.
3 eypaia: add τι SABC, Cop., Sah., Arm., edd.

The former would have been used here
had the Gentiles “ proferred an acknow-
ledgment; the latter implies exaction.
The missionaries might have accepted
maintenance (Matt. x. ro), but like St.
Paul they waived their right, ‘that they
might cause no hindrance to the Gospel
of Christ ” (1 Cor. ix.).

Ver. 8. ἡμεῖς, emphatic in contrast to
the Gentiles. ὀφείλομεν, of moral obli-
gation. See note on 1 Johnii. 6. ὑπολαμ-
βάνειν, suscipere, ‘receive hospitably”’
(cf. ὑποδέχεσθαι), ‘take under one’s
protection”. Observe the Wortspiel—
λαμβάνοντες, ὑπολαμβάνειν. συνεργοὶ
τῇ ἀληθείᾳ: a division ο{]αβοιτ. If we
cannot preach the Gospel ourselves, we
may help others to doit. William Carey,
comparing his missionary enterprise to
the exploration of a mine, said: “I will
go down if you will hold the ropes”.

Vv. ο-το. Churlishness of Diotrephes.
‘IT wrote something to the Church, but
Diotrephes, who loveth pre-eminence
over them, doth not receive us. There-
fore, if I come, I shall call to remem-
brance his works which he doeth, prating
about us with evil words; and, not con-
tent therewith, neither doth he himself
receive the brethren and them that would
he preventeth and casteth out of the
Church.”

“ Der Zweck des 3. Briefes liegt in der
Empfehlung der Gastfreundschaft gegen
wandernde Glaubensboten ” (Holtzm.).

Ver. g. ἔγραψά τι, a brief letter of
commendation, συστατικὴ ἐπιστολή (2
Cor. iii. 1), introducing and authorising
a company of itinerant brethren, probably
those referred to in v. 5. Φιλοπρω-
τεύειν. ‘love to be first, to be chief ’ (ἅπαξ
λεγόμενον). The noun is φιλοπρωτεία
and the adj. φιλόπρωτος (Polyb., Plut ).
προάγειν (2 John g) and Φιλοπρωτεύειν
denote two tempers which disturbed the
Christian life of Asia Minor—intellectual

arrogance and personal aggrandisement.
αὐτῶν refers κατὰ σύνεσιν to ἐκκλησίᾳ.
οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται ἡμᾶς, “doth not receive
me in the person of my delegates ” (cf.
Matt. x. 40), z.e., “ disowneth my autho-
rity”.

Ver. το. ἐὰν ἔλθω: the aged Apostle
with his failing strength can only “hope”
(cf. ver. 14) to undertake the journey.
ὑπομνήσω αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα, not “remind
him of his works ”’ (contrast the “work ”
of Gaius in νετ. 5), but ‘* bring his works
to remembrance,” by reciting them at a
meeting of the Church. St. John does
not threaten excommunication or any
sort of discipline, but simply that he will
state the facts and let them speak for
themselves. A terrible reckoning, like
that of the Day of Judgment (cf. Rev.
xx. 12)—to hear a recital of all one’s
passionate speeches and_ inconsiderate
actions. Contrast St. Paul’s threats
(x Cor. iv. 21: 2 Cor. x. 11, xiii. 1-3).
St. John deserved to be called “the
Apostle of Love”. Φλναρεῖν (nugari,
verschwatsen), of foolish chattering.
Suid.: Φλύαρος: φλήναφος καὶ λῆρος
καὶ µάταιος λόγος. The chatter of Dio-
trephes was not only foolish but male-
volent (λόγοις πονηροῖς). μὴ ἀρκ., see
note on i John ii. 4. οὔτε . . . καί, cf.
John iv. 11. κωλύει, ἐκβαάλλει, 'ρτες.
implying not that he actually did it but
that he tried to do it. ἐκβάλλει, here
not of literal ejection (cf. John ii. 115=
Matt. xxi. 12= Mark xi. 15) but of ex-
communication from the fellowship of
the congregation.

Vv. 11,12. Testimony to Demetrius.
‘6 Beloved, do not imitate what is bad but
what is good. He that doeth what is
good is of God; he that doeth what is
bad hath not seen God. To Demetrius
testimony hath been borne by all and by
the Truth itself; yea, and we testify. and
thou knowest that our testimony is true.”

‘

ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Γ

12---15.

205
a Sh xi. 8 µιμεῦ τὸ κακόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν. 6 ἀγαθοποιῶν, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν :
bi John 6 δὲ] κακοποιῶν, οὐχ ἑώρακε τὸν Θεόν.

. 3 ~ ~ ,
ε Heb. χἰ.2, τύρηται ὑπὸ πάντων, καὶ bw αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας ᾿

4, 5, 39-
d John xix.

35, XXi.

24.
e 2 John 12.

f Matt. x. _ σοι γράψαι 5 14. ἐλπίζω δὲ εὐθέως ἰδεῖν σε,
15. ᾿Εἰρήνη σοι. ἀσπάζονταί σε οἱ "φίλοι. ἀσπάζου

13; Luk
el 36:
John xx.

19,21, 36; τοὺς ® φίλους "Kat ὄνομα.
1 Peter v. ὦ ὃν
tA. g John xi. 11; Acts xxvii. 3.

λαλήσομεν.

12. Δημητρίῳ Ἴμεμαρ-
“kal ἡμεῖς δὲ

μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ οἴδατε” ὅτι ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστι.
13. Πολλὰ εἶχον γράφειν,ὸ GAN’ οὗ θέλω διὰ µέλανος καὶ καλάμου

5 Ve / Q ,
και στοµα προς στοµα

h John x. 3.

19 δε L, Cop., Aeth., Arm.; ο SABCKP, Syrph, Vg., Sah., edd.

2 o.8are KLP, Syrbo ph, Aeth. ; οιδας SSABC, ΥΡ., Cop., Sah., Arm.
3 ypaderv KLP; γραψαι σοι SABC, edd.

4ypawat KLP; ypadew SABC, edd.

διδειν σε ΜΕΙ.Ρ; σειδειν ABC, edd.

Ver. 11. A warning against evil ex-
ample. The pres. participles ἀγαθοποιών,
κακοποιών denote continuance in and
practice of good or bad. See note on
I John iii. 6. ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, “a child of
God” (cf. 1 John iii. το). Observe the
gentleness of the Apostle: the natural
antithesis of ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ would be ἐκ
τοῦ διαβόλου (x John iii. 8), but he says
οὐχ ἑώρακεν τὸν Θεόν.

Ver. 12. Application of the warning
against evil example: Do not imitate
Diotrephes, but imitate Demetrius. De-
metrius was probably the bearer (Ueber-
bringer) of the epistle. There is no
treason for identifying him with Deme-
trius the silversmith of Ephesus (Acts
xix. 24). B. Weiss (Einleit.), supporting
the ecclesiastical interpretation of 2 John
(see Introd. p. 162) and finding a refer-
ence to it in 3 John ο, regards Deme-
trius as the recipient (Empfdnger) of the
former—a member of the Church and a
striking contrast to his fellow-member
Diotrephes. But evidently he was a
stranger to Gaius and needed introduc-
tion and commendation. St. John gives
him a threefold testimony: (1) that of
the whole community at Ephesus (ὑπὸ
πάντων): (2) that of ‘‘the Truth” (see
note on τ Johni. 8): he fulfilled the re-
quirements of the Gospel and exemplified
its saving power; (3) that of the Apostle
and his colleagues at Ephesus (ἡμεῖς) :
he has long been honoured by his com-
munity as an embodiment of the Truth
(μεμαρτύρηται), and the Apostle testifies
this when he is going among strangers
ignorant of his past (μαρτυροῦμεν). καὶ
. . . δὲ, see note on 1 Johni. 3. οἶδας
ὅτι, κ.τ.λ. : because St. John knew him

so well. Demetrius belonged to the
Church of Ephesus and was probably a
convert of the Apostle.

Vv. 13-15. The Conclusion. “I had
many things to write to thee, but I am
not minded to be writing to thee by pen
and ink. However, I hope presently to
see thee, and we shall talk face to face.
Peace to thee! The friends salute thee.
Salute the friends by name.”

Cf. 2 John, 12-13. The similarity of
the conclusions suggests that the two
epistles were written at the same time.
The Apostle meditated a visitational
circuit (see Introd. p. 155) in the course of
which he would see both Kyria and
Gaius.

Ver. 13. γράψαι, aor. of the complete
composition in the Apostle’s mind; ypa-
Φειν, pres. of the process of putting it on
paper. k«dAapos (in full κάλαμος γρα-
devs), a reed-pen, as distinguished from
γραφεῖον, a sharp-pointed stilus for writ-
ing on waxed tablets. Plutarch (Dem.,
29, 3) says that Demosthenes, when
meditating and writing, was accustomed
to bite his kdAapos.

Ver. 15. εἰρήνη σοι, pax tibi, the

Jewish ‘greeting, πο Di w (Jud. vi.

23, xix. 20), ot φίλοι, those at Ephesus;
τοὺς φίλους, those with Gaius. St. John
knew all “by name,” and would have
named them had space permitted. He
had the true shepherd’s heart (cf. John
x. 3, the only other place where κατ᾽
ὄνομα occurs in N.T.). Ignat., ad
Smyrn., xiii. 2: ἀσπαάζομαι λκην, τὸ
παθητόν por ὄνομα, καὶ Δάφνον, τὸν
ασύγκριτον καὶ εὔτεκνον, καὶ πάντας
Kat ὄνομα.

THE GENERAL EPISTLE
OF

JUDE.

INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER I.
Relation of the Second Epistle of Peter to the Epistle of Fude.

THE general resemblance between the two Epistles will be apparent
from the marginal references to my text. I propose here to com-
pare them throughout, stating the reasons which have led me to
believe that the epistle of Jude was known to the author of 2 Peter,
not vice versa.”

To begin with, both style themselves servants of Jesus Christ
and address themselves to those who in some way belong to God
and to Jesus Christ, desiring that peace might be multiplied upon
them. We notice here certain differences occasioned by the differ-
ence of the writers. J. marks his identity by naming his brother
James; P. claims apostleship. J. adds the prayer for mercy and
and love to that for peace ; P. who is about to speak more fully of
love immediately, omits it here, and changes ἔλεος into the wider
Χάρις. J. defines his readers as ‘‘the called who have been beloved
by God the Father and kept safe in Jesus Christ’’; P. defers the
notion of ‘‘ calling’ to the third and tenth verses, and dwells here on
God's free gift of faith (τοῖς λαχοῦσιν πίστιν) as characteristic of his
readers. He adds two remarkable phrases (1) that, through the
justice of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, this faith is
(2) equally privileged with that of the writer (whether we are to
regard him as representing the Apostles, or the Jews, as seems to
me more probable), and he emphasises this equality of Jew and
Gentile by the unique use of his own double name, the Hebrew
««Symeon”’ added to the Greek “ Peter,’ suggesting that his sym-
pathies embrace both. We may compare with this the friendly re-
ference to St. Paul in iii. 15, and the association of Silvanus with
the writer in 1 Peter.

1 For the justification of the readings and interpretations adopted in the follow-
ing chapters, see critical and explanatory notes.
2In what follows P. stands for 2 Peter, J. for Jude.

~

1 INTRODUCTION

After this greeting J. turns at once to the immediate occasion
for his letter. He had been preparing, he says, to write on the
subject which is of highest interest to all Christians, viz., salvation,’
when news reached him of a new danger threatening the Church,
against which he felt bound to warn his readers. It seems hardly
possible to suppose that this note of alarm could have come to him
through P., who writes in a much more leisurely way, not feeling it
necessary at once to plunge into controversy and supply his readers
with weapons for the defence of the faith. In fact the latter begins
with the very subject which J. had felt himself obliged to omit, or at
least to postpone to the end of his Epistle (ver. 20), viz. the doctrine
of salvation. Thus we seem to lose sight of J. until the beginning
of the second chapter of P., but we shall see that in the intervening
passage of P. there is frequent recurrence to thoughts which are
found in the former epistle.

After speaking generally of the blessings in store for man through
the goodness of God, P. goes on (i. 5) to speak of the corresponding
duty on man’s part. We are to use every effort to build up the
Christian life in its seven-fold completeness on the rock of faith.
Towards the end of J. we find words which may very possibly have
suggested to P. this idea of the seven ascending tiers rising on the
foundation of faith and culminating in love (J. ver. 20), ἐποικοδομοῦντες
ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτη ὑμῶν πίστει . . . ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπη Θεοῦ τη-
ρήσατε. The phrase σπουδὴν πᾶσαν of P. i. 5 occurs also in J. ver. 3.
The mention of εὐσέβεια in P. i. 3, 6, 7 may be due to the prevalence
of ἀσέβεια so often deplored by J. The verses which follow (i. 8-11)
dwell on the importance of the cultivation of these virtues or graces.
“Their continued growth will tend to make us not unfruitful (cf. J.
ver. 12) in regard to that knowledge of God, out of which they grow.
Their absence causes blindness, or at least limits us to narrow
earthly views, and makes us forgetful of the baptismal cleansing
from the sins of our old life. Remember that it is not enough simply
to have been baptised. We have to make sure the calling and
election of which baptism was the seal. If you are diligent in doing
this, you will never stumble, but will have a glorious entry into the
eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Here toc
we find connecting links with the later verses of J. ‘‘ Eternal life’
is the goal in J. ver. 21, ‘‘the eternal kingdom,” in P.i. 11. The
οὐ μὴ πταίσητε and the πλουσίως ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται of P. remind us of J.’s
summing up in ver. 24, “God our Saviour is able to keep us without

1The word κοινήν here may have suggested to P. his phrase ἰσότιμον πίστιν.

INTRODUCTION 213

stumbling and to set us before His glory without blemish im ex-
ceeding joy’.

Ρ, continues (i. 12-15), “1 know that you are established in this
truth, but it will be always my care to remind you of it, as 1 am
indeed bound to do, whilst I continue in this earthly habitation.
Even after I leave it, as our Lord Jesus Christ has warned me that
I must soon do, I hope to bequeath to you a legacy which will enable
you to make mention of these things after my departure.” We
have here an echo of J. ver. 5, ‘‘I desire to put you in remembrance,
though ye know all things,” z.e., as it is explained afterwards, though
you are familiar with the examples of judgment contained in the
O.T., including the punishment of the angels who sinned. P. ad-
dressing Gentiles, who could hardly be expected to be familiar with a
narrative resting mainly on Jewish tradition, gives the phrase a
more fitting application in reference to the general moral and
religious teaching which precedes.

The connexion between the two Epistles is most conspicuous in
the second chapter of P. In both, this section begins with a short
Introduction (J. ver. 4, P. ii. 1-3), describing in general terms the
innovators against whom the readers are warned. They steal into
the Church, they deny the only Master (δεσπότην), their lives are im-
pure, the verdict of heaven has long been pronounced against them.
To this P. prefixes a clause to connect the new subject with that of the
preceding chapter. The gift of prophecy was liable to misuse under
the old dispensation (of which he presently quotes Balaam as an
example, cf. P. ii. 15, 16, and J. ver. 11). Corresponding to this in
the new dispensation’ will be the abuse of teaching (cf. James iti. 1-
12) ; and these false teachers will introduce destructive heresies and
bring on themselves swift destruction. [The word ἀπώλεια does not
occur in J., but in the next verse he says that the Lord τοὺς μὴ
πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν.] P. adds the Pauline epithet ἀγοράσαντα be-
fore δεσπότην. He foretells that many will follow the loose living of
these teachers and that thus the way of truth (Ps. cxix. 30) will be
evil spoken of (Isa. lii. 5). He speaks of their covetousness (cf. J.’
ver. 11 on Balaam) and of their glozing words. While J. denounces οἱ
πάλαι προγεγραμμµένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίµα (where the reference in τοῦτο is
obscure), P. has the fine phrase ots τὸ κρίµα οὐκ ἀργεῖ καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια
αὐτῶν οὐ νυστάζει. On the other hand we lose J.’s τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτα
µετατιθέντες eis ἀσέλγειαν, for which perhaps ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελ-
λόμενοι, αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς (P. ii. 19) was intended as
an equivalent, cf. Gal. v. 19, ἐπ ἐλευθερία ἐκλήθητε' µόνον μὴ τὴν
ἐλευθερίαν eis ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκίἰ.

VOL, V. 14

214 INTRODUCTION

Then follow (J. vv. 5-7) three examples of judgment taken from
the O.T.: Israel in the Wilderness, the offending angels, the sin of
Sodom, which are repeated in P. ii. 4-9, except that the Deluge
takes the place of the punishment of Israel. Why was this change
made? Probably because the destruction of the world by water
and the destruction of Sodom by fire were recognised types of
Divine vengeance (Lk. xvii. 26-29), and also because P. is about to
speak of the Deluge below (iii. 5-7) to show that there is nothing
incredible in the destruction of the existing universe by fire. More-
over he had already referred to the case of Israel (ἐν τῷ λαῷ) in
comparing the false prophets of the O.T. with the false teachers of
the N.T. Perhaps, too, he wished to keep the chronological order
in his three examples. It has been suggested in the note on τὸ
δεύτερον that, in speaking of the destruction of Israel after their
falling back into unbelief, J. may have had in his mind the question
of the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin. There is perhaps a similar
reference in P. i. 9, λήθην λαβὼν τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι αὐτοῦ ἅμαρ-
τιῶν as well as in Ρ. ii. 20. With regard to P.’s triplet, it is to be
noticed that it is given in a far more animated form than that of J.,
being used as a protasis to an apodosis applying the same principles
to the persons addressed, εἰ yap 6 Θεὸς οὐκ ἐφείσατο κ.τ.λ. Of the
angels P. says merely that they sinned, J. dwells on their pristine
dignity, and follows the book of Enoch in making their sin to consist
partly in the fall from their high estate, and partly in their going
after σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, as the men of Sodom did afterwards τὸν ὅμοιον
τρόπον τούτοις, J. ver. 7. If P. had J. before him, these omissions are
natural; if J. wrote after P., he would scarcely have gone out of his
way to insert particulars so derogatory to the angelic nature. As to
their punishment, they are reserved, in both epistles, for judgment
under darkness in chains.

It is interesting to compare what is said in the two Epistles about
the two missionaries of the antediluvian world. In J. ver. 14 Enoch,
the seventh from Adam, appears simply as the denouncer of ven-
¢eance to come: in P. Noah is a preacher of righteousness and he
is the eighth saved. In my edition of 2 Peter I have suggested that
the writer may have intended a mystical opposition between the two
numbers; and, I think, this is confirmed by the way in which the
number 8 is introduced in 1 P. iii. 20 (κιβωτοῦ) eis ἣν ὀλίγοι, Todt’
ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί, διεσώθησαν δι ὕδατος. The ark is here regarded as a
symbol of the Church. What was the writer’s motive in adding
that it contained only a few, and further that these few, on being
reckoned up, were found to amount to 8? Must he not have in-

INTRODUCTION 215

tended to signify that, while the visible Church consisted of a mere
“remnant,” a “little flock,” yet these few represented all who share
the Resurrection of Christ, “‘the general assembly and church of the
first-born,” which would be continually recruited not only from the
living, but also from the dead by the ever-present, ever-active Spirit
of Christ (1 P. iii, 19)? In the account of Sodom P. (ii. 6) differs
from J. in laying stress on Lot’s protest against surrounding wicked-
ness, and on the mercy shown towards him, just as he had done
pefore in regard to Noah (hereby illustrating the duty of the faithful
under the present stress); and the moral he draws from the two.
stories is that “God knows how to deliver the godly from trial, as
well as to keep the wicked under chastisement for the day of judg-
ment”. P.- alone gives details as to the destruction of Sodom
(τεφρώσας καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν), while J. speaks of its present state
as a warning to future ages. As regards this warning P.’s ὑπόδειγμα
µελλόντων ἀσεβέσιν is better expressed than J.’s rather confused πρό-
κεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. In ver. 8 J. turns to the
libertines and declares that they are guilty of like sins with these
sinners of the old world: they defile the flesh, make light of authority
and rail at “ glories” (as the men of Sodom did towards the angels),
and this they do because they are still buried in a carnal sleep (cf.
Eph. ν. 14). These men (ver. 10, οὗτοι δέ) rail at things beyond
their ken, while they surrender themselves like brute beasts to the
guidance of their appetites, and thus bring about their own destruc-
tion. P. (ii. 10) combines part of 6.5 description of the men of
Sodom, who went ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (for which he substitutes ὀπίσω
σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευοµένους) with 6.5 condemnation of the
libertines as despising authority,? and predicates both characteristics
of the wicked, whom God keeps under chastisement for the day of
judgment. Then turning to the libertines he exclaims against them
as “headstrong and shameless (toApnrtai, cf. ἐτόλμησεν, J. ver. 9) men
that shrink not from railing at glories” (ii. 10). In ii. 12 he goes on,
as J. does in ver. 10, with a οὗτοι δέ, “‘these are like brute beasts’,
Apparently he wants to bring out more fully the force of J.’s ὅσα
Φυσικῶς ἐπίστανται, ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται by the periphrasis γεγεννηµένα
φυσικὰ eis ἅλωσιν καὶ Φθοράν and ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν Φθαρήσονται. That
is, while J. simply states that the libertines are destroyed through

1For the connexion between the darkened heart which refuses to know God,
and the indulgence in the vilest lusts, see Rom. i. 21-28.

21t will be noticed that, while J. couples κυριότητα and δόξας as belonging
to the same category, P. only names the abstract word κυριότητα here, and
introduces δόξας later on as a concrete example.

216 INTRODUCTION

their indulgence in their animal instincts, P. draws out the compari-
son to the brute beasts, ‘“‘ which are born mere creatures of instinct,
with a view to capture and slaughter,’”’ and then adds that the liber-
tines will share their fate, since they mock at that higher world
which is beyond their ken. Here there can be no doubt that P.’s
language is far more obscure than that of J. Even J. is not quite
clear. The true antithesis would have been “they rail at what
transcends the senses, they admire what appeals to the senses and
appetites”’ (and yet these are the causes of their ruin). Is it pos-
sible that P., writing with an imperfect recollection of J., understood
ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται to mean “‘perish among them,” 7.¢., among the
brutes?

We have now to consider the very curious verse interposed be-
tween J. vv. 8 and 10, P. ii. 10 and 12. Ind. it runs: ‘“ Michael, the
archangel, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of
Moses, did not venture to bring a judgment of railing, but said, ‘the
Lord rebuke thee’”: in P. “ whereas angels, though greater in
power and might, do not venture to bring against them a railing
judgment before the Lord”. The former is a little difficult, but
with the help of the Assumptio Mosis we can understand that, if the
chief of the archangels abstained from using any contemptuous ex-
pression against Satan, and contented himself with making his appeal
to God, much more should frail and sinful mortals abstain from
slighting language about the powers of the invisible world. What,
however, is to be made of P? Standing by itself, it is merely a
riddle, for which the answer is to be foundin J. That is to say, P.
wrote with J.’s sentence in his mind, but for some reason or other
chose to eliminate the points essential for its intelligibility. What
was his reason? The same, I think, which led him to omit the
details as to the fall of the angels, which are mainly derived from
the Book of Enoch, in ii. 4, and the reference to the preaching of
Enoch below. He objects, that is, to make use of these apocryphal
writings, and generalises the story by dropping the proper names
and by twice changing a singular into a plural (ἄγγελοι, αὐτῶν). So,
too, a vague παρὰ Κυρίῳ takes the place of ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος, and
the vagueness is increased by the use of the indeterminate αὐτῶν and
by the omission of the object of the comparative peifoves. In fact
the sentence is meaningless except to one who was already ac-
quainted with its parallel in J., though it may perhaps be true, as
Dr. Bigg suggests, that P. felt himself justified in his generalisation
by the remembrance of an obscure passage in the Book of Enoch.

I go on to J. ver. 11, ‘‘ Woe to them, for they have followed in

INTRODUCTION . 217

the steps of Cain, and been carried away in the error of Balaam for
gain, and lost themselves in the rebellion of Korah. These are
sunken rocks in your love-feasts, where they join your feast without
any feeling of religious reverence, caring only for their own enjoy-
ment. They are clouds without water, scudding before the wind;
trees without fruit in the fruit-bearing season, twice dead, torn up by
the roots; raging waves foaming out their own shame; wandering
stars for which the blackness of darkness is reserved for ever.” This
passage corresponds to P. ii. 13-17, but, in the latter, the order is con-
siderably altered and there are various additions and omissions.
Balaam (who is also prominent in the Apocalypse ii. 14) is the only one
of the old hzresiarchs referred to, but his story is given at more length
in ti. 15 16: “ They (the libertines) have wandered from the straight
path, following the path of Balaam, who loved the wages of un-
righteousness and was convicted of his error by the dumb ass, which
spoke with human voice and stayed the prophet’s madness”’. Here
P. clenches the comparison made before (ii. 1) between the false
prophet of the O.T. and the false teacher of the N.T., and brings
out again the motive of covetousness (see above ii. 3 and ii. 15).
Has he any special reason for introducing the story of the ass re-
buking the prophet? We may compare other passages in which
God is represented as choosing the foolish things of this world to
confound the wise (1 Cor. i. 27, Ps. viii. 2), or in which men are
called upon to learn a lesson from animals, as Isa. i. 3, Jer. viii. 7,
Prov. vi. 6, Job xii. 7. Possibly P. may be thinking of the scorn
entertained for simple believers by those who called themselves
Gnostics (see below ii. 18).

J. ver. 12 appears with some remarkable alterations in P. ii. 13,
σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν συνευωχούµενοι ὑμῖν.
Here σπίλοι and ἀπάταις are substituted for σπιλάδες and ἀγάπαις in J.
Some editors read ἀγάπαις with B, but the addition of αὐτῶν suits
much better with ἁπάταις. J. speaks of ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν. It was natural
of course that the wolves should seek to find their way into the
sheep-folds; but can we suppose that the faithful would enter the
love feasts of the libertines? Moreover the change of an original
ἀγάπαις to ἀπάταις by a copyist is hardly conceivable, while the re-
verse change to suit J. is most natural. But how are we to account
for the disappearance of the important—we might almost call it the
indispensable word—éydmy? In my edition of 2 P., p. cxev., I have
suggested that ἀγάπην was the original reading, instead of ἡδονήν, in
the earlier part of this verse (ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι τὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφήν) ;
where my explanatory note shows how hard it is to make a satis-

218 INTRODUCTION

factory distinction between ἡδονήν and τρυφήν. On the other hand
ἀγάπην gives exactly the sense required “thinking that revelling in
the daytime makes an ἀγάπη: as may be seen from the quotations
from Clement given in the passage referred to (cf. too Rom. xiii. 13).
I account for ἡδονήν by supposing that it was a marginal gloss on
τρυφήν. The word ἁπάτη is often joined with τρυφή, as shown in the
explanatory note, and it is wanted here to explain how the libertines
managed to gain admission to the love-feasts of the Church. We
have next to ask why σπιλάδες should have been changed to σπίλοι.
The former word is a daring metaphor even among the metaphors
which accompany it in J., but quite out of place here, and P. sub-
stitutes for it the similar sounding σπίλος found in Eph. v. 27, of
which the derivatives ἄσπιλος and σπιλόω occur elsewhere in P. and
J. Are we to suppose that P. intentionally replaced J.’s words by
others of similar sound, in order not to startle people who were
already familiar with them? or was it the unconscious action of the
mind, calling up similar sounds, as in rhyming or alliteration? The
latter seems to me the more probable explanation.

P. returns to J.’s metaphors in ii. 17, where he splits up νεφέλαι
ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόµεναι into two, πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι and ὀμίχλαι
ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι, perhaps because he regarded J.’s expression
as superfluous, and also because he thus provides distinct pictures of
present disappointment (the well) and future uncertainty (the cloud).
He omits the fruitless trees, the stormy waves and wandering stars
as unsuited to his purpose, but inappropriately appends to his last
metaphor, the clause in which J. describes the doom of the wander-
ing stars, ots 6 ζόφος τοῦ σκότους τετήρηται. Of course the gender
shows that P. intends this clause to apply to the persons whom he
has just figuratively described, as it is indeed applied by J. himself
in ver. 6, but it loses the aptness which it has in J. ver. 13, and thus
supplies another convincing proof of the priority of J. How could the
latter have had the patience to gather the scattered fragments out of
Ρ. in order to form the splendid cluster of figures in vv. 12, 13?

- We have still to consider the insertion in P. (i. 13), ἀδικούμενοι μισθὸν
ἀδικίας, which commences the loose series of participles ending in ii.
15. If the participle is omitted, this phrase recalls J. ver. 11, τῇ πλάνη
τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν, and is repeated again in ii. 15; but.é&-
κούμενοι is difficult. Apparently P. intends his paradoxical phrase to
correspond to J.’s οὐαί: the libertines are miserable, because they
are, as they think, ‘robbed of (or ‘robbed as’) the reward of their
iniquity’. The following participles gave a striking and powerful
description of the evil influence which these men exercise over

INTRODUCTION 219

unstable souls, ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς µοιχαλίδος καὶ ἀκαταπαύστους
ἁμαρτίας, δελεάζοντες ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους (cf. γεγεννηµένα eis ἅλωσιν, ti. 12),
καρδίαν γεγυμνασµένην πλεονεξίας ἔχοντες, κατάρας τέκνα. Perhaps P.
may intend this partly to take the place of J.’s fine figure κύματα
ἄγρια θαλάσσης ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας.

In vv. 14, 15 J. gives the prophecy of Enoch, the seventh from
Adam, which simply announces the future judgment on impious deeds
and words. To this P. makes no direct reference, but, as I have
before suggested, it may have been one reason for speaking of Noah
as the eighth. In ver. 16 (perhaps taken from the Assumption of
Moses) J. goes on to describe the libertines as “murmuring and dis-
contented, walking after their own lusts, whose mouth λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα,
and who flatter others for the sake of advantage”. To the same
effect P. (ii. 18) speaks of them as uttering ὑπέρογκα µαταιότητος. by
which they seduce through the lusts of the flesh those who were
just escaping from heathen error. In ii. 19-22 P. is mostly indepen-
dent of J., but I have already noticed that ἐλευθερίαν ἐπαγγελλόμενοι
may be an echo of J. ver. 4, χάριτα µετατιθέντες eis ἀσέλγειαν. He con-
tinues, εἰ γὰρ ἀποφυγόντες τὰ µιάσµατα τοῦ κόσμου ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ κυρίου
καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, words which recall what he had said ini. 4,
ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσµω ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς, . . . διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως

.«τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, and goes on to give an impressive
warning against the dangers of backsliding, in which he borrows from
J. ver. 3, ὑποστρέψαι ἐκ τῆς παραδοθείσης αὐτοῖς ἁγίας ἐντολῆς, Concluding
with the proverb of the dog and the sow returning to their foulness
after being cleansed from it.

In the third chapter of P. we go back againtoJ. The readers are
addressed as ἀγαπητοί in P. iii. 1 asin J. ver. 17. In both, they are
bidden to remember the words of the Apostles, warning them against
mockers who should come in the last days, walking after their own
lusts. To this P. adds (iii. 1, 2) ‘“‘This is the second letter I am
writing to you, and in both 1 stir up your sincere mind by calling on
you to remember the command of the Lord and Saviour spoken by
your Apostles’. Since in i. 16, he had used the phrase ἐγνωρίσαμεν
ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν παρουσίαν, it would seem that P. must himself
be included among “your Apostles”. He further bids them “re-
member the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets,’”
recurring in this to what he had said in i. 19. What are we to
understand by the allusion to a previous letter? Our first thought
is naturally of 1 P. But is there anything in it which would answer
to the description here given? Many have denied this, because they
thought that the contents of the prophecy, as given in J. ver. 18, were

220 INTRODUCTION

included in P.’s reference to an earlier Epistle. J. there says, ὅτι
ἔλεγον ὑμῖν Ew ἐσχάτου χρόνου ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται κ.τ.λ., that is, he asserts
that the words quoted by him were words which were often in the
mouth of the Apostles. On the other hand P. makes a clear separa-
tion between iii. 2 and iii. 3 by inserting the phrase τοῦτο πρῶτον
γινώσκοντες, which he had previously used in i. 20, not to introduce a
particular prophecy, but to lay down how prophecy was to be under-
stood. The reference to a former letter is therefore restricted by’
P. to iti. 2, bidding the readers pay heed to the words of the
prophets and the apostles. If we turn now to 1 P. i. 10-12, περὶ ῆς
σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν . . . προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος
προφητεύσαντες . . . οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς, ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν
αὐτά, ἃ viv ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς
πνεύµατι ayia (cf. 1 P. i. 16), we shall find an exact correspond-
ence to what is stated here. The words τῶν προειρηµένων ῥημάτων
(J. ver. 17, P. iii. 2) remind us of J. ver. 4, ot πάλαι mpoyeypappevor eis
τοῦτο τὸ κρίµα (though no doubt the immediate reference there is to
the prophecy of Enoch) and of P. it. 3, ots τὸ κρίµα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ.
In citing the prophecy, P. adds the emphatic ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ, which
may be compared with ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται of ti, 12, and
with the reiterated ἀσεβεῖς of J. ver. 15 and κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας πορευόµενοι
of J. vv. 16 and 18.

In itt. 4, P., omitting J.’s somewhat obscure ver. 19, οὗτοί εἶσιν οἱ
ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες, goes on to specify in what
the mockery of the ἐμπαῖκται consisted. They said that the promise
of the coming of Christ (to which P. had borne witness in i. 16) re-
mained unfulfilled, and that the world was not liable to the catastro-
phic changes predicted as accompaniments of the final judgment.
There is a little awkwardness in P.’s wording, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως fol-
lowing a’ fs ἐκοιμήθησαν, but it is a very natural blending of two ob-
jections. I cannot think that if J. had known this verse, which gives
so much point to the preceding prophecy, he would have refrained
from inserting it. P. gives a double answer in iii. 5-10: (a) as the
world was created out of water by the word of God, so, owing to!
the same word, it was destroyed through water, and will be destroyed
again by fire on the day of judgment (cf. Jude vv. 6, 7, P. ii. 3, 4,
9); (b) God is not limited to days and years. If He waits, it is from
His long-suffering patience, because He desires that all should repent
and be saved. We may compare this with P.’s use of the O.T. types
of judgment to point out proofs of mercy in the case of Noah and
Lot (ii. 5, 7), in contrast with the severer tone of J. vv. 5-7. In itt. 10

1 Reading δι’ 6v, for which see my edition of 2 P.

INTRODUCTION 221

P. bids his readers make a practical use of the knowledge that the
Lord is about to come unexpectedly. ‘Do not be blind to the
symptoms of the breaking up of the frame of nature (perhaps a re-
ference to volcanic eruptions and earthquakes). Make ready for the
coming of the day of God by the practice of holiness and piety.
Look forward to the fulfilment of the promise of the reign of
righteousness in a new earth and heaven.”

At this point J. and P. again come together in J. νετ. 20 and P.. iti.
14, both commencing a new section with ἀγαπητοί. J.’s exhortation
to his readers ‘to build themselves up on their most holy faith and
keep themselves in love’”’ has been already used by P., as we have
seen, ini. 5-7. His reference to the Spirit’s help in prayer may be
compared with P. i. 20 on the inspiration of the prophets. His
phrase in ver. 21, προσδεχόµενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον is taken up in the προσδοκῶντας of P. ΠΠ. 12 and προσ-
δοκῶμεν Of iii, 13, and again initi. 14, while the goal eis ζωὴν αἰώνιον may
be compared with εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν in P. i. 11. P. inserts
ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι (cf 1 P.1. 19) from J.’s ἀμώμους in ver. 24, and
in contrast to his own σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι in ii, 13, and to J.’s ἐσπιλω-
peévov in νετ. 23. ἐν εἰρήνη looks back to J. ver. 2and P. i. 2. While
in vv. 22, 23 we have J.’s stern rule for the treatment of backsliders,
Ρ. gives utterance again (iii. 15) to the more hopeful view of iii. 9,
and claims for it the inspired support of Paul. ‘‘ Yet Paul’s letters,
wise and good as they are, offer some difficulties, which have been
misunderstood and perverted, like the rest of the Bible,! by the un-
learned and unstable to their own destruction.” The word σωτηρία
jn iil. 15 reminds us that J. had originally intended to write περὶ τῆς
κοινῆς σωτηρίας (ver. 3) and that his purpose is apparently carried
out to a certain extent in these last verses from 20 onwards. In
ver. 24 J. begins an Ascription partly borrowed from St. Paul, ad-
dressed ‘“‘to Him who {5 able to keep His people free from stumbling
(cf. P. i. 10) and present them before His glory in exceeding joy”
(cf. P. 1. 11). P. bids his readers, “knowing these things before-
hand (see above i. 12, iti. 2) to be on their guard, that they may not
be led away by the error (J. ver. 11, P. ii. 18) of the wicked (P. ii.
7, cf. J. ver. 23, ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ), and so fall from their own steadfast-
mess” (cf. P. i. 12, ti. 14, ili. 16). ὅ.5 ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει soars higher
than the lesson which P. here inculcates: it may be compared, as
we have seen, with the πλουσίως ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται Of i. 11. P. con-
tinues his exhortation in iii. 18, αὐξάνετε ἐν χάριτι καὶ γνώσει, for which

1 For the justification of this rendering see explanatory notes in my edition of
2Ε,

222 INTRODUCTION

we may compare χάρις πληθυνθείη in 1. 2 and ταῦτα πλεονάζοντα in i. 8,
also J. ver. 4. The Ascription in P. is much simpler than that in J.,
being addressed to our Saviour Jesus Christ, while J.’s is addressed
µόνῳ Θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. P. has δόξα
only, while J. has the full liturgical form, δόξα, µεγαλωσύνη, κράτος, καὶ
ἐξουσία. P. has καὶ νῦν καὶ eis ἡμέραν αἰῶνος, while J. has πρὸ παντὸς
τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας, concluding with ἁμήν,
which is omitted in P. by W.H. after Cod. B. Cf. A. J. Wilson,
7. of Theol. Stud. vol. viii. 75 on Emphasis in N.T.

To sum up: What do we find to be the main points in which the
two Epistles agree, what the points in which they differ? Both
agree in making faith, which is itself the gift of God (P. i. 1,
λαχοῦσιν πίστιν), the foundation of the Christian life (J. vv. 3, 20,
P. i. 1, 5): both agree that its commencement lies in the divine
call (J. ver. 1, P. i. 3, 10). The call was sealed in baptism for the
forgiveness of sin (J. ver. 5 in connexion with 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, P. i. 9);
but we have to make our calling sure through good works (P. i. 10), to
build ourselves up on the foundation of the faith (J. ver. 20, P. i. 5-
7), to keep ourselves in the love of God by praying with the help of the
Holy Spirit (J. ver. 20), looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ
(which shall be fully revealed) in the life eternal (J. ver. 21). God our
Saviour is able to keep us without stumbling and to present us before
His glory unblemished in joy (J. vv. 24, 25). P. does not expressly
mention prayer, and he lays more stress on personal effort than J. in
the words “give diligence that ye may be found in peace, without spot
and blameless in His sight ”’ iii
steadfastness, grow in grace” iii. 17, 18. So in i. 5-8 he bids his
readers add all diligence to supply “in your faith energy, in your
energy knowledge,” etc., and goes on in ver. 10 to say “if ye do these
things, ye shall never stumble: for thus shall be richly supplied to
you the entrance into the eternal kingdom”. At the same time he
ascribes to the divine power “all that pertains to life and godliness,
through the knowledge of Him who called us by the manifestation of
His own goodness”. That manifestation has been to us the guarantee
of most blessed promises, through which we are enabled to become
partakers of the divine nature (P. i. 3, 4).

The broad distinction between the two Epistles may be said to
be that, while J. is throughout occupied with the denunciation
of evil-doers, except in vv. 1-3 and 20-25, P.’s denunciations are
mainly confined to a portion of chapter ii, and that the latter
dwells more upon the mercy of God as shown even in his punish-
ments.

INTRODUCTION 223

The conclusion I have drawn from the above comparison of the
two Epistles as to the priority of J., is confirmed by the general
opinion of modern critics, as by Neander, Credner, Ewald, Hilgen-
feld, Holtzmann, Harnack, Bernhard Weiss, Abbott, Farrar, Salmon,
above all by Dr. Chase in his excellent article on the ‘‘ Second Epistle
of St. Peter” in Hastings’ D. of Β. It is true some of the best
authorities speak very doubtfully both of this priority and of the
authenticity of 2 P. Thus Déllinger, who, in his First Age of the
Church, had maintained the priority of 2 P., wrote to Dr. Plum-
mer in the year 1879 that he could no longer hold this opinion
(Plummer’s St. James and St. $ude 1891, p. 400). See also Plum-
mer’s St. Fude, p. 268: ‘‘ While admitting that the case is by no
means proved, we may be content to retain the priority, as well as the
authenticity of 2 Peter, as at least the best working hypothesis”.
And Hort is quoted by Dr. Sanday (Inspiration, p. 347) as saying
that ‘‘ If he were asked he should say that the balance of argument
was against the epistle ; and the moment he had done so he should
begin to think that he might be wrong”. On the other hand three of
the most recent critics, Spitta in his Commentary on the two Epistles,
1885, Dr. Bigg in his International Critical Commentary, ed. 2, 1902,
and the veteran Zahn in his Einleitung in das N.T., ed. 3, 1906, have
no hesitation in maintaining the priority and authenticity of 2 P. |
proceed to consider the arguments which have been adduced by
them or by others in favour of that view.!

(1) Assuming the genuineness of the two Epistles, it is easier,
in a case of evident borrowing, to suppose that the borrower should
be the comparatively obscure Jude, rather than Peter, the foremost
of the Apostles.

(2) Jude seems to acknowledge his obligations to Peter in ver. 4
οἱ πάλαι mpoyeypappévor εἰς τοῦτο τὸ Kpipa . . . τὸν µόνον δεσπότην
ἀρνούμενοι and in vv. 17, 18 µνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρηµένων ὑπὸ
τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν “Ew ἐσχάτου
Χρόνου ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόµενοι, the
former verse being regarded as an allusion to P.’s ii. 3 ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσονται
Ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι . . . τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι . . . οἷς
τὸ κρίµα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ, the latter {ο P. iii. 2, 3 μνησθῆναι τῶν προει-
ρΡηµένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν '
ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος, τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἐπ᾽
ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν
πορευόµενοι.

1] agree with Dr. Bigg that it is superfluous to consider theories which sup-

pose 2 P. to be made up of two independent epistles. Its unity, as shown in the
earlier part of this chapter, forces itseif on the mind of any careful reader.

224 INTRODUCTION

(3) The priority of P. is confirmed by the prevailing use of the
future tense in regard to the innovators, whereas J. uses the past
or the present; cf. P. ii. 1 ἔσονται, παρεισάξουσιν, il, 2 ἐξακολουθήσουσιν,
βλασφημηθήσεται, ii. 3 ἐμπορεύσονται, with J. ver. 4 παρεισεδύησαν, ver.
8 µιαίνουσιν, ver. 10 βλασφημοῦσιν and the aorists in ver. 11.

Dealing with these objections in order, we may concede that, if
both Epistles are genuine, we should rather have expected the borrow-
ing to be on the side of the more obscure. Yet the probability is not
one that can be pressed. Milton and Handel borrowed from men
much inferior to themselves ; Isaiah borrows from. Micah, and 1 P.
from James. Ifon the other hand we find reason to believe that 2
P. was not written by the Apostle, the objection only amounts to
this, that, though St. Peter himself had borrowed from James in 1
P., an admirer of St. Peter could not have borrowed from Jude in 2 P.
With regard to obj. (2), I have pointed out in my note that the word
πάλαι in J. ver. 4 cannot refer to P., but must be understood of the
orophecy of Enoch, quoted in J. ver. 15, in which the word ἀσεβεῖς
(which sums up the judgment in ver. 4), occurs no less than four times
(if we include the cognate verb and abstract noun). I have also
pointed out that J. in ver. 17 refers not to any one writer, but to the
oral teaching of the Apostles, and that P. in iii. 2 does not profess to
utter any new prophecy, but simply adds to what Jude had said, that
the teaching of the Apostles rested upon the authority of Christ, and
that it was in agreement with the teaching of the prophets. As re-
gards obj. (3), the difference of tense, P. is not consistent in his use of
the future. We have the pres. in ii. 10 τρέµουσιν, ti. 17 εἰσίν, Π. 18
δελεάζουσιν, iii, 5 λανθάνει, from which we should conclude that the
innovators had already begun their work, if not among those to whom
he writes, yet among other churches, to which J. may have addressed
himself. Ifthe former Epistle is a product of the second century, the
writer may have used the future tense to give it verisimilitude, while
falling at times into the present from inadvertence.

(4) Spitta asks why, if P. is borrowing from J., he makes no re-
ference to him, as he does to Paul? It might be enough to ask in
reply, ‘‘ Why, if J. borrows from P., does he make no definite acknow-
ledgment of the fact’””? But we have a parallel case, though no doubt
on a smaller scale, in the unacknowledged borrowings from the Epistle
of James in 1 Peter, on which see the Introduction to my edition of
James, pp. xcviii to cii. The reason however for the mention of Paul
in 2 P. is quite distinct from the acknowledgment of a debt. The
libertines claimed his authority in behalf of their own views (cf. J.
ver. 4), and it was necessary for P. to protest against this.

INTRODUCTION 225

It would be endless to go into a minute examination of the parallel
passages which have been cited to prove.the priority of P. I have said
all that I think need be said about them in the earlier part of this
chapter and in the explanatory notes of my edition of 2 P. The im-
pression which they leave on my mind is that in J. we have the first
thought, in P. the second thought ; that we can generally see a reason
why P. should have altered J., but very rarely a reason why what we
read in P. should have been altered to what we findin J. P. is more
reflective, J. more spontaneous. |

CHAPTER II.

The Epistle of ude, Author, Style, Authenticity, Circumstances of
Writing —The name Judas (Ἰούδας) was naturally in very common
use among the Jews at the time of the Christian era. It was dear to
them as having been borne not only by the Eponymos of their tribe,
but also by their great champion Judas the Maccabee. Two among
the Twelve bore this name, Judas Iscariot, and the Judas not Iscariot
(Jn. xiv. 22), who is also called Judas son of James (6 Ιακώβου, Lk.
vi. 16, Acts i. 13) and Thaddaeus (Mt. ix. 3, Mk. iti. 18, where some
MSS. add AeBBaios). Besides these we meet with a Judas among
the Brethren of the Lord (Mt. xiii. 55, Mk. vi. 3), Judas of Galilee
(Acts v. 37), Judas surnamed Barsabbas (Acts xv. 22), Judas of
Damascus (Acts ix. 11). It is therefore not surprising that the writer
should have added a note of identification, δοῦλος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ιακώβου. The most famous James in the middle of the
first century was the head of the Church at Jerusalem and brother
of the Lord, who also begins his epistle by styling himself simply
δοῦλος (Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου) ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Hence it seems probable that
the addition was made, not merely for the purpose of identification,
but, like the addition of ἀπόστολος δέ in Tit. i. 1, as giving a reason
why his words should be received with respect, since he was brother
of James and therefore one of the Brethren of the Lord. In my
Introduction to the Epistle of St. James (pp. i-xlvii), I have en-
deavoured to show that the Brethren of the Lord were sons of Joseph
and Mary, that they did not join the Church till after the Crucifixion,
and that none of them was included among the Twelve.!

Other facts which we learn from the N.T. are (1) that Jude was
probably either the youngest or the youngest but one of the Brethren
of the Lord, as he is mentioned last among them in Mt. xiii. 55 ot
ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ᾽Ιάκωβος καὶ ᾿Ιωσῆς καὶ Σίµων καὶ Ἰούδας, and last but one
in Mk. vi. 3 ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ιακώβου καὶ ἸΙωσῆ καὶ Ιούδα καὶ Σίμωνος; (2)
that the Brethren of the Lord (of course exclusive of James, who

1See ver. 17, where the writer appears to distinguish between the Apostles
and himself.

INTRODUCTION 227

remained stationary at Jerusalem) were engaged in missionary
journeys like St. Paul (1 Cor. ix. 5), but that they differed from him
in the fact that they were married and were accompanied by their
wives, and also, as we may suppose from Gal. ii. 9, Mt. x. 23, that
their ministrations were mainly directed to the Jews. In my edition
of James (p. cxv) I have argued that his Epistle was addressed to
Jews of the eastern Diaspora and it seems not improbable that Jude,
writing many years after his brother's death, may have wished to
supply his place by addressing to the same circle of readers the warn-
ings which he felt bound to utter under the perilous circumstances
of the new age. His cousin Symeon, the son of his uncle Clopas,
had succeeded to the bishopric of Jerusalem (Eus., H.Z., ili., 22, iv., 22,

' quoted in my edition of James pp. viii foll.), and is said to have been
crucified Α.Ρ. 107 at the age of 120 1 (cf. Hegesippus ap. Euseb., H.E.,
iii., 32, ἀπὸ τούτων τῶν αἱρετικῶν κατηγοροῦσι τινὲς Συμεῶνος . . . ὡς ὄντος
ἀπὸ Δαβὶδ καὶ Χριστιανοῦ. καὶ οὕτως μαρτυρεῖ ἐτῶν ὢν ἑκατὸν εἴκοσιν ἐπὶ
Τραϊανοῦ Καίσαρος καὶ ὑπατικοῦ ᾽Αττικοῦ).

Eusebius (H.E., iii., 19) quotes again from Hegesippus an interest-
ing story of the grandsons of Judas, “who were seized and carried
to Rome by order of Domitian, whose fears had been excited by the
report he heard of them as descendants of David, and akin to the
Messiah. When they were brought before him, he quickly ascertained
that they were poor men, and that the kingdom they looked forward
to was not of this world, and accordingly dismissed them as men
of no importance, and ceased from his persecution of the Church.
When they returned home, they received special honours, as having
witnessed to the truth, and also as being kinsmen of the Lord. They
lived till the time of Trajan.”’

In my Introduction to St. James I have pointed out that his
Epistle bears marked traces of some characteristics which are found
in the Lord Himself. I propose to call attention here to some re-
semblances and differences between the Epistles of the two brothers.

A. (1) Among the former we may note the tone of undoubting and
unquestioned authority which pervades the two Epistles, combined
with the personal humility of the writers. They do not arrogate to
themselves that relationship which constituted the ground of the
reverence with which they were regarded by their fellow-believers. ’
They are simply servants of Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, to whose
2oming, as the righteous Judge, they look forward, whose power still
manifests itself in works of mercy (James i. 1, ii. 1, v. 8, 9, 14); of
Jesus Christ, who keeps His people safe to the end, through whom

1 More probably under 95.

228 INTRODUCTION

they hope for eternal life, to deny whom is the climax of impiety, in
whom the Father is glorified for ever (Jude wv. 1, 4,21, 25). They are
sharers of a common salvation (Jude ver. 3), they need forgiveness of
sin like other men (James iii. 2).

(2) Mental characteristics as exhibited in the two Epistles.

In my edition of James (p. ccxxix.) | have summed up the more
general qualities of his style in the words “energy, vivacity, and as
conducive to both, vividness of representation, meaning by the last
that dislike of mere abstractions, that delight in throwing everything
into picturesque and dramatic forms, which is so marked a feature
in our Epistle”. To a certain extent this is true also of Jude, as
shown in his imaginative power and his frequent use of figurative
speech. Cf. Jude ver. 8, where the innovators are spoken of as
dreamers polluting the flesh; ver. 12, where they are compared (1)
to sunken rocks on which those who meet them at the love-feasts run
aground and perish, (2) to waterless clouds driven by the wind, (3)
to trees which have to be rooted up, because they bear no fruit in
the fruit-bearing season, (4) to wild waves foaming out their own
shame on the shore, (5) to falling stars which are extinguished in
everlasting gloom. In ver. 20 the faithful are bidden to build them-
selves up on their most holy faith; in ver. 23, to save sinners, snatch-
ing them from the fire ; to hate the garment spotted by the flesh. In
regard to St. James I further illustrated the quality of vividness by “the
frequent reference to examples suchas Abraham, Rahab, Job, Elijah”’.
In the same way St. Jude gives animation to his warnings by refer-
ence to the Israelites who perished in the wilderness for their unbelief
after being saved irom Egypt; to the fallen angels who are reserved
for the judgment in everlasting chains ; to Sodom and the neighbour-
ing cities, which sinned in the same way as the angels, and now
suffer the penalty of eternal fire (vv. 5-7). Reverence for the powers
of the unseen world is commended by the pattern of the archangel
Michael, who, even in his dispute with the devil for the body of
Moses, refused to bring a railing accusation, but committed the case
to God (vv. 8, 9). Cain and Balaam and Korah are cited as the
predecessors of the present disturbers of the Church (ver. 11). Enoch
the seventh from Adam has left us his warning against such men (vv. 14,
15). ‘You have yourselves heard the same warning from the
Apostles” (ver. 17).

(3) For moral strictness and stern severity in rebuking sin, the
whole of this short Epistle may be compared with such passages as.
James ii. 19, iii. 15, iv. l-v. 6. For noble and weighty expression we
may compare vy. 20, 21, ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί, ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ

ΙΝΤΕΟΡΟΟΤΙΟΝ 229

ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει, ἐν πνεύµατι ἁγίῳ προσευχόµενοι, ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπη
Θεοῦ τηρήσατε, προσδεχόµενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἲς
ζωὴν αἰώνιον and the final doxology, with the passages which I have
selected from St. James in p. ccxxviii. The appealing ἀγαπητοί, which
is thrice found in St. James, is also thrice repeated in Jude. The
warning against Respect of Persons is found in James ii. 1-9 and in
Jude ver. 16: that against a murmuring discontented spirit in James i.
13, iv. 1, ν. 9, in Jude vv. 15, 16 ; that against the misuse of the tongue in
James iii. 1-10, in Jude ver. 16: the charge to labour for the salvation of
others in James v. 19, 20, in Jude wv. 22, 23.

For special details of the style of St. Jude see my larger edition,
pp. xxvi-lxvi: one point which may be noticed here is his fondness for
triplets. Thus in ver. 2 we find ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη. In

1 2 3

ver. 4 “the men who were designed for this judgment ” are described

35 ἀσεβεῖς, tiv’ τοῦ Θεοῦ Χάριτα µετατιθέντες eis ἀσέλγειαν, τὸν µόνον
1 2

δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι. In vv. 3-7 three examples of punishment are ad-

duced, Israel in the wilderness, the angels who sinned, the overthrow
of Sodom. In ver. 8 the libertines, σάρκα μὲν µιαίνουσιν, κυριότητα δὲ
ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. [In vv. 9, 10 we have two couplets οὐκ
ἐτόλμησεν-- ἀλλὰ εἶπεν: ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν---βλασφημοῦσιν, ὅσα δὲ---
Φθείρονται.] In ver. 11 we return to the triplet, Cain, Balaam, Korah.
[In vv. 12, 13 we have a quintet of metaphors, hidden rocks, rainless
clouds, dead trees, turbid waves, falling stars. In ver. 15 again two
couplets ποιῆσαι κρίσιν---ἐλέγξαι, περὶ πάντων ὧν ἠσέβησαν- -ὧν ἐλάλησαν.]
In ver. 16 we return to the triplet πορευόµενοι-- λαλοῦντες (disguised in
the form καὶ τὸ στόµα λαλεῖ bwépoyka)—Oaupdfovtes. So in ver. 17, the
word—the Apostles—the Lord. Ver. 18 does not admit of sub-
division. Ver. 19 has the triplet ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ
ἔχοντες. Vv. 20 and 21 have a double triplet, ἐποικοδομοῦντες---προσευ-
Χόμενοι-- προσδεχόµενοι and πνεῦμα ἅγιον---Θεός---Ιησοῦς Χριστός. Ver.
22 has the marked triplet οὓς μὲν---οὓς δὲ---οὓς δέ. Ver. 24 has a
couplet, φυλάξαι-- στῆσαι. Ver. 25 has a quartet δόξα, µεγαλωσύνη,
κράτος, ἐξουσία, followed by the triplet πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ voy,
καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας, thus closing with a septet. Compare the
stress laid on the fact that Enoch was seventh from Adam, ver, 14.
There are some traces of the triplet in St. James, as in i. 14, ἕκαστος
πειράζεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας-- -εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυμία τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, ἡ δὲ
ἁμαρτία ἀποκύει θάνατον, ver. 19 ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς eis τὸ ἀκοῦσαι,
βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν, ii. 23 ἐπίστευσεν ᾽Αβραὰμ τῷ Θεῷ,
καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ eis δικαιοσύνην, καὶ φίλος Θεοῦ ἐκλήθη, iii. 6, ἡ γλῶσσα
VOL. ν. 15

230 INTRODUCTION

ἡ σπιλοῦσα, καὶ Φλογίζουσα-- καὶ φλογιζοµένη, ἵν. 8, ἐγγίσατε τῷ Θεῷ---
καθαρίσατε χεῖρας-- ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, SO iv. 9, v. 17, 18. Perhaps we
may find a septet in the beautiful description of heavenly wisdom (iii.
17) πρῶτον μὲν ἁγνή, ἔπειτα εἰρηνική, ἐπιεικής, εὐπειθής, μεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ
καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἁδιάκριτος, ἀνυπόκριτος. But the distinctive mark of St.
James’s style is “ paronomasia’”’ passing at times into sucha climax as
we find in i. 14, 15 quoted above and ini. 3, 4, τὸ δοκίµιον ὑμῶν τῆς
πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν, ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε
τέλειο. See pp. ccxxii f. of my edition.

Another characteristic which may be noted is the love of forcible
antithesis as in J. ver. 10, ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν, ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς
ὡς τὰ Goya Loa ἐπίστανται, ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται. As regards vocabulary,
the most striking resemblance is the occurrence of ψυχικός as opposed
to πνευματικός, Of which the earliest biblical example is in James iii.
15, but this had been adopted by Paul (1 Cor. ii. 10 foll.) before it
was made use of by Jude.

B. (1) The differences between the two Epistles are hardly less
marked: Jude evidently belongs to a much later period of Christian
development. James, as I have endeavoured to show in the Intro-
duction to his Epistle, wrote about the year 45 a.p. before any of the
other canonical, books was in existence, and his theological position
is that of the early Church described in the opening chapters of the
Acts. Jude is familiar with the writings of St. Paul. He is familiar
with the terms σωτήρ and σωτηρία (vv. 3 and 25): in wv. 20, 21 he
brings together the three Persons of the Trinity; he addresses those
to whom he writes in Pauline language as κλητοί (ver. 1) and ἅγιοι
(ver. 3), and uses forms of ascription and doxology closely resembling
those which occur in St. Peterand St. Paul. Their “ most holy faith”
is a “tradition once delivered to the saints” (vv. 4, 20): they are
bidden to ‘‘remember the words of the Apostles, how they told them
that in the last time there should come scoffers” (vv. 17, 18). The
error which he combats appears to be a misgrowth of St. Paul’s
teaching in regard to a salvation of free grace, “not of works, lest
any man should boast” (ver. 4). Many of the features which he dis-
tinguishes are such as we find delineated in St. Paul’s farewell to the
Ephesian Church, and in some of his Epistles, especially those to
Titus and Timothy.

(2) Another difference might seem to be Jude’s repeated references
to Pseudepigrapha such as the book of Enoch and the Assumption
of Moses (on which see the next chapter) and his readiness to give
credence to fanciful legends such as the fall of the Watchers, and
the contention for the body of Moses. Credulity of this kind seems to

INTRODUCTION 231

be far apart from the strong practical sense of James. Yet there are
signs that the latter was not unacquainted with rabbinical traditions.
Spitta even goes so far as to trace most of his teaching to pre-
Christian sources. I have argued against this view in ch. vii. 2 of
my Introduction to his Epistle; but my notes on i. 8 (δίψυχος) and
iv. 8, 9 ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, Sifpuyor ταλαιπωρήσατε, Suggest a connexion
with an apocryphal writing quoted in Clem. Rom. 1. 23 ἡ γραφὴ aim,
ὅπσυ λέγει Ταλαίπωροί εἶσιν οἱ δίψυχοι 1 and identified by Lightfoot and
Spitta with Eldad and Modad (on which see Herm., Vis., Π., 3), by
Hilgenfeld with the Assumption of Moses. The phrase in iv. 14,
ἀτμὶς ydp ἐστε πρὸς ὀλίγον Φαινομένη, has been traced by some to
another apocryphal quotation found in Clem. i. 17 ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι ἀτμὶς
ἀπὸ κύθρας, which Hilgenfeld also supposes to be taken from the
Assumption of Moses. The phrase κόσμος ἀδικίας in James ΠΠ. 6 is
found in Enoch xlviii. 7. The Testaments of the Pairiarchs, which
also coniain quotations from Enoch (such as Sim. 5 ἑώρακα ἐν Χαρα-
κτῆρι γραφῆς Evdy, Levi 10 βίβλος ᾿Ενὼχ τοῦ δικαίου, 2b. 14, ἔγνων ἀπὸ
γραφῆς ᾿Ενὼχ ὅτι ἐπὶ τέλει ἀσεβήσετε, 2b. 16, Fuda 18, Benj. 9, Zab. 3,
Nepht. 4. ἐν γραφῇ ἁγίᾳ ᾿Ενὼχ ὅτι . . . ποιήσετε κατὰ πᾶσαν ἄνομίαν
Σοδόµων), furnish several parallels quoted in my note on James iv. 7
ἀντίστητε TH διαβόλῳ καὶ φεύξεται ἂφ ὑμῶν. The words which im-
mediately precede (ἐγγίσατε τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐγγίσει ὑμῖν) are not unlike
another quotation which occurs in Herm. Vis. ti. 3, ἐγγὺς Θεὸς τοῖς
ἐπιστρεφομένοις, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ ᾿Ελδὰτ καὶ Μωδὰτ τοῖς προφητεύσασιν
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῷ λαῷ. James has also been credited with a knowledge
of the Sibylline writings on the ground of the phrase ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου
which occurs in iii. 8 and also in Sib. Prooem. 71.

εἰσὶ θεοὶ µερόπων SydAntopes? «οὗτοι» ἀβούλω»,
τῶν df Kak στόματος χεῖται θανατηφόρος ids.

But if there is borrowing, it is just as likely to be on the other
side. The strange expression τροχὸς γενέσεως in iii. 6 is regarded as
Orphic by some, but it seems to have been used by the Orphic writers
in a different sense, viz. that of the endless changes of metem-
psychosis.

(3) Another difference which strikes one on reading the two
epistles is that while the former is full of instruction for the present
time, the bulk of the latter is made up of denunciations, which have
very much lost their force. To a modern reader it is curious rather

1 The quotation, as given more fully in Clem. Rom. ii. 11, contains the some-
what rare word ἀκαταστασία, which is also used by James iii. 16.
2MS. δολοητορε. Geficken reads δόλφ ἡγητῆρες.

232 INTRODUCTION

than edifying, with the exception of the beginning and end (vv. 1, 2
and 20-25). This is no doubt to be explained by what is stated of
the purport of the letter in ver. 3. It was called out by a sudden
emergency, to guard against an immediate pressing danger, and was
substituted for a treatise περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας which Jude had
hoped to send (ver. 3), and which would probably have been more in
the tone and spirit of vv. 20 f.

The Epistle of Jude was recognised as canonical in the Third
Council of Carthage, Α.Ρ. 397 (Westcott on the Canon, p. 566), with
which agree Jerome (Westcott, p. 580) and Augustine (De Doctr.
Christiana, ii. 12). Jerome, however (De vir. 11. iv.), mentions that,
owing to the use made of the apocryphal Enoch, the epistle of Jude a
plerisque reicitur. So Eusebius Η.Ε. ti. 23, “ Not many old writers
have mentioned the Epistle of James, nor yet the Epistle of Jude,
which is also one of the seven so-called Catholic Epistles, though we
know that these have been publicly used with the rest in most
churches.” Jb. iii. 25, ‘‘Among the controverted books, which are
nevertheless well known and recognised by most, we class the Epistle
circulated under the name of James and that of Jude.” Cyril ot
Jerusalem (d. 386 Α.Ρ.) acknowledged both Jude and 2 P. In Asia
Minor both Jude and 2 P. were recognised as canonical by Grégory
Naz. (d. ο. 391). In Alexandria Didymus (d. 394) wrote comments
on the Catholic Epistles, especially defending Jude from the attacks
made upon him as having made use of apocryphal books. Athanasius
(d. 373) in his list of the books of the N.T. “agrees exactly with our
own Canon ’”’ (Westcott, p. 520). Origen (In Matt. x. 17) says of Jude
ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολήν, ὀλιγόστιχον µέν, πεπληρωμένην δὲ τῶν τῆς οὐρανίου
χάριτος ἐρρωμένων λόγων. In the same treatise (xvii. 30) he quotes Jude
6, adding words which signify that it was not universally received, εἰ
δὲ καὶ τὴν ᾿Ιούδα πρόσοιτό τις ἐπιστολήν. Clement of Alexandria com-
mented on Jude in his Hypotyposes (Εις. H.E. vi. 14)—the comment
is still extant in the Latin translation—and quotes him by name (Paed.
ili. 44, 45) with commendation, διδασκαλικώτατα ἐκτίθεται τὰς εἰκόνας τῶν
κρινοµένων. Ἠε quotes him again Strom. iii. 11, and, without naming
him, in Strom. vi. 65. Tertullian (De Cult. Fem. 3) says ‘ Enoch
apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet”. It appears in the
Muratorian Canon (ο. 170 Α.Ρ.), ‘‘ Epistola sane Judae et superscripti
Johannis duae in catholicis habentur”. Theophilus of Antioch (ad
Autol. ii. 15) seems to allude to Jude 13 in the words quoted in my
note on that verse. Athenagoras (c. 180) speaks (§ 24, p. 130 Otto)
of the fallen angels in a manner which suggests acquaintance with

INTRODUCTION 3%

Jude ver. 6, ἀγγέλους τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν. (Of the
angels some) ἔμειναν ἐφ᾽ ots αὐτοὺς ἐποίησεν καὶ διέταξεν ὁ Θεός, ot δὲ
ἐνύβρισαν καὶ τῇ τῆς οὐσίας ὑποστάσει καὶ τῇ ἀρχῆ, and he adds that he
asserts this on the authority of the prophets, which may perhaps refer
both to Enoch and Jude. The form of salutation in Jude 2 ἔλεος καὶ
εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη is found in Mart. Polyc. Inscr. and Polyc.
ad Phil. The earliest reference however to Jude is probably to be
found in 2 Pet., which, as we have seen in the preceding Chapter I.,
is largely copied from him. There appears also to be an allusion to
it in Didache ii. 7, οὗ µισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, περὶ
δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις, cf Jude 22. Jude’s epistle was
included in the Old Latin Version, but not in the Peshitto.

The most important passage in Jude bearing upon the circum-
stances of its composition is ver. 17, where the readers are bidden to
call to mind the words formerly spoken to them by the Apostles of our
Lord Jesus Christ (which would fit in with the suggestion that it was
addressed to the Syrian churches) ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν "Ew ἐσχάτου Χρόνου
ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται, the latter words showing that these communications
of the Apostles had now ceased, either by their death or by their re-
moval from Jerusalem. Jude recognises that “the last time,” of
which they had preached, had now arrived. The long retrospect which
these words imply agrees with the far-away note of ver. 3, παρακαλῶν
ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει, as contrasted with
such passages as Luke iv. 21 σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφή αὕτη, though
we must not forget that the idea of a Christian tradition is familiar
to St. Paul, and that there are other examples in the N.T. of the
objective use of πίστις.

It has been argued that this epistie must have been written before
70, or it would have contained some reference to the destruction of
Jerusalem among the other notable judgments of God. We may
grant that this is what we should have expected, if the letter were
written shortly afterwards, though even then it is a possible view that
a patriotic Jew might shrink from any further allusion to so terrible a
subject, beyond the reference to the destruction in the wilderness
(ver. 5); but this difficulty is lessened if we suppose the date of the
Epistle to be nearer 80 than 70.

΄

CHAPTER III.

Use of Apocryphal Books by Fude.—Clement of Alexandria in
his Adumbrationes (Dind. vol. ΠΠ. p. 483), after quoting Jude 9,
“Quando Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans altercabatur de
corpore Moysis,” remarks “Πίο confirmat Assumptionem Moysts,”’ {.ε.,
here the writer corroborates the Assumption of Moses; and again, in
commenting on ver. 14, “Prophetavit autem de his septimus ab
Adam Enoch,” he adds “His verbis prophetam (al. prophetiam)
comprobat ”’.

The Hebrew original of the book of Enoch! is now lost. It was
translated into Greek, of which only a few fragments remain, and
this was again translated into Ethiopic, probably about 600 Α.Ρ. A
copy of the last was found in Abyssinia in 1773 by Bruce, the famous
traveller, and an English version was published by Abp. Laurence in
1821, followed by the Ethiopic text in 1838. The composite nature
of the book is generally recognised. The latest editor, R. H. Charles,
who is my authority for what follows, divides it into five sections and
recognises many interpolations in these. He considers that the larger
portion of the book was written not later than 160 B.c., and that no
part is more recent than the Christian era. It exercised an import-
ant influence on Jewish and Christian literature during the centuries
which followed being used by the author of the Assumption of
Moses (written about the Christian era), also by the writers of the
Book of $ubilees, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Fourth Book of
Ezra, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Mr. Charles
traces its influence in the N.T. not merely in the epistles of St. Jude
and the two epistles of St. Peter, but above all, in the Apocalypse ;
also in the Acts, and the epistle to the Hebrews, in some of the
epistles of St. Paul, and in the Gospels. It is quoted three times
(twice as Scripture) in the Epistle of Barnabas, is referred to, though
not named, in Justin and Athenagoras, is cited by Irenzeus, iv. 16. 2:
“Enoch. . . cum esset homo, legatione ad angelos fungebatur et trans-
latus est et conservatur usque nunc testis judicii Dei, quoniam angeli

1ΟἨ which see Schiirer, Hist. of fewish People, vol. iii. pp. 54-73.

INTRODUCTION 235

quidem deciderunt in terram in judicium” (En. xiv. 7). Tertullian
quotes it as Scripture, calling Enoch the oldest of the prophets (Idol. xv.,
A pol. xxii.). He allows that its canonicity was denied by some, “ quia
necin armarium Judaicum admittitur,’ and also because it was thought
that, if it were a genuine writing of Enoch, it must have perished in
the Deluge. He considers, however, that it should be received, be-
cause of its witness to Christ, and because it has the testimony of the
Apostle Jude. It is twice quoted in Clement’s Ecl. Proph, (Dind. iii.
pp. 456, 474) as well as in Strom. iii. 9. Origen speaks doubtfully
of the authority of Enoch: cf. C. Celsum, v. 54, ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐ
πάνυ Φέρεται ds θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ ᾿Ενὼχ βιβλία, and In Fohannem,
vi. 25, ὡς ἐν τῷ ᾿Ενὼχ γέγραπται, εἴ τῷ Φίλον παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἅγιον τὸ
βιβλίον, also In Num. Hom, xxviii. 2, De Princ.i. 3.3. Hilary (Comm.
in Psalm. cxxxii. 3) writes: “Fertur id, de quo etiam nescio cuius
liber extat, quod angeli concupiscentes filias hominum, cum de caelo
descenderent, in montem Hermon convenerant”’. Jerome says that
the doubts entertained as to the epistle of St. Jude arose from his
quoting an apocryphal book asan authority (De Vir. Ill. iv), “quia de
libro Enoch, qui apocryphus est, in ea assumit testimonia, a plerisque
reicitur”. Cf. also Comm. in Ps. cxxxii.3 and Comm. in Titum, 1.
12. Augustine (Civ. Dez, xv 23. 4) and Chrysostom (Hom. in Gen.
vi. 1) speak of the story of the angels and the daughters of men asa
baseless fable. Still more severe is the condemnation passed on the
book of Enoch with other apocryphal writings in Const. Apost. vi. 16.
2, as φθοροποιὰ καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθρά.

Mr. Charles has also edited the Assumption of Moses (1897),
which he regards as a composite work made up of two distinct books,
the Testament and the Assumption of Moses.! “The former was
written in Hebrew between 7 and 29 Α.Ρ., and possibly also the
latter. A Greek version of the entire work appeared in the first cen-
tury A.D. Of this only a few fragments have been preserved. The
Greek version was translated into Latin not later than the fifth cen-
tury” (pp. xiii., xiv.). ‘The book preserved in the incomplete Latin
version, first published by Ceriani in 1861, is in reality a Testament
and not an Assumption.” ‘The editing of the two books in one was
probably done in the first century, as St. Jude draws upon both in
his epistle’ (pp. xlvii and 1.). Thus Jude ver. 9” is derived from the

Cf. Schiirer, pp. 73-83.

2 See note on this, and add to the illustrative passages there quoted a scholium
printed for the first time in James’ Test. of Abraham, p. 18: 6 διάβολος ἀντεῖχεν
θέλων ἀπατῆσαι, λέγων ὅτι “Epsv ἐστιν τὸ capa, ὡς τῆς ὕλης δεσπόζων ' καὶ
ἤκουσεν τὸ ᾿Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος, τούτεστιν 6 Κύριος ὁ πάντων τῶν πνευμάτων

236 INTRODUCTION

Assumption, Jude 16 from the Testament (p. Ixii.). On the latter
Charles compares οὗτοί εἶσι γογγυσταί, µεμψίμοιροι, καὶ τὸ στόµα αὐτῶν
λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα, θαυµάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελίας χάριν with Ass. M. vii. 7,
quaerulosi, vii. 9, et manus eorum et mentes immunda tractantes et
os eorum loquetur ingentia, v. 5, erunt illis temporibus mirantes
personas. . . et accipientes munera (MS. acceptiones munerum). He
identifies the ἐμπαῖκται of Jude 18 with the homines pestilentiosi
of Ass. Μ. vii. 3, and calls attention to the frequent recurrence of the
word ασεβεῖς in the former (vv. 4, 15, 18) and zmpzz in the latter: see
vi. 1, facient facientes impietatem, vii. 3, pestilentiosi et impii, τὸ. 7, ix. 3,
mie, 7:

Again there appears to be a reminiscence of the Testaments of the
Patriarchs,' where the sin of the Watchers is connected with that of
Sodom : cf. Test. Nepht. 3, ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ ἀστέρες οὐκ ἀλλοιοῦσι
τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν . . . ἔθνη πλανηθέντα καὶ ἀφέντα κύριον ἠλλοίωσαν τάξιν
αὐτῶν . . . ἐξακολουθήσαντες πνεύµασι πλάνης. Ὑμεῖς μὴ οὕτως . . . ἵνα
μὴ γένησθε ὡς Σόδομα, Aris ἐνήλλαξεν τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῆς. ὙὉμοίως καὶ
᾿Εγρήγορες ἐνήλλαξαν τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῶν, οὓς κατηράσατο Κύριος ἐπὶ τοῦ
κατακλυσμοῦ, Lest. Aser 7, μὴ γίνεσθε ὡς Σόδοµα Arts ἠγνόησε τοὺς ἀγγέλους
κυρίου καὶ ἀπώλετο ἕως αἰῶνος. There seems to be more than a casual
coincidence between these passages and Jude 6, 7 and 13, ἀγγέλους
τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν ... ὡς Σόδοµα . . . τὸν ὅμοιον
τρόπον ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας πρόκεινται δεῖγμα
πυρὸς αἰωνίου . . . ἀστέρες πλανῆται.

We have seen how this use of apocryphal books was viewed by the
early Christian writers. They were at first disposed to think that a
book stamped with the approval of St. Jude must be itself inspired.
Later on, the feeling changed: the authority of St. Jude was no longer
sufficient to save the apocryphal writing: on the contrary the prejudice
against the Apocrypha and its “blasphemous fables” (Chrys. Hom.
22 in Gen.) led many to doubt the authority of St. Jude: see above
quotation from Jerome, who argues that the approval of the Apostle
need not be supposed to extend to the whole of the book of Enoch,
but only to the verses quoted by him. So Augustine (Civ. Dei, xv.
23, 4): “Scripsisse quidem nonnulla divina Enoch illum septimum ab

δεσπόζων: ἄλλοι δέ, ὅτι βουλόμενος 6 Θεὸς δεῖξαι ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἔνθενδε ἀπαλλαγήν,
ταῖς ἡμετέραις ψυχαῖς ἀνθιστάμενοι «ἦσαν» δαίµονες πορευοµέναις τὴν ἐπὶ τὰ
ἄνω πορείαν͵ τοῦτο οὖν συνεχώρησεν ὁρᾶσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς Μωσέως Tapas: ἐβλασφήμει
γὰρ καὶ ὁ διάβολος κατὰ Μωσέως, φονέα τοῦτον καλῶν διὰ τὸ πατάξαι τὸν Αἰγύπ-
τιον" &6 Μιχαἡλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, μὴ ἐνεγκὼν τὴν αὐτοῦ βλασφημίαν, εἴρηκεν αὐτῷ
ὅτι Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός, διάβολε. ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι ἐψεύσατο 6 Θεὸς
εἰσαγαγὼν τὸν Μωσῆν ἔνθα ὤμοσεν αὐτὸν py εἰσελθεῖν.
1 ΑΠ edition has lately been brought out by Charles.

INTRODUCTION 37

Adam negare non possumus, cum hoc in epistola canonica Judas
apostolus dicat” (although the book as a whole has been justly
excluded from the Canon).

Some modern writers have endeavoured to avoid the necessity of
allowing that an apocryphal writing is quoted as authoritative in the
Bible, by the supposition that the words quoted may have come down
by tradition and have been made use of by the inspired writer, in-
dependently of the book from which he is supposed to quote, or that
they were uttered by immediate inspiration without any human as-
sistance, or again, that the book of Enoch may be subsequent to that
of Jude, and have borrowed from it. But the careful investigation of
many scholars, as summed up by Charles, can leave little doubt in any
candid mind as to the proximate dates, both of Enoch and of the
Assumption. St. Jude does not put forward his account of the burial
of Moses or the preaching of Enoch, as though it were something
unheard of before. As regards the libertines described in the latter
book, he uses the phrase προγεγραµµένοι, implying that he refers toa
written prophecy. None of the early Fathers find a difficulty in
supposing him to refer to a book which was not included in the Canon.
Jews of that time were accustomed to accept rabbinical explanations
or additions to Scripture as having authority. Thus St. Paul accepts
the story of the Rock which followed the Israelites in their wanderings
(1 Cor. x. 4), gives the names of the magicians who withstood Moses
before Pharaoh (2 Tim. iii. 8), recognises the instrumentality of angels
in the giving of the Law (Gal. iii. 19, cf. Heb. ii. 2, Acts vii. 53). So,
too, Stephen speaks of Moses as learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians (Acts vii. 2); the author of the epistle to the Hebrews (xi.
37) alludes to the tradition as to the death of Isaiah (see Charles’
Ascension of Isaiah, pp. xlv. foll.), and James (ν. 17) limits the drought
predicted by Elijah to 34 years.

CHAPTER IV.

The Story of the Fallen Angels.—St. Jude (vv. 5-8) introduces as
examples of the divine wrath against those who had sinned after
receiving favours from God (1) the Israelites who perished in the
wilderness for unbelief after they had been saved from Egypt; (2) the
angels who abandoned their original office and habitation, being led.
away by fleshy lusts, and are now kept in chains under darkness till
the day of judgment; (3) the people of Sodom, who inhabited a land.
like the garden of the Lord (Gen. xiii. 10), who were rescued from
Chedorlaomer by Abraham (Gen. xiv. 16, 17), and yet sinned after the
fashion of the angels, and are now a warning to all, suffering the
punishment of eternal fire. A similar account is given in 2 Pet. ii.4-9
where it is said (1) that God spared not the angels who sinned, but.
hurled them into Tartarus, to be detained there in chains (or pits) of
darkness until the final judgment; (2) that He brought a flood on the
world of the ungodly, while he spared Noah; (8) that He destroyed.
Sodom and Gomorrah, while he delivered righteous Lot; in all three
cases punishing impurity and rebellion.

As is shown in the explanatory notes, this account of the Fall of.
the Angels is taken directly from the book of Enoch, which is itself an
expansion from Jewish and Gentile sources of the strange narrative
contained in Gen. vi. 1-4: “It came to pass, when men began to:
multiply on the face of the ground and daughters were born unto them,
that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ;
and they took them wives of all that they chose. . . . The Nephilim
were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of
God came in to the daughters of men, and they bare children unto-
them : the same were the mighty men which were of old, the men of
renown” (R.V.). ἐγένετο ἡνίκα Apgavto οἱ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ
τῆς γῆς καὶ θυγατέρες ἐγεννήθησαν αὐτοῖς, ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ
τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαὶ εἰσὶν έλαβον ἑαυτοῖς yuvatkas ἀπὸ.
πασῶν ὧν ἐξελέξαντο . . . οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις.
ἐκείναις, καὶ peT ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς.
θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐγέννωσαν ἑαυτοῖς, ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες ol.
ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος, ot ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί (LXX). That the version ἄγγελοι.

INTRODUCTION 239

gives the true force of the original is evident from the other passages
in which the phrase “sons of God” occurs, Job i. 6, Π. 1, xxxviii. 7,
Dan. iii. 25, 28, Ps. xxix. 1, Ixxxix. 6. It has been suggested that the
phrase per ἐκεῖνο may be a marginal note having reference to Num.
xiii. 33, where the Nephilim are mentioned as a gigantic race, “in
whose eyes the spies were as grasshoppers,” inhabiting a part of
Canaan at the time of the Exodus. The translation γίγαντες implies
not only superhuman size, but also superhuman insolence and impiety.
According to Greek mythology they were children of Heaven and
Earth, who rose up in insurrection against the Gods and were hurled
down to Tartarus or buried beneath the mountains. This resemblance
is noted by Josephus in the passage quoted below.

It is evident that the passage in Gen. vi. is a fragment unconnected
either with what precedes or follows. Driver says of it: ‘We must
see in it an ancient Hebrew legend . . . the intention of which was
to account for the origin of a supposed race of prehistoric giants, of
whom no doubt (for they were ‘men of name’) Hebrew folk-lore
told much more than the compiler of Genesis has deemed worthy
of preservation”. Ryle (Early Narratives of Genesis, pp. 91-95)
speaks of it as “an extract from a very early legend which gives an
alternative explanation of the Fall, in which woman is again tempted
by one of higher race”’.

The story was variously commented on by later Jewish writers,
most of whom supposed that the Nephilim were the offspring of the
intercourse between the angels and the daughters of men, and that
they were destroyed in the Flood.

_ The Fall of the Angels is largely treated of in the collection of
treatises which goes under the name of the Book of Enoch. The
‘earliest portion of the book is considered by the latest editor, Mr.
R. H. Charles, to have been written in the first quarter of the second
century B.c. Two hundred of the angels, or watchers, ᾿Ἐγρήγοροι as
they are called in the Greek versions of Dan. iv. 13 by Aquila and
Symmachus, conspired together under the leadership of Semjaza (else-
where called Azazel, as in Enoch, chapters viii. and ix.) and descended
on Mount Hermon in the days of Jared, father of Enoch (vi.). There
they took to themselves human wives whom they instructed in magic
and various arts, and begot giants, who afterwards begot the Nephilim :΄
cf. viii, οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἐτέκνωσαν Ναφηλείμ . . . μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἤρξαντο
οἱ γίγαντες κατεσθίειν τὰς σάρκας τὰς ἀνθρώπων (like Polyphemus). Com-
plaint having been made of the sin and misery thus introduced into
the world, Raphael is sent down from heaven to bind Azazel hand
and foot and shut him up in darkness till the judgment day, when he

240 INTRODUCTION

will be cast into eternal fire. Gabriel is at the same time sent to
Slay the giants (x. 9): the watchers will be bound under the hills
for seventy generations, and then be confined for ever in the abyss
of fire: the spirits of the slain giants become demons. In chap. xix.,
however, the demons are represented as existing before the fall of the
watchers.

The prevailing demonology of the Book of Enoch is thus summed
up by Dr. Charles (Enoch, p. 52). The angelic watchers who fell
from lusting after the daughters of men have been imprisoned in
darkness from the time of their fall. The demons are the spirits
which proceeded from the souls of the giants who were their offspring.
They work moral ruin on earth without hindrance till the final judg-
ment. Satan is the ruler of a counter kingdom of evil. He led
astray the angels and made them his subjects. He also tempted
Eve. The Satans can still appear in heaven (as in Job). They tempt
to evil, they accuse the fallen, they punish the condemned. Ir
portions however of the Book of Enoch there is no mention of «
Satan or Satans, but the angels are led astray by their own chief
Azazel, or as he is sometimes called Semjaza (En. ix., x., xiii., liv.). Of
the Secrets of Enoch, which is supposed to date from about the
Christian era, Dr. Charles says:! “It is hard to get a consistent view
of the demonology of the book: it seems to be as follows: Satan, one
of the archangels, seduced the watchers of the fifth heaven into revolt
in order to establish a counter kingdom to God. Therefore Satan
or the Satans were cast down from .heaven and given the air for
their habitation. Some however of the Satans or Watchers went
down to earth and married the daughters of men.” Compare
xvii. 3, ‘These are the Grigori, who with their prince Satanail re-
jected the holy Lord, and in consequence of these things they are
kept in great darkness”.

In chap. liv. there appears to be an attempt to connect the two
different stories of the Fall: the guilt of the Watchers is said to
have consisted in their becoming subject to Satan, who was either
identified with the Serpent, as in Apoc. xii. 9, καὶ ἐβλήθη. 6 δράκων 6
µέγας, 6 ὄφις 6 ἀρχαῖος, 6 καλούμενος Διάβολος καὶ 6 Σατανᾶς, 6 πλανῶν τὴν
οἰκουμένην ὅλην-- ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ ot ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ pet αὐτοῦ
ἐβλήθησαν; or else was supposed to have made use of the Serpent
as his instrument, as in the Assumption of Moses quoted by Orig.
De Princip. iii. 2. 1 (Lomm. vol. xxi. p. 303): “In Genesi serpens
Evam seduxisse describitur, de quo in Asc. Mosis (cujus libelli meminit
-apostolus Judas) Michael Archangelus cum diabolo disputans de cor-

1 See his note on pp. 36, 37.

INTRODUCTION 24%

pore Mosis ait a diabolo inspiratum serpentem causam exstitisse
praevaricationis Adae et Evae”.!

The history of the gradual development of the belief in regard
to Satan, as exhibited in the Bible, will be found in any of the
Dictionaries of the Bible. Beside the attempt to harmonise the
two Fall-stories by making Satan the cause of both, an attempt was
made to arrive at the same result by ascribing to Satan or the
Serpent the same motive which led to the fall of the angels. In
Wisdom ii. 24 we read “ By the envy of the devil death entered into
the world”. This envy is explained in rabbinical writings sometimes
as occasioned by the dignity of Adam and his lordship over the
creation, but more frequently by Satan’s desire for Eve:? cf. 4 Macc.
xviii. 8, οὐδὲ ἐλυμήνατό µου τὰ ἁγνὰ τῆς παρθενίας λυμεὼν ἀπάτης dts.
Sometimes again his fall is ascribed to the less ignoble motive of
pride, as in the pseudepigraphic Life of Adam: “ When God created
Adam, He called upon the angels to adore him as His image... .
Satan however refused, and on being threatened with the wrath of
God said that he would exalt his throne above the stars of heaven”
(Isa. xiv. 13). In other writings (Life of Adam, Secrets of Enoch)
Satan refuses to worship God Himself, “entertaining the impossible
idea that he should make his throne higher than the clouds over
the earth, and should be equal in rank to [God’s] power’. ὃ

There can be little doubt that the story of the punishment of
the angels took its colouring from two passages of Isaiah, the fine
imaginative description of the mighty king of Babylon, under the
figure of the morning star, entering the realm of Hades (ch. xiv.)
and what appears to be an account of the punishment of guardian
angels for their neglect of the nations committed to their charge
(ch. xxiv. 21 f.), “It shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord
shall punish the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of
the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together as
prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison
and after many days shall they be visited.”

St. Jude’s allusion to this story is merely parenthetical, to illus-
trate the law of judgment. He appears not to recognise any con-

‘Cf. Tennant, The Fall and Original Sin, pp. 245, 246. ;

2See Tennant, pp. 152 foll.; Thackeray, St. Paul and fewish Thought, pp. 5ο
foll.; Edersheim, Life and Times of Fesus, i. p. 165, ii. 753 foll. In the latter
passage the rabbis are quoted to the effect that the angels generally were opposed
to the creation of man, and that the demons were the offspring of Eve and male
spirits, and Adam and female spirits, especially Lilith.

3 See Tennant, pp. 190, 201, 206.

242 INTRODUCTION

nection between the Fallen Angels and Satan. The former are
suffering imprisonment in darkness till the final judgment: the latter
was apparently able to confront the archangel on equal terms, when
contending for the body of Moses. So the continued activity and
even the authority of Satan and his angels in this world are asserted
both in the O.T., as in Job i. 6 and Zech. iii. 1, 2, and in the N.T.
as in James iv. 7, 1 P. v. 8, Eph. 6, 11, 12 (we have to stand against
the wiles of the devil, . . . our warfare is not against flesh and blood,
but) πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσµοκράτορας τοῦ
σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρα-
νίοις, see Lightfoot on Col. ii. 15. In 2 Cor. iv. 4 Satan is spoken
of as the god, in John xii. 31 and xvi. 11 as the prince of this world.
He is the tempter and accuser of the brethren, and did not shrink
even from assailing the Son of God Himself (Mt. iv. 3).

The above account of the Fall of the Angels was that usually ac-
cepted, with slight variations, both among Jews and Christians till
towards the close of the fourth century A.D.

Julius Africanus is said to be the only one of the ante-Nicene
Fathers who enunciated the view which afterwards prevailed, vzz.,
that ‘‘the sons of God were the descendants of Seth, and the daughters
-of men descendants of Cain’’.1 See the quotation in Routh, Rel. Sacr.
ii. p. 241, where he also gives the alternative explanation εἰ δὲ éw ἀγγέλων
νοοῖτο τοῦτο, τοὺς περὶ μαγείας καὶ γοητείας . . . ἐσχολακότας συνιέναι χρὴ
τῶν μετεώρων ταῖς γυναιξὶ τὴν γνῶσιν δεδωκέναι. Eusebius (Pr. Εν. v. 4,
11, 12) still keeps to the old view and compares the narrative of Gen.
6 to the stories of the Titans and Giants of Greek mythology. So
Lactantius, Div. Inst. ii. 14: ‘‘ Deus ne fraudibus suis diabolus, cui
ab initio terrae dederat potestatem, vel corrumperet vel disperderet
homines, quod in exordio rerum fecerat, misit angelos ad tutelam
cultumque generis humani... Itaque illos cum hominibus com-
morantes dominator ille terrae fallacissimus consuetudine ipsa paul-
latim ad vitia pellexit et mulierum congressibus inquinavit . . . sic eos
diabolus ex angelis Dei suos fecit satellites,” etc. So Sulpicius Severus
(Chron. i. 2): ‘‘ Angeli quibus caelum sedes erat, speciosarum forma
virginum capti... maturae suae originisque degeneres . . . matri-
moniis se mortalibus miscuerunt.” Julian, like Celsus, used this belief
as a ground for attacking Christianity. Cyril of Alexandria, in his
reply (ix. p. 296) repudiates the belief as altogether unworthy, and
injurious to morality, since men plead the angels’ sin as excuse for
their own, and adopts the interpretation of ‘‘ sons of God”’ previously

It is also found in the apocryphal Conflict of Adam and Eve of uncertain date,
-on which see the art. ‘‘ Adam, Books of,” in the D. of Christ. Biog. i. 36 foll.

INTRODUCTION 243

given by Africanus. Chrysostom deals at length with the subject in
his 22nd homily on Genesis. He calls the old interpretation blas-
phemous, and holds that it is precluded by the words of Christ, that
“in the resurrection men shall be like angels, neither marrying nor
given in marriage’’. Augustine (Civ. Dei, xv. 23) thinks it cannot be
-denied ‘“ Silvanos et Faunos, quos vulgo incubos vocant . . . mulierum
appetisse ac peregisse concubitum. . . . Dei tamen angelos sanctos
nullo modo sic labi potuisse crediderim, nec de his dixisse Apostolum
Petrum . . . sed potius de illis qui primum apostatantes a Deo cum
diabolo principe suo ceciderunt,” unless we are rather to understand
this of the children of Seth. A little later Philastrius (Haer. 107) goes
so far as to condemn the old opinion as a heresy.

The sympathies of Christians in the present day must assuredly be
with those who endeavoured to eliminate from the Scriptures all that
might seem to be dishonouring to God and injurious to men. But the
methods employed with this view were often such as we could not now
accept. For instance, the allegorical method borrowed from the Stoics
by Philo, and adopted from him by many of the Fathers, is too sub-
jective and arbitrary to be of any value in getting rid of moral diffi-
culties. We have replaced this now by the historical method, first
enunciated by our Lord, when he contrasted the spirit of the Gospel
with that of the old Dispensation.1 There is a continuous growth in
the ideal of conduct as set before us in the Bible. Much that was
commanded or permitted in the days of Abraham or Moses or David
is forbidden to those who have received the fuller light of Christianity.
So, what it was found possible for men to believe about God Himself
and about the holy angels, is impossible for us now. The words put
into the mouth of God in Gen. iii. 22, and in xi. 6, 7, we feel to be in-
consistent with any true idea of the power and wisdom and love of
God, and only suitable to a very low state of human development. So
also for the story of the fall of the angels. But is it a satisfactory
explanation of the latter to suppose that ‘‘sons of Seth” are meant
by ‘‘sons of God”? Ryle (Early Narratives of Genesis, 91-95) points
out that ‘‘ there is nothing in the context to suggest this, no sign that
the Sethites were distinguished for piety : they are not even exempted
from the charge of general wickedness which brought on the Flood”.
Equally untenable is the Jewish explanation that ‘‘ sons of God” are’
the nobles. I think no one who has studied with any care the recent

- investigations as to the origin of the book of Genesis, of which Driver’s
Book of Genesis may be taken as a specimen, can doubt that it con-
tains much which is unhistoric, though full of moral and spiritual

1Cf. Matt. v. 21-48, xix. 8; Luke ix. 54-56.

244 INTRODUCTION

teaching. The pre-Abrahamic narrative shows many resemblances
to the Babylonian records, but in general the motive has been
changed and purified.'! Thus Driver says (p. Ixiii.): ‘‘It is impossible,
if we compare the early narratives of Genesis with the Babylonian
narratives, from which in some cases they seem plainly to have been
ultimately derived . . . not to perceive the controlling operation of
the Spirit of God, which has taught these Hebrew writers . . . to take
the primitive traditions of the human race, to purify them from their
grossness and their polytheism, and to make them at once the founda-
tion and the explanation of the long history that is to follow.”’ Of
the particular passage in question, however, Driver says (p. 83): “As
a rule, the Hebrew narrators stripped off the mythological colouring
of the piece of folklore which they record; but in the present instance
it is still discernible ’’.?

1Tennant, 20, 21, 41.

2 For further information on this subject see Suicer’s Thesaurus under ἄγγελος,
and ᾿Εγρήγορος, Hasting’s D. of B. under “‘ Angel,” ‘‘ Demon,” “ Fall,” “‘ Flood ”’ ;
Encycl. of B. Lit. under ‘“ Angel,” ‘“‘Demon,”’ “ Deluge,” ‘‘ Nephilim,” “‘ Satan ” ;
Maitland’s Eruvin (Essays iv.-vi.), where the literal interpretation is defended;
Hagenbach, Hist. Doctr. § 52 and § 132.

CHAPTER V.

Notes on the Text of the Epistle of fude.—The Epistle of Jude is

contained in the uncials NABCKLP. It is omitted in the Peshitto,
but included in the later Syriac versions,! the Philoxenian and Hark-
leian, here distinguished as 5712 and syr*. In citing the Egyptian
versions | have used the notation Boh., now commonly employed,
instead of the less distinctive Copt., employed by Tischendorf. The
only other point which it may be well to mention is that, as in the
Epistle of James, the symbol + is appended in the Critical Notes to
signify that the reading in question is found in other authorities
besides those previously mentioned. In discussing the readings |
start with that of WH.

If we may judge from the number of “ primitive errors” suspected
by WH in the short Epistle of Jude, it would seem that the text is
in a less satisfactory condition than that of any other portion of the
New Testament. There are no less than four such errors in these
twenty-five verses, the same number as are found in the eight
chapters of the two Petrine Epistles, and in the forty-four chapters of
the first two Gospels. I notice below some passages where the text
presents special difficulties.

Ver. 5. ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα, ὅτι Κύριος
λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν.
I quote Tregelles’ notes with additions from Tischendorf in round
brackets, only changing the notation of the Egyptian and Syriac
versions to prevent confusion, and correcting the citations in ac-
cordance with more recent collations.

εἰδότας add. “'ὑμᾶς SQKL. 31 syrr., om. ABC? 13 Vulg. Boh. Sah. Arm.,” and
so Tisch.

In point of fact however B reads εἰδότας ὑμᾶς, as any one may
convince himself by looking at Cozza-Luzi’s photographic reproduc-
tion. Also Dr. Gwynn reports that / and all the MSS. of # give
the same reading, though he adds that the pleonastic idiom of the
Syriac would lead the translators to supply the pronoun even if
wanting in the Greek. The preponderance of authority is therefore

1See Dr. Gwynn’s Lat» Syriac Versions, published in 1909,
VOL, V. 16

~

246 INTRODUCTION

in favour of this latter reading. The repeated ὑμᾶς emphasises the
contrast between the readers (“to remind you, you who know it
already”’) and the libertines previously spoken of. The repetition
here may be compared with the repeated ὑμῖν of v. 3.

ἅπαξ ante πάντα ABCL. 13. 31. Vulg. Ante ὅτι K. Ante Aadv . (Syrr.) Arm.
Ante ἐκγῆς Αἰγ. Clem. 280 (and 997) Did. Cassiod. ὅτι κύριος σώσας τὸν λαὸν
ἐκ γῆς Aiy. ἅπαξ Sah., ὅτι ἅπαξ κύριος σώσας λαὸν αὐτοῦ Boh. Om. ἅπαἃ Lucif.
28. [ᾶπαξ is so placed in Syrr. as to be connected with σώσας ‘‘ when he had once
saved them,’’ G.]

παντα ABCN 13 Vulg. ντ. Boh. Arm. Aeth. Lucif. [In the App. to
WH (Sel. Readings, p. 106) it is suggested that this may be a primitive error for
πάντας (cf. 1 John ii. 20) found in Syr 1], τοῦτο 31 KL. Sah.

ὅτι] add. 6 C.2 KL. 31. Arm. Clem. 280. Om. ABN 13.

κύριος] ΔΟΚΙ,. Syrh. Θεὸς Ο. Tol. Όντο Arm. Clem. Lucif. ᾿Ιησοῦς
AB 13 Vulg. Boh. Sah. Aeth. [In Asp. to WH. (Sel. Readings, p. 106) it is
suggested that there may have been some primitive error, ‘“‘apparently OTIKC
(ὅτι Κύριος), and ΟΤΙΤΟ (Srv? Ιήησους) for OTIO (ὅτι 4) ”.]

γῆς] om. SyrP.

It appears to me that the true reading of the passage is ὑπομνῆσαι
δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα, ὅτι Κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου
σώσας τὸ δεύτερον [τοὺς] μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. I see no difficulty
in πάντα, which gives a reason for the use of the word ὑπομνῆσαι, “I
need only remind you, because you already know all that I have
to say”. It was easy for the second ὑμᾶς to be omitted as un-
necessary, and then the word ἅπαξ might be inserted in its place
partly for rhythmical reasons; but it is really unmeaning after εἰδότας :
the knowledge of the incidents, which are related in this and the
following verses, is not a knowledge for good and all, such as the
faith spoken of in ver. 3. On the other hand, ἅπαξ is very appropriate
if taken with λαὸν σώσας (a people was saved out of Egypt once for
all), and it prepares the way for τὸ δεύτερον. For the reading πάντας
I see no reason. Can it be assumed that all who are addressed
should be familiar with the legends contained in the Book of Enoch
and the Assumgtion of Moses, to which allusion is made in what fol-
lows? It is surely much more to the point for the writer to say,
as he does again below (ver. 17), that he is only repeating what is
generally known, though it need not be known to every individual.
As to Hort’s suggestion on the word κύριος, that the original was
ὅτι 6 (λαὸν σώσας), 1 think the fact of the variants is better explained
by Spitta, who considers that the abbreviations I€, KC, 6€ might
easily be confused, if the first letter was faintly written, and that

1“ This is an error: the two best MSS. of ῥ represent wavra.” α.

INTRODUCTION 247

the mention of τὸν µόνον δεσπότην καὶ Κύριον Ἰ. X. in the preceding
verse would naturally lead a later copyist to prefer iC, a supposition
which is confirmed by Cramer’s Catena, p. 158, εἴρηται γὰρ πρὸ τούτων
περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὡς εἴη ἀληθινὸς θεὸς οὗτος ὁ µόνος δεσπότης 6 κύριος ο ὁ
ἀναγαγὼν τὸν λαὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωσέως Spitta himself however
holds that 6€ is the true reading, as it agrees with the corresponding
passage in 2 Peter ii. 4, 6 Θεὺς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο,
and with Clement’s paraphrase (A4dumbr. Dind. iii. p. 482) : “ Quoniam
Dominus Deus semel populum de terra Aegypti liberans deinceps
eos qui non crediderunt perdidit”. There is no instance in the New
Testament of the personal name “Jesus” being used of the pre-
existent Messiah, though the official name “Christ” is found in 1
Cor. x. 4, 9, in reference to the wandering in the wilderness. But
in the second and later centuries this distinction was less carefully
observed. Thus Justin M. (Dial. 120), speaking of the prophecy
in Genesis xlix. 10, says that it does not refer to Judah, but to Jesus,
τὸν καὶ τοὺς πατέρας ὑμῶν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐξαγαγόντα, and this use of the
name was confirmed by the idea that the son of Nun was a per-
sonification of Christ (see Justin, Dial. 75; Clem. Al. 183; Didymus,
De Trin. 1. 19, Ἰούδας καθολικῶς γράφει, ἅπαξ γὰρ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς λαὸν ἐξ
Αἰγύπτου σώσας κ.τ.λ.; Jérome, C. ου. 1. 12; Lact. Inst. 4. 17,
“Christi figuram gerebat ille Jesus, qui cum primum Auses vocaretur,
Moyses futura praesentiens jussit eum Jesum vocari’’). In the ex-
planatory note I have stated my reasons for considering that the
article before µή did not belong to the original text.

Ver. 12. οὗτοί εἶσιν [ot] ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούµενοι
ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιµαίνοντε.. The article here is omitted by NK and
many inferior MSS. with vg. (but not syrr. or sah. or boh.), and some
of the patristic quotations. I agree with Dr. Chase in thinking that
it is out of place here, as in ver. 5 above. There is not only the
difficulty of construction (ot . . . σπιλάδες), but the very bold assump-
tion that the signification of σπιλάδες will be at once apparent. If we
omit the article, ἀφόβως should be attached to συνευωχ. as by Ti. In
syrr. it is joined with ποιµαίνοντες.

Ver. 19. οὗτοί εἶσιν ot ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοὶ πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.

ἀποδιορίζοντες add. ἑαντούς C vulg. syrr. Om. SABKL 13, ete.

Schott, B. Weiss, and Huther-Kiihl suppose the words ψυχικοὶ
πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες to be spoken by, or at least to express the feeling of
οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες: “welche Unterscheidungen machen, sc. zwischen
Psychikern und Pneumatikern, wobei dann der Verfasser diese Un-
terscheidungen in seiner drastischen Weise sofort zu ihren Ungunsten

248 INTRODUCTION

umkehrt”. This explanation seems to me to give a better sense than
the gloss approved by Spitta, ot τὰ σχίσµατα ποιοῦντες; for one cause
of the danger which threatens the Church is that the innovators do
not separate themselves openly, but steal in unobserved (παρεισεδύῃσαν,
ver. 4), and take part in the love-feasts of the faithful, in which they
are like sunken rocks (ver. 12); and, secondly, it is by no means cer-
tain that the word ἀποδιορίζω could bear this sense. ἀφορίζω is used
in Luke vi. 22 of excommunication by superior authority, which of
course would not be applicable here. On the other hand, it seems
impossible to get the former sense out of the Greek as it stands.
Even if we allowed the possibility of such a harsh construction as to
put Ψψυχικοί in inverted commas, as the utterance of the innovators
(and should we not then have expected the contrast ψυχικοί, πνευµα-
τικοί 2), still we cannot use the same word over again to express Jude’s
“drastic”? retort. This difficulty would be removed if we supposed
the loss of a line to the following effect after ἀποδιορίζοντες :—

ψυχικοὺς Spas (or τοὺς πιστοὺς) λέγοντες, ὄντες αὐτοὶ

ψυχικοὶ πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.

The opposition Οἱ ψυχικοί to πνευµατικοί is familiar in the writings
of Tertullian after he became a Montanist. The Church is carnal,
the sect spiritual. So the Valentinians distinguished their own ad-
herents as pneumatici from the psychict who composed the Church.
These were also technical terms with the Naassenes and Heracleon
(see my notes on James iii. 15), and were probably borrowed by the
early heretics from St. Paul, who uses them to distinguish the natural
from the heavenly body (1 Cor. xv. 44), and also to express the pre-
sence or absence of spiritual insight (1 Cor. ii. 14 f.) ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος
οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, pwpia yap αὐτῷ ἐστιν . . . 6 δὲ
πνευματικὸς ἀνακρίνει πάντα. The innovators against whom St. Jude
writes seem to have been professed followers of St. Paul (like the
Marcionites afterwards), abusing the doctrine of Pree Grace which
they had learnt from him (ver. 4 τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτα µετατιθέντες εἰς
ἀσέλγειαν), professing a knowledge of the βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ (1 Cor. ii. 10),
though it was really a knowledge only of τὰ βάθεα τοῦ Σατανᾶ (Apoc. ii.
24), and claiming to be the true δυνατοί and πνευµατικοί, as denying
dead works and setting the spirit above the letter. This explains the
subsequent misrepresentation of St. Paul as a heresiarch in the
Pseudo-Clementine writings.

Vv. 22, 23. (Text of Tischendorf and Tregelles) καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε
διακρινοµένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ,
μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον Χιτῶνα. (Text of WH. and

INTRODUCTION 240

B. Weiss) καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινοµένους σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες,
οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν Φόβω μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα.
In App. to WH. it is added, “Some primitive error probable: perhaps
the first ἐλεᾶτε an interpolation” (Sel. Readings, p. 107).

22 ἐλέγχετε AC 13. Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth. (Eph. Theophyl. Oec. Comm. Cassiod.).
ἐλεᾶτε SBC? Syrh. ἐλεεῖτε KLP (Theophyl. Όεο. ἐλίέ.), ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζετε
(hic) Syrp. Clem. 773.

διακρινοµένους ABCN. 13. Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Clem. 773, διακρινόµενοι
KLP +.

23. οὓς δὲ (1st) NACKLP 13 Vulg. Syrh, Boh. Arm. Om. B., δὲ Syrp. Clem

σώζετε SABC 13 Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., ἐν 6Bw σώζετε KLP +, ἐλεεῖτε

Clem. 773 (quoted below), ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ Syrp. ἐκ πυρὸς NABCKLP
13 Arm., ἐκ τοῦ π. Boh. Om. σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες SyrpP.

ἁρπάζοντες οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ ABN 13. Vulg., Arm., om. ἁρπάζοντες Boh.,
ἁρπάζοντες ἐν φόβῳ C. Syrh, ἁρπάζοντες KLP +.

Tischendorf makes the matter clearer by giving the consecutive text
of versions and quotations as follows: Vulg. Et hos quidem arguite
judicatos, illos vero salvate de igne rapientes, aliis autem miseremini
in tumore, Ar®. Et quosdam corripite super peccatis eorum, et quor-
undam miseremini cum fuerint victi, et quosdam salvate ex igne et
liberate eos. Ar?. Et signate quosdam cum dubitaverint orbos (?) et
salvate quosdam territione, abripite eos ex ἰσπε. Aeth. quoniam est
quem redarguent per verbum quod dictum est (Aeth??. propter pecca-
tum eorum), et est qui et servabitur ex igne et rapient eum, et est qui
servabitur timore et poenitentia. Arm. Et quosdam damnantes sitis
reprehensione, et quosdam salvate rapiendo ex igne, et quorundam
miseremint timore judicando (? indicando). Cassiodor. 142 Ita ut
quosdam dijudicatos arguant, quosdam de adustione aeterni ignis
eripiant, nonnullis misereantur errantibus et conscientias maculatas
emundent, sic tamen ut peccata eorum digna execratione refugiant.
Mr. Horner states that vv. 22, 23 are omitted in Sah. He translates
Boh. as follows: καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινοµένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ τοῦ
πυρός (al. om. τοῦ), οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε (al. φέρετε) ἐν φόβω. Commentaries of
Theophylact and Oecumenius, κἀκείνους δέ, εἰ μὲν ἀποδιΐστανται ὑμῶν---
τοῦτο γὰρ σηµαίνει τὸ διακρίνεσθαι---ἐλέγχετε, τουτέστι Φανεροῦτε τοῖς Tact
τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτῶν: εἴτε δὲ πρὸς ἴασιν ἀφορῶσι, μὴ ἀπωθεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ τῷ τῆς
ἀγάπης ὑμῶν ἐλέῳ προσλαμβάνεσθε, σώζοντες ἐκ τοῦ ἠπειλημένου αὐτοῖς
πυρός’ προσλαμβάνεσθε δὲ μετὰ τοῦ ἐλεεῖν αὐτοὺς καὶ μετὰ φόβου.

In all these it will be observed that three classes are distinguished
as in the text of Tregelles and Tischendorf, and in A, οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε
διακρινοµένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβω,

and ἐν, οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινοµένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς

250 INTRODUCTION

δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβω. We should draw the same conclusion from the
seeming quotation in Can. Apost. vi. 4 (οὗ µισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον,
ἀλλὰ) οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις, περὶ ὧν δὲ προσεύξῃ (οὓς δὲ ἀγαπή-
σεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου), which occurs also, with the omission of the
cause οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις in the Didaché ii. 7.

. Two classes only are distinguished in the following: Syrp. Et
quosdam de illis quidem ex igne rapite; cum autem resipuerint,
miseremint super eis in timore, representing καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς
ἁρπάζετε, διακρινοµένους δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβω. Syrh. et hos quidem misere-
mint resipiscentes, hos autem servate de igne rvapientes in timore,
representing καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινοµένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς
ἁρπάζοντες ἐν φόβῳ. Clem. (Adumbr.) quosdam autem salvate de igne
rapientes, quibusdam vero miseremini in timore,’ representing οὓς δὲ
σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβω. Clem. Sivom. vi. 773,
καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζετε, διακρινοµένους δὲ ἐλεεῖτε, implying that he
was acquainted with two different recensions. With these we may
compare the texts of B, followed by WH. and B. Weiss, καὶ οὓς μὲν
ἐλεᾶτε διακρινοµένους σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβω, of
C, καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινοµένους, οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες
ἐν Φόβω, and of KLP, καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινόµενοι, οὓς δὲ ἐν φόβῳ
σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες.

St. Jude’s predilection for triplets, as in vv. 2, 4, 8, in the examples
of judgment in vv. 5-7, and of sin in v. 11, is prima facie favourable
to the triple division in this passage. Supposing we take A and §& to
represent the original, consisting of three members, a b c, we find B
complete in a and c, but confused as to b. As it stands, it gives an
impossible reading ; since it requires οὓς µέν to be taken as the rela-
tive, introducing the subordinate verb ἐλεᾶτε, depending on the prin-
cipal verb σώζετε; while οὓς δέ, on the other hand, must be taken as
demonstrative. WH suggest that ἐλεᾶτε has crept in from below.
Omitting this, we get the sense, “Some who doubt save, snatching
them from fire; others compassionate in fear’’. It seems an easier
explanation to suppose that ἐλεᾶτε was written in error for ἐλέγχετε
and ots omitted in error after διακρινοµένους. The latter phenomenon
is exemplified in the readings of Syrp. and Clem. Sir. 773. The
texts of C and KLP are complete in a and 3, but insert a phrase
from cin b. The most natural explanation here seems to be that
the duplication of ἐλεᾶτε in a and c (as in 8) caused the omission of

1The paraphrase continues, id est ut eos qui in ignem cadunt doceatis ut semet
ipsos liberent. (It would seem that this clause has got misplaced and should be in-
serted after rapientes.) Odientes, inquit, eam, quae carnalis est, maculatam tunicam ;

animae videlicet tunica macula (read maculata) est, spivitus concupiscentiis pollutus
carnalibus.

INTRODUCTION 251

the second ἐλεᾶτε, and therefore of the second οὓς δέ. The reading
διακρινόµενοι in KLP was a natural assimilation to the following
nominative ἁρπάζοντες, and seemed, to those were not aware of the
difference in the meaning of the active and middle of διακρίνω, to
supply a very appropriate thought, viz., that discrimination must be
used; treatment should differ in different cases.

The real difficulty however of the triple division is to arrive at a
clear demarcation between the classes alluded to. ‘The triple divi-
sion,” says Hort (4p. p. 107), “gives no satisfactory sense ” ; and it
certainly has been very diversely interpreted, some holding with Kiihl
that the first case is the worst and the last the most hopeful: “ Die
dritte Klasse . . . durch helfendes Erbarmen wieder hergestellt wer-
den kénnen, mit denen es also nicht so schlimm steht, wie mit denen,
welchen gegeniiber nur ἐλέγχειν zu tiben ist, aber auch nicht so schlimm,
wie mit denen, die nur durch rasche, zugreifende That zu retten
sind’’; while the majority take Reiche’s view of a climax: ‘“a dubi-
tantibus minusque depravatis . . . ad insanabiles, quibus opem ferre
pro tempore ab ipsorum contumacia prohibemur”. My own view is
that Jude does not here touch on the case of the heretical leaders, of
whom he has spoken with such severity before. In their present
mood they are not subjects of ἔλεος, any more than the Pharisees con-
demned by our Lord, as long as they persisted in their hostility to the
truth. The admonition here given by St. Jude seems to be the same
as that contained in the final verses of the Epistle written by his
brother long before: ἐάν τις ἐν ὑμῖν πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἐπιστ-
ρέψῃ τις αὐτόν, γινώσκετε ὅτι 6 ἐπιστρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ
σώσει ψυχὴν ἐκ θανάτου. The first class with which the believers are
called upon to deal is that of doubters, διακρινόµενοι, men still halting
between two opinions (cf. James i. 6), or perhaps we should under-
stand it of disputers, as in Jude 9. These they are to reprove and con-
vince (cf. John xvi. 8, 9, ἐλέγξει περὶ ἁμαρτίας ὅτι οὐ πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ).
Then follow two classes undistinguished by any special characteristic,
whose condition we can only conjecture from the course of action to
be pursued respecting them. The second class is evidently in more
imminent danger than the one we have already considered, since they
are to be saved by immediate energetic action, snatching them from
the fire; the third seems to be beyond human help, since the duty of ΄
the believers is limited to trembling compassion, expressing itself no
doubt in prayer, but apparently shrinking from personal communica-
tion with the terrible infection of evil. We may compare with this
St. Paul’s judgment as to the case of incest in the Church of Corinth
(1 Cor. v. 5), and the story told about Cerinthus and St. John.

i“
my
‘

i

dann ie

Ny

My ae Ms i ΐ Me ΩΜΗ

i δν
vas ay πι. if iis

f
|!

ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ.

1. ΙΟΥΔΑΣ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ιακώβου, τοῖς] ἐν

1 τοις θεῳ .. . και εν |ησου conj. H (Sel. Read. p. 106).

Vv. 1, 2.—Salutation. Jude a servant
of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to
those who have received the divine cal-
ling, beloved of the Father, kept safe in
Jesus Christ. May mercy, peace and
love be richly poured out upon you!

I. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος. The same
phrase is used by St. James in the In-
scription to his epistle, also by St. Paul
in Rom. and Phil. In 1 Pet. the phrase
used is ἀπόστολος |. X., in 2 Pet. δοῦλος
καὶ ἀπόστολος. It is, 1 think,a mistake
to translate δοῦλος by the word “ slave,”
the modern connotation of which is so
different from that of the Greek word (cf.
2 Cor. iv. 5). There is no opposition
between δουλεία and ἐλευθερία in. the
Christian’s willing service. It only be-
comes a δουλεία in the opposed sense,
when he ceases to love what is com-
manded and feels it as an external yoke.

ἀδελφὸς δὲ ᾿Ιακώβου. Cf. Tit. i. 1,
Φδοῦλος Θεοῦ, ἀπόστολος δὲ “I. X. See
Introduction on the Author.

τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις καὶ
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρηµένοις κλητοῖς.
On the readings see Introduction on the
text. The easier reading of some MSS.,
ἡγιασμένοις for ἠγαπημένοις, is probably
derived from 1 Cor. i. 2, Ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χ.
*l. There is no precise parallel either for
ἐν Θεῷ Hy. or for Χριστῷ τετ. The pre-
position ἐν is constantly used to express
the relation in which believers stand to
Christ: they are incorporated in Him as
the branches in the vine, as the living
stones in the spiritual temple, as the
members in the body of which He is the
head. So here, ‘‘ beloved as members of
Christ, reflecting back his glorious
image ’’ would be a natural und easy
conception. Lightfoot, commenting on
Col. ili. 12, ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἅγιοι καὶ
ἠγαπημένοι, says that in the N.T. the
last word ‘‘ seems to be used always of
the objects of God’s love,”’ but it is diffi-

cult to see the propriety of the phrase,
‘Brethren beloved by God in God”,
Ἠγαπημένοι is used of the objects of
man’s love in Clem. Hom. ix. 5, τῶν
αὐτοῖς ἠγαπημένων τοὺς τάφους vaocis
τιμῶσιν, and the cognate ἀγαπητοί is
constantly used in the same sense (as
below ver. 3), as well as in the sense of
“beloved of God”. If, therefore, we
are to retain the reading, I am disposed
to interpret it as equivalent to ἀδελφοί,
“beloved by us in the Father,” i.¢., ‘‘ be-
loved with Φιλαδελφία as children of
God,” but I think that Hort is right in
considering that ἐν has shifted its place
in the text. See his Select Readings, p.
106, where it is suggested that ἐν should
be omitted before Θεῷ and inserted before
*Inoov, giving the sense “to those who
have been beloved by the Father, and
who have been kept safe in Jesus from
the temptations to which others have
succumbed,” ἠγαπημένοις being followed
by a dative of the agent, as in Nehem.
xii, 26, ἀγαπώμενος TO Θεῷ ἦν.

κλητοῖς is here the substantive of
which ἠγαπημένοις and τετηρηµένοις
are predicated. We find the same use
in Apoc. xvii. 14 (νικήσουσιν) ot per’
αὐτοῦ κλητοὶ κ. ἐκλεκτοὶ κ. πιστοί, in
St. Paul’s epistles, as in Rom. i. 6, ἐν ots
ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς, κλητοὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ©
Cor. i. 24, κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρω-
µένον, ᾿Ιουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον .. .
αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς Χριστὸν Θεοῦ
δύναμιν. We have many examples of
the Divine calling in the Gospels, as in
the case of the Apostles (Matt. iv. 21,
Mark i. 20) and in the parables of the
Great Supper and the Labourers in the
Vineyard. This idea of calling or elec-
tion is derived fromthe O.T. See Hort’s
n.on I Pet. i. 1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκλεκ-
τοῖς: ‘* Two great forms of election are
spoken of in the O.T., the choosing of
Israel, and the choosing of single

254

IOYAA ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

e—

Θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις ] καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρηµένοις κλητοῖς.

2. ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη.
3. ᾿Αγαπητοί, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούµενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς.

ηγαπηµενοις AB WN; ηγιασµενοις KLP.

Israelites, or bodies of Israelites, to
perform certain functions for Israel.
. . . The calling and the choosing imply
each other, the calling being the outward
expression of the antecedent choosing,
the act by which it begins to take effect.
Both words emphatically mark the pre-
sent state of the persons addressed as
being due to the freeagency of God... .
In Deuteronomy (iv. 37) the choosing,
by God is ascribed to His own love of
Israel: the ground of it lay in Himself,
not in Israel... . As is the election of
the ruler or priest within Israel for the
sake of Israel, such is the election of
Israel for the sake of the whole human
race. Such also, still more clearly and
emphatically, is the election of the new
Israel.”’ For a similar use of the word
“‘call” in Isaiah, cf. ch. xlvili. 12, κ.
1.7. The chief distinction between the
the ‘‘calling’’ of the old and of the new
‘dispensation is that the former is rather
expressive of dignity (‘“‘called by the
name of God”’), the latter of invitation ;
but the former appears also in the N.T.
in such phrases as James ii. 7, τὸ καλὸν
ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, and 1 Pet.
ii. Q, ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον
ἱεράτευμα . . . λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιγ.
The reason for St. Jude’s here character-
ising the called as beloved and kept, is
because he has in his mind others who
had been called, but had gone astray and
incurred the wrath of God.

Ver. 2. For the Salutation see my
note on xalpew, James i. 1, and Hort’s
excellent note on 1 Pet. i. 2, χάρις...
πληθυνθείη. We find ἔλεος and εἰρήνη
joined in Gal. vi. 16, and with the addi-
tion of χάρις in 1 Tim. i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 2,
2 John 3. The mercy of God is the
ground of peace, which is perfected in
the feeling of God’s love towards them.
The verb πληθυνθείη occurs in the Saluta-
tion both of 1 Peter and 2 Peter and in
Dan. vi. 25 (in the letter of Darius),
εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη, cf. 1 Thess. iii.
12, ὑμᾶς δὲ 6 κύριος πλεονάσαι Kai πε-
ρισσεύσαι TH ἀγάπῃ eis ἀλλήλους.
᾿᾽Αγάπη (=the love of God) occurs also
in the final salutation of 2 Cor. ἡ χάρις

τ. κυρίου Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ,

and in Eph. εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀξελφοῖς καὶ
ἀγάπη μετὰ πίστεως ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς
καὶ Κυρίου Ἰ. X. Cf. 1 John iii. 1, ἴδετε
ToTaTHv ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡμῖν 6 πατὴρ
ἵνα τέκνα Θεοῦ κληθῶμεν, where West-
cott’s n. is “The Divine love is infused into.
them, so that it is their own, and be-
comes in them the source of a divine
life (Rom. xii, το). In virtue of this
gift they are inspired with a love which
is like the love of God, and by this they
truly claim the title of children of God
as partakers in His nature, 1 John iv. 7,
1g.” The same salutation is used in
the letter of the Smyrnaeans (ο. 156 A.D.)
giving an account of the martyrdom of
Polycarp, ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη
Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ. πλη-
θυνθείη. The thought of ἔλεος and
ἀγάπη recurs again in ver. 21.

Vv. 3, 4.—Reasons for Writing. He
had been intending to write to them on
that which is the common interest of all
Christians, salvation through Christ, but
was compelled to abandon his intention
by news which had reached him of a
special danger* threatening the Gospel _
once for alldelivered tothe Church. His
duty now was to stir up the faithful to
defend their faith against insidious as-
saults, long ago foretold in ancient pro-
phecy, of impious men who should
change the doctrine of God’s free grace
into an excuse for licentiousness, and
deny the only Master and our Lord
Jesus Christ.

Ver. 3. ἀγαπητοί occurs in vv. 17 and
20, also in 2 Pet. iii. 1, 8, 14, 17, 1 Pet.
ii. II, iv. 12 and James. It is common
in the Epistles of John and of Paul,
sometimes with pov attached, as in 1
Cor. x. 14, Phil. ii. 12, and is often joined
to ἀδελφοί, especially in James. The
ἀγάπη of ver. 2 leads on to the ἀγαπητοί
here. They are themselves ἀγαπητοί
because the love of God is shed abroad
in their hearts.

πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούµενς. For
πᾶσαν, see my n. on Jamesi. 2, and cf.
2 Pet. i. 5, σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισενέγ-
καντες, i. 15, σπουδάσω ἔχειν ὑμᾶς
μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι, also Isocr. Orat. v. p.
gi 6, πᾶσαν τὴν σπουδὴν περὶ τούτου

* For this see the Introduction on Early Heresies.

8. IOYAA ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

2355

κοινῆς ἡμῶν Ἰ σωτηρίας ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ” ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν

> γι - ο , a κ ,
ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει.

Ίκοινης ημων] κ. υµων boh.; om. ηµων KLP + ; σωτηριας] add. και ζωης N.

"γραψαι] γραφειν NY.

ποιεῖσθαι, Plato, Euthyd. 304 ε, περὶ
οὐδενὸς ἀξίων ἀναξίαν σπουδὴν ποιοῦνται.
Jude was busy on another subject, when
he received the news of a fresh danger to
the Church, which he felt it his duty to
meet at once. Whether he lived to
carry out his earlier design, and whether
it was of the nature of a treatise or of an
epistle, we know not. It is noteworthy
that there is a similar allusion in 2 Peter
iii. 1 to an earlier letter now lost. Com-
pare Barn. iv. 9, πολλὰ δὲ θέλων γράφειν
2 + = γράφειν ἐσπούδασα.

κοινῆς σωτηρίας. Cf. Tit. i. 4, κατὰ
κοινὴν πίστιν, Ign. Eph. i., ὑπὲρ τοῦ
κοινοῦ ὀγόματος καὶ ἐλπίδος with Light-
foot’s n., Jos. Ant. το. 1. 3 (Hezekiah
besought Isaiah to offer sacrifice) ὑπὲρ
τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας. Bede explains as
follows: ‘omnium electorum communis
est salus, fides, et dilectio Christi”. Jude
puts on one side the address he was pre-
paring on the main principles of Chris-
tianity (probably we may take vv. 20 and
21 as a sample of what this would have
been) and turns to the special evil which
was then threatening the Church.
" ἀνάγκην ἔσχον Ὑράψαι. Cf. Luke
xiv. 18, ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἰδεῖν αὐτόν, Heb.
Vile) 27; α. also. Elut. (Cate M7: 24)
ἀνάγκην ἔσχεν ἐκβαλεῖν ἀσχημονοῦσαν
τὴν γυναῖκα. There is a similar com-
bination of γράφειν and γράψαι in 3
John 13. The aor. γράψαι, contrasted
with the preceding pres. γράφειν, im-
plies that the new epistle had to be writ-
ten at once and could not be prepared
for at leisure, like the one he had pre-
viously contemplated. It was no wel-
come task: ‘necessity was laid upon
him”.

ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ
τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει. '' Το contend for the
faith,’ almost equivalent το the ἀγώνισαι
περὶ τὴς ἀληθείας in Sir. iv. 28, see 1
Tim. vi. 12, ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα
τῆς πίστεως, and εἰς ὃ κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμε-
vos, Col. i. 29. We may compare étra-
µύνειν, ἐπαναπαύειν νόµῳ, Rom. ii. 17
and Clem. Strom. iii., p. 553, ἐπαγωνιζό-
µενος τῇ ἀθέῳ δόξῃ. It is possible (as is
shown by the following examples) for
spiritual blessings, once given, to be lost,
unless we use every effort to maintain
them. The redemption from Egypt was

a fact, as baptism into the name of Christ
is a fact, but, unless it is borne in mind
and acted upon, the fact loses its efficacy.

τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις
πίστει. The word πίστις here is not
used in its primary sense of a subjective
feeling of trust or belief, but in the
secondary sense of the thing believed,
the Truth or the Gospel, as in ver. 20
below, Gal. i. 23, 6 διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε
viv εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἤν ποτε
ἐπόρθει, also Gal. iii. 23, Phil. i. 27,
συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
where see Lightfoot, Acts vi. 7. In the
same way ἐλπίς is used in a concrete
sense for the object or ground of hope (as
in Col. i. 5, τὴν ἐλπίδα τὴν ἀποκειμένην
ἡμῖν, r Tim. i 1, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς
ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, Tit. ii. 13, προσδεχόµενοι
τὴν µακαρίαν ἐλπίδα), and φόβος for the
object of fear, Rom. xiii. 3, 1 Pet. iii.
14.
ἅπαξ. Used here in its classical sense
‘once for all,’ as below ver. 5, and in
Heb. vi. 4, τοὺς ἅπαξ dwticbévras, ib.
1X.) ο 27, X12, © Εεῖ ii. 18. This ex-
cludes the novelties of the Libertines,
of. Gal. 1.09. The later sense ‘“‘ on one
occasion ”’ is found in 2 Cor. xi. 25, ἅπαξ
ἐλιθάσθην, 1 Thess. ii. 18, καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ
δὶς ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν.

παραδοθείσῃ. Cf. Philo M. i. 387,
πιστεύει τοῖς ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσι. The
Christian tradition is constantly referred
to by the Fathers, as by Clem. Al. Str.
vii. where we read of η ἀληθὴς παράδοσις
(ρ. 845), ἤ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ π. (p. 8go),
ἡ θεία π. (p. 896), ἡ πάντων τῶν
ἀποστόλων π. (Ρ. goo), ai τοῦ Χριστοῦ
π. (p. gor), and even in; the Ν.Τ. as in
1 Cor. xi. 2, κάθως παρέδωκα ὑμῖν τὰς
παραδόσεις κατέχετε, 2 Thess. ii. 15,
1 Tim. vi. 20, τὴν παραθήκην pvAakov.
For an account of the gradual-formation
of the Creed, see A. E. Burn’s Introduc-
tion to the Creeds, ch. ii., 1899, and com-
pare the comment in my larger edition, °
p. 6r {.

τοῖς ἁγίοις. Used generally of Chris-
tians who were consecrated and called to
be holy, as in 1 Cor. 1. 2, Phil. i. 1, where
see Lightfoot. The word contains an
appeal to the brethren to stand fast
against the teaching and practice of the
Libertines.

IOYAA ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

4-

4. παρεισεδύησαν } γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραµµένοι

3 ~ A / > ο) ‘ a nose A / ,
εἰς τοῦτο τὸ Kpipa, ἀσεβεῖς, τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα µετατιθέν-

1 παρεισεδνησαν B, WH; παρεισεδυσαν SACKLP + Ti., Treg.

256
Ver. 4. Nature of the Threatened
Danger. It is stealthy; it is serious

enough to have been predicted long ago;
its characteristic is impiety, showing it-
self in the antinomian misuse of the
Gospel of God’s free grace, and in the
denial of God and Christ.
Ver. 4. Ἠπαρεισεδύησαν yap τινες
ἄνθρωποι. For this form which is found
in B and adopted by WH, Veitch cites
διεκδυῆναι in Hippocr. i. 601, and com-
pares ἐφύην, ἐρρύην. The aor. is here
used with the perfect force, as in ver. ΤΙ
ἐπορεύθησαν, etc. cf. Blass, Gr. p. 199,
my edition of St. James, p. ccii., and Dr.
Weymouth there cited. The verb occurs
in Demades 178, ἄδικος παρεισδύνων
λόγος εἰς τὰς τῶν δικαστῶν γνώµας οὐκ
ἐᾷ συνορᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, Clem. ΑΙ. p.
650, ὅπως εἰς THY τῶν αἰνιγμάτων ἔννοιαν
ἡ ζήτησις παρεισδύουσα ἐπὶ τὴν εὕρεσιν
τῆς ἀληθείας ἀναδράμῃ, D. Laert. ii. 142,
λαθραίως παρεισδύς eis τὴν πατρίδα,
Ῥ]αε. ΛΜ. p. 216 B, τὰ ἀρχαῖα νόμιμα
ἐκλυόμενα ἑώρα, ἄλλα δὲ παρεισδυόµενα
µοχθηρά, other examples in Wetst. The
noun παρείσδυσις occurs in Barn. il.
1Ο, iv. 9, ἀντιστῶμεν ἵνα μὴ σχῇ
παρείσδυσιν 6 µέλας, Clem. Al. p. 189,
ἀκροσφαλὴς ἡ τοῦ οἴνου παρείσδυσις.
Similar compounds are παρεισφέρω in
2 Pet. i. 5, παρεισάγω in 2 Pet. ii. 1,
παρείσακτος in Gal. ii. 4, διὰ τοὺς
παρεισάκτους wWevdadéAdovs οἵτινες
παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλεν-
θερίαν ὑμῶν, Rom. vy. 20, 2 Macc. ΠΠ. 1
παρεισπορευόµενοι λεληθότως εἰς τὰς
κώμας, SO παρεισέρπω, παρεισπέµπω,
παρεισπίπτω. The earliest prophecy
of such seducers comes from the lips of
Jesus Himself, Matt. vii. 15, προσέχετε
ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἔρ-
Χονται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ἐνδύμασι προβάτων,
ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσι λύκοι ἅρπαγες, cf. Acts
XxX. 29, 30, and Introduction on the Early
Heresies in the larger edition.

οἱ πάλαι προγεγραµµένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ
κρίμα. ‘Designated of old for this
judgment.” Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 3, οἷς τὸ κρίµα
ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργει. The word πάλαι

precludes the supposition that the second
epistle of Peter can be referred to.* The
allusion is to the book of Enoch quoted in
vv. I4, 15. In νετ. 18 below the same
warning is said to have been given by
the Apostles. The phrase ot προγ. is in
apposition to τινες ἄνθρωποι, cf. Gal.
i. 7 with Lightfoot’s n., Luke xvili. 9,
εἶπεν δὲ πρός τινας τοὺς πεποιθότας
ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς. For προγ., cf. Rom. xv. 4,
ὅσα yap προεγράφη εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν
διδασκαλίαν ἐγράφη. The word is in-
tended to show that they are already
doomed to punishment as enemies of
God. As such they are to be shunned
by the faithful, but not to be feared,
because, dangerous as they may seem,
they cannot alter the Divine purpose.
Dr. Chase compares Hort’s interesting
note on 1 Peter ii. 8, eis ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν.
By ‘“‘this” Spitta understands “that
judgment which I am now about to de-
clare,” i.e., the condemnation contained
in the word ἀσεβεῖς used by some ancient
writer. Zahn however remarks that
οὗτος usually refers to what precedes,
and he would take τοῦτο here (with Hof-
mann) as referring to παρεισεδύησαν.
Better than this logical reference to some
preceding or succeeding word is, I think,
Bengel’s explanation “ the now impend-
ing judgment,” Afostolo iam quast cer-
nente penam.

ἀσεβεῖς. This word may be almost
said to give the keynote to the Epistle
(cf. vv. 15, 18) as it does to the Book of
Enoch.

τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα µετα-
τιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν. With this we
may compare 1 Peter ii. 16, μὴ ὡς
ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχοντες τὴς κακίας τὴν
ἐλευθερίαν, 2 Peter ii. 19, ἐλευθερίαν
ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, iii. 16, δυσνόητά τινα,
ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς στρεβλοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν
αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν, Rom. iii. 1, 2, 5-8 (If
man is justified by free grace and not by
works, then works are unnecessary), ib.
Vi. τ, το απ. 2x.) © Com το ρα τ.
John viii. 32-36, Gal. v. 13, ἡμεῖς ἐπ᾽
ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε" µόνον μὴ τὴν

* Zahn, it is true, following Schott and others, argues in favour of this reference,

holding that πάλαι may be equivalent to “lately”;

and the word is of course

very elastic in meaning; but unless the contrast makes it clear that the reference
is to a recent past, I think we are bound to assign to the word its usual force,
especially here, where it stands first, giving the tone as it were to what follows,
snd is further confirmed and explained by ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Αδάμ in ver. 14.

ά ο ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 257

τες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν µόνον δεσπότην 1 καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν

1 δεσποτην] add. θεον KLP, syrr. +.

ἐλευθερίαν eis ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί. For
µετατιθέντες see Gal. i. 6, for ἀσέλγειαν
2 Peter ii. 2, πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν
αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀσελγείαις, ib. ii. 7, 18,
1 Peter iv. 3, and Lightfoot on Gal.
ν. 19, ‘‘A man may be ἀκάθαρτος and
hide his sin: he does not become
ἀσελγής until he shocks public decency.
In classical Greek the word ἀσέλγεια
generally signifies insolence or violence
towards another. . . . In the later lang-
uage the prominent idea is sensuality
. . . Cf. Polyb. xxxvii. 2, πολλὴ δέ τις
ἀσέλγεια καὶ περὶ τὸς σωματικὰς
ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῷ συνεξηκολούθε.. Thus
it has much the same range of meaning
as UBpis”. On the meaning of χάρις
see Robinson, Ephes. p. 221 f. The
form χάριν is used elsewhere in the
N.T., except in Acts xxiv. 27.

τὸν µόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν
᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. So 2 Peter
ii. I, τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην
ἀρνούμενοι. On the denial of God and
Christ see 1 John ii. 22, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ
ἀντίχριστος, 6 ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα
καὶ Tov vidv, Tit. i. 16, Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν
εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται βδελυκ-
τοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς πᾶν
ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι, Matt. x. 33,
ὅστιςᾶν ἀρνήσηταί µε ἔμπροσθεν τῶν
ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν
ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός pov, ib. xxvi. 70
(Peter’s denial). Such denial is one of
the sins noticed in the book of Enoch,
Xxxvili. 2: “ When the Righteous One
shall appear ... where will be the
dwelling of the sinners and where the
resting-place of those who have denied
the Lord of Spirits?’ Ib. ΧΙ. 2, xlv. 2,
xlvi. 7, xlviii. το: “* They will fall and not
rise again . . . for they have denied the
Lord of Spirits and His Anointed ”.

Two questions have been raised as to
the meaning of the text, (1) is τ. µόνον
δεσπότην to be understood of the Son,
(2) what is the force of dpveto@ar? The
objection to understanding δεσπότης of
our Lord is that in every other passage
in the N.T., where δεσπότης occurs,
except in 2 Peter ii, 1 (on which see n.),
it is spoken of God the Father; that,
this being the case, it is difficult to under-
stand how Christ can be called τὸν µόνον
δεσπότην. It seems to me a forced ex-
planation to say that the phrase µόνος
δεσπότης has reference only to other
earthly masters. No Jew could use it in

this connexion without thinking of the
one Master in heaven. Again pévos is
elsewhere used of the Father only, as in
John v. 44, τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ
µόνου Θεοῦ οὐ Γητεῖτε, xvii. 3, ἵνα
γινώσκωσίν σε τὸν µόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεον
Rom. xvi. 27, µόνῳ σόφῳ Θεῷ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, 1 Tim. i. 17, τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν
αἰώνων . .. µόνῳ Θεῷ τιμὴ κ. δόξα,
ib. vi. 15, 16, ὅ µακάριος κ. μόνος
δυνάστης ὃ µόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, and
by Jude himself, below 25, µόνῳ Θεῷ
σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰ. X., τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,
δόξα. Wetst. quotes several passages
in which Josephus speaks of God as
6 µόνος δεσπότης. On the other hand,
the phrase, so taken, seems to contradict
the general rule that, where two nouns,
denoting attributes, are joined by καί, if
the article is prefixed to the first noun
only, the second noun will then be an
attribute of the same subject. In the
present case, however, the second noun
(κύριον) belongs to the class of words
which may stand without the article, see
Winer, pp. 147-163. A similar doubtful
case is found in Tit. ii. 13, προσδεχόµενοι
τὴν µακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς
δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος
ἡμῶν Χ. Ἰ. ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν
ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς, where also I
should take τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ to refer
to the Father. Other examples of the
same kind are Eph. v. 5, οὐκ ἔχει
KAnpovopiav ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ
καὶ Θεοῦ (where Alf. notes ‘‘ We cannot
safely say here that the same Person
is intended by X. κ. Θεοῦ merely on
account of the omission of the art.; for
(x) any introduction of such a prediction
regarding Christ would here be mani-
festly out of place, (2) Θεός is so fre-
quently anarthrous that it is not safe to
ground any such inference on its use
here),” 2 Thess. i. 12, ὅπως ἐνδοξασθῇ τὸ
ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν
καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ
Θεοῦ ὑμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ;
τ Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1), διαµαρ-
τύρομαι ἐγώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ
*Incod καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων, which
Chrysostom explains μάρτυρα καλῶ τὸν
Θεὸν καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ; 2 Peter i. 1,
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, where see myn. The
denial of the only Master and our Lord
Jesus Christ may be implicit, shown by
their comduct, though not asserted in

255

Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. 5.

IOYAA ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

4-

Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας

πάντα,] ὅτι 2 Κύριος ὃ ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτε-

υμας παντα $YKL 31 syrr. Clem. Theoph. Oecon.+; vpas απαξ παντα B;.
απαξ παντα AC? 13 vulg. + Ti. Treg. WH; απαξ παντας H. (Sel. Read. p. 106)

ὅτι SAB syrh; add. 6 C?KL syrp.

3 kuptos ΝΟΚΙ, syrh; Ἰησους AB + ; θεος C* syrp, Clem.
ἁαπαξ λαον ΜΜ, 68, tol., syrr., boh. (οτι απαξ Ino. λαον) sah. arm. Did. Cassiod.
λαον απαξ Clem.; λαον ABCL, Ti., Treg., WH.

word, as in Tit. i. 16; but it is more
naturally taken as explicit, as in r John
ii. 22, where Westcott notes that a com-
mon gnostic theory was that “ ‘ the Aeon
Christ’ descended upon the man Jesus
at His baptism and left Him before His
passion. Those who held such a doc-
trine denied . . . the union of the divine
and human in one Person . . . and this
denial involves the loss of the Father,
not only because the ideas of sonship
and fatherhood are correlative, but be-
cause . . . it is only in the Son that we
have the [full] revelation of God as
Father.” The phrase τὸν µόνον δεσπότην
might also refer to the heresy attributed
to Cerinthus by Hippolytus (Haer. vii.
33, X. 21) οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ πρώτου θεοῦ τὸν
κόσμον Ὑεγονέναι ἠθέλησεν ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ
δυνάµ.εώς τινος ἀγγελικῆς, and Irenzus
Haer. i. 26. See Introduction on Early
Heresies in the large edition.

Vv. 5-13. Illustrations of Sin and
Fudgment Derived from History and
from Nature. The judgment impending
over these men is borne witness to by
well-known facts of the past, and may be
illustrated from the phenomena of nature.
God showed His mercy in delivering the
Israelites from Egypt, but that was no
guarantee against their destruction in
the wilderness when they again sinned
by unbelief. The angels were blessed
beyond all other creatures, but when
they proved unfaithful to their trust they
were imprisoned in darkness, awaiting
there the judgment of the great day. The
men of Sodom (lived in aland of great fer-
tility, they had received some knowledge
of God through the presence and teaching
of Lot, they had been lately rescued from
captivity by Abraham, yet they) followed
the sinful example of the angels, and
their land is still a prey to the fire, bear-
ing witness to the eternal punishment of
sin. In spite of these warnings the
heretics, who are now finding their way
into the Church, persist in their wild
hallucinations, giving themselves up to

the lusts of the flesh, despising authority,
and railing at angelic dignities. They
might have been taught better by the
example of the archangel Michael, of
whom we are told that, when disputing
with the devil about the body of Moses,
he uttered no word of railing, but made
his appeal to God. These men however
rail at that which is beyond their know-
ledge, while they surrender themselves
like brute beasts to the guidance of their
appetites, and thus bring about their
own destruction, following in the wake
of impious Cain, of covetous Balaam,
and rebellious Korah. When they take
part in your love-feasts they cause the
shipwreck of the weak by their wanton-
ness and irreverence. In greatness of
profession and smallness of performance
they resemble clouds driven by the wind
which give no rain; or trees in autumn
on which one looks in vain for fruit, and
which are only useful for fuel. By their
confident speaking and brazen assurance
they seem to carry all before them; yet
like the waves bursting on the shore, the
deposit they leave is only their own
shame. Or we might compare them to
meteors which shine for a moment and
are then extinguished for ever.

Ver. 5. ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι,
εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα. Cf. 2 Pet. i. 12,
διὸ µελλήσω ὑμᾶς ἀεὶ ὑπομιμνήσκειν
καίπερ εἰδότας, 10. i. 13, διεγείρειν ὑμᾶς
ἐν ὑπομνήσει, 7b. iii. 1, διεγείρω ὑμῶν ἐν
ὑπομνήσει τὴν εἰλικρινῆ διάνοιαν, Rom.
XV. 14, πέπεισµαι δὲ ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ µεστοί
ἐστε ἀγαθωσύνης, πεπληρωμένοι πάσης
τῆς γνώσεως . . . τολµηροτέρως δὲ ἔγ-
ραψα ὑμῖνιάπὸ µέρους ὡς ἐπαναμιμνήσκων
tpas. The word εἰδότας justifies ὑπο-
μνῆσαι: they only need to be reminded
of truths already known, so that it is un-
necessary to write at length. The re-
peated ὑμᾶς contrasts the readers with
the libertines of the former verse. The
words in themselves might be taken
ironically of persons professing (like the
Corinthians) to “ know all things,’’ but

* On the readings see Introduction.

oy

ΙΟΥΔΑ EMLZTOAH

"ο.

pov [τοὺς] μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν, 6. ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ
τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητή-

the broad distinction maintained through-
out the epistle between ὑμεῖς and οὗτοι
(the Libertines) forbids such an inter-
pretation. If we read ἅπαξ πάντα with
some MSS., it suggests something of
anxiety and upbraiding, which may be
compared with the tone of St. Paul in
writing to the Galatians. See, however,
the following note for the position of
ἅπαξ. Instead of πάντα some MSS.
have τοῦτο. The former finds some sup-
port in Enoch 1. 2, “I heard everything
from the angels,’’ xxv. 2, ‘‘I should like
to know about everything,” Secrets of
En. xl. 1, 2, ‘I know all things from the
lips of the Lord. . . I know all things
and have written all things in the books,”’
Ixi. 2 (quoted by Chase in Dict. of the
Bible). It should probably be under-
stood of all that follows, including the
historical allusions, implying that those
addressed were familiar not only with the
O.T. but with rabbinical traditions: so
Estius “ omnia de quibus volo vos com-
monere”’. Bede’s note is ‘‘ omnia vide-
licet arcana fidei scientes et non opus
habentes recentia quasi sanctiora a novis
audire magistris’’. In what follows he
takes ἅπαξ with σώσας, “ita clamantes
ad se de afflictione Aegyptia primo sal-
vavit humiles, ut secundo murmurantes
‘contra se in eremo prosterneret superbos.
. . - Meminerimus illum sic per aquas
baptismi salvare credentes, ut etiam post
baptismum humilem in nobis requirat
vitam.”’

ὅτι Κύριος, ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου
σώσας, τὸ δεύτερον [τοὺς] μὴ πιστεύσαν-
τας ἀπώλεσεν.] For text, see Introduc-
tion on Readings. Clement in his
Adumbrationes gives the paraphrase
‘*Quoniam Dominus Deus semel popu-
lum de terra Aegypti liberans deinceps
€os qui non crediderunt perdidit”’.

τὸ δεύτερον has given rise to much
discussion. According to the reading I
have adopted, it contrasts the preceding
saving with the following destruction.
The deliverance from Egypt was the
creation of a people once for all, but yet
it was followed by the destruction of the
unbelieving portion of the people, 2.6. by all
but Caleb and Joshua (Num. xiv. 27, 37).
So in 1 Cor. x. we have the privileges of
Israel allowed, and yet all was in vain
because of their unbelief. There seems
less force in the connection of ἅπαξ with

"σι. Exod. i004, ἵνα,

εἰδότας: ἤδη would have been more
suitable. For the opposition to τὸ
δεύτερον, cf. Heb. ix. 28, 6 Χριστὸς ἅπαξ
προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν
ἁμαρτίας ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας
ὀφθήσεται, Theoph. Avtol. ii. 26, ἵνα τὸ
μὲν ἅπαξ ᾖ πεπληρωμένον ὅτε ἐτέθη, τὸ
δὲ δεύτερον µέλλῃ πληροῦσθαι μετὰ τὴν
. . + kptow, Liban. af. Wetst. ἐμοὶ δὲ
ἅπαξ ἀρκεῖ γέλωτα ὀφλεῖν, δεύτερον δὲ
οὐκέτι.

I am inclined to think that the article
before µή is an intrusion, as it seems to
be before ἐν in νετ. 12. Omitting it, we
can take δεύτερον with μὴ πιστεύσαντας,
getting the sense: ‘‘In the 1st case of
unbelief (in Egypt) * salvation followed;
in the 2nd (in the wilderness) destruc-
tion,” lit. “when they, a second time
failed to believe, He destroyed them”’.
If this was the original reading, it
is easy to understand the insertion of
τούς as facilitating the plural construc-
tion after λαόν. We may compare the
solemn utterance in Heb, x. 26, ἑκουσίως
ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν
ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔτι περὶ
ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία, and the
belief, apparently based upon it, in the
early Church as to sin after baptism.

Ver. 6. ἀγγέλους Te Tots μὴ τηρήσαν-
τας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν . . . cis κρίσιν
.. . τετήρηκεν.] Cf. Clem. ΑΙ. Adumbr.
‘‘ Angelos qui non servaverunt proprium
principatum, scilicet quem acceperunt
secundum profectum.” This of course
supplies an even more striking -instance
of the possibility of falling away from
grace, cf. Bede, “‘ Qui angelis peccantibus
non pepercit, nec hominibus parcet super-
bientibus, sed et hos quoque cum suum
ptincipatum non servaverint. quo per
gratiam adoptionis filii Dei effecti sunt,
sed reliquerint suum domicilium, id est,
Ecclesiae unitatem. . . damnabit’’. On
the Fall of the Angels see Introduction
and the parallel passages in 2 Pet. ii. 4,
and in Enoch, chapters 6-το.

ἀρχήν.] Used of office and dignity,
as in Gen. xl. 21 of the chief butler: ͵
here perhaps of the office of Watcher,
though Spitta takes it more generally of
the sovereignty belonging to their abode
in heaven=Tov ἄνω κλῆρον in Clem. Al,
65ο P. The term ἀρχή is used of the
evil angels themselves in Eph. vi. 12.
Cf. Enoch xii. 4, of the Watchers (angels)

ν. 21, Vi. 0, Xiv. IE, 12.

260

IOYAA ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

6—

ριον eis κρίσιν peyddys ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀῑδίοις ὑπὸ {όφον 1 τετή-

i ε aS ‘ Γό x ες \ cesT / ῃ
ρηκεν ΄ 7. ὡς Σόδοµα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, τὸν
ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις” ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω

1ζοφον] add. αγιων αγγελων speculum, Luc., cf. Η. (5. R. Ρ. 106); αγριων αγγ.
Clem. p. 280; add. ‘in Tartaro constrictos” Orig.

2 rpomrov τουτοις ΜΑΒΟ; τοντοις τροπον KL.

who have abandoned the high heaven
and the holy eternal place and defiled
themselves with women, 7b. xv. 3. Philo
says of the fallen angels (M. i. p. 268),
καλὸν μὴ λιποτακτῆσαι μὲν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ
τάξεως, ἐν ᾗ τοὺς τεταγµένους πάντας
ἀριστεύειν ἀνάγκη, αὐτομολῆσαι δὲ πρὸς
τὴν ἄνανδρον ἡδονήν. So Just. Μ. Apol.
ii. 5, ot 8 ἄγγελοι παραβάντες τήνδε τὴν
τάξιν γυναικῶν µίξεσιν ἠττήθησαν with
Otto’s η.

ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον. Cf.
2 Cor. v. 2, τὸ οἶκ. τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, and
the quotation from Enoch in the last
η. [For οἰκητήριον, cf. Enoch xv. 7
(the message of Enoch to the Watchers)
“the spiritual have their dwelling in
heaven”. . . ἡ κατοίκησις αὐτῶν ἔσται
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 0ῃαςε.]

εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς
ἀῑδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν. C/. 2 Pet.
li. 4 σειροῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας, {0. ii. 9,
ἀδίκους εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως κολαζοµένους
τηρεῖν, id. ili. 7, τηρούµενοι εἰς ἡμέραν
κρίσεως . .. τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων,
Joel ii. 31, 6 ἥλιος µεταστραφήσεται
eis σκότος . . . πρὶν ἐλθεῖν τὴν ἡμέραν
Κυρίου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐπιφανῆ, Apoc.
vi. 17, ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ µεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς
αὐτοῦ, 7b. xvi. 14, συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς eis
τὸν πόλεμον τῆς peyadys ἡμέρας τοῦ
Θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος. Enoch x. 5,
ἐπικάλυψον αὐτῷ (Azazel) σκότος, καὶ
οἰκησάτω ἐκεῖ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, x. 12, δῆσον
αὐτοὺς .. . µέχρι ἡμέρα κρίσεως
αὐτῶν, ib. xxii. 11 (Gr. in Charles’ App.
C) µέχρι τῆς peyédns ἡμέρας τῆς κρί-
σεως, {0. liv. 6, note onxly.1. So ἡμέρα
τοῦ κυρίου I Cor. i. 8, 2 Pet. iii. το al.,
ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα 2 Th. i. ro. On δεσμοῖς
see En. liv. 3-5, “(1 saw how they made
iron chains of immeasurable weight, and
I asked for whom they were prepared,
and he said unto me ‘ These are prepared
far the hosts of Azazel’.” Cf. δέσµιοι
σκότους (Wisd. xvii. 2) of the plague of
darkness.

ἀῑδίοις. The chains are called “ever-
lasting,” but they are only used for a
temporary purpose, to keep them for the
final judgment. It seems to be here
synonymous with αἰώνιος in ver. 7. So
too in the only other passages in which it

occurs in the Bible, Wisdom vii. 26,
ἀπαύγασμά ἐστι φωτὸς ἀῑδίου, and Rom.
i. 20, ἡ ἀῑδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης.

Ver. 7. ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ
ai περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις. The 3rd ex-
ample of Divine judgment differs from
the two others, as it tells only of the
punishment, not of the fall from grace.
Hence the difference of connexion ay-
γέλουςτε. . . «ὡς Σόδομα. Cf, 2 Pet. ii.
6, πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας καταστ-
ροφῇ κατέκρινεν. The destruction was
notlimited to these two cities, but extended
to all the neighbouring country (Gen. xix.
25, called Πεντάπολις in Wisd. x. 6), in-
cluding the towns of Admah and Zeboim
(Deut. xxix. 23, Hos. xi. 8). Zoar was
spared at the request of Lot.

τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύ-
σασαι. For the adverbial acc., cf.
Matt. xxiii. 37, ὃν τρόπον ἐπισυνάγει
ὄρνις τὰ νοσσία, 2 Macc. xv. 39, ὃν
τρόπον οἶνος .. . ἀποτελεῖ, οὕτω καὶ,
Luc. Catapl. 6 τεθνᾶσι τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον.
“ Like them,” i.e. the fallen angels.
The two judgments are similarly joined
in Test. Nepht. 3, μὴ γένησθε ὡς Σόδοµα,
ἥτις ἐνήλλαξε τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῆς.
Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ ᾿Εγρήγορες ἐνήλλαξαν
τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῶν, οὓς κατηράσατο
Κύριος. Others understand τούτοῖς of the
libertines who are subsequently referred to
as οὗτοι (vv. 8, το, 12, 16, 19); but the
beginning of ver. 8 (µέντοι καὶ οὗτοι)
seems to distinguish between them and
the preceding. The verb ἐκπ. occurs in
Gen. xxxviii. 24 of Tamar, Exod. xxxiv.
15, 16, (µή ποτε) ἐκπορνεύσωσιν ὀπίσω
τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν, Lev. xvii. 7, Hos. iv. 12,
Ezek. xvi. 26, 28, 33.

ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας. In
the case of the angels the forbidden flesh
(lit. ‘‘ other than that appointed by God”’).
refers to the intercourse with women;
in the case of Sodom to the departure
from the natural use (Rom. i. 27), what
Philo calls ἀνόμους καὶ ἐκθέσμους µίξεις.
(de Gig. M i. p. 267), cf. Exod. xxx. 9,
οὐκ ἀνοίσεις θυμίαμα ἕτερον. For the
post-classical phrase cf. 2 Pet. ii. 10, τοὺς
ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευ-
οµένους, Deut. iv. 3, ἐπορεύθη ὀπίσω
Βεελφεγώρ, Jer. ii. 2, 3.

8. IOYAA ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

261

a wy a“ x > , , ε
σαρκὸς ἐτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι.
8. Ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μὲν µιαίνουσιν,

πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸςαἰωνίου δίκην
ὑπέχουσαι. Cf. Enoch lxvii. 12, “ this
judgment wherewith the angels are
judged is a testimony for the kings and
the mighty,” 2 Pet. ii. 6, ὑπόδειγμα ped-
λόντων ἀσεβέσιν τεθεικώς, 1 Cor. x. 6,
II τύποι ἐγένοντο, Heb. iv. 11 ἵνα μὴ
ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγματι πέσῃ τῆς
ἀπειθείας. The present aspect of the
Lacus Asphaltites was a conspicuous
image of the lake of fire and brimstone
prepared for Satan and his followers,
Apoc. xix. 20, xx. 1Ο, xxi. δ. It is ques-
tioned whether πυρός is governed by
δεῖγμα or δίκην. If by δίκην, then the
burning of Sodom is itself spoken of as
still going on (eternal), and this is in
accordance with Jewish belief as recorded
in Wisd. x. 7 (wip NMevramédews) ἧς ἔτι
μαρτύριον τῆς πονηρίας καπνιζοµένη
καθέστηκε χέρσος, Philo (De Abr. Μ. ii.
xxi.), µέχρι νΏν καίεται. τὸ γὰρ κεραύ-
νιον TUp ἥκιστα σβεννύμενον ἢ νέµεται
ἢ ἐντύφεται. πίστις δὲ σαφεστάτη τὰ
δρώμενα, τοῦ γὰρ συµβεβηκότος πάθους
σημεῖόν ἐστιν ὅ τε ἀναδιδόμενος ἀεὶ
καπνὸς καὶ ὃ µεταλλεύουσι θεῖον, ib. V.
Moys. M. ii. p. 143. Some disallow this
sense of αἰώνιος and think that it can
only be used of hell-fire, as in 4 Mace.
xii. 12 (the words of the martyr contrast-
ing the fires of present torture with the
eternal flames awaiting the persecutor),
ταμιεύεταί σε ἤ θεία δίκη πυκνοτέρῳ καὶ
αἰωνίῳ πυρί, καὶ βάσανοι εἰς ὅλον τὸν
αἰῶνα οὐκ ἀνήσουσί σε. For an exami-
nation of the word see Jukes, Restitution
of all Things, p. 67 n. and cf. Jer. xxiii.
39, 40, Ezek. xvi. 53, 55 (on the restora-
tion of Sodom), xlvii. 1-12 (a prophecy
ot the removal of the curse of the Dead
Sea and its borders), Enoch. x. 5 and 12,
where the eis αἰῶνα of the former verse
is equivalent to seventy generations in
the latter, also ver. το where ζωὴ αἰώνιος
is reckoned at 500 years. As the mean-
ing of δεῖγμα is made clear by the fol-
lowing participial clause, it seems
unnecessary to take it with πυρός in the
sense of “an example or type of eternal
fire,” which would escape the difficulty
connected with αἰωνίου, but leaves δίκην
ὑπέχουσαι (for which cf. Xen. Mem. ii.
1, 8, 2, Macc. iv. 48) a somewhat otiose
appendage. Inthe book of Enoch (Ixvii.
4 foll.) the angels who sinned are said to
be imprisoned in a burning valley (Hin-
nom, ch. 27) in which there was a great

VOL Νο

swelling of waters, accompanied by a
smell of sulphur; and “that valley of
the angels burned continually under the
earth’. Charles notes on this that ‘the
Gehenna valley here includes the adjacent
country down to the Dead Sea. A sub-
terranean fire was believed to exist under
the Gehenna valley.”

Ver. 8. ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι.
Notwithstanding these warnings the
libertines go on in similar courses.

ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα µιαίνουσιν
Compare Acts ii. 17 (a quotation from
Joel ii. 28), ot πρεσβύτεροι ὑμῶν ἐνυπνίοις
ἐνυπνιασθήσονται, of those that see
visions: and so Spitta (holding that Jude
copied from 2 Peter), would render it
here, prefixing the article to make it
correspond with the ψευδοπροφῆται and
ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι of 2 Peterii. 1. Those
who take the opposite view (viz. that
2 Peter was copied from Jude) will see
nothing to justify the article. The word
is used by Isa. lvi. το in connexion with
the words οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ εἰδότες (see
ver. 10 below), ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι κοίτην
Φιλοῦντες νυστάξαι, which Delitsch ex-
plains “ instead of watching and praying
to see divine revelations for the benefit
of the people, they are lovers of ease
talkers in their sleep,

Bengel explains ‘“ Hominum mere
naturalium indoles graphice admodum
descripta est. Somnians multa videre,
audire, etc. sibi videtur.” And so Chase
“they live in an unreal world of their
own inflated imaginations,” comparing
the conjectural reading of Col. ii. 18,
ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων. This accords with
ver. το: in their delusion and their blind-
ness they take the real for the unreal,
and the unreal for the real. The verb
is used both in the active and middle by
Aristotle, Somm. i. 1, πότερον συμβαίνει
Gel τοῖς καθεύδουσιν ἐνυπνιάζειν, ἀλλ °
οὐ μνημονεύουσιν; Probl. 30, 14, 2, οἱ ἐν
τῷ καθεύδειν ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι ἱσταμένης
τῆς διανοίας, καὶ καθ ὕσον ἠρεμεῖ,
ὀνειρώττουσιν, cf. Artem. Oneir, i. 1.
Some interpret of polluting dreams (cf.
Lev. 15); but the word ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι
is evidently intended to have a larger
scope, covering not merely µιαίνονσιν
but ἀθετοῦσιν and βλασφημοῦσιν. We
must also interpret ptatvw here by the
ἀσέλγειαν of ver. 4, the ἐκπορνεύσασαι
and σαρκὸς ἕτέρας of νετ. 7. This
wide sense appears in Tit. i. 15, τοῖς

17

262 ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ κά
κυριότητα] δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. 9. Ὁ δὲ
1 κυριοτητα]--τητας ky Orig.

µεμιασµένοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ mentioned offenders. For the former
μεµίανται αὐτῶν καὶ 6 vots καὶ ἡ we may refer to ver. 4, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν
συνείδησις. apvovpevor, for the latter to the contempt
κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ shown by the Israelites towards the com-
βλασφημοῖῦσιν. On first reading one is mandments of God. So the desertion of

inclined to take the words κυριότης and
δόξαι simply as abstractions. The re-
sult of indulgence in degrading lusts is
the loss of reverence, the inability to
recognise true greatness and due degrees
of honour. This would agree with the
description of the libertines as sharing
in the ἀντιλογία of Korah, as κύματα
ἄγρια θαλάσσης, 45 γογγυσταί uttering
hard speeches against God. When we
examine however the use of the word
ἹΚυριότης and the patristic comments,
and when we consider the reference to
the archangel’s behaviour towards Satan,
and the further explanation in ver. Io,
where the σάρκα of ver. 8 is represented
by ὅσα Φυσικῶς ἐπίστανται, and the
‘phrase κυριότητα ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ
Βλασφημοῦσιν by ὅσα οὐκ οἴδασιν
βλασφημοῖῦσιν, we seem to require a
‘more pointed and definite meaning, not
simply “majesty,” but ‘the divine
majesty,’’ not simply ‘‘ dignities,’’ but
"πε Ane elicMOrders 7.75) σε It.
to, Eph. i. 21 (having raised him from
the dead and set him on his right hand)
ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ
δυνάµεως καὶ κυριότητος, Col. i. 16,
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ
τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες
εἴτε ἀρχαὶ etre ἐξουσίαι, where Light-
foot considers that the words are in-
tended to be taken in their widest sense,
including bad and good angels, as well
as earthly dignities. In our text, how-
ever, it would seem that the word should
be understood as expressing the attribute
of the true κύριος, cf. Didache, iv. 1
(honour him who speaks the word of
God), ὡς κύριον, ὅθεν γὰρ ἤ κυριότης
λαλεῖται, ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν, Herm. Sim,
ν. 6, 1, εἰς δούλου τρόπον οὐ κεῖται 6
vids τοῦ Θεοῦ, GAN’ εἰς ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην
κεῖται καὶ κυριότητα. The verb ἀθετέω
has God or Christ for its object in Luke
x. 16, John xii. 48, 1 Thess. iv. 8, etc.
We have then to consider how it can be
said that the libertines (οὗτοι) “' despise
authority ’’ in like manner to the above-

their appointed station and abode by the
angels showed their disregard for the
divine ordinance, and the behaviour of
the men of Sodom combined with the
vilest lusts an impious irreverence to-
wards God’s representatives, the angels
(Gen. xix. 5). Cf. Joseph. Ant. i. 11. 2,
εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἦσαν ὑβρισταὶ καὶ πρὸς
τὸ θεῖον ἀσεβεῖς, and Test. Aser. 7, where
the sin of Sodom is expressly stated to
have been their behaviour towards the
angels, μὴ Ὑγίνεσθε ὡς Σόδομα Aris
ἠγνόησε τοὺς ἀγγέλους Κνρίου καὶ
ἀπώλετο ἕως αἰῶνος.

δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. Cf. 2 Pet.
ii. το, τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις δόξας οὐ τρέ-
µουσιν βλασφημοῦντες. The only other
passage in the N.T. in which the plural
occurs is I Peter i. 11, where the sense
is different. Dr. Bigg compares Exod.
XV. II, Tis ὅμοιός σοι ἐν θεοῖς, Κύριε:
τίς ὅμοιός σοι; δεδοξασµένος ἐν ἁγίοις,
θαυμαστὸς ἐν δόξαις. Clement’s inter-
pretation of this and the preceding clause
is as follows: (Adumbr. 1008) “ domi-
nationem spernunt, hoc est solum domi-
num qui vere dominus noster est, Jesus
Christus . . . majestatem blasphemant,
hoc est angelos”. The word δόξα in
the singular is used for the Shekinah,
see my note on James ii.1. This sug-
gests that Clement may be right in sup-
posing the plural to be used for the
angels, who are, as it were, Separate rays
of that glory. Compare Philo’s use of
the name λόγοι for the angels as con-
trasted with the divine Λόγος. In Phila,
Monarch. ii. p. 18 the divine δόξα, is
said to consist of the host of angels,
δόξαν δὲ σὴν εἶναι νοµίζω τάς σε
δορυφορούσας δυνάµεις. See Test. γιά.
25, Κύριος εὐλόγησε τὸν Aevi, ὁ ἄγγελος
τοῦ προσώπου ἐμέ, ai δυνάµεις τῆς
δοξης τὸν Συμεών, also Luke ix. 26,
where it is said that ‘ the Son of Man
will come in His own glory and in
the glory of the Father and οἱ the holy .
angels"’.* Ewald, Hist. Isr. tr. vol.
Vill. p. 142, explains ἡ κνριότης of the
true Deity, whom they practically deny

* There is much said of the glory of the angels in Asc. Isaiae, pp. 47, 49 f

«d. Charles.

9. ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

263

Μιχαὴλ & ἀρχάγγελος, Ste! τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόµενος διελέγετο
περὶ τοῦ Μωυσέως σώματος, οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασ-

109 δε Μιχαηλ... οτε ACKL, Ν; οτε Μιχ... . τοτε Β.

by their dual God; at δόξαι as the
angels, whom they blaspheme by sup-
posing that they had created the world
in Opposition to the will of the true
‘God, whereas Michael himself submitted
everything to Him. This last clause
would then be an appendage to the
preceding, with special reference to the
case of the Sodomites (cf. John xiii. 20).
There may also be some allusion to the
teaching or practice of the libertines. If
we compare the mysterious reference in
1 Cor. xi. 10, διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει H γυνὴ
ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς
ἀγγέλους, which is explained by Ter-
tullian (De Virg. Vel. 7) as spoken of
the fallen angels mentioned by Jude,
‘‘propter angelos, scilicet quos legimus
a Deo et caelo excidisse ob concupiscen-
tiam feminarum,’’ we might suppose the
βλασφημία, of which the libertines were
guilty, to consist in a denial or non-
recognition of the presence of good
angels in their worship, or of the possi-
bility of their own becoming κοινωνοὶ
δαιµονίων ; or they may have scoffed at
the warnings against the assaults of
the devil, or even at the very idea of
‘* spiritual wickedness in high places’’.
So understood, it prepares us for the
strange story of the next verse.

Ver. g. 6 δὲ Μιχαὴλ 6 ἀρχάγγελος.
The term ἀρχ. occurs in the N.T. only
here and in 1 Thess. iv. 16. The names
of seven archangels are given in Enoch.
The story here narrated is taken from the
apocryphal Assumptio Mosis, as we learn
from Clem. Adumbr. in Ep. Fudae,
and Orig. De Princ. ili. 2,1. Didymus
(In Efist. fudae Enarratio) says that
some doubted the canonicity of the
Epistle because of this quotation from
an apocryphal book. In Cramer’s
Catena on this passage (p. 163) we read
τελευτήσαντος ἐν τῷ Sper Μωνσέως, 6
Μιχαὴλ ἀποστέλλεται µεταθήσων τὸ
σῶμα, εἶτα τοῦ διαβόλου κατὰ τοῦ
Μωυσέως βλασφημοῦντος καὶ Φογέα
ἀναγορεύοντος διὰ τὸ πατάξαι τὸν
Αἰγύπτιον, οὐκ ἐνεγκὼν τὴν Kat’ αὐτοῦ
βλασφημίαν ὁ ἄγγελος, Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι
ὁ Θεὸς, πρὸς τὸν διάβολον ἔφη. Charles
in his edition of the Assumption thus
summarises the fragments dealing with
the funeral of Moses: (1) Michael is
commissioned tc: bury Moses, (2) Satan

opposes his burial on two grounds: (a)
he claims to be the lord of matter (hence
the body should be handed over to him).
To this claim Michael rejoins, ‘“ lhe
Lord rebuke thee, for it was God’s spirit
which created the world and all man-
kind’’. (b) He brings the charge of
murder against Moses (the answer to
this is wanting). The story is based
upon Deut. xxxiv. 6 (R.V.), ‘he buried
him (mg. he was buried) in the valley
. .. but no man knoweth of his sepul-
chre unto this day’’. Compare the vain
search for Elijah (2 Kings ii. 16, 17).
Further details in Josephus (Ant. iv.
8, 48), νέφους αἰφνίδιον ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ
στάντος ἀφανίζεται κατά τινος φάραγ-
yos. Ὑέγραφε δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς
βίβλοις Ἁτεθνεῶτα, δείσας μὴ SV
ὑπερβολὴν τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν ἀρετῆς πρὸς
τὸ θεῖον αὐτὸν ἀναχωρῆσαι τολµήσωσιν
εἰπεῖν, Philo i. p. 165, and Clem. ΑΙ.
(δέν. vi. § 132, p. 807) where it is said
that Caleb and Joshua witnessed the
assumption of Moses to heaven, while
his body was buried in the clefts of the

mountain. See comment in the larger
edition, pp. 74-76.
takpivopevos. Here used in the

1

sense of ‘‘ disputing,” as in Jer. xv. Io,
ἄνδρα διακρινόµενον πάσῃ τῇ yi, Joel
iii. 2, Acts xi. 2. See my note on James
i. 6 and below ver. 22.

διελέγετο. Cf. Mark ix. 34, πρὸς
ἀλλήλους διελέχθησαν, τίς μείζων.

οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν
βλασφημίας. I take βλασφημίας to
be gen. qualitatis, expressed by the
adjective βλάσφημον in 2 Peter: see
below on ver. 18, James i. 25, ἀκροατὴς
ἐπιλησμονῆς, ii. 4 κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν
πονηρῶν, ili. 6, 6 κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας,
also 2 Peter ii. 1, αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας,
ji. 10, ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ. For érev-
εγκεῖν see Plat. Legg. ix. 856 προ-
δόσεως αἰτίαν ἐπιφέρων, 1b. 043,τιµωρίαν
ἐπιφ. The word occurs elsewhere in
N.T. only in Rom. iii, 5. Field (On’
Translation of N.T. p. 244) compares
Acts xxv. I8 ot κατήγοροι οὐδεμίαν
αἰτίαν ἔφερον ὧν ἐγὼ ὑπενόουν, Diod.
xvi. 20, δίκην ἐπήνεγκαν κατὰ τῶν
Σπαρτιατῶν, {0. xx. 10, κρίσεις ἀδίκους
ἐπιφέροντες, xx. 62, φοβηθεὶς τὰς ém-
φεροµένας κρίσεις, tom. x. p. 171 ed.
Bip. ἐπήνεγκαν κρίσιν περὶ ὕβρεως, and

204

φημίας, ἀλλὰ εἶπεν ᾿Επιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος. 1ο. Οὗτοι δὲ

IOYAA ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΔΗ

μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν, ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὥς τὰ ἄλογα Loa

,
ἐπίστανται, ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται.

5 3 εν oe ~ e fat
II. oval αὐτοῖς, ὅτι TH ὁδῷ

1 κνριος] ὁ θεος SY.

translates “durst not bring against him
an accusation of blasphemy ”’ ; but surely
that is just what he does in appealing to
God. Besides such a statement would
be altogether beside the point. The
verse is introduced to show the guilt
attached to speaking evil of dignities,
i.e.of angels. If Michael abstained from
speaking evil even of a fallen angel, this
is appropriate; not so, if he simply ab-
stained from charging the devil with
speaking evil of Moses.

κρίσις, like κρίνω, has the two mean-
ings of judgment and of accusation, cf.
Lycurg. 31 where of συκοφαντοῦντες
are distinguished from τῶν δικαίως τὰς
κρίσεις ἐνισταμένων.

ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος. These words
occur in the vision of Zechariah (iii. 1-10)
where the angel of the Lord replies
to the charges of Satan against the high
priest Joshua with the words ἐπιτιμήσαι
Κύριος ἐν col, διάβολε, καὶ ἐπιτιμήσαι
Κύριος ἐν cot, ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος τὴν ‘lepov-
σαλήμ. They were no doubt inserted as
appropriate by the author of the Ass.
Mos. in his account of the controversy
at the grave of Moses. We may com-
pare Matt. xvii. 18, ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ
*Inoous.

Ver. 10. οὗτοι δὲ ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν
βλασφημοῦσιν. The libertines do the
contrary of what we are told of the re-
spect shown by the angel even towards
Satan: they speak evil of that spiritual
world, those spiritual beings, of which
they know nothing, cf. 2 Peter ii. 12.
The common verb βλασφ. shows that
the δόξαι of ver. 8 are identical with ὅσα
οὐκ οἴδασιν here. For the blindness of
the carnal mind to all higher wisdom cf.
I Cor. ii. 7-16, a passage linked with our
epistle by the distinction between the
ψυχικοί and πνευµατικοί and by the
words λαλοῦμεν Θεοῦ σοφίαν, ἣν οὐδεὶς
τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνω-
κεν " εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον
τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν. See too John
vili. το, 1 Tim. vi. 4, τετύφωται μηδὲν
ἐπιστάμενος. For the form οἴδασιν see
my ed. of St. James, p. clxxxiii.

ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα Loa
ἐπίστανται. This stands for σάρκα in
ver. 8 and is explained by ἀσέλγειαν
in ver. 4, ἐκπορνεύσασαι in νετ. 7,

µιαίνουσιν in νετ. 8, κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας
αὐτῶν πορευόµενοι in ver. 16.

φΦυσικῶς, ‘“ by instinct,” so Dion. L.
X. 137, Φυσικῶς Kal ywpls λόγον.
Alford cites Xen. Cyvop. il. 3, 9, µάχην
6p® πάντας ἀνθρώπους Φύσει ἐπι-
σταµένους, ὥσπερ ye καὶ τᾶλλα {oa
ἐπίσταταί τινα µάχην ἕκαστα οὐδὲ παρ᾽
ἑνὸς ἄλλου µαθόντα ἢ παρὰ τῆς φύσεως.

ἐν τούτοις Φθείρονται. The natural
antithesis here would have been ‘‘ these
things they admire and delight in”. For
this Jude substitutes by a stern irony
“these things are their ruin”. Cf. Phil.
iii. το, where speaking of the enemies of
the Cross the apostle says: ὧν τὸ τέλος
ἀπώλεια, ὧν 6 θεὸς H κοιλία, καὶ 7 δόξα
ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, Eph. iv. 22,
ἀποθέσθαι . .. τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον
τὸν φθειρόµενον κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας.

Ver. 11. oval αὐτοῖς, ὅτι TH ὁδῷ τοῦ
Καὶν ἐπορεύθησαν. For the use of the
aorist see note on ver. 4, παρεισεδύησαν:
for the phrase cf. Blass, Gr. p. 119, and
2 Peter ii. 15, ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῇ ὁδῷ
τοῦ Βαλαάμ. The phrase ovat, so com-
mon in Enoch, especially in cc. 94 to
too, and in the Gospels and Apocalypse,
occurs in the epistles only here and in
1 Cor. ix. 16. The woe is grounded on
the fate which awaits those who walk in
the steps of Cain, Balaam and Korah.
In 2 Peter Balaam is the only one re-
ferred to of the three leaders of wicked-
ness here named by Jude. Cain, with
Philo, is the type of selfishness (M.
I p. 206), was φίλαυτος ἐπίκλησιν Καὶν
εὕρηκεν (quoted by Schneckenb. p. 221) ;
he is named as a type of jealous hate
in I John iii, rz, 12, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν
ἀλλήλους . οὐ καθὼς Καὶν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ
ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ : καὶ
χάριν τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτὸν; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα
αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν, τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ
αὐτοῦ δίκαια, of unbelief in Heb. xi. 4,
πίστει πλείονα θυσίαν “ABed παρὰ Καὶν
προσήνεγκεν τῷ Θεῷ, cf Philo, De Agric.
1 M. 300 f., and Targ. Jer. on Gen. iv. 7,
cited by Schneckenburger, in which Cain
is represented as saying ‘‘non est judicium,
nec judex, nec est aliud saeculum, nec da-
bitur merces bona justis, nec ultio sumetur
de improbis,”’ etc. There seems no reason
why we should not regard Cain here as
symbolising the absence both of faith

II.

ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 2605

τοῦ Katy ἐπορεύθησαν, καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν,

and of love, cf. 1 John iii. 23. Euthym.
Zig. gives an allegorical explanation,
καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀδελφοκτόνοι εἰσί, δι ὧν
διδάσκουσι τὰς τῶν ἀἁπατωμένων ψυχὰς
ἀποκτείνοντες. Cain and Korah are
said to have been objects of special
reverence with a section of the Ophite
heresy, which appears to have been a
development of the Nicolaitans (Epi-
phan. Pan. i. 3, 37, 1, ot Ὀφῖται τὰς
προφάσεις εἰλήφασιν ἀπὸ τῆς Νικολάου
καὶ Γνωστικῶν καὶ τῶν πρὸ τούτων
αἱρέσεων). They held that the Creator
was evil, that the serpent represented
the divine Wisdom, that Cain and his
successors were champions of tight
(Epiphan, ib. 38, 1, ot Καιανοί φασι τὸν
Καὶν ἐκ τῆς ἰσχυροτέρας Δυνάμεως
ὑπάρχειν καὶ τῆς ἄνωθεν αὐθεντίας, and
boast themselves to be of kin to Cain,
καὶ τῶν Σοδόβιτῶν καὶ Hoad καὶ Κορέ,
see too Iren. 1. 51. Clem. Sir. vii. § 108.)

τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύ-
θησαν. Every word in this clause is
open to question. The passive of ἐκχέω,
to ‘‘ pour out,” is used to express either
the onward sweeping movement of a
great crowd, or the surrender to an over-
powering motive on the part of an in-
dividual = effusi sunt,* as in Sir. xxxvii. 29,
μὴ ἐκχυθῆς ἐπ) ἐδεσμάτων, Test. Reub.
I, πορνεία ἐν ᾖ ἐξεχύθην, Clem. Al. Str.
ii. Ῥ. 491, εἰς ἤδον τράγων δικήν,
ἐκχυθέντες καθηδννάδοῦσω, Ρος Ve
Ant, 21, eis τὸν ἡδυπαθῆ καὶ ἀκόλαστον
βίον ἐκκεχυμένος. Such an interpreta-
tion seems not quite consistent with
μισθοῦ, which implies cool self-interest.
That covetousness, αἰσχροκέρδεια, was
a common motive with false teachers
is often implied or asserted by St. Paul
and St. Peter in the passages quoted
below : and this, we know, was the case
with Balaam ; but would it be correct to
say either of him or of his followers, here
condemned by St. Jude, that they ran
greedily into (or ‘‘ in ”’) error for reward ?
Perhaps we should understand it rather
of a headstrong will breaking down all
obstacles, refusing to listen to reason or
expostulation, as Balaam holds to his
purpose in spite of the divine opposition
manifested in such diverse ways. Then

comes the difficulty, how are we to
understand the dative πλάνῃ, and what
is the reference in the word? Should
we take πλάνῃ as equivalent to eis
πλάνην (Winer, p. 268)? This is the
interpretation given by Lucifer p. 219,
*‘vae illis quoniam in seductionem B.
mercede effusi sunt,’’ but it is a rare use
of the dative, and it seems more natural
to explain πλάνῃ by the preceding ὁδῷ
(dative of the means or manner), which
is used in the same collocation in 2 Peter
ii. 15. What then are we to understand
by ‘‘ they were hurried along on the line
of Balaam’s error”? What was his
error? From Num. xxii., xxv. 1-3,
and xxxi. 16, Neh. xiii. 2, Μωαβῖται
ἐμισθώσαντο én” αὐτὸν τὸν Βαλαὰμ
καταράσασθαι, Jos. Ant. iv. 6, 6, we
learn that B. was induced by Balak’s
bribe to act against his own convictions
and eventually to tempt Israel to fornica-
tion. This then is the error or seduction
by which he leads them astray.+ In rab-
binical literature Balaam is a sort of type
of false teachers (Pirke Aboth, v. 29, with
Taylor’s n.). Some suppose the name
Nicolaitan (Apoc. ii. 6) to be formed
from the Greek equivalent to Balaam
= ‘‘corrupter of the people’”’; see how-
ever the passages quoted from Clem.
Al. inthe Introduction on Early Heresies.
In Apoc, ii. 14 we read of some in Per-
gamum that held the teaching of Balaam,
ὃς ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ βαλεῖν σκάν-
δαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν vidv Ισραήλ, φΦαγεῖν
εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι. There is no
hint to suggest that the innovators, of
whom Jude speaks, favoured idolatry,
but they may have prided themselves on
their enlightenment in disregarding the
tule of the Apostolic Council as to the
use of meats offered to idols (cf. x Cor.
8), and perhaps in burning incense in
honour of the Emperor, see Ramsay,
Expositor for 1904, p. 409, and July, pp.
43-60. On the other hand, Jude con-
tinually charges them with moral laxity,
and we may suppose that this was com-
bined with claims to prophetic power,
and with the covetousness which is often |
ascribed to the false teachers of the early
Church, as in t Thess. ii. 3 f., where

ΣΙ do not think the marginal reading in the R.V., “ cast themselves away,”

tenable.

+ Zahn understands πλάνη in an active, not a passive sense, as the ruling prin-
ciple of the πλάνος Balaam, not as the error into which others fell through his

seductions.
covers both.

I do not think Jude discriminated between these meanings:

πλάνη

266

καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο.

ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

τι--

12. οὗτοί eiaw! [oi]

Ἰουτοι εισιν] add. (ex. v. 16) γογγυσται --πορενοµενοι SY C%,

Paul asserts of his own ministry that it
Was οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας
οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ . . . αὔτε γὰρ ἐν λόγῳ
κολακείας ἐγενήθημεν, οὔτε ἐν προφάσει
πλεονεξίας, οὔτε ητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων
δόξαν, x Tim. iii. 8, 9, διακόνους μὴ
διλόγους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας,
μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, ἔχοντας τὸ µυστήριον
τῆς πίστεως ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, Tit.
i. 7, 11 διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ κέρδους
χάριν, 1 Peter v. 2. For the gen. μισθοῦ
cf. Winer, p. 258, Plat. Rep. ix. 575 B,
μισθοῦ ἐπικουροῦσιν, I Cor. vii. 23, τιμὴς
ἠγοράσθητε.

On the whole I understand the passage
thus: Balaam went wrong because he
allowed himself to hanker after gain and
so lost his communion with God. He
not only went wrong himself, but he
abused his great influence and his repu-
tation as a prophet, to lead astray the
Israelites by drawing them away from
the holy worship of Jehovah to the im-
pure worship of Baal Peor. So these
false teachers use their prophetical gifts
for purposes of self-aggrandisement, and
endeavour to make their services attrac-
tive by excluding from religion all that
is strenuous and difficult, and opening
the door to every kind of indulgence.
See the notes and comments on the
parallel passages of 2 Peter in my edi-
tion of that Epistle.

τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο.
For Korah’s sin see Num. xvi. 1 f. and
compare, for the same rebellious spirit
in the Christian Church, 3 John, g, 1ο

(of Diotrephes), Tit. i. το, 11, εἰσὶ
πολλοὶ ἀνυπότακτοι . . . οὓς δεῖ
ἐπιστομίζειν, ib. i. 16; 7b. iii. το, 11,

1 Tim. 1. 20 (among those who have
made shipwreck of the faith mention is
made of Hymenaeus and Alexander) ots
παρέδωκα τῷ Σατανᾷ ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν
μὴ βλασφημεῖν, id. vi. 3-6, 2 Tim. ii. 16-
18, ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν
ἕξει, ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ Φίλητος,
οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν,
ib. ii. 25, iv. 14, where the opposition of
Alexander the coppersmith is noted; but
especially iii. 1-9, which presents a close
parallel to our passage, referring to a
similar resistance to Moses in the case
of the apocryphal Jannes and Jambres.
For ἀντιλογία see Heb. xii. 3, avado-
γίσασθε τὸν τοιαύτην ὑπομεμενηκότα ὑπὸ
τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀντιλογίαν. It
is used as a translation of Meribah in

Num. xx. 13 αἰ. and (in relation to Korah}
in Protev. Fac. 9, µνήσθητι ὅσα ἐποίησεν
6 Θεὸς τοῖς Δαθάν, Κωρέ, καὶ ᾿Αβειράμ,
πῶς ἐδιχάσθη ἤ γἢ καὶ κατέπιεν αὐτοὺς
διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν αὐτῶν.

Rampf draws attention to the climax
contained in these examples. The sin of
Cain is marked by the words ἐπορεύ-
θησαν ὁδῷ, that of Balaam the gentile
prophet by ἐξεχύθησαν πλάνη, that of the
Levite Korah by ἀπώλοντο ἀντιλογίᾳα.

Ver. 12. οὗτοί εἰσιν [ot] ἐν ταῖς aya-
παις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούµενοι.
Dr. Chase quotes Zech. i. 10 f., Apoc.
vil. 14, Enoch xlvi. 3, Secrets of Enoch,
Vil. 3 xviil. 3, xix. 3, etc., for the phrase
οὗτοί εἰσιν, adding that it was probably
adopted by St. Jude from apocalyptic
writings, for which he clearly had a
special liking. On the early history of
the Agape, see my Appendix C to Clem.
Al. Strom. vii. The parallel passage in
2 Peter (on which see n.) has two re-
markable divergencies from the text
here, reading ἁπάταις for ἀγάπαις and
σπῖλοι for σπιλάδε.. There has been
much discussion as to the meaning of
the latter word. It is agreed that it is
generally used of a rock in or by the sea,
and many of the lexicographers under-
stand it of a hidden rock, ὕφαλος πέτρα,
see Thomas Mag., σπιλάς, ᾽Αττικῶς:
ὕφαλος πέτρα, Ἕλληνες, Etymol. Μ.,
σπιλάδες . .. at ὑπὸ θάλασσαν κε-
κρυµµέναι πέτραι, ὅθεν καὶ ὕφαλος
ἄνθρωπος λέγεται ὁ κεκρυµµένος καὶ
mavoupyos, ib, κατασπιλάζοντες, κατα-
κρύπτοντες, ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν ὑφάλων
πετρῶν, αἵτινες ὑπὸ ὕδατος καλυπ-
τόµεναι τοῖς ἀπρούπτως προσπελάζουσι
κίνδυνον ἐπιφέρουσι (both cited by
Wetst.). The same explanation is given
by the scholiast on Hom. Od. v. 401-405,
καὶ δὴ δοῦπον ἄκουσε ποτὶ σπιλάδεσσι
θαλάσσης ... ἀλλ᾽ ἀκταὶ προβλῆτες
ἔσαν σπιλάδες τε πάγοι τε. See Plut.
Mor. tol B, εὐδία σπιλάδος, which
Wytt. translates ‘ tranquillitas maris
caecam rupem tegentis,” 7b. 476 A,
Oecumenius on this passage, at σπιλάδες
τοῖς πλέουσιν ὀλέθριοι, ἀπροσδοκήτως
ἐπιγενόμεναι (3) -νοις), and ἐξαίφνης,
ὥσπερ σπιλάδες, ἐπάγοντες αὐτοῖς τὸν
ὄλεθρον τῶν ψυχῶν. Wetst. also quotes
Heliod. v. 31, θαλάσσῃ προσείκασας
ἂν τοὺς ἄνδρας αἰφνιδίῳ σπιλάδι
κατασεισθέντας. The compound κατα-
σπιλάζω joined with the parallel case

12.

ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΔΗ

267

ἐν ταῖς] ἀγάπαις” ὑμῶν» σπιλάδες, συνευωχούµενοι ἀφόβως,'

1 ον εν ταις] om. οι Ν K vulg. Luc. Theophl. Oecon. +, Chase.
2ayatats $$ BKL syrr. sah. boh. + ; απαταις AC.

Σνμων] αυτων A vulg. syrP +.

4συνευωχουµενοι, αφοβως syrr., Treg., WH; συνευωχ. αφοβως, Ti.

of ὕφαλος justifies, I think, this sense
of σπιλάς, which is rejected by most of
the later commentators.* Cf. also the
use of vavayéw in 1 Tim. i. 19. Scopulus
is used in a similar metaphoric sense,
see Cic. in Pis. 41 where Piso and
Gabinius are called “' geminae voragines
scopulique reipublicae”. Others take
σπιλάδες in the very rare sense of
“spots,” or ‘ stains,” like σπίλοι in
2 Peter. The only example of this sense
seems to be in Orph. Lith. 614, but
Hesych. gives the interpretation σπιλάς,
µεμιασμµένοι. I agree with Bp. Words-
worth and Dr. Chase in thinking that
the metaphor of the sunken rocks is more
in harmony with the context.

How are we to account for the gender
in οἱ .. . σπιλάδες συνευωχούµενοι ?
Are we to suppose the gender of σπιλάς
was changed or forgotten in late Greek
(cf. Winer, pp. 25, 38, 73, 76)? If so,
the forgetfulness seems to have been
confined to this author. Or is this a
constructio ad sensum, the feminine
being changed to masculine because it
is metaphorically used of men (Winer,
pp. 171, 648, 660, 672), cf. Apoc. xi. 4,
οὗτοί εἶσιν at δύο λυχνίαι αἱ ἐνώπιον
τοῦ κυρίου ἑστῶτες and B’s reading
παραφερόµενοι below? Or may we
take σπιλάδες as expressing a comple-
mentary notion in apposition to σννευ-
wxovpevor? The last seems the best
explanation though I cannot recall any
exact parallel. An easier remedy would
be to omit the article (with K and many
versions), as suggested by Dr. Chase in
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ii. p.
799), translating: ‘‘these are sunken
rocks in your love-feasts while they feast
with you”.

συνευωχούµενοι. Is used in the parallel
passage of 2 Peter with a dat. as in Luc.
Philops 4, Jos. Ant. iv. 8, 7.

ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς Totpatvovtes. If
we take σπιλάδες as complementary to
συνευωχούµενοι, it is better to take
ἀφόβως with ποιμ.: if we omit the
article and take σπιλάδες to be the
predicate, συνευωχούμενοι will be an
epexegetic participle, which will require
strengthening by ἀφόβως. Generally
aq. is used in a good sense, but we find
it used, as here, of the want of a right
fear in Prov. xix. 23, φόβος Κυρίου εἰς
ζωὴν ἀνδρί, ὁ δὲ ἄφοβος κ.τ.λ., 7b. xv.
16, κρεῖσσον μικρὰ μερὶς μετὰ φόβου
Κυρίου ἢ θησαυροὶ μεγάλοι μετὰ ἀφ-
οβίας, Sir. v. 5, περὶ ἐξιλασμοῦ μὴ
ἄφοβος ylvov, προσθεῖναι ἁμαρτίαν ed’
ἁμαρτίαις. The phrase ἑαυτοὺς croup.
recalls Ezek, xxxiv. 8, ἐβόσκησαν οἱ
ποιμένες ἑαυτοὺς, τὰ δὲ πρόβατά pov
οὐκ ἐβόσκησαν, but there does not seem
to be any reference to spiritual pastors
in Jude; and ποιµαίνω has probably
here the sense “to fatten, indulge,”
as in Proy. xxviii. 7, ὃς δὲ ποιµαίνει
ἀσωτίαν, ἀτιμάζει πατέρα, ib. xxix. 3,
ὃς δὲ ποιµαίνει πόρνας, ἀπολεῖ πλοῦτον,
Plut. Mor. 792 B, Ατταλον ὑπ ἀργίαα
μακρᾶς ἐκλυθέντα κομιδῇ Φιλοποίμην
ἐποίμαινεν ἀτεχνῶς πια!ινόµενον. We
may compare I Cor. xi. 27 f., James v. 5,
t Tim. v. 6.

νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀγέμων παρα.
Φερόμεναι. The character of the inno-
vators is illustrated by figures drawn
from the four elements, air, earth, sea,
heaven (αἰθήρ). Spitta points out the
resemblance to a passage in Enoch
(chapters ii.-v.), which follows imme-
diately on the words quoted below, vv.
14, 15. The regular order of nature is
there contrasted with the disorder and
lawlessness of sinners. ‘I observed
everything that took place in the heaven,
how the luminaries . .. do not de-
viate from their orbits, how they all

* Dr. Bigg denies this meaning on the strength mainly of two quotations, Hom.
Od. iii. 298, ἀτὰρ vids ye ποτὶ σπιλάδεσσιν ἔαξαν κύματα, where, he says, the
σπιλάδες are identical with λισσὴ αἰπεῖά τε εἰς ἅλα πέτρη of 293; and Anthol.
xi. 390, φασὶ δὲ καὶ νήεσσιν ἁλιπλανέεσσι χερείους τὰς ὑφάλους πέτρας τῶν

φΦανερῶν σπιλάδων.

In both of these I think the word refers to the breakers at

the bottom of the cliffs: in the latter it is said that hidden rocks are more danger-

ous than visible ree’s.

Compare Diod. iii. 43, ὄρος δὲ ταύτῃ παράκειται κατὰ μὲν

. ‘ , > , ” ‘ - α΄ ΄ « ν \ ‘
τὴν κορυφὴν πέτρας ἀποτομάδας ἔχον καὶ τοῖς ὕψεσι καταπληκτικάς, ὑπὸ δὲ τὰς
ῥίζας σπιλάδας ὀξείας καὶ πυκνὰς ἐνθαλάττους.

268

ἑαυτοὺς ποιµαίνοντες, νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόµεναι,

IOYAA ΕΠΙ ΣΤΟΛΗ

Iz—

1

1 παραφερομενοι B.

rise and set in order, each in its sea-
son, and transgress not against their
appointed order. ... I observed and
saw how in winter all the trees seem as
though they were withered and shed all
their leaves. . . . And again I observed
the days of summer . . . how the trees
cover themselves with green leaves and
beamidrinite, 3). (ei And behold how the
seas and the rivers accomplish their task.
But as for you, ye have not continued
steadfast; and the law of the Lord ye
have not fulfilled . . . and have slan-
derously spoken proud and hard words
(below νετ. 15, περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν
ὧν ἐλάλησαν kat αὐτοῦ) With your im-
pure mouths against his greatness.”
For the metaphor cf. Eph. iv. 14. In
the parallel passage of 2 Peter the first
ficure is broken into two, πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι,
ὁμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι. Per-
haps the writer may have thought that
there was an undue multiplication of
causes; if the clouds were waterless,
it was needless to add that they were
driven past by the wind. We find the
same eomparison in Prov. xxv. 14: “Ας
clouds and wind without rain, so is he
that boasteth himself of his gifts falsely ”
[The LXX is less like our text, suggest-
ing that Jude was acquainted with the
original Hebrew. C.] For the use of
ὑπό with ἀνέμων see my note on James
ill. 4.

δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα. Φθινο-
πωρινός is an adjective derived from
τὸ φθινόπωρον, which is itself, I think,
best explained as a compound of
φθίνουσα ὀπώρα (cf. φθίνοντος µηνός),
meaning the concluding portion of the
ὀπώρα. This latter word i is, according to
Curtius, compounded of ὁπ-, connected
with ὀπίσω, ὄπισθεν, and ὥρα = ‘ the
later prime”. We find ὥρα used by
itself both for the spring with its flowers
and, more rarely, for the summer with
its fruits, as in Thuc. ii. 52, Opa ἔτους.
Perhaps from this double use of the word
may have come the ambiguity in the
application of ὀπώρα, of which Ideler
says that ‘‘ it originally indicated, not a
season separate from and following after
the summer, but the hottest part of the
summer itself, so that Sirius, whose
heliacal rising took place (in the age of
Homer) about the middle of July, is
described as ἀστὴρ ὀπωριγός Il. v. 5).
In early times it would seem that

the Greeks, like the Germans (Tac.
Germ. 26), recognised only three sea-
sons—winter, spring, summer, and
that the last was indifferently named
θέρος ο ὀπώρα :_ compare Arist.
Aves 709, πρῶτα μὲν ὥρας φαίνομεν
ἡμεῖς ἠρος, χειμῶνος, ὀπώρας, with
Aesch. Prom. 453, ἦν 8 οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς
οὔτε χείµατος τέκµαρ οὔτ᾽ ἀνθεμώδους
ἧρος οὔτε καρπίµου θέρους βέβαιον.
But though ὀπώρα was thus used strictly
for the dog-days, when the fruit ripened,
it was also vaguely used for the unnamed
period which ensued up to the com-
mencement of winter. Thus Hesiod
(Op. 674) μηδὲ µένειν οἶνόν τε νέον καὶ
ὁπωρινὸν ὄμβρον καὶ χειμῶν ἐπιόντα :
and ὀπώρα appears as a definite season
by the side of the others in a line of
Euripides, qnoted by Plutarch (Mor.
1028 F), from which it appears that he
assigned four months each to summer
απά winter, and two to spring and
ὀπώρα :—

φίλης 7 ὀπώρας διπτύχους ἠρος 7”
ἴσους

(where the epithet φίλης deserves notice).
It is said that the author of the treatise
De Diaeta (ο. 420 Β.ο.), which goes
under the name of Hippocrates, was
the first to introduce a definite term
(Φθινόπωρον or µετόπωρον) for the new
season, the word ὀπώρα being reserved
for the late summer, according to the
definition of Eustath. on I/. v. 5, ὀπώρα
dpa μεταξὺ κειµένη θέρους καὶ τοῦ pet”
αὐτὴν µετοπώρου. And so we find it
used by Aristotle (Meteor. ii. 5), αἱ
χάλαζαι γίνονται ἔαρος μὲν καὶ μετο-
πώρου μάλιστα, ELTA καὶ τῆς ὀπώρας,
χειμῶνος δὲ ὁλιγάκις, and by Theo-
phrastus (περὶ Σηµείων, 44), ἐὰν τὸ ἔαρ
καὶ τὸ θέρος Ψυχρὰ γίνηται, ἡ ὀπώρα
γίνεται καὶ τὸ µετόπωρον πνιγηρόν.
There is a good deal of inconsistency
about the exact limits of the seasons, as
is natural enough when we remember
that they were first distinguished for pur-
poses of agriculture and navigation, as
we see in Hesiod’s Works and Days.
Each season brings its own proper work,
and the farmer or merchant is reminded
of the return of the season by various
signs, the rising and setting of stars,
especially of the Pleiades and Arcturus,
the sun’s passage through the signs of

13. ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

269

δένδρα Φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα Sis ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθέντα, 13. κύμ-
ατα ἄγρια θαλάσσης ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας, ἀστέρες

the zodiac, the reappearance of the birds,
etc. A more strictly accurate division
was made by the astronomers, who dis-
tinguished between the various kinds of
rising and setting of the stars, and
divided the year into four equal parts by
the solstices and equinoxes. In the year
46 Ε.ο, Julius Caesar introduced his re-
vised calendar, which assigned definite
dates to the different seasons. Thus
spring begins a.d. vii. id. Feb. (Feb. 7),
summer a.d. vti. id. Mai. (May ο),
autumn a.d. tit. id. Sext. (Aug. 11),
winter a.d, iv. id. Nov. (Nov. 10).

To turn now to the commentators, I
may take Trench as representing their
view in his Authorised Version, p. 186,
ed. 2, where he says, ‘“‘ The φθινόπωρον
is the late autumn . . . which succeeds
the ὀπώρα (or the autumn contemplated
as the time of the ripened fruits of the
earth) and which has its name παρὰ τὸ
φθίνεσθαι τὴν ὀπώραν, from the waning
away of the autumn and the autumn
fruits. .. . The deceivers of whom St.
Jude speaks are likened to treés as they
show in late autumn, when foliage and
fruit alike are gone.” :

I have stated above what I hold to
be the origin of the word φθινόπωρον.
Trench’s explanation is ambiguous and
unsuited to the facts of the case, as will
be seen from the criticisms in Lightfoot’s
Fresh Revision, p. 135: ‘*In the phrase
‘autumn-trees without fruit’ there ap-
pears to be a reference to the parable of
the fig-tree. . . . At all events the men-
tion of the season when fruit might be
expected is significant.” He adds in a
note, ‘‘ Strange to say, the earliest ver-
sions α]]τεπάετεάφθινοπωρινά correctly.*
Tyndale’s instinct led him to give what I
cannot but think the right turn to the
expression, ‘ Trees with out frute at
gadringe (gathering) time,’ z.e. at the
season when fruit was looked for. I
cannot agree with Archbishop Trench,
who maintains that ‘ Tyndale was feel-
ing after, though he has not grasped, the
right translation,’ and himself explains
Φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα as ‘ mutually com-
pleting one another, without leaves, with-
out fruit’. Tyndale was followed by
Coverdale and the Great Bible. Simi-
larly Wycliffe has ‘hervest trees with-

* This agreement is probably owing to
auctumnales infructuosae’”’.

out fruyt,’ and the Rheims version
‘trees of autumne unfruiteful’. The
earliest offender is the Geneva Testa-
ment, which gives ‘corrupt trees and
without frute’. . . . The Bishops’ Bible
strangely combines both renderings,
‘trees withered (@{vev) at fruite
gathering (ὀπώρα) and without fruite,’
which is explained in the margin, ‘ Trees
withered in autumne when the fruite har-
vest is, and so the Greke woord im-
porteth ’.”

The correctness of the interpretation,
given by Lightfoot alone among modern
commentators, is confirmed by a con-
sideration of the context. The writer has
just been comparing the innovators, who
have crept into other Churches, to water-
less clouds driven past by the wind. Just
as these disappoint the hope of the hus-
bandman, so do fruitless trees in the
proper season of fruit. If Φθινοπωρινά
were equivalent to χειμερινά, denoting
the season when the trees are necessarily
bare both of leaves and fruit, how could
a tree be blamed for being @kaprov? It
is because it might have been, and ought
to have been a fruit-bearing tree, that it
is rooted up.

Sis ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθεντα. Schneck-
enburger explains, ‘‘ He who is not born
again is dead in his sins (Col. ii. 13), he
who has apostatised is twice dead,” cf.
Apoc. xxi. 8, Heb. vi. 4-8, 2 Peter ii. 20-
22. So the trees may be called doubly
dead, when they are not only sapless, but
are torn up by the root, which would have
caused the death even of a living tree.

Ver. 13. κύματα ἄγρια θαλάσσης
ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας. ϐ/.
Cic. Ad Herenn. iv. 55, spumans ex ore
scelus. The two former illustrations,
the reefs and the clouds, refer to the
specious professions of the libertines and
the mischief they caused ; the third, the
dead trees, brings out also their own miser-
able condition ; the fourth and fifth give a
very fine description of their lawlessness
and shamelessness, and their eventual
fate. The phrase ἄγρια κύματα is found
in Wisdom xiv. 1. The rare word ἐπα-
φρίζω is used of the sea in Moschus ν. 5.
It refers to the seaweed and other refuse
borne on the crest of the waves and
thrown up on the beach, to which are

their dependence on the Vulgate ‘‘ arbores

270

πλανῆται) ois ὁ Lopos τοῦ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα τετήρηται.

ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

13—

14.

᾿Επροφήτευσεν ” δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ ᾽Αδὰμ ‘Evax λέγων

1 πλανητες οις ἵοφος σκοτους B.
}επροφητευσεν B!; επροεφ. B*;

compared the overflowings of ungodli-
ness (Ps. xvii. 4), the ῥυπαρία καὶ πε-
ptoweia κακίας condemned by James i.
21, where see my note. The libertines
foam out their own shames by their
swelling words (ver. 16), while they turn
the grace of God into a cloak for their
licentiousness (ver. 4). We may com-
pare Phil. iii. το, ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ
συτωγν.

_ ἀστέρες πλανῆται. This is borrowed
from Enoch (chapters xliii., xliv.) where
it is said that some of the stars become
lightnings and cannot part with their new
form, ib. 80, ‘‘ In the days of the sinners,
many chiefs of the stars will err, and will
alter their orbits and tasks, ib. 86, where
the fall of the angels is described as the
falling of stars, 1b. 88, ‘‘he seized the
first star which had fallen from heaven
and bound it in an abyss; now that
abyss was narrow and deep and horrible
and dark. . . and they took all the great
stars and bound them hand and toot,
and laid them in an abyss,” ib. xc. 24,
‘and judgment was held first upon the
stars, and they were judged and found
guilty and were cast into an abyss of
fire’”’; also xviii. 14 Ε.

It would seem from these passages,
which Jude certainly had before him,
that πλανῆται cannot here have its usual
application, the propriety of which was
repudiated by all the ancient astronomers
from Plato downwards. Cf. Cic. N. D.
ii. 51, ‘‘maxime sunt admirabiles motus
earum quinque stellarum quae falso vo-
cantur errantes. Nihil enim errat quod
in Omni aeternitate conservat motus con-
stantes et ratos,” with the passages
quoted in my notes on that book.

Some commentators take it as applying
to comets; perhaps the quotations from
Enoch 44 and 8o fit better with shooting-
stars, ἀστέρες διάττοντες (Arist. Meteor.
i. 4, 7) which seem to rush from their
sphere into darkness; compare Hermes
Trismegistus ap. Stob. Ecl. i. 478, κάτω-
Sev τῆς σελήνης εἰσὶν ἕτεροι ἀστέρες
Φθαρτοὶ ἀργοὶ . . . οὓς καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρῶμεν
διαλυοµένους, τὴν φύσιν ὁμοίαν ἔχοντες
τοῖς ἀχρήστοις τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἵῴων, ἐπὶ
ἕτερον δὲ οὐδὲν γίγνεται ἢ ἵνα µόνον
Φθαρῃ. For the close relationship sup-
posed by the Jews to exist between the

προεπροφ. SY; προεφ. ACKL al.

stars and the angels, see my noteon James
i. 17, Φώτων. In this passage, however,
the subject of the comparison is men, who
profess to give light and guidance, as the
pole-star does to mariners (ὡς φωστῆρες
ἐν κόσµῳ, Phil. ii. 15), but who are
only blind leaders of the blind, centres
and propagators of πλάνη (νετ. 11), des-
tined to be swallowed up in everlasting
darkness. Cf. Apoc. vi. 13, viii. το, 12,
χιπ ση, Als

οἷς 6 ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα
τετήρηται. See the parallel in 2 Pet. ii.
17, and above ver. 6.

Vv. 14-16.—The Prophecy of Enoch.
The ancient prophecy, to which reference
has been already made, was intended for
these men as well as for the prophet’s
own contemporaries, where he says “ The
Lord appeared, encompassed by myriads
of his holy ones, to execute justice upon
all and to convict all the ungodly con-
cerning all their ungodly works, and con-
cerning all the hard things spoken against
Him by ungodly sinners”’. (Like them)
these men are murmurers, complaining
of their lot, slaves to their own carnal
lusts, while they utter presumptuous
words against God, and seek to ingratiate
themselves with men for the sake of gain.

Ver. 14. ἐπροφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις
ἕβδομος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδὰμ Ἑνώχ. “It was for
these also (as well as for his own con-
temporaries) that the prophecy of Enoch
was intended, far as he is removed from
our time, being actually the sixth (by
Hebrew calculation, seventh) descendant
from Adam.’’ For Enoch compare the
allusions in Sir. xliv. 16, xlix. 14, Heb. xi.
5, Charles, Introduction to Book of Enoch.
The prophecy is contained in En.i. 9
(Greek in Charles, App. C. p. 327), ὅτι
ἔρχεται σὺν τοῖς (2ταῖς) µυριάσιν
αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ
ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατα πάντων,
καὶ ἀπολέσει τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς καὶ
ἐλέγξει πᾶσαν σάρκα περὶ
πάντων «τῶν» ἔργων αὐτῶν
ὧν ἠσέβησαν κατ αὐτοῦ ἅμ-
αρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. The phrase ἕβ-
δοµος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδάμµ is also found in En. Ix.
8, ‘‘ My grandfather was taken up, the
seventh from Adam,” 2b. xciii. 3, ‘‘ And
Enoch began to recount from the books
and spake: I was born the seventh in the

16,

IOYAA ΕΙΠΙΙΣΤΟΛΗ

271

3 a a

Ιδοὺ ἦλθεν Κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις pupidow! αὐτοῦ, 15. ποιῆσαι κρίσιν
κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς" περὶ πάντων τῶν
€ ἀ , τα ee > , 8 Ν ῃ cal λ a“
pywv ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὃ ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν

ὧν ἐλάλησαν Kat’ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς.

16. Οὗτοί εἶἴσιν

1αγιαις μυριασιγ] µυριασιν αγιων αγγελων δ 5ΥΤΡ. sah. arm. +.
ὃπαντας τους ασεβεις] add. αντων KL, ΤΙ. (incuria?); πασαν Ψνχην SN, syrP,

sah.

ἕασεβειας αυτων] om. Ν sah. + ; [ασεβειας] αντων Treg.

4 oxAnpwv] add. λογων NC, Ti.

first week, while judgment and righteous-
ness still tarried ; and after me there will
arise in the second week great wicked-
ness,’ where Charles refers to ¥ubilees,
7. The genealozical order, as given in
Gen. v. 4-20, is (1) Adam, (2) Seth, (3)
Enos, (4) Cainan, (5) Mahalaleel, (6)
Jared, (7) Enoch. It is probably the
sacredness of the number 7 which led
the Jewish writers to lay stress upon it
in Enoch s case.

ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν Κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις µυριάσιν
αὐτοῦ. Charles’ translation from the
Aethiopic is ‘And lo! He comes with
ten thousands of his holy ones to exe-
cute judgment upon them, and He will
destroy the ungodly and will convict all
flesh of all that the sinners and ungodly
have wrought and ungodly committed
against Him”’. For pvpiaciw ἀγγέλων
cf. Heb. xii. 22, Ps. Ixviti. 17, Deut. xxxiii.
2. For the use of ἐν denoting accom-
panying circumstances see Blass, Gyr.
Νε ati p. eis. and: Luke xiv. 3τ, ει
δυνατός ἐστιν ἐν δέκα χιλιάσιν ἀπαντῆ-
σαι τῷ μετὰ εἴκοσι χιλιάδων ἐρχομένῳ
ἐπ) αὐτόν. The aorist here is the pre-
terite of prophetic vision, as when Mi-
caiah says, ‘‘I saw all Israel scattered,”
cf. Apoc. x. 7, xiv. 8.

Ver. 15. ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων.
Follows exactly the Greek translation of
Enoch given above, cf. Ael. V. H. ii. 6,
Κρίτων ἔπειθεν αὐτὸν ἀποδρᾶναι καὶ τὴν
kat αὐτοῦ κρίσιν διαφθεῖραι. On the
distinction between the active ποιεῖν
κρίσιν ‘to execute judgment’? (as in
John v. 27) and the periphrastic middle
ΞΞκρίνειν (as in Isocr. 48 p) see my notes
on αἰτεῖν and αἰτεῖσθαι, ἴδε and ἰδού
(James iv. 3, 10. iii. 3).

ἐλέγξαι πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς περὶ
πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν
ἠσέβησαν. Shortened from the Greek
Enoch quoted above.

ἀσεβεῖς. Cf. vv. 4, 18. The word
thrice repeated in this verse runs through
the epistle as a sort of refrain.

περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν.
This is taken from Enoch xxvii. 2.
Charles, p. 366 (To Gehenna shall come),
πάντες οἵτινες ἐροῦσιν τῷ στόµατι αὐτῶν
κατὰ Κυρίου φωνὴν ἀπρεπῆ καὶ περὶ τῆς
δόξης αὐτοῦ σκληρὰ λαλήσουσιν, cf. ib.
v. 4, ‘‘ The law of the Lord ye have not
fulfilled, but . .. have slanderously
spoken proud and hard words with your
impure mouths against His greatness,”
ib. ci. 3, al., Gen. xlii. 7, ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς
σκληρά, 1 Kings xii. 13, ἀπεκρίθη πρὸς
τὸν λαὸν σκληρά, Mal. iii. 13-15.

Ver. 16. οὗτοί εἰσιν γογγυσταί, µεμ-
Ψίµοιροι. Charles thinks that we have
here another case of borrowing from the
Assumption of Moses, see his Introd. on
Apocryphal Quotations. The word yoy-
γυστής is used in the LXX, Exod xvi. 8,
Num. xi. I, 14-27, 29. The verb yoy-
γύζω is found in John vii. 32 of the whis-
pering of the multitude in favour of Jesus,
but is generally used of smouldering dis-
content which people are afraid to speak
out, as in 1 Cor. x. 10, of the murmurings
of the Israelites in the wilderness; Matt.
xx. I1 (where see Wetst.) of the grum-
bling of the labourers who saw others
receiving a day’s pay for an hour’s
labour; John vi. 41-43 of the Jews who
took offence at the preaching of the
Bread of Life. It is found in Epict. and
M. Aur. but not in classical authors.
γογγυσμµός is used in 1 Peteriv.g. See
further in Phrynichus, p. 358 Lob. For
the word μεμψίμοιρος see Lucian, Cynic.
17, ὑμεῖς δὲ διὰ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν οὐδενὶ
τῶν γιγνοµένων ἀρέσκεσθε, καὶ παντὶ
µέμφεσθε, καὶ τὰ μὲν παρόντα Φφέρειν οὐκ
ἐθέλετε, τῶν δὲ ἀπόντων ἐφίεσθε, χειμῶ΄”
νος μὲν θέρος εὐχόμενοι, θέρους δὲ χει-
μῶνα ... καθάπε, οἱ νοσοῦντες,
δυσάρεστοι καὶ μεμψίμοιροι ὄντες, and
Theophr. Char. 17. It is used of the
murmuring of the Israelites by Pailo,
Vit. Mos. i. 109 M. See other examples
in Wetst. The same spirit is condemned
in James i. 13.

ο
to

IOYAA ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

τθ----

~ /
γογγυσταί, μεμψίμµοιροι, κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόµενοι,

~ ~ ,
καὶ τὸ στόµα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα, θαυµάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελίας

χάριν.

17. Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί, µνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρηµέ-

ς x a > 4λ A
γων υπο των αποστολων TOU

κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόµενοι.
Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 3 and ii. 10, below ver.
18, and see my notes on James iv. 1, 2.
Plumptre notes ‘‘ The temper of self-
indulgence recognising not God’s will,
but man’s desires, as the law of action,
is precisely that which issues in weariness
and despair . . cf. Eccles. ii. 1-20”’.

τὸ στόµα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα. See
Enoch ν. 4, quoted on ver. 15, also Enoch
ci. 3, ‘‘ye have spoken insolent words
against His righteousness,”’ Ps. xii. 4,
Ps, Ixxiii. 8, Dan. vii. 8, στόµα λαλοῦν
μεγάλα and ver. 20 of the little horn;
compare above vv. 4, 8, 11, and James
iii. 5 foll, In classical writers ὑπέρογκα
is generally used of great or even exces-
Sive size, in later writers it is also used of
“‘big”’ words, arrogant speech and de-
meanour, see Alford’s note on 2 Pet. ii.
18 and Plut. Mor. 1119 B (Socrates), τὴν
ἐμβροντησίαν ἐκ τοῦ βίου καὶ τὸν TUdov
ἐξήλαυνε καὶ τὰς ἐπαχθεῖς καὶ ὑπερόγ-
κους κατοιήσεις καὶ µεγαλαυχίας, {0.
7 A, Where ἡ θεατρικὴ καὶ παρατράγωδος
λέξις is styled ὑπέρογκος in contrast with
ἰσχνὴ λέξις, Plut. Vitae 505 B, τοῦ
βασιλέως τὸ φρόνημα τραγικὸν καὶ ὑπέρ-
ογκον ἐν ταῖς µεγάλαις εὐτυχίαις
ἐγεγόνει. It is found in 2 Peter ii. 18
and in Dan. xi. 36, 6 βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσε-
ται καὶ µεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεόν͵
καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα.

θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελίας χάριν.
The phrase occurs with the same force
in Lev. xix. 15, οὐ μὴ θαυµάσῃς πρόσω-
πον, Job xili. το, see my note on James ii.
I, μη ἐν προσωποληµψίαις ἔχετε τὴν
πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν “I. Χ., and cf. τ
Tim. ΠΠ, 8, quoted above on ver. 11.
As the fear of God drives out the
fear of man, so defiance of God tends
to put man in His place, as the chief
source of good or evil to his fellows. For
the anacoluthon (τὸ στόµα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ
—Oavpalovres) compare Col. ii. 2, ἵνα
παρακληθῶσιν ai καρδίαι ὑμῶν συµβι-
Βασθέντες ἐν εἰρήνῃ, where a similar peri-
phrasis (at καρδίαι ὑμῶν-- ὑμεῖς) is
followed by a constructio ad sensum, also
Winer, p. 716. Perhaps the intrusion of
the finite clause into a participial series
may be accounted for by a reminiscence
of Ps, xvil. 10,76 στόµα αὐτῶν ἐλάλησεν

, ς a 2 A Ap J
κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Xpiotod* 18. ὅτι

ὑπερηφανίαν, or Ps. cxliv. 8, 11, where a
similar phrase occurs.

Vv. 17-19.—The Faithful are bidden
to call to mind the warnings of the
Apostles. The Apostles warned you re-
peatedly that in the last time there would
arise mockers led away by their own car-
nal lusts. It is these that are now break-
ing up the unity of the Church by their
invidious distinctions, men of unsancti-
fied minds, who have not the Spirit of
God. See Introduction on the Early
Heresies in the larger edition.

_Ver. 17. ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀγαπητοί, μνήσθητε
τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρηµένων ὑπὸ τῶν
ἀποστόλων. The writer turns again, as
in ver. 20 below, to the faithful members
of the Church (ver. 3) and reminds them,
not now of primeval prophecy, but of
warning words uttered by the Apostles.
Some have taken this as a quotation by
Jude from 2 Peter iii. 3, where the quota-
tion is given more fully. But, there also,
the words are referred back to a prior
authority, ‘‘holy prophets”? and ‘* your
Apostles”. The words ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν,
which follow, imply that the warning was
spoken, not written, and that it was
ofterf repeated.

Ver. 18. ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου χρόνου ἔσονται
ἐμπαῖκται. The parallel in 2 Peter iii. 3
is ἐλεύσονται ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐν
ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται, where see note on
the use of the article with ἔσχατος, etc.
For ἐπί, cf. Arist. Pol. iv. 3, ἐπὶ τῶν
ἀρχαίων χρόνων.

The prophecy of this mocking, as a
mark of the future trials of the Church,
has not come down to us. An example
of it in the very beginning of the Church
is given in Acts ii. 13, ἕτεροι χλευάζοντες
ἔλεγον ὅτι γλεύκους µεμεστωμένοι εἰσί.
In the Ο.Τ. we have such examples as 2
Chron. xxxvi. 16 (the summing up of the
attitude of the Jews towards the prophets)
ἦσαν μυκτηρίζοντες τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ
καὶ ἐξουθενοῦντες τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ καὶ
ἐμπαίζοντες ἐν τοῖς προφήταις αὐτοῦ,
Jer. xx. 8, ἐγενήθη λόγος Κυρίου εἰς ὀνει-
δισμὸν ἐμοὶ καὶ cis χλευασμὸν πᾶσαν
ἡμέραν. Cf. also the mockery at the
crucifixion, and the declaration in Matt.
x. 25 f., εἰ τὸν οἰκοδεσπότην Βεεζέβοὺλ
ἐπεκάλεσαν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον κ.τ.λ. In 2

19.

ἔλεγον ὑμῖν Ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου ! Χρόνου 2 ἔσονται

€ ~ > , / lol 3 4
εαυτων ἐπιθυμίας πορευοµενοι των ἀσεβειῶν.

ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

Ne x a Q
εµπαικται κατα τας

19. Οὗτοί εἶσιν οἱ

ἀποδιορίζοντες,ὸ ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ έχοντες.

len’ εσχατου ΜΒ; οτι em’ εσχ. AC; [οτι] em εσχ. Treg.; ὅτι εν εσχατῳ KL

P vulg. sah.

2xpovov BC; του χρονου ΔΑ; χρονῳ KL; tw χρονῳ P sah.; των χρονων boh.

al.

S emovtat SBCKLP; ελευσονται ΝΑ”, sah. boh.
ἁτων ασεβειων] οπισω ασεβειων syrh; οπισω ασεβειας syrP.

δαποδιοριζοντες] add. εαυντους C vulg.

Peter the purport of this mockery is ex-
plained to be the unfulfilled promise of
the Parusia. Here we must gather its
meaning from the account already given
of the libertines. If they turned the
grace of God into licentiousness, they
would naturally mock at the narrowness
and want of enlightenment of those who
took a strict and literal view of the divine
commandments: if they made light of
authority and treated spiritual things
with irreverence, if they foamed out their
own shame and uttered proud and im-
pious words, if they denied God and
Christ, they would naturally laugh at the
idea of a judgment to come. On the
form ἐμπαίκτης and its cognates, see note
on 2 Peter.

τῶν ἀσεβειῶν. I am rather disposed
to take τῶν ἀσεβειῶν here as a subjective
genitive, ‘‘lusts belonging to, or arising
from their impieties,’” cf. Rom. i. 28,
καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν Θεὸν ἔχειν
ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς
εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν. The position of the
genitive is peculiar, and probably intended
to give additional stress. We may com-
pare it with James ii. 1, μη ἐν προσωπο-
Anpiats ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου
ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς δόξης, where
some connect τῆς δόξης with κυρίου in a
qualitative sense.

Ver. 19. οὗτοί εἶσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες.
““These are they that make invidious
distinctions.”” See Introduction on the
Text. The rare word ἀποδιορίζοντες is
used of logical distinctions in Aristotle,
Pol. iv. 43, ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ ζώου προῃ-
ρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιω-
ῥρίζοµεν ὅπερ ἀναγκαῖον wav ἔχειν ἵῷον
τας, if we wished to make a classifica-
tion of animals, we should have begun by
setting aside that which all animals have
in common’’) and, I believe, in every
other passage in which it is known to
occur: see Maximus Confessor, ii. p. 103
D, τὸ μὲν φυσικὸν ὥρισεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, τὸ
δὲγνωμικὸν ἀποδιώρισε, translated “ natu-

rali in eo (Christo) constituta voluntate,
arbitrariam dispunxit,” ib. p. 131 c, ὡς 6
λόγος ἦν αὐτοῦ, µόνον τὸ ἐμπαθές, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ
τὸ Φφυσικὸν ἀποδιορίσασθαι θέλημα,
‘quod dixerat hoc solum spectare ut
libidinosam, non ut naturalem voluntatem
a Salvatore eliminaret,’ Severus de
Clyst. xxxii., xxv., ὅταν ταῦτα τὰ συµ.-
πτώματα ὄψῃ παρόντα, ἀποδιόριζε τὴν
ὀργανικὴν νόσον ἐκ τῆς ὁμοιομεροῦς. The
simple διορίζω is found in Levy. xx. 24,
διώρισα ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ‘I separated
you from the nations,” Job xxxv. I1; so
ἀφορίζω Matt. xxv. 32, ἀφορίζει τὰ
πρόβατα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐρίφων, Acts xix. g
(Paul left the synagogue) καὶ ἀφώρισεν
τοὺς µαθητάς, 2 Cor. vi. 17, ἐξέλθατε
ἐκ µέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, Luke vi.
22 (ofexcommunication) ὅταν ἀφορίσωσιν
ἡμᾶς, Gal. ii. 12 (of Peter’s withdrawal
from the Gentiles) ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώ-
ριζεν ἑαυτόν.

Ψνχικοί. Used of worldly wisdom in
James iii. 15, where see note, distinguished
from πνευματικός in 1 Cor. ii. 13-15, xv.
44, cf. the teaching of the Naassenes (ap.
Hippol. p. 164) εἰς τὸν οἶκον θεοῦ οὐκ
εἰσελεύσεται ἀκάθαρτος οὐδείς, οὐ ψυχι-
κός, 08 σαρκικός, ἀλλὰ τηρεῖται πνευµα-
τικοῖς.

πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντε. The subjective
negative may be explained as describing
a class (such as have not) rather than as
stating a fact in regard to particular per-
sons; but the use of µή is much more
widely extended in late than in classica!
Greek, cf. such phrases as ἐπεὶ py, ὅτ'
py. It is simplest to understand πνεῦμα
here of the Holy Spirit, cf. Rom. viii. 9,
ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ GAN’ ἐν πνεύµατι,
εἴπερ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, 1 Cor.
ii. 13, vii. 40, I John iii. 24, iv. 13, and
the contrast in ver. 20, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ
προσευχόµενοι. Others, e.g. Plumptre,
prefer the explanation that ‘the false
teachers were so absorbed in their lower
sensuous nature that they no longer pos-
sessed, in any real sense of the word,

to
πα
a

ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΔΗ

20--

« a / , > ~ ς ‘ A ,
20. Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί, ἐποικοδορφοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς TH ἁγιωτάτῃ

a ,
ὑμῶν πίστει, ἐν πνεύµατι ἁγίιῳ προσευχόµενοι, 21. ἑαυτοὺς ἐν

- 4 2) a ~
ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε᾽ προσδεχόµενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν

1 1ηρησατε] τηρησωµεν BC.

that element in man’s compound being,
which is itself spiritual, and capable there-

fore of communion with the Divine
Spirit”’.
Vv. 20-23. The Final Charge to the

Faithful.—Use all diligence to escape
this danger. Make the most of the
privileges vouchsafed to you. Build
yourselves up on the foundation of your
most holy faith by prayer in the Spirit.
Do not rest satisfied with the belief that
God loves you, but keep yourselves in
His love, waiting for the mercy of our
Lord Jesus Christ which leads us to
eternal life. And do your best to help
those who are in danger of falling away
by pointing out their errors and giving
the reasons of your own belief; and by
snatching from the fire of temptation
those who are in imminent jeopardy.
Even where there is most to fear, let
your compassion and your prayers go
forth toward the sinner, while you shrink
from the pollution of his sin.

Ver. 20. tpets δὲ, ἀγαπητοί. Con-
trasted with the libertines, as in ver. 17.

ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ
ὑμῶν πίστει. For the spiritual temple,
cf. τ Pet. ii. 3-5; Col. 1. 23; Eph. ii. 20-
22, ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν
ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, ὄντος ἀκρογω-
νιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ κ.τ.λ., I
Cor. iii. 9-17, a passage which the writer
may have had in his mind here and in
ver. 23. Dr. Bigg compares Polyc. Phil.
iii. “‘ If ye study the epistles of the blessed
apostle Paul, δυνηθήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι
εἰς τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίστιν. Add Clem.
Strom. v. p. 644, ἡ κοινὴ πίστις καθάπερ
θεµέλιον ὑπόκειται. Usually Christ is
spoken as the foundation or corner-stone
of the Church, and we should probably
assign an objective sense to τῇ πίστει
here, as in ver. 3 above (ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι
τῇ πίστει). Otherwise it might be ex-
plained of that faculty by which we are
brought into relation with the spiritual
realities (Heb. xi. 1, πίστις ἐλπιζομένων
ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ
βλεπομένων), that which is the introduc-
tion to all the other Christian graces, see
note on 2 Pet. i. 5, and which leads to
eternal life (x Pet. i. 5,andg, κομιζόμενοι
τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, σωτηρίαν
ψνχῶν). The faith is here called '' most

holy,”’ because it comes to us from God,
and reveals God to us, and because it is
by its means that man is made righteous,
and enabled to overcome the world (1
John v. 4,5). Cf. 1 Pet.v. 9, ᾧ ἀντίστητε
στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει.

ἐν πνεύµατι ἁγίῳ προσευχόµενοι.
These words, contrasted with πνεῦμα
μὴ ἔχοντες in ver. 19, show how they are
to build themselves up upon their faith.
I understand them as equivalent to James
v. 16, δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη, where
see note. Compare also Eph. vi. 18, διὰ
πάσης προσευχῆς προσευχόµενοι ἐν
παντὶ καιρῷ ἐν πνεύµατι, Rom. viii. 26,
2η.
Ver. 21. éavtots ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ
τηρβήσατε. In ver. 1 the passive is used :
those who are addressed are described as
kept and beloved (cf. ver. 24, τῷ δυναµένῳ
φυλάξαι): here the active is used and
emphasised by the unusual order of
words ; each is to keep himself in the
love of God, cf. James, i. 27, ἄσπιλον
ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν, Phil. ii. 12, τὴν ἑαντῶν
σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθαι' Θεὸς γάρ
ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν. Again in ver.
2 the writer invokes the divine love and
mercy on those to whom he writes : here
they are bidden to take steps to secure
these. Compare Rom. v. 5, ἡ ἀγάπη
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις
ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος
ἡμῖν, ib. viii. 39, πέπεισμαι ὅτι οὔτε
θάνατος οὔτε ζωὴ . . . οὔτε τις κτίσις
ἑτέρα δυνήσεται ἡμᾶς χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς
ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ, John xv. 9, καθὼς

> [a / ε ‘ > ‘ 3 a
«Ἠγάπησέν µε O πατηρ Kayo VEGAS

ἠγάπησα, µείνατε ἐν TH ἀγάπῃ τη!ἐμῃ.
ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς µου τηρήσητε, μενεῖτε
ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ pov. The aor. imper. is
expressive of urgency, see note on ἡγήσ-
ασθε, in James i. 2. :

προσδεχόµενοι τὸ ἔλεος. Cf, Tit. ii.
13, προσδεχόµενοι THY µακαρίαν ἐλπίδα
καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου
Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν “I. Χ., and 2
Pet. iii. 12, 13, 14. The same word is
used of the Jews who were looking for
the promised Messiah at the time of
His first coming, Mark xv. 43, Luke ii.
25, 38.

els ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Some connect this
closely with the imperative τηρήσατε,
but it seems to me to follow more natu-

23.

> -
Γησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

διακρινοµένους,” 23. οὓς δὲ σώζετε΄

ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 275

22. Καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε

3 A ς , a a
ἐκ πυρος ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ

1ελεγχετε AC vulg. boh. arm. + ; ελεατε SQBC?; ελεειτε KLP +.
2 Staxpivopevous NABC; διακρινοµενοι KLP.

3 ous δε (1) ACKLP; om. Β.

rally on the nearer phrase, πρ. τὸ ἔλεος :
cf. I Pet. i. 37, εὐλογητὸς 6 Θεὸς . . . 6
κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας
ἡμᾶς εἰς κληρονοµίαν ἄφθαρτον ...
τετηρηµένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς τοὺς
- « φρουρουµένους . . . eis σωτηρίαν
ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ.

Ver. 22. οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακριν-
οµένους. On the reading see the Intro-
duction. For the form és pév instead of
6 μέν, cf. Matt. xiii. 8, xxii. 5, Luke xxiii.
33, Acts xxvii. 44, Rom. xiv. 5, 1 Cor.
ποπ σα. στ, Cor. Π. στ, Lim iia 20,
not used in Heb., 1 and 2 Pet., James or
John. The doubled ὃς δέ is found in
Matt. xxl. 35, ὃν μὲν ἔδειραν, ὃν δὲ
ἀπέκτειναν, ὃν δὲ ἐλιθοβόλησαν, 7b. xxv.
15, ᾧ μὲν ἔδωκεν πέντε τάλαντα, ᾧ δὲ
δύο, ᾧ δὲ €v. The use is condemned as
a solecism by Thomas Magister and by
Lucian, Soloec. 1, but is common in late
Greek from the time of Aristotle, cf.
Sturz. Dial. Maced. pp. 105 f. On the
word ἐλέγχω (here wrongly translated
‘* strafen,” in the sense of excommunica-
tion, by Rampf), see Const. Apost. vii.
5, 3, ἐλεγμῷ ἐλέγξεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου,
and Hare’s excellent note L in his
Mission of the Comforter, where he
argues that the conviction wrought by
the Spirit is a conviction unto salvation,
rather than unto condemnation; and
quotes Luecke as saying that ‘‘ ἐλέγχειν
always implies the refutation, the over-
coming of an error, a wrong, by the
truth and right. When this is brought be-
fore our conscience through the ἔλεγχος,
there arises a feeling of sin, which is
always painful: thus every ἔλεγχος is a
chastening, a punishment.” Compare
Grote’s life-like account of the Socratic
Elenchus in his Hist. of Greece.

This verse seems to be referred to in
Can. Apost. vi. 4, οὐ 'µμισήσεις πάντα
ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ᾽ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, οὓς δὲ
ἐλεήσεις, περὶ ὧν δὲ προσεύξῃ, οὓς δὲ
ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου, which
is also found in the Didache ii. 7, with
the omission of οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις. Cf.
John xvi. 8, ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον
περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ
περὶ κρίσεως, 1 Cor. xiv. 24, ἐλέγχεται
ὑπὸ πάντων (the effect of the prophets’
teaching on an unbeliever), Tit. i. 13,
ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν

4σωζετε sgABC; εν Φοβῳ σωζετε KLP.

ἐν τῇ πίστει, ib. i. 9, τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας
ἐλέγχειν, 2 Tim. iv. 2 (the charge to
Timothy) ἔλεγξον, παρακάλεσον ἐν
πάσῃ µακροθυμίᾳ, Apoc. ii. 19, ὅσους
ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω, Eph. v
13, Ta δὲ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ
φΦωτὸς Φανεροῦται. There is a tone of
greater severity in the ποιῆσαι κρίσιν
καὶ ἐλέγξαι of the 15th verse, but even
there we need not suppose that the
preacher is hopeless of good being ef-
fected. The point is of importance in
deciding the mutual relations of the
three cases here considered.

διακρινοµένους. We should have ex-
pected a nominative here to correspond
with ἁρπάζοντες and μισοῦντες in the
following clauses, and so the text. rec.
has διακρινόµενοι, wrongly translated in
A.V., as ifit were the active διακρίνοντες,
‘making a difference’. This gives such
a good sense that some commentators
(e.g. Stier) have been willing to condone
the bad Greek. It would have been
better to alter the reading at once. Keep-
ing the reading of the best MSS. we may
either take the accusative as comple-
mentary to ἐλέγχετε (as we find in Plato,
Theaet. 171 D, ἐμὲ ἐλέγξας ληροῦντα,
Xen. Mem. 1, 7, 2, ἐλεγχθήσεται γελοῖος
ὤν, Jelf, § 681), or simply as descriptive
of the condition of the persons referred
to. There is also a question as to the
meaning we should assign to διακρ. Is
it to be understood in the same sense as
in James i. 6, ii. 4? In that case we
might translate ‘‘ convict them of their
want of faith,’? taking the participle as
complementary to the verb ; or ‘‘ reprove
them because of their doubts”’. It seems
more probable, however, that the mean-
ing here is ‘‘ convince them when they
dispute with γοι, which we may com-
pare with 1 Pet. iii. 15, ἔτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς
ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς
λόγον . . . ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραύτητος καὶ
φόβου (cf. ἐν φόβῳ below). So taken,
this first clause would refer to intellectual
difficulties to be met by quiet reasoning;
the force of διακρινόµενος being the
same as that in ver. 9, τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρ.,
and in Socr. E.H. v. 5, 6 λαὸς εἶχεν
ὁμόνοιαν καὶ οὐκέτι πρὸς ἀλλήλους
διεκρίνοντο.

Ver. 23. σώζετε. Here again a word

-

276

ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβω,]

Χιτῶνα.

24. TO δὲ δυναµένω φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς 3

lous δε (2) ελεατε εν φοβῳ HAB; om. KLP;

μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς

ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ κα

ἐσπιλωμένον

ἁπταίστους ὃ καὶ στῆσαι

εν φοβῳ C.

2 ypas ΝΒΟΙ, vulg. syrr. boh.; ημας A; αντους KP.
ὃαπταιστους] add. και ασπιλους C.

which is strictly applicable to God is
transferred to him whom God uses as
His instrument, cf. 1 Pet. iv. τι and
notes On τηρήσατε, ἐλέγχετε above,
especially James ν. 20, 6 ἐπιστρέψας
ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ σώσει
ψυχὴν ἐκ θανάτου.

ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντε. The expres-
sion is borrowed from Amos iv. II,
κατέστρεψα ὑμᾶς καθὼς κατέστρεψεν ὁ 6
Θεὸς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα, καὶ ἐγένεσθε
ὡς δαλὸς ἐξεσπασμένος ἐκ πυρός, καὶ
ous’ ὣς ἐπεστρέψατε πρός με, λέγει
Κύριος, and Zech. iii. 3, οὐκ ἰδοὺ οὗτος
δαλὸς ἐξεσπασμένος ἐκ πυρός; Both
passages have further connexions with
our epistle, the former from the reference
to Sodom (see above ver. 7), the latter as
following immediately on the words,
ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος quoted in ver. 9,
and precéding a reference to filthy gar-
ments (see note below). In it the High
Priest Joshua is a representative of
Israel, saved like a brand from the
captivity, which was the punishment
of national sin. The image of fire is
naturally suggested by the allusion to
the punishment of Sodom in the passage
of Amos, and of Korah (see above ver. 7)
described in Num. xvi. 35, Ps. cvi. 18,
ἐξεκαύθη TUp ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ αὐτῶν καὶ
Φλὸξ κατέφλεξεν ἁμαρτωλούς. The
writer may also have had in mind St.
Paul’s description of the building erected
on the One Foundation (see above ver.
20), which, he says, will be tried by fire,
1 Cor. iii. 13-15, ἑκάστου τὸ ἔργον, ὁποῖόν
ἐστιν, TO TWUp αὐτὸ δοκιµάσει . . . εἴ
τινος τὸ ἔργον κατακαήσεται, ζημιω-
θήσεται, αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται, οὕτως δὲ
ὡς διὰ πυρός. Such an one may be
spoken of as “‘a brand snatched from
the fire,’ not however as here, saved
from the fire of temptation, but as saved
through the agency of God’s purgatorial
fire, whether in this or in a future life.

ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ. The faithful are
urged to show all possible tenderness for
the fallen, but at the same time to have
a fear lest they themselves or others
whom they influence should be led to
think too lightly of the sin whose ravages

they are endeavouring to repair. Cf.
2 Cor. Vil. I, καθαρίσωµεν ἑ ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ
παντὸς μολυσμοῦ σαρκὸς | καὶ πνεύματος
ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ,
Phil. Ἡ. 12; τΡεῖ. Ἱ. τη, πδ. hon the
contusion of the contracted verbs in -έω
and -άω in late Greek see Jannaris, § 850.
§ 854 f., Winer p. 104. The best MSS.
read ἐλεᾷ in Prov. xxi. 26, and ἐλεῶντος
Rom. ix. 16, but ἐλεεῖ in Rom. ix. 18.

μισοῦντες Kal τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς
ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα. While it is the
duty ot the Christian to pity and pray
for the sinner, he must view with loath-
ing all that bears traces of the sin. The
form of expression seems borrowed from
such passages as Isa. xxx. 22, Lev. xv.
17, perhaps too from Zech. iii. 4, ‘Ingots
ἦν ἐνδεδυμένος ἵμάτια ῥυπαρά. Ce
Apoc. iii. 4, οὐκ ἐμόλυναν Ta ipatia
αὐτῶν, and A pocal. Pault quoted by
Spitta, 6 χιτών µου οὐκ ἐρυπώθη. The
derivatives of σπίλος are peculiar to late
Greek: the only other examples of
σπιλόω in Biblical Greek are James iii.
6, ἡ γλῶσσα . . . ἢ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον τὸ
σῶμα and Wisd. xv. 4, εἶδος σπιλωθὲν
χρώμασι διηλλαγμένοις. Compare for
the treatment of the erring 2 Tim. ii.
25, 26, ἐν TpaiTynTL παιθεύοντα τοὺς
ἀντιδιατιθεμένους, µήποτε Sw αὐτοῖς
6 Θεὸς µετάνοιαν eis ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας,
καὶ ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλον
παγίδος.

Vv. 24, 25. Final Benediction and
Ascription. J have bidden you to keep
yourselves in the love of God; I have
warned you against all impiety and im-
purity. But do not think that you can
attain to the one, or guard yourselves
from the other, in your own strength.
You must receive power from above;
and that it may be so, I offer up my
prayer to Him, who alone is able to keep
you from stumbling, and to present you
before the throne of His glory, pure and
spotless in exceeding joy. To Him, the
only God and Saviour, belong glory,
greatness, might, and authority through-
out all ages.

Ver. 24. τῷ δὲ δυναµένῳ Φφυλάξαι
ἡμᾶς ἁπταίστους. Apparently a reminis-

24.

1ΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

277

κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους] ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει, 25. pdvw ?

lapwpous] αµεµπτους A.

cence * of Rom. xvi. 25 f., τῷ δὲδυνα-
pév@ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι .. . µόνῳ
σοφῷ Θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
ᾧ ἡ δόξαεὶς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν
αἰώρον. Similarly the noble doxo-
logy in Eph. iii. 20, commences τῷ δὲ
Suvapévm. The reading ὑμᾶς is con-
firmed by the evidence of $9 and B, which
was unknown to Alford when he en-
deavoured to defend the reading αὐτούς,
found in KP and some inferior MSS.

ἅπταιστος. Occurs in 3 Macc. vi. 39,
µεγαλοδόξως ἐπιφάνας τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ
ὁ τῶν ὅλων δυνάστης ἀπταίστους αὐτοὺς
ἐρρύσατο: used here only in the N.T.
The verb πταίω has the same figurative
sense in James ii. το, iii. 2, εἴ τις ἐν
λόγῳ οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνήρ,
2 Pet. i. 10, ταῦτα ποιοῦντες οὐ μὴ
πταίσητέ ποτε.

στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ
ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει. Cf. Matt. xxv.
31-33, ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ .. . στήσει τὰ μὲν
πρόβατα ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ, Acts vi. 6,
οὓς ἔστησαν ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀποστόλων,
Col. i. 22, παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ
ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους κατενώπιον
αὐτοῦ (which Lightfoot refers to present
approbation rather than to the future
judgment of God, comparing Rom. xiv.
22 yer σου. 1, 29,)2) COL π. τη, ἵν. ον.
12, xii. 19). In the present passage the
addition of the words τῆς δόξης shows
that the final judgment, the goal of
φυλάξαι, is spoken of. Hort, in his
interesting note on 1 Pet, i. 19, τιµίῳ
αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου
Χριστοῦ, traces the way in which the
words μῶμος “blame,” and ἅμωμος
‘‘ blameless,” come to be used (in ‘‘ the
Apocrypha, the N.T., and other books
which presuppose the LXX’’) in the
entirely unclassical sense of ‘‘ blemish ”’
and “ unblemished ”’ cf. Eph. i. 4, v. 27,
Heb. ix. 14. In 2 Pet. iii. 14, ἀμώμητος
seems to be used in the same sense.
The word κατεγώπιον is apparently con-
fined to the Bible, where it occurs in
Josh. i. 5, xxi. 42, Lev. iv. 17, Eph. i. 4,
ἁμώμητος κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ.
κατένωπα is found in Hom. J]. xv. 320.
For ἀγαλλίασις see Hort’s note on 1 Pet.
i. 6, ἐν ᾧ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, “in whom ye
exult”’, The verb with its cognate sub-
stantives ‘‘is unknown except in the

2 wovo] add. σοφῳ KLP +.

LXX and the N.T. and the literature
derived from them, and in the Ν.Τ, it is
confined to books much influenced by
Ο.Τ. diction (Matt., Luke, Acts, 1 Pet.,
Jude, John, including Apoc.), being
absent from the more Greek writers, St.
Paul, and (except in quot.) Heb....
It apparently denotes a proud exulting
joy, being probably connected closely
with ἀγάλλομαι, properly ‘to be proud
of,’ but often combined with ἥδομαι and
such words.”

Ver. 25. µόνῳ Θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν. See
above on ver. 4, τὸν µόνον δεσπότην.
God is called σωτήρ in Isa. xlv 15, σὺ
γὰρ εἶ Θεὸς ... 6 Θεὸς τοῦ Ισραηλ
σωτήρ, ib. νετ. 21, Sir. li. 1, αἰνέσω σε
Θεὸν τὸν σωτῆρά pov, Philo, Confiis.
Ling. §20,i. p. 418 jin., τίς δ οὐκ ἂν
+++ πρὸς τὸν µόνον σωτῆρα Θεὸν ἐκ-
Βοήσῃ () -σαι); cf. Luke i. 47, ἠγαλλία-
σεν τὸ πνεῦμά µου ἐπὶ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί
μου, elsewhere in N.T. only in Tit. i. 3,
ll. 10, iii, 4, ὅτε ἡ χρηστότης ...
ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ...
κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ
πνεύματος ἁγίου οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ
ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ “1. Χ. τοῦ σωτῆρος
ἡμῶν, 1 Tim. i. 1, Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰ.
Χ. kat’ ἐπιταγὴν Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶγκαὶ
Χ. Ἰ. ib. ii. 3, iv. το. The later writers
of the N.T. seem to have felt it needful
to insist upon the unity of God, and the
saving will of the Father, in opposition
to antinomian attacks on the Law.

διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It seems best to
take διά with δόξα and the following
words. The glory of God is manifested
through the Word, cf. 1 Pet. iv. 11, ἵνα
ἐν πᾶσιν δοξάζηται ὁ Θεὸς διὰ “Il. X. ᾧ
ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶ-
vas.

δόξα. The verb is often omitted in
these ascriptions, cf. 2 Pet. αὐτῷ 4 δόξα,
Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, Gal. 1. 5, Luke ii. 16,
δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ. In 1 Peter iv. 11
it is inserted, ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ
κράτος, and, as we find no case in which
ἔστω is inserted, and the indicative is
more subject to ellipse than the impera-
tive, it might seem that we should supply
‘is here; but the R. Υ. gives’ ‘be,’
and there are similar phrases expressive
of a wish or prayer, as the very common
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρός,
where we must supply ἔστω or γένοιτο.

* For the position and ο ος of this doxology see the Introduction and

notes in Sanday and Hea

lam’s commentary, and the dissertations by Lightfoot

and Hort in the former’s Biblical Essays, pp. 287-374.
VOL. V. 18

ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

25.

Gc σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν δόξα µεγα-

A ~ A A >
λωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς

πάντας 3 τοὺς αἰῶνας ' ἁμήν.

1δια |. X. του κυριου ηµωγ] om. KP.

De Wette maintained that the following
words πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος, referring
to already existing fact, were incompatible
with a prayer; but it is sufficient that the
prayer has regard mainly to the present
and future; the past only comes in to
give it a fuller, more joyful tone, remind-
ing us of the eternity of God, as in the
psalmist’s words, ‘‘I said it is my own
infirmity, but I will remember the years
of the right hand of the Most High,”
and the close of our own doxology “as it
was in the beginning, is now, and ever
shall be”. I do not see, however, that
we need exclude either interpretation.
The writer may exult in that which he
believes to be already fact in the eternal
world, and yet pray for its more perfect
realisation in time, as in the Lord’s
Prayer, γενηθήτω τὸ θέληµά σου ὡς ἐν
οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. The omission of
the verb allows of either or both views in
varying proportion. δόξα by itself is the
commonest ofall ascriptions. Itis joined
with τιµή in 1 Tim. i. 17 and elsewhere,
as here with µεγαλωσύνη. It is joined
with κράτος in 1 Pet. iv. 11, v. 11, Apoc.
i. 6. Fuller ascriptions are found in
Apoc. iv. 11, ἄξιος el, 6 κύριος .. «
λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν
δύναμιν, ν. 13, τῷ καθηµένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ
ὑρόνῳ. . .ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἤ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ
δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν
αἰώνων, vii. 12, ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἤ δόξα καὶ
ἡ σοφία καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία καὶ ἤ τιμὴ καὶ
ἢ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἰσχὺς τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν.
Just before (ver. 10) we have the τε-
markable ascription ἡ σωτηρία τῷ Θεῷ
ἡμῶν. Compare with this the ascription
of David (x Chron. xxix. 11), wot Κύριε ἡ
µεγαλωσύνη καὶ 4 δύναµις καὶ τὸ καύχηµα
καὶ 7 νίκη καὶ ἤ ἰσχύς, ὅτι σὺ παντων
τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς δεσπόζεις.
For a similar expression in regard to the
future blessedness of man, see Rom. ii. Io,
δόξα δὲ καὶ tiny καὶ εἰρήνη παντὶ τῷ
ἐργαζομένῳ τὸ ἀγαθόν.. Απ unusual form
of ascription occurs in Clem. Rom. 59. 2, 4
χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ μετὰ πάντων πανταχἢ τῶν
κεκλημένων ὑπό τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ δι αὐτοῦ"

2 €ts παντας] εις NY.

> κά > ~ / rd , 4
δι οὗ αὐτῷ δόξα, τιµή, κράτος καὶ
µεγαλωσύνη, θρόνος αἰώνιος ἀπὸ τῶν

αἰώνων εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

µεγαλωσύνη. Only found elsewhere
in N.T. in Heb. i. 3, ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ
τῆς µεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, repeated in
viii. 1, Dr. Chase notes that it occurs in
Enoch v. 4, κατελαλήσατε μεγάλους καὶ
σκληροὺς λόγους ἐν στόµατι ἀκαθαρσίας
ὑμῶν κατὰ τῆς µεγαλοσύνης αὐτοῦ, xii.
3, τῷ κνρίῳ τῆς µεγαλοσύνης, xiv. 16 (a
house excelling) ἐν δόξῃ καὶ ἐν τιµῇ καὶ
ἐν μεγαλοσύνῃ. It is coupled with δόξα,
of which it may be regarded as an exten-
sion, in the doxology used by Clem. Rom.
20, 61. I am not aware of any other
example of ἐξουσία in a doxology: com-
pare, however, Matt. xxviii. 18, ἐδόθη
μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς.

πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος. Cf. I Cor. ii.
7 (τὴν σοφίαν) ἣν προώρισεν 6 Θεὸςπ psd
τῶν αἰώνων eis δόξαν ἡμῶν, Prov. viii. 23,
πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶγος ἐθεμελίωσέμε (i.e. σοφίαν),
ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι. An
equivalent expression is πρὸ καταβολῆς
κόσμου found in John xvii. 24, ἠγάπησάς
pe π. κ. κ. also Eph. i. 4, ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς
ἐν αὐτῷ π. κ. κ. and I Pet. i. 20 (Χριστοῦ)
προεγνωσµένου μὲν π. κ.κ.οφανερωθέντος
δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων. St. Jude
speaks of one past age and of several
ages to come. On the other hand St.
Paul speaks of many ages in the past (1
Cor. ii. 7), and St. John of only one age
in the future.

εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας. This precise
phrase is unique in the Bible, but eis
τοὺς αἰῶνας is common enough, as in
Luke i. 33, Rom. i. 25, v. 5, xi. 36, xvi.
27, 2 Cor. xi. 31, etc., so in LXX, Dan. ii.
4, 44, vi. 6, 26. The stronger phrase eis
τοὺς αἰῶνας TOV αἰώνων occurs in Gal.i. 5,
Phil. iv. 20, r Tim. i. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 18,
Heb. xiii. 21, 1 Pet. iv. 11, v. 11, Apoc. i.
6, etc. John uses only εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
apparently with the same meaning. Other
variations are found in Eph. ili. 21, αὐτῷ
ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ἐν Χ. Ἰ. εἰς
πάσας τὰς γεγνεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων,
2 Pet. iii. 18, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ viv καὶ εἰς
ἡμέραν αἰῶνος.

* For a full account of the early doxologies, see Chase on the Lord’s Prayer (Texts

and Studies, i. 3, p. 68 foll.).

He states that the common doxology at the end of

the Lord’s Prayer (σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ 7 Svvapis Kal ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

‘appears to be a conflation of two distinct forms,”

and ‘‘was added to the Prayer

in the ‘Syrian’ text of St. Matthew’s Gospel”.

THE REVELATION

ST. JOHN ΤΗΕ DIVINE,

James ΜΟΕΕΑΤΙ, D.D.

Longsuffering toward us here is the Most High:

He hath shown us that which is to be,

And hath not hidden from us what befalleth at the end.
For the youth of the world is over,

Long since hath the strength of creation tatied,

And the advent of the times is at hand_
The pitcher is nigh to the cistern,

The ship to the haven,
The caravan to the city,

And life to its consummation.

—The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (lxxxv. 8, το), A.D. 70-T0@,

INTRODUCTION.

§ 1. The Text.—The exceptionally corrupt state of the Textus
Receptus in the Apocalypse is due to the fact that for this book
Erasmus (to whose text it goes back) had access to only a single
cursive! (numbered 1) of the twelfth or thirteenth century. Even
that was inferior and incomplete. The MSS. which have become
available since his day are neither ample nor faultless. Throughout
the five uncials (two of which, i.e., C and P, are defective palimp-
sests), over 1600 variants have been counted—excluding merely
orthographical differences—in the 400 verses of the book; this
proportion is considerably higher than in the Catholic epistles, for
example, where 432 verses only yield about 1100 variants. The earliest
uncial goes back to the fourth century (8); A and C, the most
weighty, to the fifth; Q? to the eighth; and P to the ninth. Of
these, NAQ are complete, while the Apocalypse in Q is bound up
with the writings of Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa—‘ one of
many instances in which the Apocalypse was bound up with ordinary
theological treatises instead of with the other N.T. writings”
(Gregory i. 121). C lacks i. 1, iii. 19-v. 14, vii. 14-17, viii. 5-ix. 16,
x. 10-xi. 3, xiv. 13-xvili. 2, xix. 5-end. P is defective in xvi. 12-xvii. 1,
xix. 21-xx. 9, xxii. 6-end.

NAC reflect a fairly uniform text, which seems to have been
influenced by an older uncorrected text allied to that underlying the
vulgate. Hence, as N in the Apocalypse, owing to its eccentric
element, is not of exceptional value by itself (though supported by
the cursives 95 and 36), AC vg. form an important group of witnesses,
to which the minuscule 95 (like 68 and 38) and Syr. seem allied. The
relation of P and Q is less obvious. Their differences (they agree

1 Relatively high among the secondary documents, but woefully inferior to the
uncials. On the performance of Erasmus, see Delitzsch’s Handschrifte Funde, i.
(1861), pp. 17 f., with A. Bludau’s essay on the Erasmus editions of the N.T. in
Bardenhewer’s Biblische Studien, vii. 5.

2To avoid confusion with the B of Codex Vaticanus, it is better to cite this
codex Vaticanus as Q (so, after Tregelles, Weiss, Haussleiter, Bousset, Swetc) than
as B (Tisch.) or B4 (WH, Simcox).

252 INTRODUCTION

only in about fifty cases against NAC) point either to two recensions
of some older original (Bousset) or to a text based again upon some
older revised text (Weiss). Q approximates rather to the cursives
in text. But its archetype usually tallies with SAC, and is allied
somehow to the text behind the so-called “Coptic”?! version (cf.
Goussen’s ‘Theolog. Studia, fasciculus I.”: Apoc, S. fohannis
apostoli versio sahidica, 1895, pp. iv.-vii.), like a small group of
cursives (Bousset’s Q rel.). In no one MS. or group of MSS. is a
neutral or fairly accurate text preserved. This is mainly due to the
interval which elapsed before the Apocalypse became generally
canonical, particularly in the East; its text was less carefully
guarded during this period than any other portion of the N.T., and
even by the time that the NAC text (or texts) came into being, the
book had not secured its canonisation throughout the Eastern
churches. In addition to this, the grammatical irregularities and
anomalies? which studded its pages tempted many a scribe to
correct and to conform the text. Systematic emendation of this kind
must have begun very early (Weiss, pp. 144 f.).

This paucity and conflict of uncial evidence lends additional
weight to the versions and patristic citations, especially as they
reflect a text or texts which cannot be taken to be identical with,
and yet must be older than, those underlying the MSS. Often,
indeed, the versions themselves reproduce some of the most patent
errors in the MSS., while the patristic texts are sometimes too

11η the textual notes = Sah. (i.e., Sahidic): a further fragment is edited by J.
Clédat in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien (1899), pp. 263-279. Gregory (pp. 546-547)
throws both this and the later Bohairic or Memphitic version (= me.) back into the
second century, but this is probably too early a date. All the extant fragments of
the former are printed in Delaporte’s Fragments Sahidiques duiN.T. (Paris, 1906).
For the latter, cf. Leipoldt in Church Quart. Rev., 1906, pp. 292 f.

2These are not invariably Hebraisms, as Viteau and the older grammarians
argue, but it is almost uncritical at the opposite extreme to rule out Hebraisms
entirely. The Apocalypse is so saturated with the original text and the Greek version
of the O.T., that there is more likelihood here than elsewhere in the N.T. of a
grammatical solecism being due, directly or indirectly, to the influence of Semitic
idiom. Even though a parallel instance can be adduced in some cases from the
papyri or the κοινή elsewhere (cf. Helbing, p. iv.), this merely suggests a possible
origin for the phrase in question. Besides, the Apocalypse is a piece of literary
art. Where its eccentricities are not due to ignorance of Greek or to reminiscences
of Hebrew idiom, they are deliberate violations of grammar and syntax in the
interests of rhetoric or faith. That Greek was spoken in these Asiatic townships,
although native dialects lingered in the country, is shown by L. Mitteis in his
Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den Ostlichen Provinzen d. rim. Kaiserreiches (1891),

ΡΡ. 23 f.

INTRODUCTION 283

insecure to admit of reliable inferences being drawn from their
contents (cf. Bebb in Studia Biblica, ti. 195-240). Yet, even with
these drawbacks, one need not despair of utilising either. Thus
the Latin versions! and patristic citations—which are of special
moment, since the Apocalypse was never absent from the Latin
N.T., and since the fourth century version did not affect it seriously—
reveal a fairly distinctive Greek text behind the type of African text
preserved by Cyprian (third century, citations in his Testimonia),
Primasius, the sixth century African commentator, and the frag-
mentary Fleury palimpsest (sixth or seventh century).* Critical
opinion is still unse:tled upon the precise connexion of this text with
the uncials, or even with the citations of Latin fathers like Tertullian,
Jerome and Augustine, to say nothing of Ticonius, Beatus (eighth
century), Haymo (ninth century) and Cassiodorus (sixth century).
Thus it is quite uncertain whether the idiosyncrasies of Tertullian’s
quotations reflect a private recension (so Haussleiter) or some eccles-
iastical version, if they are not made directly from the Greek (cf.
Nestle’s Einfiikrung, 94, 227 f., E. Tr. 119-20). Nevertheless, it is
in this direction that the most promising outlook of textual criticism
upon the Apocalypse lies. It has unique aid in the Latin versions.
The greater respect shown by the ecclesiastical West to the Apo-
calypse must have conspired upon the whole to give its text
a better chance of preservation than in the East. Certainly,
the fragments of the so-called African text carry us back to a
Greek text of the Apocalypse which was current in the middle of
the third century, prior to the origin of any extant uncial, while
the evidence of Dr. Gwynn’s Syriac text comes only second in
importance. The Greek citations of Clem. Alex. and Origen
also echo a text which hardly corresponds to that of any of
the uncials ; but, where the latter writer agrees with N, some early
Alexandrian text may probably be discerned, which might be termed
Western. His citations have also affinities with the text of S (cf.
Gwynn, pp. lv. f.). As for the more important of the cursives, so far
as they have been collated (cf. Gregory, i. 316-326, Scrivener’s
Introd., 1894, i. 321-326), they seem mainly to corroborate other lines

1Dr. Armitage Robinson (Cambridge Texts and Studies, i. 2, pp. 73, 97 19,
followed by Dr. Salmon (Introd. to N.T., pp. 567 f.), even argues from the Ep. Lugd.,
(Eus., Η. E., v. 1) that the Gallican churches must have had a Latin version of the
N.T. (including the Apocalypse) by the middle of the second century, akin to the
African old Latin.

2 Cf. Gregory, 609, and Mr. E. S. Buchanan’s collation in Fourn. Theol. Studies
Viii., pp. 96 {.

254 INTRODUCTION

of evidence. Inthe dearth of better witnesses, their place is occa-
sionally more serious than some editors would allow ; but no attempt
at grouping them can be pronounced successful (about sixty contain
the commentary of Andreas), and it is merely in the wake of earlier
and heavier authorities that most of the minuscules can, asa rule, be
employed with any safety.

In the main, however, there is a fair consensus of editors (cf.
W.H .., ii., 260 f.) for the bulk of the text as printed in the following
pages. Exigencies of space have obliged the present editor to omit
nearly all the textual material which he had amassed, and the only
variants noted, as a rule, are those of direct significance for the
expositor. Once or twice a variant has some intrinsic interest of a
special kind, or the reading has had to be justified, but the textual
notes do not profess to provide anything like a complete textual
conspectus. Thus there is no discussion upon the gloss of S on ἀνὰ
in iv. 8, upon the curious Syriac rendering of viii. 13 (as if peo.=
µέσος οὐρὰ αἶμα), or upon the interpolation at xi. 1. All that one
has been able to do is to furnish the reader with as accurate a text
as possible for that elucidation of the religious ideas of the book
which it is the primary object of the Expositor’s Greek Testament
to facilitate.

SpeciAL ABBREVIATIONS (cf. others in vol. ii. 754-756,
iii. 33-36, 413).

And.=comm.! of Andreas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (fifth
or sixth century), author of first Greek edit. (ἑρμηνεία eis τὴν
᾽Αποκάλυψιν). Cf. von Soden’s die Schriften des Ν.Τ., i. 1,
472-475, 702 f., and Delitzsch’s Hands. Funde, ii. (1862),
pp. 29 f.

Areth.=comm. of Arethas, his successor (in 10th cent. ?), allied to
Q (Delitzsch) as And. to A upon the whole.

Arm. =Armenian version. Cf. Conybeare’s Armenian Version of Rev.
(London, 1907), from codex 4 (12th cent.).

Bs. = Bousset’s “ Textkritische Studien zum N.T.” (Texte u. Unter-
suchungen, xi. 4, 1-44), 1894.

edd.=consensus or large majority of editors: so min. (minuscules),
MSS. (manuscripts), and vss. (versions).

1 Extant in these forms; Anda=codex August., 12th cent. (14th, Gregory), Andc
=codex Coisl. (roth cent.), Andbav=codex Bavaricus (16th cent.), Andpal=codex
Palatinus (15th cent.). The newly discovered commentary of Oecumenius (6th cent.,
cf. Diekamp in Sitzungsberichte der konigl. preuss. Akad., 1907, 1046 f.), as yet un-
edited, may take the primacy from Andreas.

INTRODUCTION 285

‘gig. =codex gigas Holmiensis (13th cent.), witness either to old Latin
text or to “late European” type (Hort).

Pr.=Primasius, ed. Haussleiter in Zahn’s Forschungen zur Gesch.
des NTlichen Kanons, iv., pp. 1-224 (1891), a very import-
ant study. Cf. the same critic’s essay on Vict., Tic., and
Jerome in Zeits. fir Kirchl. Wiss. u. Leben (1886), 237-257.

‘S.=Syriac Philoxenian recension (6th cent.), ed. Gwynn (1897) ;
reflects a Greek text, which is mixed, but is in the main
(Ixi. f.) allied to the normal uncial text, and is especially
close to C and Origen (lv. f.). Cf. Gregory, ii. 507, 509.

Spec. =pseudo-August. Speculum (8th or 9th cent.).

Syr.=Harkleian recension (represented by about eight considerable
MSS.): posterior and inferior to S.

Tic.=“comm. in Apoc. homiliis octodecim comprehensus” of
Tyconius the Donatist (end of 4th cent.).

vg.=vulgate (Jerome’s version, 4th cent.), best preserved in codices
Am. (=Amiatinus, 8th cent.), and Puld. (= Fuldensis, 6th
cent.), Harl. (=Harleianus, 9th cent.), and Tol. (=Tole-
tanus, 8th cent.).

Vict.=comm. of Victorinus, bishop of Pettau in Pannonia (end of 3rd
cent.).

Ws. =B. Weiss: “die Joh. Apk., textkritische Unters. u. Textherstel-
lung” (Texte u, Unters. vii. 1), 1891.

§ 2. Analysis.—The Apocalypse of John, which is thrown into
epistolary form, is a slender book with a large design. After the title
(i. 1-3) and prologue (i. 4-8) in which the prophet puts himself into
relation with seven churches of Western Asia Minor, he proceeds to
describe the vision of Jesus Christ (i. 9 f.) which furnished him with
his commission to write.! The immediate outcome of the vision is a
series of charges addressed to these churches (ii.-iii.).2 Like the

1 The phrase ἐν κυριακῇ (=imperial, cf. Deissmann’s Licht vom Osten, 258 f.)
ἡμέρᾳ (i. το) denotes the Christian Sunday, not the day of judgment to which he
‘was transported (so Wetstein, Weyland, Selwyn, Hort, Russell’s Pavousia, 371, 372,
and Deissmann in E. Bz., 2815). The day of the Lord is only twice used in the Apoc.
(vi. 14, xvi. 14), and there in a special eschatological connexion and in its normal
grammatical form. In the Apocalypse it means the day of judgment, whereas in
i. Io the words imply revelation, and the Apocalypse is not a mere revelation of the
judgment-day. Besides, ἐν mv. must go here with ἐγεν. as in iv. 2, otherwise it
would have a verb of transport (so xvii. 3, xxi. 1Ο).

2 These are addressed to tiny communities in the cities, not to the churches as
‘being in any sense the cities. The character and history of the Christian community
care by no means to be identified with those of the city; we have no reason to assume
that the local Christians, who were ardently awaiting a citizenship from heaven,

~

256 INTRODUCTION

author of the 50th Psalm, he tries to rouse God’s people to the
seriousness of their own position, before he enters into any predic-
tions regarding the course of the outside world. The scene then
changes to the celestial court (iv.-v.), where God appears enthroned
in his presence-chamber over the universe, with Jesus installed as
the divine revealer of providence in the immediate future. The
description of the heavenly penetralia forms a series of weird Oriental
arabesques, but the nucleus is drawn from the tradition of the later
post-exilic prophets (especially Ezekiel). According to one phase of
this tradition, the climax of things was to be heralded by physical
and political disturbances; a regular crescendo of disasters was im-
minent on the edge and eve of the world’s annihilation. Hence the
next series of visions is full of material and military troubles, delineated
partly in supernatural colours which are borrowed from the fanciful
astro-theology of eschatological tradition. From this point onwards.
the sword of the Lord is either an inch or two out of its scabbard,
or showering blows upon his adversaries. In the prophet’s own
metaphor, before the contents of the Book of Doom (in the hands.
of Jesus Christ) can be read, its seven seals must be broken, and at
the opening of each (vi.-vii.) some fresh woe is chronicled.1 The
woe heralded by the seventh seal drifts over, however, into another
series of fearful catastrophes which are introduced by seven trumpet
blasts (viii.-ix.), and it is only on their completion that the way is.
now clear for the introduction of the protagonists in the last conflict
upon earth. These protagonists are the messiah of God, 1.6., Jesus.

had any vivid civic consciousness, or were keenly sensitive to the historical and.
geographical features of their cities. The analogies sometimes drawn from the latter
are interesting but for the most part specious and irrelevant coincidences. It is
modern fancy which discovers in such directions any vital elements present to the
mind of the prophet or his readers. Why these particular churches were selected,
remains a mystery. The cities in question were not all conspicuous for a special
enforcement of the imperial cultus, and the churches themselves can hardly be sup-
posed to be in every case representative or particularly important. Even the plaus-
ible theory that they were the most convenient centres for district-groups of churches.
(Ramsay, Seven Letters, pp. 180 f.) does not work out well in detail.

1 The longing of the martyred souls in vi. g-11 (‘‘lignes toutes divines, qui suf-
front éternellement a la consolation de l’4me qui souffre pour sa foi ou sa vertu,”
Renan, 463), recalls the function of the Erinnys in Greek religion, the Erinnys
being primarily “ the outraged soul of the dead man crying for vengeance” (cf. J. E.
Harrison, Prolegomena to Study of Greek Religion, p. 214). Only, the souls in the
Apocalypse are passive ; they do not actively pursue their revenge upon the living.
The point of the vision is in part to reiterate the deterministic conviction that God
has his own way and time; he is neither to be hurried by the importunity of his
own people nor thwarted by the apparent triumph of his enemies.

INTRODUCTION 287

Christ, and the messiah of Satan, i.¢., the Roman empire in the
person of its emperor with his blasphemous claim to divine honours
upon earth, The series of tableaux which depict their entrance on
the scene indicates that the prophet has now reached the heart and
centre of his subject. But at this point his method alters, and the
thread of purpose is less patent. Hitherto the Book of Doom, with
its seven seals, has sufficed for the artistic and rather artificial pre-
sentation of his oracles. Now that the seventh seal is broken, the
Book, ex hypothesi, is opened; we expect the secrets of divine
judgment to be unbared. Instead of describing what follows as the
contents of this book, however, the prophet relates how he absorbed
another and a smaller volume (x.), containing the sum and substance
of the final oracles which bear on the world’s fate.1 He then pro-
ceeds, in terms of current and consecrated mythological traditions,
to portray the two witnesses (xi.) who herald the advent of the
divine messiah (xii.) himself, in the latter days. Messiah’s rival, the
dragon or Satan, is next introduced, together with the dragon's
commission of the Roman empire and emperor (xiii.) as the
supreme foe of God’s people. Here is the crisis of the world! And
surely it is a nodus dignus vindice ; God must shortly and sternly
interfere. The imperial power, with its demand for worship, is con-
fronted by a sturdy nucleus of Christians who will neither palter
nor falter in their refusal to give divine honours to the emperor.
Characteristically, the prophet breaks off to paint, in proleptic and
realistic fashion, the final bliss of these loyal saints (xiv.), and the
corresponding tortures reserved by God for the enemy and his
deluded adherents. But at this point, just as the closing doom
might be expected to crash down upon the world, the kaleidoscope
of the visions again alters rather abruptly. The element of fantasy

1The distinctive and Jewish characteristics of the following oracles (xi.-xiv.,
xvii. f.) suggest, as Sabatier was almost the first to see, that the contents of this
βιβλαρίδιον are to be found here; so Weyland (a Jewish Neronic source in x.-xi. 13,
Xii,-xiii., xiv. 6-11, xv. 2-4, xvi. 13, 14, 16, xix. 11-21, xx.-xxi. 8), Spitta (a Jewish
source, ο. 63 B.C., in most of x.-xi. xiv. 14 f., xv. 1-8, xvi. I-12, 17, 21, xvii. 1-6, xvili.,
xix. 1-8, xxi. 9-27, xxii. I-3, 15), Pfleiderer (Jewish source, Neronic and Vespasianic,
in most of xi.-xiv., xvii.-xix.), and J. Weiss (Jewish source, Neronic, in xi, 1-13, xii.
1-6, 14-17, xiii. 1-7, xv.-xix., xxi. 4-27). But the first editor has worked over the
contents of the βιβλαρίδιον so thoroughly that it is impossible to be sure that it ever
was a literary unity. The probability is that xi.-xiii. at least reproduce fragments
from it; the evidence hardly warrants us in postulating the incorporation of any
coherent source. After chap. x. the symmetry of the Apocalypse is impaired by rapid

and bewildering alterations of standpoint to which no satisfactory clue can be
found,

~

288 INTRODUCTION

becomes still more lurid and ornate. The world of men and nature
is drenched by a fresh series of chastisements (xv.-xvi.), which prove
unavailing ; no repentance follows (xvi. 11, 21), and the climax of
history is eventually reached through a succession of mortal penalties
inflicted upon the city and empire of Rome (the vices of the empire
being ascribed to the city, on the O.T. view which identified capital
and kingdom, cf. Nah. iii. 1 f.), the votaries of the imperial cultus,
and the devil himself (xvii.-xx). To the mind of an early Christian
(cf. Tert., Scap., 2)! it was inconceivable that the world could long
survive the downfall of the Roman empire. ‘And when Rome falls,
the world.” All that the prophet sees beyond that ruin is the
destruction of the rebels employed by God to crush the capital ;
then—thanks to the survival of an O.T. idea, quickened by later
tradition—a desperate recrudescence (xx. 7 f.) of the devil. His
defeat ushers in the general resurrection and the judgment. Earth
and sky flee from the face of God, but men cannot fly. They must
stand their trial. Then follows the advent of a new heaven and
earth (xxi.-xxii.) for the acquitted and innocent, with the descent of
the new Jerusalem and the final bliss of God and of his loyal people.
formed the nucleus of the book, as the author conceived it, the seals
representing the certainty, the trumpets the promulgation, and the
bowls the actual execution of the doom. They may have been com-
posed at different times and re-arranged in their present order, like
the books of the Aeneid, but, as they stand, they are closely welded
together. The introductory Christophany leads up to ii.-iii., while
these chapters again anticipate the visions of iv.-v., which are inde-
pendently linked to i, (cf. i. 4=iv. 5, v.6; i. 5, 6=v. 9). Chapters vi.-
ix. are interwoven, and, although the last cycle of seven (xv.-xvi.)
seems abruptly introduced, it is really prepared for by x. (see notes),
Like the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse has been edited, possibly
after the author’s death, by the local Johannine circle in Asia
Minor (e.g., i. 1-3, xxii, 18 f.); one or two cases of transposition
by copyists also occur (cf. notes on xvi. 15, xviii. 14, xix. 9, xx. 14-
xxii. 6 Ε), and glosses may be suspected occasionally (¢.g., i. 18, ΠΠ. 8,
ix. 9, xvii. 5; see § 8). But substantially it bears the marks of com-
position by a single pen; the blend of original writing and editorial
re-setting does not impair the impression of a literary unity. This
may be seen from the following analysis or outline :—

1 The author of the Daniel-Apocalypse similarly believed that the resurrection of
loyal Jews would follow the downfall of Antiochus Epiphanes (xii. 2, 13).

INTRODUCTION 289

i, 1-8. Prologue.
1, 0-20. A vision of Jesus the messiah, introducing
ii.-iii. Seven letters to Asiatic churches :—
(x Ephesus.
(2) Smyrna.
(3) Pergamos.
ή Thyatira.
(5) Sardis.
(6) Philadelphia.
(7) Laodicea.
iV.-V. A vision of heaven: the throne of God,
the Lamb, the book of Doom or Des-
tiny, introducing the plagues of the
vi. Seven seals :—
(1) The white horse.
(2) τεά yy
(3) . black ,,
(4) ,, pale ” ;
(5) 4, souls of the slain.
(6) ,, earthquake and eclipse, etc.
Intermezzo :—
vii 1-8. the sealing of the re-
deemed on earth.
Vii. 0-17. the bliss of the redeemed
in heaven.
Viii. 1. (7) ,, silence or pause.
viii. 2-5. A vision of heaven: an episode of angels,
introducing
Vili. 6-ix. 21. Seven trumpet blasts for
(x) earth.
(2) sea.
(3) streams: the star Wormwood,
(4) an eclipse.
(5) a woe of locusts.
(6) a woe of Parthian cavalry.
Intermezzo :—
x. episode of angels and a
booklet.
xi. 1-13. the apocalypse of the two
witnesses.
xi. 14-19. (7) voices and visions in heaven,
introducing
xii. A vision of (a) the dragon or Satan as the
anti-Christ ; a war in heaven.
xiii, I-10, (5) the Beast or Imperial power AC wan Gr
xiii, 11-18, (c) the false prophet or Imperial J earth.
priesthood.
Intermezzo :---
xiv. 1-5. the bliss of the redeemed
in heaven,
xiv. 6-20. episode of angels and
doom on earth.
xv. A vision of heaven: the triumph of the
redeemed, introducing
xvi. Seven bowls with plagues for

(1) earth.
(2) sea.

(3) waters.
(4) the sun.

£90 INTRODUCTION

(5) the realm of the Beast.
(6) the Euphrates : an Eastern inva-
sion.
(7) the air: a storm, introducing
A vision of Doom upon

xvii. (a) The realm of the Beast, or Rome,
at the hands of the Beast and
his allies. .
xviii. a song of doom on earth:
xix. I-10, >», triumph in heaven.
xix. ΤΙ-21. (b) The Beast and his allies, and the
false prophet.
πχ. το. (ο The Dragon or Satan himself,

with his adherents.
A vision of the new heaven and earth :

including
XX. II-xxi. 8. The judgment of the dead.
XXi. Q-XXIl. 5. The descent of the new Jerusalem.

xxii. 6-21. Epilogue.

§ 3. Literary Structure.—This general unity of conception as well
as of style is a unity of purpose, however, rather than of design.!
Once we descend into details another series of features emerges into
view. Even upon the hypothesis that it was written by one author, it
cannot have been the product of a single vision, much less composed
or dictated under one impulse. Furthermore, inconsequence of a
certain kind is one of the psychological phenomena of visions; a
change comes over the spirit even of religious dreams, as they drift
through the mind of the seer. But more than this is required to
account for incongruities and differences of climate, as e.g., in xi. 1, 2,
19 and xxi. 22, xi. 8 and xviii. 24, the various descriptions of the second
advent (i. 7, xiv. 14 f., xix. 11 f.), of the judgment (xx. 11 f., xxii. 12),
or of heaven (vii. 11 f., xv. 2, xix. 7 f., xxi. 1 {., xxii. 1-5, etc.), the
isolated allusions to Michael, Gog and Magog, the four angels of vii.
1-4, the carnage of xiv. 20, etc., the unrelated predictions which are
left side by side, the amount of repetition, the episodical and con-
flicting passages of vii. 1-8, 9-17, x., xi. 1-13, xiv. 1-5, 6-13, 14-20, xix.
11 f., etc. Such phenomena are too vital and numerous to be ex-
plained upon the same principle as the contradictions and discre-
pancies which are to be found in many great works of ancient

1 «Tt is of the nature of an epic poem describing what a Christian Homer might
describe as ‘the good news of the accomplishment of the righteousness and wrath
of God’’’ (Abbott, p. 75). Cf. Rom. i. 16-18, Apoc. vi. 17, x. 7, xi. 17,18. The
dramatic hypothesis, favoured by a series of students from Milton to Archbishop
Benson, is worked out elaborately by Palmer and Eichhorn. The latter, after the
prelude (iv. 1.-viii. 5), finds the first act in viii. 6-xii. 17 (overthrow of Jerusalem in
three scenes), the second in xii. 18-xx. ro (downfall of paganism), and the third in
xx, I1-xxii. 5 (the new Jerusalem). But all such schemes are artificial.

INTRODUCTION 291

jiterature, or even as the free play of a poetic mind; they denote
in several cases planes of religious feeling and atmospheres of histori-
cal outlook which differ not simply from their context but from one
another. This feature of the book’s structure, together with the
absence or comparative absence of distinctively Christian traits
from certain sections, the iteration of ideas, the differences of
Christological climate, the repetitions and interruptions, and the
awkward transitions at one point after another, has given rise to the
whole analytic movement of literary criticism upon the Apocalypse.
The earlier phases are surveyed by A. Hirscht (Die Apocalypse u.
ihre neueste Kritik, 1895), Dr. Barton (Amer. Fourn, Theol., 1898,
776-801), and the present writer (Hist. New Testament, 1901, 677-
689); for the later literature, see Dr. A. Meyer’s articles in the
Theologische Rundschau (1907, 126 f., 182 f.), and an article by the
present writer in the Expositor for March, 1909. The legitimacy of
this method is denied by Dr. William Milligan (Discussions on the A po-
calypse, 1893, pp. 27-74), Zahn in his Einleitung in das Ν.Τ. (§§ 72-75),
and Dr. Μ. Kohlhofer (Die Einheit der Apocalypse, 1902), amongst
others, but, although both attack and defence have too often proceeded
upon the false assumption that the Apocalypse contains a balanced
series of historical and theological propositions, or that it can be
treated with the ingenuity of a Dante critic, the storm of hypotheses
has at least succeeded in laying bare certain strata in the book, as
well as a teleological arrangement of them in their present position.
The Apocalypse is neither a literary conglomerate nor a mechanical
compilation of earlier shreds and patches. There is sufficient evi-
dence of homogeneity in style and uniformity in treatment to indicate
that one mind has been at the shaping of its oracles in their extant
guise (cf. G. H. Gilbert in Biblical World, 1895, 29-35, 114-123, and
Gallois in Revue Biblique, 1894, 957-974). But the prophet has
worked occasionally as an editor of earlier sources or traditions, as
well as an original composer. These leaflets or traditions are stones
quarried from foreign soils; it is no longer possible! to ascertain
with any great certainty when or how or even why they were
gathered. The main point is to determine approximately the object
of the watch-tower which the apocalyptist built by means of them,
and the direction of his outlook. In some cases it is probable that,
alike as a poet and a practical religious seer, he was indifferent to

1 The state of the extant literature leaves our knowledge of early eschatological
tradition full of gaps. It is less exhilarating but more critical to mark the extent of
the gaps than to attempt to fill them up or to bridge them with more or less airy
guesswork.

~

202 INTRODUCTION

their origin, and in every case the important thing is to learn not
the original date or shape of a source, or the particular mythological
matrix of a tradition, but the new sense attached to it by the pro.
phet himself and the precise object to which he adapted it. This
consciousness of a purpose is the least obscure and the most Chris-
tian feature of the Apocalypse. Strictly speaking, it is an apoca-
lypse not of John but of Jesus as the Christ! (i. 1), and it is the
triumphant adoration of Christ which gives an inner clue to the
choice and treatment of the various messianic categories, Where
the problems of structure arise, and where source-criticism of some
kind? is necessary, in order to account satisfactorily for the literary
and psychological data—is in the juxtaposition of disparate materials
(cf. notes on vii., Χ., Xi., Xii., Xili., Xiv., XVil., Xviil.).

The results reached in the following commentary outline a theory
of the Apocalypse, in its literary aspect, which falls under (a) the
incorporation hypothesis. According to this view, the Apocalypse is
substantially a unity, due to one hand, but incorporating several
older fragments of Jewish or Jewish-Christian origin. So Weizsacker
(ii. 173 f.), Sabatier (Les origines littéraires et la composition de
[’ Apocalypse, 1888: Jewish fragments in xi. 1-13, xii., xiii., xiv. 6-20,
xvi. 13-14, 16, xvii. 1-xix. 2, xix. 11-xx. 10, xxi. 9-xxii. 5), Schon
(L’origine de l’' Apocalypse, 1887: Jewish fragments in xi. 1-13, xii.
1-9, 13-17, xviii. [except ver. 20]), Bousset, Jiilicher (Einleitung in das
N. Τ., § 22), C. A. Scott, PF. C. Porter, A. C. M‘Giffert (History of

1 The anti-Jewish note of the Apocalypse is as distinct as, though less loud than,
the anti-Roman. Cf. notes, ¢.g., on i. 6, 19 f., ii. 9, iii. 7-10, v. 9, 1Ο, x. 7, Xi. 19,
xxi. 22, xxii. 18. The Christian church was the new and true Israel, and thus.
served herself heir to great traditions and to high destinies which were only inferior
to her own in that they formed a lower slope on the same hill. One of the minor
effects (which differentiates the Apocalypse from the Fourth Gospel) of this concep-
tion is that Christians are not invited by John to love God or Christ; the temper of
their vocation is defined in Jewish terms as a reverent fear of God (cf. xi. 18, xiv. 7,
xv. 4, xix. 5). Another is the avoidance of ἐκκλησια as a collective term for the
church and the ignoring of ἐπίσκοποι, διάκονοι, πρεσβύτεροι, etc.—for the twenty-
four celestial πρεσβύτεροι, of course, have nothing whatever to do with the officials
of the same name.

2 English criticisms of VG6lter’s first essays by Warfield (Presbyterian Review,
1884, 228-265), and A. Robertson (Critical Review, Jan., 1895), of Vischer and
Sabatier by Salmon (Introd. N.T., pp. 232 f.), of Vischer and of Vélter’s earlier
theory by Simcox (pp. 215 f.), and of Vischer by Thomson (Books which influenced
Our Lord, pp. 461 f.). Northcote once told Hazlitt that he believed the Waverley
novels were written by several hands, on account of their inequalities. “Some parts
are careless, others straggling; it is only when there is an opening for effect’ that
the master-hand comes in.’”’ There are several criticisms of the Apocalypse which,,
with their quasi-reasons, recall this perverse and hapless verdict of a clever man.

INTRODUCTION 293

Apostolic Age, pp. 633 f.), A. Meyer (Theol. Rundschau, 1907,
pp. 132 f.), Abbott, Baljon, Wrede (Entstehung der Schriften des N.T.,
103, 104), Schmiedel and Calmes. Pfleiderer’s two Jewish fragments
ie in xi.-xiv., xvii.-xviii., and in xxi. 10-xxii.5. Those who are un-
willing to admit the use of any Jewish sources fall back, as a rule,
upon (b) the revision hypothesis of an Apocalypse which has been
re-edited and brought up to date. This is represented best by Erbes
(Die Offenbarung des F$ohannes, 1891), who regards the original work
as Johannine (before a.p. 70, incorporating one fragment of a
Caligula apocalypse = xii.-xiii.), with editorial additions (Domitianic)
in i. 1-3, 20, vii. 4-8, 13-17, ix. 12, xi. 14, xiii. 12, 14, xiv. 4, 8-9a, xv.
1, 5-xix. 4, xix. 9b-xx. 10, xxi. 5-xxii.2 (18-19?). Similarly, but very
elaborately, Briggs (Messiah of Apostles, pp. 285 f.) discovers a four-
fold process of editing, or rather of materials successively gathering
round an original nucleus, while Dr. Barth, in his recent Eznlettung in
d. N. T. (1908, pp. 250-276) goes to the opposite extreme of simplicity
by conjecturing (partly along the lines followed by Grotius) that John
simply revised, under Domitian, an earlier apocalypse of his own
(written under Nero). Either (a) or (d) is preferable to the over-
precision and disintegration of (c), the compilation hypothesis,
according to which two or more large sources, fairly complete in
themselves, have been pieced together by a redactor or redactors,
So Weyland (Omwerkings-en compilatie-hypothesen, etc., 1888: two
Jewish sources, with Christian editorial additions (c. Α.Ρ. 100) in

mie bY, 176, xive ο xy: 1) 628, κι ο, 15. Ίσα, οἱ. xvit. 14, xix. 7-
10, 156, xxii. Τα, 12, 13, 16-21), K. Kohler (2. $., x. 390-396: two
Jewish sources, one from seventh decade, the other slightly later=
x. 2-xi. 13, xii. 1-xiii. 10, xiv. 6 f.), Ménégoz (Annales de bibliog.
Théol., 1888, 41-45; two Jewish sources), Bruston (Etudes sur
Daniel et Apocalypse, 1908, summarising his earlier studies: two
Hebrew apocalypses, one Neronic=x. 1, 2, 8-11, xi. 1-13, 19a, xii.-
xiv. 1, xiv. 4-end, xv. 2-4, xvi. 13-16, 196, xvii.-xix. 3, xix. 11-xx.; the

12, 13, xix. 4-10, xxi. 1-8, xxii. 6-13, 16, 17, 20, 21), Spitta (Offenbarung
des Fohannes, 1898: two Jewish sources, one B.c. 63 and one c.
A.D. 40, with a Christian apocalypse by John Mark ο. Α.Ρ. 60),
Schmidt (Anmerkungen, etc., 1891: three Jewish sources, iv. 1-
vii. 8, viii. 2-xi. 15 [except x. 1-xi. 13], xii. 1-xxii. 5), Eugéne de
Faye (Les Apocalypses Fuives, 1892, pp. 171 f.: two Jewish
apocalypses, one from Caligula’s reign in vil. 1-8, viii. 2-ix. 21,
x. la, 2b-7, xi. 14-15a, 19, xii.-xiv. 11, etc.; another=a.p. 69-70),
VOL. ν. 19

-

294 INTRODUCTION

J. Weiss (die Offenbarung des Fohannes, 1904: two sources, one
xiii. 11-18, xiv. 1-5, 14-20, xx. 1-15, xxi. 1-4, xxii. 3-5; one Jewish,
c. A.D. 70), etc. Upon similar lines O. Holtzmann (in Stade’s Gesch.
Israel, ii. 658 f.) detected two Jewish sources, one imbedded in the
other, the earlier from Caligula’s period (xiii., xiv. 6 f.), the later
from Nero’s. The coast of reality almost disappears from view in
Volter’s latest theory (die Offenbarung Fohannis, neu untersucht u.
erklért, 1904), which is a combination of (b) and (ο); it postulates an
apocalypse of John Mark (ο. Α.Ρ. 65) and an apocalypse of Cerinthus
(c. A.D. 70 =x. 1-11, xvii. 1-18, xi. 1-13, xii. 1-16, xv. 5, 6, 8, xvi. 1-21,
xix. 11—xxii. 6), both edited under Trajan and under Hadrian. Least
successful of all, perhaps, in dealing with the complex literary and
traditional data, is (d) the Jewish and Christian hypothesis, which is
really a simplified variant of (0); ε.σ., Vischer (Texte u. Unter-
suchungen, ii. 3, 1886, 2nd ed. 1895) finds the groundwork of the
apocalypse to be an Aramaic Jewish writing (mainly) from A.p. 65-
70, which was translated, re-set, and edited by a Christian (in the
“Lamb ’-passages, with i.-ili., v. 9-14, vii. 9-17, xii. 11, xiii. 9-10,
xiv. 1-5, 12, 13, xvi. 15, xvii. 14, xix. 9, 10, 11, 13, xx. 4-6, xxi. 50-8,
xxii. 6-21, etc.). Similarly Harnack (¢bzd.), Martineau (Seat of
Authority, 217-227), and independently, an anonymous writer in the
Zeitschrift fiir alt. Wiss. 1887, 167-171, as well as Dr. S. Davidson
(Introd. to N. Τ., ii., pp. 126-233: the Apocalypse an Aramaic Jewish
work translated, with additions and interpolations). Von Soden’s
theory (Early Christian Literature, pp. 338 f.), which finds in viii. 1-
xxii. 5 of the Johannine Apocalypse under Domitian, a Jewish
apocalypse written between May and August of a.p. 70, lies, like
C. Rauch’s (Offenbarung des $ohannes, 1894: Jewish composite
nucleus, worked up by Christian editor) between (d) and (0).

The unsatisfactory result of many of these hypotheses is due to
the use of inadequate criteria or to the inadequate use of right
criteria. The distinction of Jewish and Christian elements is parti-
cularly hazardous in a book which deais with eschatology, where no
Christian could work without drawing upon Jewish traditions. And
these were neither stereotyped nor homogeneous. A given passage in
the Apocalypse may not be couched in Christian language, but this
does not necessarily prove that it was not written by a Christian;
we know far too little about Jewish Christianity in the first century
to be sure, apart from certain fundamental beliefs about Jesus,
how far it diverged from cognate Jewish conceptions. A failure to
appreciate either the poetic freedom of the Apocalyptist or the

INTRODUCTION 295

characteristic phenomena of apocalyptic writing in general has also
turned some literary analysts into theorists of the narrowest parti
pris. But such extravagances do not invalidate the legitimacy of the
method in question; without some application of it, the phenomena
of the book present a hopeless literary and psychological enigma,
and it may fairly be concluded as well as argued that this apocalypse,
like most others of its class, is composite to some degree.

§ 4. Characteristic Features.—In spirit as well as in form the
Apocalypse of John has affinities to the apocalyptic literature of the
later Judaism.!_ An apocalypse was the word for a crisis, and for
a crisis which bordered on the end. Whenever such epochs of dire
emergency recurred, the faith of Israel rose in poignant hope that
by breasting this wave of suffering they would soon be past the
worst, and lie safe out of the swing of the sea. Since the exile,
Israel’s foe had been some foreign power, whose policy threatened
the religious conscience and whose annihilation was eagerly awaited
by the faithful. Apocalypses frankly doomed the State and the world
alike; they maintained an irreconcilable and pessimistic attitude
towards both. Hence their speculation upon empires and emperors.
Hence their constant appeal for courage, based on a conviction that
God would intervene ere long in the political sphere to inaugurate a
reign of the saints on earth. For the apocalypse was a programme
of the immediate future on earth, or of a new earth, as well asa
brilliant panorama of celestial mysteries vouchsafed to men in dreams
or visions. Its subject was invariably ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει. Apo-
calyptic always spread its gorgeous pinions in the dusk of the national
fortunes, but it strained to the near dawn of relief.

Our concern, however, is with the genius rather than with the
genus of John’s Apocalypse. It rises above its class quantum lenta
solent inter uiburna cupressi. The uiburna are not to be ignored,
indeed. Their order is the general order of the Apocalypse, and when
the latter is approached from the side of the early Christian literature,
it seems often to include material of little or no specific Christian value.
There is a certain foreign air and shape about its foliage. But when it
is approached through the tangled underwoods of apocalyptic writings
in general, with their frigid speculations upon cosmic details, their

1 For the characteristics of apocalyptic literature, and for the relation of apoca-
lypse to prophecy, cf. 88 6-19 of Liicke’s epoch-making Versuch einer vollstdndigen
Einleitung in die Offenbarung ¥oh. und in die gesammte apok. Literatur (sec. ed-
1822); English summaries and surveys by Dr. Torrey (Ε. ¥. i. 669-675); L. Hassé in
Inaugural Lectures (Manchester, 1905, 126-159); Dr. Driver (‘‘ Daniel,’’ τοοο, pp.
Ixxxvi. f.); Dr. A. C. Zenos in Dict. of Christ and Gospels, i. 79-94: and Dr, R. Η.
Charles (EZ. Bi. 213-250, also 1338-1392 on Eschatology).

296 INTRODUCTION

wearisome and fantastic calculations, their tasteless and repulsive
elements, and the turgid rhetoric which frequently submerges their
really fine conceptions, the Apocalypse of John reveals itself as a
superior plant. Its very omissions are significant. There is no
allusion, ο.σ., to the prevalent category of the two gons, or to the
return of the ten tribes, or to the contemporary Jewish wail over the
cessation of sacrifice after A.p. 70 (e.g. in Apoc. Bar. x. 10), or to the
martyrs’ death as expiatory (cf. 2 Macc. vii. 37 f.,4 Macc. vi. 29, xvii.
21, etc.), or to any intercession of the prophet on behalf of the church
(cf. 4 Esdras viii.). There is no cosmogony, no self-satisfied comparison
of God’s people with pagans, no reference to the law! (in contrast to:
the contemporary glorification, ¢.g., in 4 Esdras iii.-ix., Apoc. Bar.
xv.-Ixix. [cf. Charles’ note on xv. 5], where it rivals even the messiah
as a medium of fellowship and a nucleus of future bliss). There are
no parables (as in 4th Esdras) or allegories; above all, there are no
querulous complaints from the living. Carlyle describes the Girondist
pamphlets as far too full of long-drawn out ejaculations, ‘* Woe is.
me, and cursed be ye!” Even 4 Esdras, for all its noble pathos,
partakes of this self-pity and fury; it is half-anger and half-agony.
But the Apocalypse of John usually breathes another air, mitigating
upon the whole the brusque temper of its class. Though the oppres-
sion which makes a wise man mad may also make a good man sad,
for all the feelings of exasperation and indignation stirred by the
empire, the prophet John has not yielded to any pessimism about the
cause of God. He never attempts to justify the ways of God, like
his Jewish contemporaries, or to explain how the devil gave his power
to the beast. His faith in Jesus as the messiah inspires a simple
hope which enables him to remain unintimidated by the last threats.
and terrors of a foe whose end is near. The quarrel with Rome, e.g.,
is God’s affair. His people have merely to stand still and witness
their enemy’s rout.

It is this faith, this Christian consciousness, with its moral steadi-
ness, which differentiates John’s Apocalypse from the other members
of its class. To write an apocalypse meant, like the composition of
a drama or a sonnet, conformity to certain literary rules or standards
as well as approximation toa certain spiritandtemper. It justified,
if it did not necessitate, the use of earlier fragments, which were only
partially intelligible, since the agony of their hour had long passed
by. Apocalyptic modified and adapted suck sources to the needs
of a later generation.. There was a sequacity about apocalyptic

1 This is all the more remarkable as contemporary Christians were being led, for-
ethical reasons, to view their religion more and more from a nomistic standpoint.

INTRODUCTION 297

literature! An author in this province could not start de novo ; not
merely had conventional designs or traditions to be followed, but
earlier products were commonly treasured and reset. John followed
this method, but his regulative principle was unique, and one fascina-
tion of his Apocalypse lies in the fact that we have here a Christian
prophet half-mastering and half-mastered by the literary exigencies?
of apocalyptic, uttering his convictions in strange and hardly re-
levant terms which had hitherto been appropriated to alien ends.
His vision of Jesus came to him through an atmosphere of trucu-
lent and fantastic messianism, which was scarcely lucid at all points
and which tended to refract if not to blur the newer light; yet
the Christian messianic belief generally managed to overpower the
inadequate, archaic, and incongruous categories of tradition, through
which it had often to pass. It is this juxtaposition which helps to
explain the occasional awkwardness and artificiality in the symbolism _
of the Apocalypse. No doubt the author himself, whether as editor
or composer, is partly responsible for this. A certain stiffness of
structure pervades the book. There is a lack of sustained interest,
and at several points the dove-tailing is defective, while, by a favourite
Semitic device, repetition (cf. Augustine, Civ. Dez, xx. 17) is made to
serve the purpose of emphasis. But such inconsistencies and
inequalities are mainly due to the fact that the writer’s Christian
consciousness repeatedly tends to break through forms too narrow
for its fulness. Probably the materials at the author’s disposal
would have been better arranged, had this been anything less than the
presentation of a living Redeemer in heaven as the messiah of God’s
people upon earth. The mere fact that the messiah had lived,
involved a readjustment of messianic categories; the further fact
that he had suffered and risen meant that many had to be reshaped,
There are things in the Apocalypse which show a careful study of
earlier prophetic scriptures and rabbinic traditions; but there are

1 This applies to traditions (5. C. 252 f.) as well as to literature (Selwyn, 59 f.). A
political and religious crisis promoted the resetting of older eschatological traditions
and the resumption of such elements from the common fund or circle of apocalyptic
teaching as had acquired special impressiveness (S. C. 221 f.). The different interpre-
tations of Jeremiah’s prediction about the 7ο years by the authors of Daniel and En.
Ixxxix. 59 f., are a casein point. .

2One of the clearest instances of this may be found in the angelus interpres
(cf. note on i. 1), which also illustrates, by the way, the difference between the
Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. The Fourth Gospel scrupulously avoids
connecting angels with Jesus. The only allusion to them, during his life-time, is
the popular mistake (xii. 29 f.) which misinterpreted God’s voice to him as if it had
been an angel’s voice. The Apocalypse, on the other hand, swarms with angels.

298 INTRODUCTION

other things which could only have been taught and learned within
the school of Jesus Christ, and these are really the telling sentences
throughout the book.

At the same time it must be remembered that some of the very
features which have lost much if not all of their significance for
later ages, ornate and cryptic expressions, allusions to coeval hopes
and superstitions, grotesque fantasies and glowing creations of an
oriental imagination, the employment of current ideas about anti-
christ, calculations of the immediate future, and the use of a re-
ligious or semi-mythical terminology which was evidently familiar
to some Asiatic Christians in the first century—these more or less
ephemeral elements combined to drive home the message of the
book. They signify to us the toll which had to be paid to contem-
porary exigencies; without them the book could not have made
its way at all into the conscience and imagination of its audi-
ence. The momentum of its message lay, however, in the deep
sincerity and lofty outlook of the prophet himself, and this broke
out occasionally in passages of unexampled splendour and dignity.
Sublimity, as a contemporary critic of literary style observed
(Pseudo-Longinus, περὶ tous), has always a moral basis; it is, he
declared, the echo of a great soul (µεγαλοφροσύνης ἀπήχημα)---ο5, we
might add, of a great soul exercised upon a great issue. The same
critic makes another remark, which is apposite to a passage like
ch. xviii. of the Apocalypse. One avenue to sublimity, he notes, lies
through imitation of and devotion to great writers of an earlier age:
Ἔστι δὲ οὗ κλοπὴ τὸ πρᾶγμα, GAN ὡς ἀπὸ καλῶν εἰδῶν ἢ πλασμάτων ἢ
δημιουργηµάτων ἀποτύπωσις. This canon throws a ray of light upon
the special psychological problem of the Apocalypse’s relation to
its Ο.Τ. and extra-canonical models. Some great writers in every
period of literature are only to be understood in the light of a
long series of predecessors, and the prophet John is one ofthese. His
apocalypse in one aspect is the final and brilliant flash of the red
light which had gleamed from Amos down to the Maccabees. His
affinities in point of form, treatment, and general aim are with the
line of literary prophets who, from Ezekiel to the authors of Daniel,
4th Esdras, and Baruch, applied themselves to the statement and
restatement of apocalyptic eschatology. John’s Apocalypse is
flecked with allusions to Ezekiel, Zechariah,! and above all Daniel.

1 In two aspects John resembles his prototype Zechariah: (a) in the employ-
ment of an intricate symbolism, which makes it difficult to be sure where intuition
ends and literary decoration begins, (0) in the use of schematism to explain provi-
dence. For the latter, cf. Giesebrecht’s Die Berufsgabung der alttest. Propheten

INTRODUCTION 299

But his use of Daniel especially is more than that of a littérateur
veproducing impressive and poetic conceptions from the study of a
classic. For all the artistic and even artificial literary shape of the
book, we should weigh it in the wrong scales were we to esti-
mate it as the work of an author who simply drew upon such earlier
models for his own later purposes. As contemporary rabbis not only
pondered over passages like the Egyptian plagues, the prophecy of
Gog and Magog, and the opening vision of Ezekiel, but even had
ecstatic visions of heaven granted them (cf. R. $., 350, 379), so the
prophet John was not a mere literary artist or a student of prophecy
or an editor of earlier fragments. He was that, but he was more.
Two features of his book differentiate him from such a class of
writers ; (a) he was a prophet in his own way, and (0) his conscious-
ness had been so powerfully affected by the post-exilic Judaism, as
well as by contemporary beliefs, that it is not possible to derive his
conceptions exclusively from those of the canonical Old Testament.}
These two features partially coalesce. As a prophet, no less than
as a student of the prophetic and apocryphal scriptures, John be-
lieved that the predictions of Daniel were at last on the point of being
fulfilled. This was the assurance which dominated his whole treat-
ment of the O.T. in general. It explains how he appropriated and
applied time-honoured messianic predictions which he considered
relevant to Jesus the true messiah, and it also serves to account
psychologically for the form of several visions (e.g., that of ch. i.),
which imply a mind already brooding over some of these passages.
A well-known instance of this suggestion of visions occurs in Ter-
tullian’s De anima, ix.: ‘‘Est hodie soror apud nos reuelationum
charismata sortita, quas in ecclesia inter dominica sollemnia per

(1897), pp. 60 f. (p. 68: bei Amos drangt ein Lebendiges zum Lichte, bei Sacharja
herrscht das Programm). On Ezekiel as a prophet who foretold the coming of
Christ, cf. Clem. Rom., xvii. 1. The typical and eschatological significance of the
Egyptian plagues especially seems, from Irenzus (iv. 27, 28), to have impressed the
Asiatic πρεσβύτεροι.

1 The author knows the Hebrew original as well as the LXX (or, at any rate,
some of his sources do), but the LXX quotations, or rather references (Swete, pp.
cxxxv.-cxlviii.) and reminiscences—for no formula of citation occurs—occasionally
(cf. i. 7, ix. 20, x. 6, xii. 7, xiii. 7, xix. 6, xx. 4, 11) mark a deliberate divergence, not
unexampled in the N.T., towards what was apparently a pre-Christian Greek version
of the Hebrew, approximating to the version of Theodotion (particularly in Daniel).
They thus anticipate the later preference of writers like Origen for the Theodotionic
Daniel (cf. Salmon’s Introd. to N.T., pp. 547 f., and Swete’s Introd. to the Ο.Τ. in
Greek, pp. 46f.), or else they prove that he was translating directly from the Hebrew
text (so e.g. ini. 6, xi. 4?, xiv. 8,18). For instances of composite Ο.Τ. reminiscences

cf. Selwyn, pp. 62-64.

300 INTRODUCTION

ecstasin in spiritu patitur ; conuersatur cum angelis, aliquando etiam
cum Domino, et uidet et audit sacramenta, et quorundam corda
dinoscit, et medicinas desiderantibus submittit. lam uero prout
scripturae leguntur aut psalmi canuntur aut allocutiones pro-
feruntur aut petitiones delegantur, ita inde materiae uisionibus sub-
ministrantur”’. When John’s soul is stirred to creative vision or
prediction, it is usually something he has heard or read in Daniel or
Ezekiel which is moving on the face of the waters. But the form
taken by some of the oracles cannot be explained simply from
the sacred scriptures, and it is therefore necessary to define sepa-
rately and more precisely each of the features which have been
just mentioned, even though the former necessarily involves the
latter.

(a) The mind of a prophet like John is, in Wordsworth’s phrase,
“a feeling intellect,’ which instinctively embodies ideas in symbols.
Thought rises before it in pictorial shape. Symbols are idea and
picture at once; they embody beliefs and are also realities of a
kind. Conceptions clothe themselves in vivid representations which
are effective either on account of their traditional associations or
from the aptness of their contemporary allusions, though it is often
difficult for a modern reader to fathom their origin in the writer’s
mind or to estimate the precise relation between the figurative
element and the definite idea which that element is intended to
enshrine.! The difficulty is doubled when, as in the present case, we
have occasionally to deal with an ecstatic experience. The material
to be interpreted includes the reflective working of the prophet’s
mind upon a previous mental condition, the literary presentment
(with some expansions, rearrangement and embellishment) of what
he remembers to have seen in the exalted moments of rapture,
together with the impressions produced by these upon his later con-
sciousness. The Apocalypse is not a continuous vision. In garts, it
is not a vision at all. There are rhapsodies in it, but it is not a
rhapsody. Occasionally the prophet speaks as a counsellor, or
writes as an editor of earlier fragments, or calculates the future
in terms of traditional eschatology. The very elaboration with
which the details and design of the book are worked out precludes
any idea of it as a mere transcript of visions written when the seer’s
memory was fresh, even though some phrases were set down as re-
flective or editorial glosses. At the same time, the nucleus and the
origin of the book are inexplicable apart from the presupposition of

10Qn this power of the poetic Eastern imagination, at certain stages of culture,

to fill sensuous forms with a higher content, see some admirable remarks in Caird’s
Evolution of Religion, i. 287 fi.

INTRODUCTION 301

a definite religious experience which assumed in part the form of a
trance or rapture. Vision here, as elsewhere, in apocalyptic litera-
ture is occasionally the literary form of allegory and tradition ; but
not always. The psychological problem is to explain the relation
between this inner consciousness of inspiration and the curious
imaginative forms in which the prophet seemed to think it needful
to embody his Christian conceptions. He employs a large number
of suggestive figures and metaphors, drawn from the Old Testament
and elsewhere, in spite of their literal inadequacy ; these phantas-
magoria it is impossible to regard as mere symbols, but on the other
hand they are hardly to be taken literally in the case of John any
‘more than that of the later prophets of Judaism (cf. Riehm’s Mes-
sianic Prophecy, pp. 228 f.) from whom he borrowed many of them.
‘Often the best way to explain them is to let them appeal to the
religious imagination, since it is in this way that they are likely to
‘disclose any permanent truth of which they may be at once the
-vesture and the vehicle. But whatever they are, they are suggestives
not dogmatic ; they are poetic coefficients rather than logical defini-
tions of the author’s faith.

The comparative independence with which, like the psalmists (cf:
‘Cheyne’s Origin of the Psalter, pp. 285, 286), he occasionally em-
ploys “anthropomorphic, or, let us say at once, mythic expressions,
is a consequence of the sense of religious security which animates ”’
him. These expressions helped out his Christian consciousness by
their vivid realism and their time-honoured associations in the circles
for which he wrote. He could embody in them some deeper truths
of his own faith. In this weird world of fantasy, peopled by a rich
Oriental imagination with spectral shapes and uncouth figures,!
‘where angels flit, eagles and altars speak, and monsters rise from
sea and land—in a world of this kind many Asiatic Christians of that
-age evidently were at home, and there the prophet’s message had
to find them. Often the point of an allusion lies in some half-
forgotten contemporary belief; the terms of it may be superstitious
enough, but the aim is predominantly spiritual. An apt illustration
of this procedure in the sphere of popular religion is afforded by
Luther’s well-known use of the superstition about the wood of the
-cross. ‘The cross of Christ,” he writes in one of his letters, “is
parted throughout all the world, and every one meets with his
portion. Do not you therefore reject it, but rather accept it as the

1 Even grotesque symbols of an Oriental cast would appeal to Hellenic readers
-who were familiar, ¢.g., with the”Aptepis πολύμαστος of Ephesus, on whose statue
“winged bulls and rams appear (cf. Apoc. iv. 5 f.).

‘ 302 INTRODUCTION

most holy relic, to be kept, not in a gold or silver chest, but in »
golden heart, that is, a heart imbued with gentle charity.” Here we
have a Christian message couched poetically and effectively in terms
of a familiar superstition which neither Luther nor his readers any
longer shared. A similar explanation may fairly be applied now and
then to John’s poetic use of the superstitions about amulets, talis-
mans, secret names,! and the like, although it is often a fair question.
how far his language is faded metaphor, and whether he did not
sincerely attach himself to some of the current beliefs which under-
prop his imagery. Otherwise we must allow that details are often
used for their poetical impressiveness, which depends on the power
of starting old associations and of suggesting dim, mysterious beliefs-

His relation to history is equally free. Nothing could well be
more jejune than to suppose that he is covertly conveying political
information to his readers, or laboriously spelling out the course of
providence from the politics, warfare, and meteorology of his age.
History does not move in neat systems of seven, and even apocalyptic
prophecy—for all its artificial dogmas and tendency to produce an im-
pression by means of prediction—forms no calendar of exact events
to come, much less any chronicle of recent happenings. It is the
dogmatic programme which is uppermost in apocalyptic. The seer,
by virtue of his inherited ideas, knew how external events must
move; his schematism was more to him than anything else, and
this accounts for the large haggadic element in such writings (c/.
Baldensperger, 100, 117 f.). But John’s prophetic impulse in the
revelation of Jesus to his spirit overbore the tendency to rest the
weight of his message on exact disclosures of the future. “For the
mass of his audience,” George Eliot says of Savonarola (Romola,
ch. xxv.), “all the pregnancy of his preaching lay in his strong.
assertion of supernatural claims, in his denunciatory visions, in the
false certitude which gave his sermons the interest of a political
bulletin.” John’s forecasts, such as they were, did not aim, at any
rate, at the gratification of curiosity, and even his dogmatic pro-
gramme was little more than a traditional form of expressing his
absolute certainty that the God of Jesus Christ would conquer evil.

(0) Asa product of Asiatic Christianity towards the close of the
first century, no less than as a member of a literary class which was
usually heterogeneous in eschatology, the Apocalypse further reflects.
the religious syncretism which prevailed especially in Phrygia and

privileges of the Divine cult after death, instead of the pagan cults which they~
abjure.

INTRODUCTION 303

the surrounding districts. The visions of the book are frequently
put in terms of local and contemporary religion. Even the contour
of what are apparently Old Testament reminiscences is occasionally
modified by the collateral foreign tendencies which permeated post-
exilic Judaism, especially along apocalyptic lines (cf. Cheyne’s Bible
Problems, 70 f.). Thus (a) the Babylonian background of several
conceptions! is now recognised on all hands (see notes on i. 4, 20, iv.
ie vac, wil εκ, 11, κιν. 6, εἰς 7) 9G) xxi? 1-2, 18, xxii. 1, 16).
The gnosticism of Asia Minor during the second century reveals the
survival and adaptation of more than one feature which was ultimately
due to Babylonian mythology or astro-theology, and the previous
developments of Judaism had already assimilated ideas from the
older speculations of the Babylonians. (b) Along with this, traits
corresponding to analogous conceptions in Egyptian religion are
fairly common (see notes on i. 8, ii. 7, 11, 17, 26 {., iv. 3, 9, v. 13, vii.
16, xii., xiv. 5, xv. 6, xxii. 4, 16). This is hardly surprising, as Egyp
tian prophecy probably affected Hebrew prophecy (cf. Wilcken it
Hermes, 1905, 544 f.), as the relations between Asia Minor and Egypt
were close, and as the latter country was the natural home of escha-
tology. (c) The Hellenic traits, though fewer and fainter, are not
inconspicuous (cf. notes on ii. 17, iv. 11, vii. 9, 16, viii. 5, ix. 11, xii.,
xv. 6, xx. 8 f.), but specifically Orphic features (cf. Maas, Orpheus,
1895, pp. 250-261) are scarcely recognisable. (d) The Zoroastrian ὃ

1 Especially behind xii. (cf. Calmes, Rev. Biblique, 1903, 52-68, and Jeremias
pp. 34 f.). But cosmological traits or traditions from Babylonia will not explain the
entire form of this oracle (cf. Cheyne’s Bible Problems, 195-207, and Kohlhofer,
ΡΡ. 72 f.), and even elsewhere they break down. Thus it is extremely questionable
if the Babylonians had any conception of the millennium or of the resurrection of the
dead; the accusing function of the devil is absent from Babylonian theology, as are
the features of xiii. 11-17; and the Babylonian origin of the heavenly temple seems
to be highly doubtful (cf. Prof. G. B. Gray in Exfos., 1908, May-June).

2 Hermas, the next apocalypse of the early church, is tinged at one point by
this influence (cf. Reitzenstein’s Poimandres, 12 f.). The occupation of the Cyclades
led to the introduction of many Egyptian deities into the local cultus between 308
and 146 B.c. (cf. F. Hiller von Gaertringen’s Beitrdge zur alten Gesch., i., 1902, pp.
218 f.), including not only Isis but that worship of the Ptolemies which, e.g. in Thera
(cf. the same writer’s Thera, i., pp. 237 f.) fostered the later Imperial cultus of Rome.
Some further Egyptian parallels are collected by Miss A. Grenfell in The Monist
(1906), 179-200. ¢

3 The English reader may consult Prof. Moulton’s article on ‘‘ Zoroastrianism ”
in Hastings’ Dict. B., vol. iv., E. Bi. iv. 5428-5442, Lightfoot’s Colossians, pp.
385 f.), and Renan (pp. 470 f.). I have stated and discussed the general evidence in
H. F., 1903-1904. The best investigations are in the ¥ahr. fir protest. Theologie,

Hiibschmann (1879, pp. 203-245) and Brandt (1892, pp. 405 f., 575 f.) respectively.,
Cf. also Boklen and Stave (5 το).

304 INTRODUCTION

influence is strongly marked, though not so strongly as Vdélter, in
his latest volume (pp. 29 f., 63 f., 86 f., 116 f.), would make out.
This, like that of Babylonia, reaches back not simply to the indirect
channel of the post-exilic Judaism, but apparently to an almost
direct relationship. In Zoroastrian angelology and eschatology alone,
for example, does anything adequate correspond to the sort of con-
ceptions which in their present shape are peculiar, or almost peculiar,
to the Apocalypse: vz. (i.) the binding or noosing of the fiend (xx.
1f.,cf.S. B. E., v. 19), (ii.) the blasting of the third part of the earth
(viii. 7 f., cf. S. B. E., v. 164, where the climax of the evil spirit’s
work is that “he took as much as one-third of the base of the sky in
a downward direction, into a confined and captive state’), (iii.) the
seven spirits of God (i. 4, cf. Encycl. Religion and Ethics, i. 384-385,
and S. B. E., iv. pp. Ixxi. f.), (iv.) the guardian fravashis of the churches
(see note on i. 20—quite an Avestan touch), (v.) the recrudescence
of evil genii before the consummation (xx. 7 f., cf. Stave, pp. 227 f.),
(vi.) the emphasis on the millennium-period,! and (vii.) the renewal of
the universe. See, further, notes on i. 13, ii. 5, iv. 3, vii. 17, xi. 5 f.,
xiv. 17 f., xvi. 13, 20. Upon the other hand, no distinct references
to Mithraism (as, ε.σ., against Barns in Expos., iii. 220 f.; Titan, the
number of the Beast = Mithra as sun-god) can be detected, while the
Buddhistic or Indian parallels are scanty and as a rule remote.
Nothing is more deceptive than such coincidences between primi-
tive religions. Si duo faciunt idem, non est idem, They may simply
be due in certain cases to analogous but independent movements of
the religious feeling in different quarters. Here as elsewhere infer-
ences have to be drawn with extreme caution, yet there is good
reason to believe that a number of the special traditions and para-
phernalia used in the Apocalypse owed part of their form, if not of
their content, to ideas which were current in Jewish and pagan
circles during the first century in Asia Minor. The coincidences
with Oriental religious conceptions (cf, e.g., J. Brandis in Hermes,
1867, pp. 259-284) are too numerous and too striking to be dismissed
in every case as accidental. Even when the cord is Christian, it may
be spun out of several variegated threads, though it is often diffi-

1 Plutarch (De Iside, 46 f.), in describing the Zoroastrian doctrines of the Magi
as these were known to Romans and Greeks of the first century Α.Ρ., closes by
sketching the final doom of Ahriman, when the earth lies smooth under a single
ruler and a single language, and ‘‘at the end Hades shall fail and men be happy”
(Apoc. xx. 6-14). Similarly, the fierce doom of Apoc. xix. 17-18, where birds are
summoned to eat the flesh of messiah’s victims, is probably a reflex of the supreme
penalty inflicted on the carcases of those who resist Mazdeism, viz., that they be
devoured by birds of prey (S. B. E., iv. 27, 131).

INTRODUCTION 305

cult and sometimes impossible to determine where the threads were
drawn from. Clemen’s Religionsgeschichtliche Erklérung des Neuen
Testaments (1909) is a convenient handbook to the whole subject of
these highways and byways of the apocalyptic fairy-land.

§ 5. The Nero-redivivus Myth.—The most central of these co-
efficients, drawn. from a mixture of supernatural and political legends,
is the belief in the return of a Nero-antichrist from the underworld.

The massacre of Α.Ρ. 64 had invested Nero with such peculiar
infamy for the early Christians, that it is not surprising to find
Satan’s chief agent in the final attack upon God’s kingdom depicted
by the prophet John as an infernal Nero, issuing from the under-
world to head a coalition of the East against Rome and then against
the Christ. Both the Jewish and the Christian literature of this
period show traces of the successive phases of the Nero-redivivus
anticipation (Suet. Nero, 47).1 The legend sprang up on Roman
soil. People could hardly credit the tyrant’s death, so sudden and
secret had been its circumstances. A curious mixture of relief and
regret prevailed after the removal of the last member of the Julian
dynasty at the age of thirty-two. For some time, indeed, a more or
less sincere belief (Tacit., Hist. Π. 8,9) prevailed, that he could not
have died, but must be lying hidden somewhere in the East. This
idea was suggested by his friendly relations with Parthia, and per-
haps corroborated by the wide-spread notion, which he had encour-
aged in his own life-time, that he would reign over the East from
Jerusalem, or that Rome was to be supplanted by an Eastern empire
(Suet. Nevo, 40, Vesp. 4, Tacit. Ann, xv. 36, Hist. v. 13, 3: pluribus
persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum litteris contineri eo ipso tem-
pore fore ut ualesceret Oriens profectique Judaea rerum potirentur ;
cf. Joseph. Bell. vi. 5, 4). On the strength of this superstition,
edicts were actually issued in Nero’s name, ‘quasi uiuentis et breui
magno inimicorum malo reuersuri’ (Suet. Nevo, 57). The East
was disturbed by pretenders, who exploited this superstition. One

1 In Sib. iv. 119 f. the great king (1.ε., Nero) flies away wounded across the
Euphrates into Parthian territory, while in Sib. iv. 137-139 (after 80 Α.Ρ.) the erup-
tion of Vesuvius is taken as a portent of Nero’s immediate return from the East
with a huge retinue to wreak vengeance on Rome. In another of these Asiatic
oracles (v. 143-147, dating 71-74 A.D.) the flight of the detested and unpopular
Nero from Babylon ({.ε., Rome) to the Parthians is described. He reaches the king-
dom of the Medes and Persians, to return in the last days (361 f.) for a bloody con-
quest of the earth (κοσμομανὴῆς πόλεμος). Cf. Geffcken’s studies ‘‘ Zur alteren
Nero-sage” in Nachrichten d. Gétting. Gesellschaft d. Wissensch. (1899), pp. 443 f.
The presence of the Nero-myth in the Apocalypse seems to have been first re-dis-
covered by a Spanish Jesuit, Juan Mariana, who commentéd on the book in 1619.

306 INTRODUCTION

appeared shortly (Tac. Hist. ii, 8-9) after Nero’s death; another
(Terentius Maximus) came forward in 80 Α.Ρ., who bore a physical
resemblance to the emperor, and was only surrendered by the
Parthians to Domitian after some years of power ; a third emerged
in 88 Α.Ρ. (Suet. Nero, 57). This created disaffection, especially in
the Eastern provinces (Tacit. Hist. 1. 2: “ mota prope etiam Partho-
rium arma falsi Neronis ludibrio”’), where revolutionary hopes and
dislike of the existing régime were only too easily excited. Even
under Trajan, Nero was believed by some to be still alive somewhere
(Dio Chrysost. Ovat., xxi.), but by that time the illusion had been
broken for most people, or rather it had been transmuted into the
shuddering belief that Nero would return from the under-world. The
political expectation thus became semi-supernatural or transcend-
ental.! In certain Jewish and early Christian circles towards the close
of the first century, particularly throughout Asia Minor, Nero-redivi-
vus became fused with the other weird figures of Beliar and the anti-
christ. To some of the Romans Domitian was another Nero. Το the
Christians who shared John’s view, Nero was to come again in an-
other form. The Apocalypse passes over the Beliar-myth of a Satanic
accuser who thwarts and seduces God’s people (cf. Introd. to
2 Thessalonians); incidentally, it assigns this function to the
dragon, Satan (xii. 10). But it follows one cycle of Jewish tradition
in associating antichrist with some political or foreign persecuting
power (Antiochus Epiphanes, Daniel; Pompey=dragon, Ps. Sol.
ii. 29; head of Roman Empire, Afoc. Bar., xxxix.-xl.). The dragon
Satan delegates his authority on earth to the Roman empire and
emperor. The supreme enemy on earth, however, is the weird,
spectral figure of this revenant Nero, who reappears in history (A. C.
pp. 184 f.; cf. for contemporary Jewish evidence, Dr. L. Ginzberg in
E. F., 1. 625-627 on Nero as the devil-antichrist), Thus it is that
the saga is doubled, not in xiii. 1-10, 11-18, so much as in xvii., and
this doubling seems to be anticipated even in xi. 7 (compare xiii.
1f.). The seduction of the Jews by antichrist proper (xi. 7 f.) is
subordinated by the prophet John to the seduction of the pagan
nations (xiii.-xiv., xvi.-xvili.), the latter being regarded as a far more
ominous sign of the end. On the other hand, Nero-redivivus is
employed, quite in Old Testament fashion, as the unconscious in-
strument of the divine vengeance upon Rome-Babylon; then he falls
as a just victim to God’s wrath.

1 On the apocalypse as a means of transition from political to transcendental
messianism, see Dr. Shailer Mathews’ scholarly pages (pp. 25 f.) in his Messianic
Hope in the New Testament (1906).

INTRODUCTION 307

The eschatological portent of Nero-redivivus, however, was
bound up with the pressing claim of the Roman emperors to be
worshipped as divine, and it was the latter peril which formed at once
the occasion and the theme of John’s Apocalypse.

§ 6. The Imperial Cultus.—Over two centuries earlier the great
exemplar of apocalyptic literature had been issued in order to nerve
the faithful who were persecuted for refusing to admit the pre-
sumptuous divine claims of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Apocalypse
of John is a latter-day pamphlet thrown up by a similar crisis. The
prophet believed that the old conflict had now revived in its final
form; Daniel’s predictions were on the way to be fulfilled at last in
an age when the Roman emperor insisted upon being worshipped
as the august lord and god of men!

Since the days of Augustus, the emperor had been viewed as the
guardian and genius of the empire, responsible for its welfare and
consequently worthy of its veneration. It was a convenient method
of concentrating and expressing loyalty, to acknowledge him as
entitled to the prestige of a certain sanctity, even during his life-
time. There were no monarchical traditions available to strengthen
the sense of imperial patriotism, and it was a politic step of the
emperor {ο permit a certain adoration to gather round his official
figure, an adoration which was generally the outcome of gratitude
to the dead and deference to the living ruler for his εὐεργεσίαι (cf.
Rushforth’s Latin Historical Inscriptions, pp. 46 f., and A. J. H.
Greenidge’s Roman Public Life, pp. 440, 444, with Gwatkin’s article
in Hasting’s D.B., iv., pp. 299-295). The imperial cultus in this
aspect was instinctive rather than deliberate, developing out of
certain germs within the ancient mind, such as the blend of religion
and patriotism among the Persians, the custom of hero-worship !
(ἀφηρωίξαι, especially prevalent in the lonian islands, e.g., at Thera,
cf. CIG, 2467—2473, Usener’s Gotternamen, 1896, pp. 249-250), and
the worship of the Ptolemies which shocked the pious Plutarch.
Its primary aim was to foster patriotism by presenting a symbol of

1 For the Latin germs of Caesar-worship, prior to Augustus, see Mr. E. Fiddes in
Historical Essays (Manchester), 1902, pp. 1-16. Many heroes were πάρεδροι θεοί,
associated with specific gods in a cult as σύνναοι or σύνθρονοι of the gods (cf. E.
Kornemann’s essay ‘‘ Zur Gesch. der antiken Herrscherkulte” in Beitrdge zur alten
Gesch., i. 51 f.); ¢.g., the later Attalidae at Pergamum had statues in the temple
dedicated to them as divine (pp. 85 f.). The shrinking of the Christian conscience
from this deification or apotheosis reveals the significance of the divine honours
‘paid to Jesus in the Apocalypse. The position assigned him by Christian faith was
no result of apotheosis.

308 INTRODUCTION

the solidarity and unity of the empire. Its political convenience,
however, lent it increasing momentum. Gradually, on the worship
of the Lares Augusti in Italy and the capital (Rushforth, pp. 59 f.)
and on the association of the imperial cultus with that of dea Rome
(to whom a temple had been erected at Smyrna as far back as 195
B.C.), the new canonisation rose to its height, never jealous of local
cults, but thriving by means of its adaptability to the religious syn-
cretism of the age. It was the religious sanction of the new im-
perialism.! It had temples, sacrifices, choirs (as at Smyrna), and
even a priesthood (the sodales Augustales) of its own.

For obvious reasons the cult flourished luxuriantly in the pro
vinces, particularly in Asia Minor,? where the emperor was often
regarded as an incarnation of the local god or named before him.
Distance lent enchantment to the provincial view of the emperor.
Any sordid traits or idiosyncrasies retired into the background before
the adoration felt for the divinity which hedged this unseen, powerful
figure, who was hailed with a mixture of servility and real gratitude
as ‘“‘the Saviour,” “the Peace,” “the αὐτοκράτωρ ” of the world, or as.
the lord of men (κύριος, dominus; cf. Kattenbusch, ii. pp. 612 f.).
Asia Minor became a hotbed of the cultus. The mere recognition of
an abstract empire with its authority providentially vested in the
emperor passed often into a religious adulation of the latter, as θεός
(cf. Thieme’s Inschriften von Magnesia am Maander u. das N.T.,
pp. 28 f.). The annual festival or diet of the nine Asiatic townships,
which served as an organ of government throughout the province,
readily coalesced with an annual festival in honour of the reigning

1 Full investigations by Boissier (La Religion Romaine, i. 184 f.), Friedlander
(iii. 455 f.), and Mr. B. W. Henderson (Nero, pp. 347 f., 434 f.), to be supplemented
by Otto Hirschfeld’s essay in Sitzungsberichte d. Akademie d. Wissensch. zu Berlin
(1888), 833 f, the articles in Roscher’s Griech. u. Rim. Mythologie (ii. pp. 902-910)
and in Prot. Real-Encykl. (1901), x. 539 f., Wendland’s Hellen.-Rémische Kultur in
ihren Bezich. zu γι. u. Christ. (1907), §§ 5 and 7, and especially by J. Toutain’s.
pages on the cult of Roma (37 f.) and the spread of the imperial cultus generally
(pp. 43 f.) in his notable work on Les cultes paiens dans l’Empire Romain (premiére
partie, tome i. Paris, 1907). Popular sketches in English in L. Dyer’s Studies
of the Gods in Greece (1891, pp- 37,45); Lecky’s History of European Morals (1. 257
f.), Westcott’s Epistles of St. fohn (235-269), Iverach H.¥. (1906, 262 f.), Work-
man’s Persecution in the Early Church (1906, pp. 94 f.), and Harnack’s Mission and
Expansion of Christianity (1908), i. book ii. chap. ix.

2 With the title of Jesus (ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ), in Apoc. iii. 14, con-
trast the servile language of the decree issued (ο. 9,B.c.) by the Asiatic κοινόν, fixing
New Year’s Day as the emperor’s birthday: ἣν τῇ τῶν πάντων ἀρχῇ tony δικαίως av
εἶναι ὑπολάβοιμεν (τοῦτο αὐτῷ ἀρχὴν τοῦ βίου καὶ τῆς ζωῆς Ὑενονέναι). Cf
Dittenberger’s Ozientis Graeci Inscript. Selectae, 458.

INTRODUCTION 309

emperor (Mommsen, Provinces, i., 344 f.). The Asiarchs probably
organised and pushed the new religion, even more than the local
magistrates (cf. xiii. 11 f.). At any rate the cultus, attaching itself
like mistletoe to institutions and local rites alike, shot up profusely ;
polytheism found little trouble in admitting the emperor to a place
beside the gods, and occasionally, as in the case of Augustus and
Apollo, or of Domitian and Zeus, “ the emperor was represented as
the deity incarnate in human form” (C. B. Ρ. i. 53 f.), The islands
also shared in this cult, as they had previously shared in the worship
of the Ptolemies. At Thera, for example, a pagan altar has been
found which was dedicated “to the almighty Caesar, the son of
God” (contrast Apoc., ii. 18). This divi filius title was one of the
most common and least conventional of what John called βλασφημίας
ὀνόματα.

The inevitable clash between this cult and the sensitive monothe-
ism of Judaism was struck during the latter years of the insane
madcap, Caligula (39-41 a.p.). His pretensions to divinity would have
been ridiculous, if they had not been dangerous. But he deified
himself in literal earnest by means of incense, gestures, and clothing
(cf. Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 7-8, xix. 1-2 ; Suet. Calig. 22) ; and the climax
of his insults to Judaism—the proposed erection of his statue in the
temple at Jerusalem—was only averted by the prudent temporising of
Petronius and the murder of the emperor himself. Under Claudius
matters righted themselves. Still, the shock of the crisis (cf. Eus.
H. E. ii. 5-6) left a deep impression on the conscience of the Jews.
It revived the worst memories of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the dread
remained, as Tacitus allows, that some other emperor might attempt
what Caligula had failed in (cf. Spitta 490 f.). Echoes of this are ta
be heard possibly in 2 Thess. and the synoptic apocalypse as well
in Apoc. xili., which (according to many critics)! is based upon a
source either Christian (Erbes 19 f., Bruston, Briggs) or Jewish
(Spitta, Pfleiderer, de Faye, O. Holtzmann, Rauch adding xvi.
13-14, 16), dating from this period. On this view, the general tenor

1 Otherwise, xii. 18 - xiii. 7 is held to contain a Jewish fragment (Kohler, J. Weiss),
concluded in xix. 11-21, which dates from 7ο Α.Ρ. Similarly Schmidt, Weyland.
Wellhausen, and others (Neronic). “ Caligula”, in Hebrew (Gaskulgas = Dy

ords0)) as in Greek (ΓΑΙΟΣ KAICAP) is equivalent by gematria to 616, the
variant to which Irenzus objected (cf. on xiii. 18); but so is KAICAP OEOC
(Deissmann: Licht vom Osten, 199 f.) as well as the shortened form of “ Nero Caesar”
For a discussion of the Beast’s number, see the recent symposium by Clemen,
Corssen, Bruston, and Vischer in Preuschen’s Zeitschrift fir die neutest. Wiss.
IQOI-1904.

VOL. V. 20

310 INTRODUCTION

of the oracle required only a few alterations to render it applicable
to the later situation, when Nero and Domitian had become for
Christians what Caligula had been for the Jews half a century earlier.
The arguments for this literary hypothesis, however, are not oxen
strong enough to pull the plough (cf. notes on xiii.).

Hitherto Christians had been out of the fray. Even Nero’s
massacre of them was a freak of personal violence, justified by their
reputation for hostility to the State, and apparently prompted by
Jewish malevolence. It had nothing whatever to do with the imperial
cultus. The latter was not seriously enforced until the second part
of Domitian’s reign. Like Caligula’ formerly and Diocletian after-
wards, this emperor (cf. Schoener, in Acta Semin. Philologici Erlang.
1881, pp. 476 f.) laid claim to the title of dominus et deus, and though
his claim was not official, it was none the less serious. Hence,
while he proved a ‘‘ second Nero” to the Christians no less than to
his own restive subjects, the former had special reasons for re-
membering the reign of terror,

κ When Vespasian’s brutal son
Cleared Rome of what most shamed him.”

The strict and harsh enforcement of the poll-tax (Suet. Domit. 12)
pressed heavily upon the Jews, indeed, but otherwise they were
generally undisturbed, since normally, under the semi-tolerant policy
of the empire, they were not obliged to erect or worship statues of the
emperor (Joseph. Apion. ii. 6). They sacrificed for him, not to him.
As a national religion, Judaism had its own rights like the rest.2 But
Christianity was not a religio licita, and the Nazarene faith, by the
sheer force of its principles and the success of its contemporary propa-
ganda, had soon to face the exercise of the law against illicit cults
(especially when these refused the test of swearing by the emperor’s
genius). The very differentiation of Christianity from Judaism, which
hed become increasingly plain ever since Nero’s outburst, deprived the

1 The bisellium, a splendid double throne, was assigned as a divine honour to
Caligula alone after Caesar. Contrast Apoc. xxii. 1.

2 They suffered under Domitian not for their personal faith but for the success of
their propaganda in making proselytes; cf. S. Gsell’s Essai sur le Régne de
l’Empereur Domitien, pp. 313 f.

3 The most recent discussion is by Klette in Die Christen-Katastrophe unter Nero
(1907 ; cf. the present writer’s review in H. ¥., 1908, 704-707). Renan’s coloured
pages (pp. 124 f.) and Hausrath’s graphic outline (Hist. of N.T. Times. The Apostles
iv. 168 f.) must be checked by the statements of Ramsay (Church in Roman Empire,
ch. xi.) and of Mr. B. W. Henderson in his Life and Principate of the Empere
Nero (1903).

INTRODUCTION 311

former of its right to the shelter of the imperial aegis and rendered it
liable to the religious and patriotic tax of the Caesar-worship which
Domitian’s claim now emphasised. The growth of the new faith and
the deepening need of the imperial cultus as a national bond of loyalty
made a collision between the church and the State inevitable ; and,
although no literary record exists of the opening movement in the
campaign, the correspondence of Trajan and Pliny is now recognised
pretty generally to presuppose an earlier stage in the policy of the
empire towards Christianity—a stage most probably associated with
the later years of Domitian (cf. Neumann’s der Rom. Staat u. die
allgemeine Kirche bis auf Diocletian, 1890, i. pp. 7 f. 11-15). Then
the conflict became more than sporadic (οἱ πολλοὶ ἐπὶ Δομετιανοῦ διωγμοί,
Mart. Ign. 1). Domitian not only permitted but encouraged and
enforced the payment of divine honours to himself; compliance with
the rites of the Caesar cultus was made the convenient test of loyalty
for Christians who had hitherto been arraigned for the most part upon
criminal charges (flagitia cohaerentia nomini) such as anarchy ;
confession of the Name of Christ now involved a refusal to give the
emperor the name of deus or divus, and, as John put it, all who refused
to worship the image of the beast or to be marked by his name were
liable to death. The religious recusant was naturally suspected of
lése majesté. When his religious susceptibilities were outraged by
the quasi-deification of the emperor, his protest was viewed as a
veiled pretext for rebellion, as well as an assertion of ἀθεότης or
sacrilege (cf. for Domitian’s reign, Lightfoot’s Clem. Rom. i. pp. 104-
115). But whether obstinatio or ἀθεότης or matestas, the crime was
visited with the same penalties.

This conflict of loyalties is the business of the Apocalypse. At

1 The connexion of the Apocalypse with this Domitianic phase is also worked out
by A. Matthaei (Preussische Fahrb. 1905, 402-479) from the Roman standpoint. He
argue: (477 f.) that the first θηρίον of ch. xiii. is the imperial cultus itself, while the
second symbolises the provincial authorities especially in Asia Minor. Ramsay
(Seven Letters, p. 97) partly agrees with the latter identification, taking the θηρίον
of xiii. 11 f. to mean “ the Province of Asia in its double aspect of civil and religious
administration,” but the probability (see notes) is that the writer is thinking of the
Asiatic priests of the imperial cultus, who may have played a part like that of the
Buddhist and Taoist priests during the Boxer rising in China, or like that of the
officials of the Russian Church in the recent campaign against the Milkist sectaries,
It is noticeable that there is no Christian antithesis, in the way of priesthood, to
Satan’s embodiment in the priesthood of the imperial cultus (xiii. rz f.), whereas the
latter in the sense of false prophet is implicitly contrasted with the true prophetic
order of Christianity, as are the official ὑμνῳδοί of the cultus at Pergamos and else-
where with the singers of hymns to God and Jesus in the Apocalypse.

3i2 INTRODUCTION

the first shock of persecution in Asia Minor over the principle of the
imperial cultus, John grasped with moral power the truth that this
was not a local skirmish but a matter of life or death to the church.
The issue between ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΙΗΟΟΥΣ and ΚΥΡΙΟΣ KAICAP was to be
neither compromised nor confused; the worship of the emperor,
even as a form of patriotism, and the adoration of Jesus as the
Christ of God were incompatible. The State did not realise this
until afterwards, when the dimensions and irrepressible vigour of the
Christian movement revealed it as a menace to the older civilisation
of the empire. As yet the Nazarene faith was little more than one
of the numerous Oriental weeds which had to be rooted out as im-
moral, anti-social, and unpatriotic; it was mainly notable for its
tenacity of life. The State did not dream as yet of regarding these
atheists and anarchists as a rival power. It was contemptuous.
rather than distrustful of the new faith. That this sect within a
sect, or rather this struggimg offshoot of the Jewish superstition,.
would outlive the empire which treated it as the legions treated the
daisies on their line of march, must have seemed then the infatuation
of a narrow-minded fanatic. History, by justifying this expectation.
has proved that it was more than a magnificent reach of the religious
instinct, that it was in fact what men have agreed to label rather
than define as “inspired”. It is true that the messianic and
apocalyptic traditions, with which the prophet worked, tended to
foreshorten his view of the campaign. The host of martyrs were
not crowded into a brief interval, and the triumph of the church
over the empire came in a very different way from what the prophet
or any of his contemporaries imagined. But the Apocalypse pene-
trated to the heart of the issue. The resolve which it knit and the
hope which it kindled were substantially the faith which nerved the
later church, from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards. What ‘“ faithful-
ness to death” (cf. ii. 10) involved may be illustrated from {Πε
normal procedure of the pro-consul in Bithynia, where Pliny, as he
tells us, had people brought before him who were accused, some-
times anonymously and sometimes erroneously, of being Christians.
They included persons of both sexes, all ages, and varying health.
After being thrice warned, those who still adhered to their confes-
sion of faith were, in consequence of the cognitio or preliminary
investigation, either imprisoned and killed (if provincials, cf. Apoc. ii.
13) or deported to Rome (if Roman citizens, cf. Apoc. xvii. 6, Ignatius,
etc.). Others, however, were not so loyal to their Lord.1. When an.

1 There were the δειλοὶ and ἄπιστοι, ¢.g., of Apoc. xxi. 8. Cowardice was par-
ticularly dangerous on account of its infectious nature. For the bad example of the

INTRODUCTION 313

opportunity of recantation was offered, some denied any recent con-
nexion with Christianity, telling the proconsul that they had been
(some twenty years ago, 7.¢., ο. 93 Α.Ρ., the period of the Apocalypse),
but no longer were, Christians. Some also had no objection to offer
incense before the image of the emperor or to curse publicly the
name of Christ. This was the criterion applied to the suspect,! and
it was largely due to the propagation of such resolute ideas as are
expounded in the Apocalypse that Christians were kept loyal to their
faith, and that, without a tear in their eye or a sword in their hand,
they were able eventually to change the face of the world by enforc-
ing the recognition of their claims at the hands of the empire. Like
the conventicles of the Scottish Covenanters, the primitive Christian
churches were accused of immoraiity and sedition, but, unlike
them, they succeeded by passive resistance pure and simple. The
Apocalypse is a call to arms, but the arms are only patience and
loyalty to conviction.?

It is unnecessary to assume that any widespread persecution
under Domitian, or indeed any “persecution” in the later and
technical sense of the term, was before the prophet’s mind, in order
to account for the language and spirit of the Apocalypse. John
himself had only been banished or imprisoned, like some of his
friends (ii. 10, Clem. Rom. ix. and cf. oni. 9). But from the position
of matters he already argued the worst. The few cases of repres-
sive interference and of martyrdom in Asia Minor (and elsewhere)

δειλοὶ spies, cf. Joseph. Antiq., iii. 15, 1. Ep. Lugd. describes ten renegades ‘‘ who
occasioned us much grief and immeasurable sorrow and impaired the ready zeal of
those who had not yet been arrested”. ‘‘Some remained ἔξω (cf. Apoc. xxi. 8, xxii.
15), of μηδὲ ἴχνος πώποτε πίστεως, μηδὲ αἴσθησιν ἐνδύματος νυμφικοῦ, μηδὲ
ἔννοιαν φόβου θεοῦ oxdvres” (cf. Apoc. xi. 18).

1 Pliny’s idea of repentance was that Christians should give up their faith. He
thought that a number would be willing to recant if they got the opportunity, and
Trajan confirmed his suggestion by ordering that whoever denies himself to be a
Christian and makes that plain by his actions, {.ε., by worshipping our gods, shall
gain forgiveness. Contrast Apoc. ix. 20, xvi.g f. At Vienne and Lyons the Roman
citizens in the church were beheaded (cf. Apoc. xx. 4, and the cases of John the
Baptist and James, Ac. xii. 1). The rest were thrown to the wild beasts or tortured
to death in other ways. It must always be remembered that paprus, in its sombre
sense, did not necessarily imply that a Christian had suffered the death-penalty (f-
Tert. de Fuga 12, Eus. Η. Ε. v. 18, etc.).

2 Cf. xiii. το, xiv. 12. In spite of the Cameronian touch of xiii. 17, this is the
normal temper of the book; it is a Christian expression of the passivity shown
already by the Quietists in Judaism, but the controlling motive is the spirit of Jesus
as recorded in his own saying (Matt. xxii. 21) and in the reply of his relatives to
Domitian (Eus. Η. Ε., ii. 32): ‘‘ His kingdom is not of this world or of this earth,
but heavenly and angelic, to arrive at the consummation of this age”.

314 | INTRODUCTION

were enough to warn him of the storm rolling up the sky, though as
yet only one or two drops had actually fallen. Eusebius probably
exaggerates when he speaks of “ many others” along with Clemens
and Domitilla (iii. 18), and the period of terror was admittedly short
(H. E., xx. 9-11, cf. Τότε. Apol. 5), but the crisis was sufficiently
acute to open John’s mind to the issues at stake. It is this sense
of the irreconcilable antagonism between the imperial cultus and
Christianity, not any specific number of martyrdoms, which accounts
for the origin of the Apocalypse during the latter years of Domitian.
A cursory glance will show that its language presupposes a situation
more definite and serious than any covered by earlier references to
persecution for The Name or My Name, which in all likelihood. as
1 Peter indicates, obtained more or less generally after the crisis of
64 Α.Ρ. in Rome. John sees another name set up against the name
of Christ, and he stamps it as the essence of blasphemy to recognise
any such title. What Christians were summoned by him to do was
to say ‘‘No”. Their positive confession of the Christian name re-
solved itself practically into a refusal to admit the legitimacy of the
emperor’s divine names.

This power of penetrating to the eternal issues underneath the
conflict of the day is one note of the true prophet, and in touching
the Apocalypse we touch the living soul of Asiatic Christendom.
The book comes forward as a work of prophecy (cf. notes on i. 1,
3; xi. 18; xviii. 20, 24; xxii. 6-7, etc.). As such it is designed for
the instruction and encouragement of the Christian society (1 Cor.
xiv. 3f.). it fulfils this design by means of visions depicting (a) the
approach and certainty of the Christ’s return, (b) the warnings
and comfort of God for the churches during the interval, and (c)
the bliss and terror of the world to come. Ordinarily the revela-
tion takes the form of rapture or vision. This, again, may pass
into an address in which the prophet leaves the véle of seer for that of
spiritual adviser. Or, rhapsody may become a song (ψαλμός), reflecting
the antiphonal outbursts of melody (1. Bz. 2138-2140, 3242) in the con-
gregation (cf. the responsive Amen in v. 14, vii. 12, the Trisagion in
iv. 8, and the Hallelujah in xix. 1 f.) which were based in part upon
earlier Jewish psalms of the synagogue (as Pliny found in Bithynia:
‘‘carmen Christo quasi deo dicere secum inuicem’). Finally, the
prophet may work along the lines of traditional apocalyptic oracles
which were more or less familiar to his hearers, just as the author
of Daniel took Jeremiah’s seventy weeks as one of his texts. All
these varieties are represented in the Apocalypse of John. But,
whatever rvéle he assumes, the seer or speaker is pre-eminently a

INTRODUCTION ~ : 315

prophet, and the Christian prophet is ranked beside Moses and the
angels as the servant of God κατ ἐξοχήν. The order of prophets is
second only to the apostles.

If it is the vocation of the prophet to reveal and emphasise the
faith, it is the corresponding duty of the martyr to be loyal at all
costs to that faith in the killing times. Hence the martyr or con-
fessor is, next to the prophet, the most prominent figure in the
landscape of the Apocalypse. One of the tests proposed (most un-
fairly) by an anti-Montanist in the second century as a criterion of
Montanist prophecy was its capacity for producing martyrs. Did it
inspire a faith equal to the stress of persecution? Was the religion
it fostered strenuous enough to provoke persecution? The crisis of
the imperial cultus under Domitian seemed to John at any rate to
demand an attitude of passive resistance! on the part of Christians
which involved the risk of death. -Neither rebellion nor suicide was
to be contemplated as a means of escape, and flight was out of the
question. Whither could one flee from the Caesar? The Christian
must be prepared to be faithful unto death, and if there is any dis-
tinction among Christians drawn by the prophet’s mind it lies not
between Jewish and Gentile Christians, but between the mfrtyrs on
the one hand and the rank and file of the church upon the other.
The martyr is primus inter pares ; an exceptional place and space
is assigned him for his persistent fidelity. At the same time the
extravagant prerogatives of the martyrs and the confessors in later
Christian belief lie outside the purview of the Apocalypse. The
prophet’s homage to them is partly due to the exceptional circum-
cumstances of the ‘‘killing ” time, and the permanent element un-
derlying it is the truth (witnessed by Zoroastrianism in its own way,
cf. Encycl. Rel. and Ethics, i. 210) that history is neither caprice
nor blind fate, but a moral order in which sacrifice for the sake of
Christ and loyalty to God are not water spilt upon the ground—a
moral order, too, whose end is bound up with the person of Jesus
Christ as Lord and Redeemer. It was perhaps inevitable that the
expression of this great religious conception should, by its very
emphasis, lead to some exaggeration. The flood-tide which sub-
merges some truths isolates others in a position of abnormal pro-
minence. Thus the Apocalypse, which is a tract for the bad times
of persecution, views the philosophy of history as catastrophe rather

1 With xiii. 9-10 compare the Jewish high-priest’s prayer on the day of atone-
ment (Jer. Jom. v. 42 ο.), that ‘neither this day nor through this year may any
captivity come upon us. . . . And as for Thy people Israel, let no enemy exalt him-
self against them.”

316 INTRODUCTION

than as growth; the virtues of asceticism and even celibacy (cf. on
xiv. 4) acquire unwonted prominence ; sensuous aspects of the mes-
sianic reign tend to predominate; the impulse of propaganda is
checked by the sombre and fore-shortened view of the world which
the presentiment of approaching judgment fostered ; religion tends
to be bound up with a hatred and fear of the civil power;! and
God is a dazzling, silent, enthroned figure of majesty, who has men
warned and wounded, not (as in the fourth gospel) a Pather who
is in direct touch with his children upon earth. The passion for
moral retribution regards material and political convulsions more
and more as the proper dynamic of providence. To John’s eyes,
the cause of affairs in the empire of his day was running straight to
the edge of a precipice. He saw in history not any τύχη Or εἱμαρμένη
but the justice and irony of providence abroad, and his puritanic
temper expressed itself in a mixture of spiritual resignation with an
imperious and vindictive expectation :---
Rome shall perish! write that word
In the blood that she has spilt.

This expectation is only a heightened form of the traditional
belief (cf. 4th Esd. xii. 11 f., Apoc. Bar. iv. 4-5) that the fourth
kingdom of Daniel’s vision was the Roman empire, which was to
be overthrown at the advent of messiah’s reign. Josephus pru-
dently evades this interpretation, though he is well aware of it. His
business, he protests, is not to explain the future (Anztzq. x. 10. 4).
But the interpretation was widespread in apocalyptic circies, and
a Christian had special reasons for sharing it. John expresses it
with characteristic vigour. He will encourage no fifth-monarchy
tendencies among Christians in Asia Minor, but he has no word
of showing loyalty to the empire as distinguished from worshipping
the emperor. He makes no attempt, such as Agrippa made before
Caligula (Leg. ad Gaium, 36), to disprove the charge of treason, and
no considerations of patriotism qualify his threats of doom against
the Roman empire.?

1Τε cannot be too strongly insisted that the tone of the Apocalypse here was
neither normal nor final. Indeed the subsequent history of the church bears out this
verdict. The Asiatic idiosyncrasies of its eschatology, and above all of its relation
to the State are thrown into relief against the ‘‘loyalist” tone of a contemporary
Roman writing like that of Clemens Romanus. ‘The moderation of this fine
epistle is attributed by Lightfoot (Clem. Rom.., i. pp. 27 f. 60 f. 382 f.) to the fact that
its author and bearers were connected with the imperial household.

? Dr. Selwyn actually conjectures (pp. 124 f.) that the prophet was banished for
having written the seditious oracles of iv.-xxii., and that when he re-edited the work
(adding i.- ii.) during Galba’s reign it was only the strong anti-Neronic feeling at
Ephesus which saved him from capital punishment as a traitor (pp. 214 f.).

INTRODUCTION et iy,

§ 7. The Date-—When the motive of the Apocalypse is thus
found in the pressure upon the Christian conscience exerted by
Domitian’s emphasis of the imperial cultus, especially as that was
felt in Asia Minor, any earlier date for the book becomes almost
impossible (cf. Mommsen’s Provinces of Rom. Empire, ii.175f.). The
‘traditional alternative, 1.ο., the reign of Claudius, is absurd. The
Neronic date (1.6., soon after Nero’s death) exerts most of its fasci-
nation on those who cling to too rigid a view of the book’s unity,
which prevents them from looking past passages like xi. 1 f. and xvii. 9 f.
But (a) the phase of the Nero-redivivus myth which is represented in
the Apocalypse cannot be earlier than at least the latter part of Ves-
‘pasian’s reign ; (b) the church of Smyrna, as we know from Polycarp
(ad Phil. xi.) was not founded by 64 a.p., and it is impossible to crush
the development implied in ii. 8-11 into a few years; (c) the con-
‘ception of the new Jerusalem implies a post-70 date (cf. notes on
Xxi.-xxii.) ; (4) no worship of the emperor, adequate to explain the
data of the Apocalypse, was enforced under Nero; and (e) the
allusions to the martyrs (ii. 13, and especially vi. 10-11—the How
long ? of the Neronic victims, and their subsequent comrades in
martyrdom) surely presuppose a much longer period than three or
four years. For recent English statements of the Neronic date, see
Selwyn (pp. 215 f.) and Mr. Β. W. Henderson (of. cit. pp. 439 f.).
‘The Vespasianic date (cf. V. Bartlet, Apostolic Age, 388-408 ; Scott,
48-56), which has rather a better case in the internal evidence of the
‘book, is ruled out of court by (d). The lack of any traditional re-
ference to persecution under this emperor would not indeed be a
decisive argument by itself; it is only by the letters of Pliny that we
happen to know anything of the troubles experienced by Asiatic
Christians under Trajan, and a similar outburst under Vespasian
might have passed unnoticed by Christian or pagan writers. But
this is unlikely! In any case, Vespasian did not take his inherited
and official divinity seriously. Christians had a temporary and com-
parative immunity under him, and “so rapidly did their influence
grow that they even made converts in the imperial family itself” (cf.
Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. ii. 507). Parts of the Apocalypse, taken
‘singly (e.g., in xiii.), might be referred to Vespasian’s reign, but,
‘unlike Domitian, he does not seem to have interfered with Oriental

”

1 An even stronger term might be used, in view of the researches by critics like
Matthaei, Gsell, Neumann and Ramsay. The extreme unlikelihood of the Apoca-
lypse being elicited by anything during the reigns of Titus or Vespasian is also recog-
nised by Linsenmayer in his Bekampfung des Christentums durch den rémischen
Staat (1905), pp. 66 f.

318 INTRODUCTION

cults. Thus, since the general intensity of John’s language about
martyrdom cannot be explained altogether as either a reminiscence
of the Neronic outburst or as a prophetic anticipation of what was to
be expected at the hands of the world-power during the latter days—
for some concrete occasion is necessary to account for the prophet’s
standpoint—the most probable solution is that Christians were
being persecuted here and there in Asia Minor for what Domitian
(as Neumann and others rightly point out) regarded as a cardinal
offence, vzz., the refusal to acknowledge him as the divine head of the
empire. The religious development of the churches is often held to:
presuppose a considerable length of time, but this argument must be
used with caution. Worldliness and error and uncharitable feelings
did not require decades to spring up in the primitive churches of
Asia Minor and elsewhere. No great stress can be laid on this
feature. Still, the character of the heresies described in ii.-iii. cer-
tainly presupposes an acquaintance with incipient gnosticism which
requires a later period than 70 a.p. for its development.

The one passage (apart from vi. 6, where see note) which appears.
to be a water-mark of the date is unfortunately ambiguous (see
notes on xvii.), as it contains an earlier Vespasianic source. But in
xvii. 10-11 so much at least seems clear. The numbers are literal.
not symbolical. The reckoning probably begins with Augustus as
the first emperor; the three usurpers (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) are
passed over (cf. Suet. Vesp. 1: rebellione trium principum et caede
incertum diu et quasi uagum imperium suscepit firmauitque tandem
gens Flavia), as was only natural to a provincial, who would be
specially apt to regard their struggle as a brief nightmare. The
sixth and reigning emperor (6 eis ἔστιν) is Vespasian (69-79 Α.Ρ.),
with whom the Flavian dynasty took up the imperial succession,
after Nero’s death, which ended the Julian dynasty, had well-nigh
broken up the empire (cf. xiii. 3 f.). Vespasian’s successor (Titus,
79-81 A.D.) is to have a very brief reign.! As a matter of fact it only
lasted for a couple of years. After him, the deluge! Nero-redi-
vivus (τὸ θηρίον), incorporating the full Satanic power of the empire,
who had already reigned on earth (6 ἦν) but who meanwhile was

1 This might be (a) a waticinium ex euentu, or (b) an eschatological inference (a
writer, composing under the sixth emperor of a series which was only to number
seven, would naturally argue that, as the end was near, the seventh emperor could
not have long to reign), or (c) a reflection of the widespread feeling (cf. Schiller’s.
Gesch. d. Rim. Kaiserzeit, i. 520) that the poor health of Titus would not permit him.
to reign for very long.

INTRODUCTION 319

invisible (καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν) was to reappear from the abyss, only to be
crushed finally (καὶ eis ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει). In its present form the
oracle announces that the downfall of the empire is to be heralded
by the reappearance after Titus of one belonging to the seven em-
perors (ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν) who, on the traditional scheme of the
heads, were to see the rise and ruin of the State. Here a literary
problem of some nicety emerges, for, while ver. 10 implies the reign
of Vespasian, ver. 11 points to an eighth emperor (evidently Do-
mitian). The solution is either that the writer of both throws
himself back in thought into Vespasian’s age, representing history
under the form of apocalyptic prophecy, or that ver. 11 (Domitian
recalling and playing the part of Nero) represents a later addition,}
inserted in order to bring the source up to date. In either case
the final standpoint is Domitianic, however, and this tallies with the
general evidence of the rest of the book.”

It also tallies with second-century tradition. In describing the
persecution of Christians by Domitian, that worthy successor of Nero,
Eusebius (H. £. iii. 18) quotes the following words from Irenaeus on
the name of Antichrist ; εἰ δὲ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι
τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, δι ἐκείνου ἄν ἐρρέθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑορακότος. οὐδὲ
γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ
τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς. The attempts to turn the force of this pass-
age by supposing that Irenaeus confounded Domitian’s actual reign
with his temporary regency in 70 Α.Ρ., or by referring ἑωράθη to the seer
instead of to the vision, are ingenious but quite unconvincing. The
tradition must be taken as it stands. Originally, as πρὸς τῷ τέλει

1**To me it seems that there are two distinct notes of time in the passage,
and that we are almost compelled to suppose that what was written at one
date has been adapted to another” (Dr. Sanday in Fourn. Theol. Studies, viii.
492).

2 This kind of elusive, enigmatic reckoning is illustrated by the Jewish Domitianic
apocalypse in 4 Esd, iii-.xiv. and by Barn. iv. Inthe former, the Roman empire is
an eagle with three heads (i.e. the Flavian dynasty: Vespasian, Titus, and
Domitian), the first of which rules the earth oppressively, the second of which is
devoured by the third (alluding to the belief that Domitian had made away with his
brother), while the third is to be challenged and vanquished by messiah (a parallel to
John’s prediction). The Christian writing, in order to prove the nearness of the end,
quotes Dan. vii. 7-8 and 24 for the purpose of showing that from the beast (i.e. the’
Roman empire) ten horns were to spring (i.e. the Caesars from Julius to Vespasian or
Domitian) and from them a little horn by way of excrescence (παραφυάδιον, {.ο.
Nero antichrist) which will abase three of the great horns (i.e. the Flavian dynasty)
Similarly Daniel’s addition of the 11th horn to the traditional ro illustrates John’s
apocalyptic revisal of the 7 heads. The only σοφία of the Apocalypse is the knack
of solving puzzles in this province of religious arithmetic (xiii. 18, xvii. 9).

320 INTRODUCTION

suggests, it was more precise and extended. It was held by Hip-
polytus, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, and Victorinus, possibly
even by Hegesippus at an earlier date, if Dr. Lawlor is correct in his
argument (¥ourn. Theol. Studies, viii. 436 f.) that the statements of
Eusebius (H. Ε. iii. 11-20) were borrowed from that writer's Hypom-
nemata ; indeed, no other early tradition has anything like the same
support or plausibility. Irenaeus, of course, is no great authority by
himself on matters chronological, but he is reporting here what
there was no obvious motive for inventing. The internal and the
externa! evidence thus converge upon the latter part of the reign of
Domitian as the period of the book’s composition or publication.
Little more than half a century later, one of its first commentators,
bishop Melito of Sardis, protested to Marcus Aurelius that “ of all
the emperors it was Nero and Domitian alone who, at the instigation
of certain slanderous persons,” assailed the Christian church (so
Lact. De Morte Persec. 3). Whether Melito knew this indepen-
dently of the Apocalypse or not, we need have very little hesita-
tion (cf. Stephan Gsell’s Essai sur le régne de l’Empereur Domitien,
1894, pp. 307 f.) in collating this persecution with the book in
question.

§ 8. The Author—tThe settlement of the date clears up the
problem of the authorship to this extent, that it confirms the
disjunctive canon of Dionysius (cf. Liicke, § § 39-42; Simcox
xxiii. f. xxxiii. f.), Origen’s thoughtful pupil, who saw, upon grounds
of internal evidence, that it was impossible for the Apocalypse
and the Fourth Gospel to have come from the same pen. Were
the Apocalypse dated earlier, it could be supposed that John had
matured during the interval, since twenty or twenty-five years’
residence in a Greek city might be conjectured to have improved
his style and widened his outlook. But when the Apocalypse has
to be dated in the same decade as the Fourth Gospel, the hypothesis
of a single author collapses. While the data of vocabulary, style,
and thought suggest that both writings originated in a school or
circle of Asiatic Christians, they differentiate the one book from the
other unambiguously.!

Hardly any writing in the New Testament loses so little, or gains
so much, by translation as the Apocalypse, for almost any version

1 Recent, though rather extreme, statements are to be found in J. Réville’s Le
Quatr. Evangile (1901), pp. 26-47, 333 f. in Selwyn (pp. 81 f. 114 Ε., 222 f., 258 f., the
Fourth Gospel = a correction not only of the synoptists but of the Apocalypse), and
in Schmiedel’s article (Ε.Β. ii. ii. 2515-2518). As Alford admits, “‘the Greek of the
Gospel and Epistle is not that of the Apocalypse in a maturer state”.

INTRODUCTION οσα

serves to obliterate most of the exceptionally numerous and glaring
irregularities of its syntax. But one drawback of this advantage
is that the distinctive characteristics of the book are less vividly
felt ; the further one goes from the original, the less visible are those
idiosyncrasies of conception, style, and construction which mark off
the Apocalypse from the rest of the early Christian literature and
notably from the Fourth Gospel. The psychological difference by
itself should not be pressed too far. One has only to recollect men
like Samuel Rutherford and Keble, to understand how vindictiveness
to religious opponents is compatible with a sweet and even devout
spiritual tone in certain natures. But the disjunctive canon in the
present case proceeds from a wider induction. Thus e.g. the well-
known resemblances of the Lamb and the Logos are both specious and
secondary. The former (τὸ ἀρνίον Apoc. ; 6 ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, Gospel, ἀρνίον
being reserved for Christians) does not exist in the original, nor is it
peculiar to the Johannine literature. The latter again (6 λόγος τ. θεοῦ,
Apoc. ; 6 λόγος, Gospel) is verbal (cf. note on xix. 13) ; the two ideas
are adapted from totally different soils in pre-Christian Judaism
and for alien ends. Some closer analogies, such as (a) the relation
of God, Christ, and the believer (cf. on ii. 27, iii. 19 f.), (b) the use of
the partitive ἐκ, ἵνα, δείκνυµι (of revelation), etc., (c) the explanation of
Hebrew terms, (d) formulas like μετὰ ταῦτα, and (e) phrases about
witnessing or keeping God’s word (commandments), do not neces-
sarily imply more than a common milieu of thought and expression
such as contemporary writers belonging to the same school might |
naturally employ. A common religious dialect often produces similar
instances of corresponding or coincident expression in different
authors of the same period. On the other hand, the Apocalypse has
a vocabulary of its own, whose peculiarities are not to be explained
simply from the subject matter ; 6.6. δοῦλοι θεοῦ (in explicit contrast to
Joh. xv. 15), λατρεύειν, οἰκουμένη, παντοκράτωρ, πίστις, ὑπομονή, etc.
besides cases of the multiplied genitive (xiv. 8, etc.). It ignores many
favourite and even characteristic terms of the Fourth evangelist, ε.σ.
ἀλήθεια, ἀληθής, ἀληθῶς, ἀπεκρίθη κ. εἶπεν, ἀφιέναι τὰς ἁμαρτίας, θεᾶσθαι,
ἴδε, ἴδιος, καθὼς, μετὰ τοῦτο, πάντοτε, παρρησία, πώποτε, ὑψοῦσθαι, χάρα»
sonship (cf.on xxi. 7) asking (ἐρωτάω) God, darkness, μὲν . . . δέ,
µένειν (except in xvii. 10, historically), πονηρός or ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου (of the
devil), to be of God or to be born of God, love to God or Christ,
ὑπέρ with genitive, ἀντί, ὑπό (accus.), pévror, etc., etc. Even where the
Apocalypse uses certain terms or ideas of the Fourth Gospel, it is in
a different sense; ¢.g. αἰώνιος (only in xiv. 6, never with ζωή), light
and the world (physically not spiritually), ἐκεῖνος (never substantival),

322 INTRODUCTION

ἐμός (only once), οὖν of logical appeal’ (not of historical transition),
Ἱερουσαλήμ. not “Ἱεροσόλυμα, νικᾶν (never transitive, and in special sense
cf. on ii. 7), judgment (outward and dramatic, not inward), the Spirit
(wholly prophetic, in contrast to the inward Comforter of the Gos-
pel), σηµαίνειν, ὑπάγειν, etc. Furthermore, the Fourth Gospel ignores,
often deliberately, a large number of words or phrases used not only
by the Apocalypse (once at least) but by the earlier synoptic Gospels ;
e.g. ἀναγινώσκω (of Scriptures), ἀποδίδωμι, ἀπόστολοι, ἄρσην, ἀφαιρέω,
βασανίζειν, βδέλυγµα, βίβλος, Ὑαστήρ, Ὑρηγορεῖν, γυνή (wife), δαιμόνια,
δένδρον, διαθήκη, δίκαιος (Of men), δῶρον, ἔθνη (=Gentiles), εἰκών, ἔλαιον,
ἐνδύειν, ἑπτά, ἐσθίω, ἔσχατος, ἔσωθεν (ἔξωθεν), εὐαγγέλιον (cf. on xiv. 6),
ἑξήκοντα, ἐχθρός, ἥλιος, θρόνος, ἰσχύς, ἰσχυρός, κληρονομεῖν, κλίνη, κηρύσσει»,
κόπτω, λιμός, λοιπός, λυχνία, µακρόθεν, μαρτύριον, µάρτυς, µηδείς, µετρέω,
µικροί, µυστήριον, νεφέλη, ὀλίγος, ὀμνύειν, ὁδούς, ovat, οὖς (contrast John
xviii. 10, 26), πάσχω, πατάσσειν͵ περί (accus.), πέτρα, πίστις, πλοῦτος (-σιος),
ποτίζειν, πόλεμος, πρεσβύτεροι, προσευχή, πρόσωπον, ῥάβδος, ῥίζα, σεισμός,
σελήνη, σκηνή, σοφία, σταυρόω, σφόδρα, ὑψηλός, φυλακή, ψευδοπροφήτης, and
χήρα. The Apocalypse also substitutes ἔρχου for ἐλθέ, and uses phrases
like ἄξιος with infin. for ἄξιος with ἵνα. The eschatological differences
of conception, which are too patent to require comment or to admit of
harmonising, corroborate the impression made by this argument from
words. Such features, linguistic and mental (cf. e.g.oni. 4, ii. 7,
iii. 21, vii. 15), are not due to literary versatility, nor to an imaginary
growth in the same writer’s vocabulary and soul, ‘nor even to a
common editorial revision. The argument from solecisms (cf. § 1)
and regular irregularities of style, from the special vocabulary, and
above all from the realistic type of religious feeling, may be cumula-
tive, but it is none the less able to support the contention that whilst
the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse must have sprung from the
same circle of Asiatic Christianity, they could not have been written
by the same person within a few years of each other ; the divergences
of eschatology, angelology, and Christology—which represent the
crucial points of comparison between the two books—are almost as
clearly cut in Apoc. i.-iii., where the Apocalypse is least apocalyptic,
as in the later oracles. In general, it would not be irrelevant to
apply to the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse the terms used by
Dionysius of Halicarnassus to characterise the works of Herodotus
and Thucydides respectively ; the one is radiant (ἱλαρόν), the other is
awe-inspiring (φοβερόν).

1 This is particularly significant, since, as the Apocalypse “is largely made up of
narrative, we might have expected narrative οὖν in abundance if it had been written
by the hand that wrote the Fourth Gospel” (Abbott, ok. Grammar, p. 479).

INTRODUCTION 4 323

While the author of the Apocalypse cannot have been the author
of the Fourth Gospel, his personality is partially disclosed by the
internal evidence of the book, which shows that it was the work of
a Jewish Christian prophet called John (i. 1, 9, etc.) who was in
close touch with the Asiatic churches. It is a προφητεία, and as such
it is ranked by the first Christian writer of the second century who
definitely mentions it (cf. Justin’s Dial., 81, 82). It was intended
to be read aloud in the worship! of those Christian congregations,
primarily but not exclusively, to which its opening messages were
addressed. In reality it isa sort of catholic epistle as it stands (cf.
ii. 7, etc., xxii. 16, 21), an open letter or manifesto to the churches.
The authority claimed by John is that of a prophet, not of an
apostle. The seven Asiatic communities may have lain within his
circuit or diocese, but the data of Apoc. ii.-iii. do not suggest any
specifically concrete relations between the prophet and the churches.
He does not seem to have founded any of them, nor does he promise
to re-visit them. Upon the other hand, John claims no special re-
lation to Jesus Christ, and there is no distinct evidence that he had
been an eye-witness of Jesus the messiah upon earth. None of the
visions implies any such personal intimacy; indeed that of i. 9 f.
tells against it, for the apocalyptic categories which dominate the
opening vision are not such as might be expected from one who had
been among the Galilean disciples.2 It may be replied that an
apocalypse is not a gospel, and that in an apocalypse it was the
qualities of a προφήτης which would naturally be prominent. But
this only raises the further psychological problem: how should a
primitive disciple adopt such categories? The reference in xviii. 20
does not absolutely exclude the possibility of John having been an
apostle, for ἀπόστολος is here employed in its wider sense, and in any
case the addition of προφῆται shows that this προφήτης might have
equally well referred objectively to the class or order to which he

1 Passages like i. 3, ii. 7, etc., xiii. 9, 18, xxii. 7, reflect this ecclesiastical use,
while the explanatory comments in iv. 5 (ἄ εἰσιν . . . θεοῦ), v. 6 (ot εἶσιν .. . γῆν),
v.8 (ἄ εἶσιν . . . ἁγίων), xviii. 24, xix. 8 (τὸ γὰρ . . . ἐστίν), xix. 10 (ἡ yap...
προφητείας), xix. 13 (καὶ κέκληται . . . θεοῦ), xx. 14 (οὗτος . . . πυρός), sound
often like prose glosses which in some cases may have been inserted by the author |
himself or a general editor, but in others were probably due to the interpretative
reading in the churches. A partial analogy is furnished by the influence of the
players on the text of Shakespeare’s plays.

2 The seer never says, I saw the Lord Fesus, or, Behold, the Lord Fesus.
Contrast Acts vii. 55, 56, etc. ‘‘ Jesus speaks through His Spirit under various forms
or without any form, and is never beheld in the form He wore in Galilee ” (Abbott,
p. 214). Cf. Prof. A. S. Peake, in Mansfield College Essays (1909), pp. 89-106.

324 INTRODUCTION

belonged. The unique allusion in xxi. 14 to the twelve apostles of
the Lamb, however, has an objective and retrospective tinge, which,
though it does not absolutely rule out apostolic authorship, points
in that direction. It is not a subtle anti-Pauline touch, for even
Paul did not number himself among the twelve (1 Cor. xv. 5), but
when it is collated with such discrepancies as that between xi. 1-2
and Mk. xiii. 2 (cf. also iii, 21 with Mk. x. 37-40) or that between Ac.
i. 6-8 and the apocalyptic calculations of the end (see further, on
iii. 21, vii. 1-3, 14, ix. 15) the result is a cumulative argument in
favour of some primitive Christian who sat looser to the synoptic
tradition than a disciple such as the son of Zebedee would have
done. During last century the apostolic authorship of the book,
in conjunction with the Neronic date, was urged by Baur (cf. Church
Hist. of First Three Centuries, 1. 84 f., 153 f.) and his school, on the
double ground that it represented a type of narrow Jewish Christi-
anity in the apostolic church, and that it contained an overt polemic
against the apostle Paul. Neither of these arguments is seaworthy
at the present day, although the anti-Pauline reference becomes a
much more serious question, when the Nero or Galba date is
chosen, than some recent defenders of the latter hypothesis appear
to realise. The Apocalypse has the Pauline teaching behind it
‘cf. iii, 14, xxii. 17), but it neither reproduces any of the Pauline
idiosyncrasies nor opposes Paul personally. It goes back to the
popular Jewish Christianity of the primitive churches, whose
“theology” consisted primarily in a belief that Jesus, the true
messiah, had secured the forgiveness of sins for his people and
would return presently to establish the divine βασιλεία. The writer
ignores any problem of the law or of the resurrection of the body.
Echoes of the synoptic tradition are audible enough, particularly of
its Lucan form, and one feature of the teaching of Jesus is preserved
carefully, viz., the belief in the catastrophic advent of the βασιλεία ;
but no evidence is available to prove a literary filiation between it
and any of the synoptic gospels.’

1 So far as the local colour is not derived from O.T. traditions, it may be ascribed,
as, e.g., by Mr. Theodore Bent (Nineteenth Century, 1838, 813-881, cf. also His-
torical New Testament , p. 688) to a personal acquaintance with Palestine and Asia
Minor (see on iv. 2, vi. 12 f., viii. 8 Ε., ix. 16, 18, xxii. 2). Thus, e.g., the references
to the appearance or the disappearance (cf. the case of Chrysé near Lemnos, told
by Pausanias, viii. 33-4) of islands reflect the insular situation of Patmos, from
which several of the A2gean islands were at least visible (Tozer: Islands of the
Aegean, pp. 178-95), as well as the volcano of Santorin. The crater of some Medi-
terranean volcano may have lent special point to the lake of fire and brimstone.
But John’s imagination is stronger than his susceptibility to his environment, though

INTRODUCTION 325

Who was this John? Was he some otherwise unknown figure
(ἄλλον τινα τῶν ἐν "Agia γενοµένων, Dionysius) in the primitive church
of Asia Minor (so e.g., J. Reville, F. C. Porter, Jiilicher)? This is
possible, for the name was common enough. But, if it is felt that
the work must be connected with a more authoritative personality,
tradition offers us the choice of three figures. (a) That of John
Mark (so e.g., Hitzig, Weisse, and Hausrath), whom Dionysius of
Alexandria mentions in this connection but only to set aside on the
score of his un-Asiatic career, need not be seriously discussed,
though Beza favoured his claims (‘quod si liceret ex stylo con-
jecturam facere, nemini certe potius quam Marco tribuerim qui et
ipse Johannes dictus est”). The real alternative lies between (b)
John the son of Zebedee, and (c) John the presbyter, both of whom
have strong traditional claims. The latter is not to be emended out
of existence by any manipulation of the text of Papias, and we have
no reason to regard the one as the doppelganger of the other.
Whether Eusebius was right in arguing from that text or from
other evidence that Papias was one of his hearers, John 6 πρεσβύτερος
was an important Christian disciple ; his authority was so great that
he could be called 6 πρεσβύτερο without any further designation.
There is strong and early support for (b) in tradition, but the in-
ternal evidence, as we have seen, is at best neutral and in certain
lights unfavourable. It is impossible here to analyse that tradition in
its bearings upon the Apocalypse, but it may be said that there were
special reasons which contributed to its popularity (cf. § 9). Internal
evidence weighed less with the early church than other considera-
tions. The wavering position of the Apocalypse required nothing
short of apostolic sanction to keep it within the canon, and indeed
apostolic authorship came more and more to be tantamount to
inspiration. Under these circumstances it was not easy for any theory
or tradition of unapostolic authorship to keep its footing. Mr.
Conybeare puts this succinctly (The Armenian Text of Revelation,
pp. 161 f.): “ Between 350 and 450 Greek texts of Revelation were
rare in the Eastern half of the empire. The best minds of the
Greek Church, men such as Eusebius Pamphili and Dionysius of
Alexandria, denied its Johannine authorship. Living in an age when

sometimes it is not fanciful to trace a special significance in some conventional
phrase, ¢.g., the boom of the Mediterranean in i. 15, or in vi. 15-16—an allusion to
the Sipylus range, north of the Gulf of Smyrna, where cisterns and holes cut in the
rocks afforded temporary shelter to the population during the frequent panics caused
by earthquakes on the coast (cf. Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Phrygia,
Eng. tr., 1892, pp. 61-62).

νο ν. 2Ι

326 INTRODUCTION

old Greek was still the language of every-day life, they were too
conscious of the contrasts of style which separate it from the
Fourth gospel to accept the view that a single author wrote both.
Having to accept John the apostle as author of one or the other,
they decided in favour of the gospel. In the West, on the other
hand, where both documents circulated only in a Latin dress, men
were unconscious of these contrasts of style, and so found no diffi-
culty in accepting both as writings of the apostle John.” Hence,
taking the Apocalypse by itself on the one hand and the tradition of
John the presbyter on the other, we find both converging on the
conclusion that, even if John the apostle did survive till the end of
the first century in Asia Minor, it was not he but his namesake who
wrote the Johannine Apocalypse. καὶ ot πρεσβύτεροι ὑμῶν ἐνυπνίοις
ἐνυπνιασθήσονται (Acts ii. 17), under the influence of the prophetic
spirit. In this case, the term πρεσβύτερος (as in 2 John ver. 3, and
3 John ver. 1) is the Christian term of honour and authority (cf.
Deissmann, 154 f., 233 f.), not the Jewish term! for a member of the
Sanhedrin (πρεσβύτης). Occasionally, as in the case of John, the
presbyter must have had prophetic gifts; the fragments preserved
by Irenzeus from the tradition of the Asiatic presbyters point un-
mistakably to prophetic and even chiliastic tendencies, though they
are more sensuous than in the corresponding features in the Apo-
calypse. John was also a μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου in the wider sense of the
term. He was one of the most important authorities who were in
touch with apostolic tradition, and it is easier to credit him with the
rabbinic erudition and apocalyptic lore of the Apocalypse than one
who was ἀγράμματος καὶ ἰδιώτης (Acts iv. 13).

A further possibility (recognised by Erasmus) lies in the direction
of pseudonymity. Apocalypses were almost invariably pseudony-
mous, and it is held by some (¢.g., S. Davidson, Weizsacker, Wernle,
Forbes, and Bacon in Expositor, 1907, 233 f.), that the presumption
is in favour of John’s Apocalypse also belonging to the pseudepi-
grapha. This would be rendered more probable, were it taken to
include fragments or traditions which were really due to John Mark
(Spitta, Volter), John the son of Zebedee (Erbes, Bruston), or John
the presbyter (J. Weiss, so differently Bousset and Schmiedel). But
it does not follow that an early Christian apocalypse must neces-
sarily be pseudonymous. Hermas is not. Besides, one raison d étre
for pseudonymity is absent, vzz., the consciousness that the prophetic

1So Selwyn (127 f.), holding that the author of the Apocalypse retained his

earlier Jewish title. Butit is prosaic to see that semi-circular court reflected in
iv. 2 f., or to find evidence of special legal knowledge in ν. 1 and xii. ro,

INTRODUCTION 327

spirit was no longer present in the church. The amount of ante-
dated prediction in the Apocalypse (.e., in xiii. xvii.), too, is barely
adequate, of itself, to support this theory. And it may be argued
that a pseudonymous writer would probably have been more ex-
plicit upon the apostolic authority of John, 7.e., if John the apostle
was the John under whose name he issued the Apocalypse. The
case for the latter form of the hypothesis would be strengthened,
of course, if it could be shown, as many critics have recently
attempted to prove, that the tradition of John’s early martyrdom is
reliable. In any case the ardent and even vindictive spirit of the
Apocalypse is not to be connected necessarily with Luke ix. 55.
Such a passionate, unpatriotic temper would be as much due to the
apocalyptic traditions and to the local exigencies of the period as to
any personal idiosyncracy, and if John retained this feeling till the
end of the century, or even till the seventh or eighth decade, he
must have profited very little by the lesson which Jesus had read
him long ago. When he is connected with the tradition or author-
ship of the Fourth gospel, the supposition that he was responsible
for the attitude of the Apocalypse becomes doubly, trebly difficult.

Το sum up. The Apocalypse was a product of the ‘‘ Johannine”
school or circle in Asia Minor, towards the close of the first century.
Beyond the disjunctive canon that it was not composed by the
author of the Fourth Gospel, but that it may have been written by
the presbyter whose name appears in the address of 2 and 3 John,
we can hardly go, in our comparison of the Johannine writings.
The data of tradition are unfortunately ambiguous and contradic-
tory, but, whether or not the son of Zebedee resided in Asia
Minor, the presbyter John seems on the whole to suit the require-
ments of the Apocalypse better than any other contemporary figure,
and, unless we are content with Castellio and others to share the
pious reticence of Dionysius (ὅτι μὲν οὖν Ἰωάννης ἐστὶν 6 ταῦτα γράφων,
αὐτῷ λέγοντι πιστευτέον * ποῖος δὲ οὗτος, ἄδηλον), the balance of probability
is in favour either of pseudonymity or of the hypothesis that the
prophet John who composed the Apocalypse was the presbyter John
of early Christian tradition (so after Dionysius, from various stand-
points,! Eichhorn, Wittichen, De Wette, Mangold, Credner, Bleek,
Ewald, Keim, Havet, Diisterdieck, Selwyn, Erbes, O. Holtzmann,
Harnack, Kohler, Von Soden, Heinrici (Das Urchristenthum, 1902,
126 f.), and Von Dobschitz (Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters, 1904,
si 5].

1 Grotius: ‘‘ Credo autem presbytero, apostoli discipulo, custoditum hunc librum ;
3nde factum, ut eius esse opus a quibusdam per errorem crederetur”. Loisy (1

328 INTRODUCTION

§ 9. The Reception of the Apocalypse.—No immediate traces of
the Apocalypse (cf. Zahn’s Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, i., pp. 201 f.,
and Leipoldt’s Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, i., pp. 32 f., 58 f., etc.), are to
be found in early Christian literature; the two or three apparent
allusions in Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, and Hermas, imply
nothing but common oral tradition or the independent use of the
O.T., if not of apocryphal sources. Ignatius, however, seems to have
known it (see on iii. 12, xxi. 3); certainly Papias and Justin did.
Melito of Sardis (ο. 170 a.p.) wrote a commentary upon it, while Apol-
lonius and Theophilus of Antioch were acquainted with it; so were
the Valentinians, and of course the chiliasts. Irenzeus and the Ep.
Lugd. attest its circulation in southern Gaul (ο. 177 a.p.). Clement
also read it in Alexandria as a sacred scripture. The evidence of the
martyrdoms and of Tertullian proves that in Africa, as well as in
southern Gaul and Egypt, it was widely circulated before the close of
the second century, and the Muratorian canon witnesses to its author-
ityin Rome. But it did not escape sharp criticism (τί pe ὠφελεῖ ἡ
ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου, λέγουσά pow περὶ ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἑπτὰ σαλπίγγων ;)
and even repudiation not only from Marcion, with his antipathy to the
O.T., but from the anti-Montanists, alike in Asia Minor and in Rome,!
who disliked the sensuous elements in its prophecies and repudiated
ecstasy as a form of true prophecy. The predilection for Hellenistic
eschatology also helped to throw it into disfavour, as compared
with, eg., The Apocalypse of Peter, which even the Muratorian
canon ranks alongside of it. Another feature which probably told
against its popularity was its unpatriotic attitude to the empire.
When prayers were offered in the churches for the emperor, and
when the empire had come to be viewed, as Paul had taught, in the

Quatr. Evangile, p. 134), Swete, M‘Giffert, Peake (Introd. N.T., 1909, 152 f.), and
some others incline to this hypothesis with hesitation, as does Jacoby (Neutestam.
Ethik, 1899, 444-455). It was admitted by Vogel (Commentattones, etc., 1811-1816),
who was almost the first to suggest the composite origin of the Apocalypse.

1 The controversy between Hippolytus and Gaius the Roman presbyter, in the
beginning of the third century, shows thit the latter, like the Alogi, possibly ascribed
the Apocalypse to Cerinthus (cf. Schwartz’s essay, Ueber den Tod d. Sihne Zebedaei,
1904, pp. 33-45). Hippolytus feels that Caius has gone too far in his wholesale
Tepudiation of the Apocalypse along with its Montanist exploiters. One of the
objections urged by the Alogi was that there was no church at Thyatira, and con-
sequently that John was no true prophet, which probably means that the local
church had become Montanist (cf. Corssen in Texte u. Unters., xv. 1, 52-56), and
therefore had ceased to exist as a church, from the standpoint of catholic Chris-
tianity. For the most part, as Dionysius says, they went through every chapter of
the book, with a keen scent for its Oriental phantasy (ἄγνωστόν τε καὶ ἀσνλλόγιστον
ἀποφαίνοντες).

INTRODUCTION 329

light of a providential bulwark, it is not surprising that John’s
Apocalypse had a hard struggle to retain its place in the canon, and
that except in times of sore persecution it did not appeal to the
majority of Christians. The result was that before very long the
only means of preserving it for ecclesiastical edification was to alle-
gorise it freely. This naturally threw the interpretation of the book
quite out of focus, so that the fortunes of the Apocalypse really
form a chapter in the history of the canon or of the church (cf.
Liicke, §§ 30-36, 50-59). But even prior to, or independent of, the
allegorical interpretation, the book had vitality. It is paradoxical to
claim that the apocalypses of the early church, including that of
John, were the first Christian scriptures to be canonised, owing to
their prophetic origin, which ranked them with the O.T. Their
place in the series of prophetic writings is obvious, but the treatise
de aleatoribus, from which the main evidence for this theory is
drawn, is of too uncertain a date to be used safely in this connexion,
Still, the Apocalypse did retain its vogue in many circles of the
early church, especially throughout the west. Often this was due
to a vague and correct instinct for John’s great religious message
in spite of its archaic paraphernalia and its fantastic elements (cf.
Renan, 479, 480). Yet even its literal prophecies still maintained
an appeal of their own. It was the chiliasm of the book, not its
unfulfilled predictions, which proved a difficulty. The prediction
which went soonest out of date (ἱ.ε., xvii. 8-11) seems to have
occasioned as little trouble to the church as the Sibyiline oracles
or the similar passages of the O.T. prophets. The Apocalypse
evidently was not final any more than normal.’ Besides, against
the failure of its historical programme to correspond with the
subsequent trend of history, must be set the fact that the num-
ber of the Beast could be interpreted as Trajan, Hadrian, or Marcus
Aurelius, that the expectation? of a Nero-antichrist lingered down to
the fifth century in certain corners of the popular religious mind,
that Gog and Magog were repeatedly expected in the form of savage
hordes (Huns, Goths, etc.), and that the dread (cf. Lightfoot’s
Ignatius, i., 644 f.) of a Parthian invasion did not become obsolete
till the third century. In several respects the book could still be
taken reasonably as a prediction of near events. Thus, by the time
that Constantine’s policy had antiquated the Apocalypse’s view of

1Cf. A. B. Davidson on this point in Hastings, D.B., i. 736, 737, iv. 126.

2 Though “it was during the continuance of the Flavian dynasty that the ex-
pectation was at white heat,” yet it ‘lingered on for many centuries” (Lightfoot,
Clem. Rom., ii., pp. 511, 512).

330 INTRODUCTION

the Roman State, the position of the book was fairly secure. New
systems of interpretation, allegorical (e.g., that of Tyconius) and
semi-historical, were devised to vindicate its rights as a scripture of
the church, and these were the more cordially welcomed, as the
book itself was enigmatic and in parts ambiguous. All sense of its
original object had faded from the uncritical mind of the church.
Dogmatic prepossessions underlay its rejection as well as its recep-
tion; it was exposed to extravagant censure and extravagant praise,
but the growing belief in its apostolic origin helped to save it, like
Hebrews, from ultimate exclusion or depreciation. In the case of
the one book as of the other, the instinct which determined the
judgment of the councils and the churches was sounder than the
political reasons which they adduced. Nostra res agitur, they felt.
The authentic note of loyalty to Jesus Christ at all costs was audible
enough to prevail with them over their antipathy to the crashing
discords of Christian apocalyptic.!

§ 10. Literature, etc.—In addition to abbreviations which are
already noted (page 284), or which are obvious enough, the following
may be mentioned :—

Abbott = E. A. Abbott’s Notes on N. T. Criticism (1907), pp. 75 f.,
175 'f.

AC =Bousset’s der Antichrist (Eng. Tr. by Keane, 1896).

Baldensperger=sec. ed. (1892) of Baldensperger’s das Selbst-
bewusstsein Fesu.

Blass=Grammatik des NTlichen Griechisch (2nd ed. 1902;
Eng. Tr. 1905). '

Boéklen=B.’s die Verwandtschaft d. jiidisch-christlichen mit der
Parsischen Eschatologie (1902).

Burton=E. de W. Burton’s New Testament Moods and Tenses
(2nd ed. 1894).

C.B.P.=W. M. Ramsay’s Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. i.
part i. (1895), part ii. (1897).

Dalman = Dalman’s Worte Fesu (Eng. Tr. The Words hes Sesus).

Dieterich =A. Dieterich’s Nekyia (1893).

1 «Tf a great man interprets a national crisis so as to bring home to the nation
its true ideals and destination, he remains a true prophet even if his forecast was
mistaken. Without the critical situation it is probable that the great man could
never have brought so much truth to such powerful expression. So an eschatology
is not to be judged by a simple rule of agreement with facts, but rather by its fitness
under the circumstances to quicken faith in God, to stir the conscience and put
men’s wills under the domination of ideal motives, to give a living sense of God
and eternity ’ (F. C. Porter, Messages of the Apoc. Writers, p. 73).

INTRODUCTION 33)

Dobschiitz = Von Dobschiitz’s die urchristlichen Gemeinden
(1902 ; Eng. Tr., ‘Christian Life in the Primitive Church,”
1904).

E.B.D.—‘‘The Egyptian Book of the Dead” (ed. E. Wallis Budge;
the translation, 1898).

E.Bi.=The Encyclopedia Biblica.

E.F.=The Fewish Encyclopedia (1901 ff.).

Ep. Lugd.=“ The epistle of the churches at Vienne and Lyons,”
177 a.p. (Eus. Π.Ε. v. 1).

Priedlander = Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms (1888,
6th ed.), by L. Friedlander.

Gfrorer = Gfrérer’s das fahrhundert des Heils (1838).

Grill=J. Grill’s Untersuch. δεν die Entstehung d. vierten Evglms
(1902).

Grotius=Grotius’s Annotationes, viii. 234 f. (1839 ed.).

Helbing = R. Helbing’s Grammatik der Septuaginta (1907).

Gregory =C. R. Gregory’s Textkritik des N.T. (1900-1909).

Jastrow = Prof. Morris Jastrow’s The Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria (1898).

Jeremias =A. Jeremias’ Babylonisches im N. T. (1905).

Kattenbusch = K., das apostolische Symbol, vol. ii. (1900).

Lueken = Lueken’s Michael (1898).

Moulton=J. H. Moulton’s Gramm. Ν. T. Greek, vol. i. (sec. ed.,
1906).

Pausanias=Pausanias’ ‘Description of Greece” (ed, J. G.
Frazer, 1898),

Pfleiderer =das Urchristentum (1902), vol. ii., pp. 281 f.

P.W.=Pauly’s Real-Encycl. der class. Altertumswissenschaft
(ed. Wissowa, 1894 f.).

Renan = Renan’s L’antéchrist (1871).

R.¥.=Bousset’s die Religion des $udentums im neutest, Zeitalter
(1903; the references are to the first edition).

R.S.=W. Robertson Smith’s Religion of the Semites.

S.B.E.=‘‘ The Sacred Books of the East’ (Oxford).

S.C.=Gunkel’s Schdpfung und Chaos (1895): with his essay
(1903) Zum religionsgesch. Verstindnis des N. T. (cf. The
Monist, 1903, 398-455). :

Selwyn =E. C. Selwyn: ‘“‘ The Christian Prophets and the Pro-
phetic Apocalypse ’’ (1901).

Stave = Ueber d. Einfluss d. Parsismus auf d. fudentum (1898).

Thumb= Die Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter d. Hellenismus
(1901).

332 INTRODUCTION

Titius = Dr, A. Titius: die vulgare Anschauung von d. Seligkett
im Urchristentum (1900).

Viteau =Viteau’s Etude sur le grecque du nouveau Testament, vol.
i, (1893), vol. ii. (1896).

Volz=P. Volz: $iidische Eschatologie (1903).

Weinel=Weinel’s die Wirkungen des Geistes u. der Geister im
nachap. Zeitalter (1899).

Weizsacker = The Apostolic Age (Eng. Tr., 1894-1895).

Win. = Winer’s Grammatik (8th ed., by P. W. Schmiedel).

In order to save space, most of the citations from the O.T. and
the N.T. have been relegated to the margin; often the substance
of a note has been crushed into a handful of such references. It has
been impossible to give any register of opinion or history of inter-
pretation, and I have abstained from furnishing such grammatical,
philological, or geographical information as may be found in any
concordance, grammar, or dictionary of the Bible. For fuller details
on questions of introduction I must refer the reader to the relevant
sections in my forthcoming Introduction to the Literature of the
New Testament.

The English student is now excellently served by the articles of
Bousset (£.Bi. i. 194-212, summarising the result$ of his editio prin-
ceps in Meyer [1896, 1906]) and Dr. F. C. Porter (Hastings’ Dict. of
the Bible, iv. pp. 239-266, an invaluable introduction), and by Dr.
Swete’s full edition of the Greek text (3rd. ed. 1909). Manual edi-
tions by W. H. Simcox (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1893), C. A.
Scott (Century Bible, 1902), and H. P. Forbes (Intern. Handbks
to N. T., iv., 1907, pp. 86-149). The main English contributions,
since Alford, are those of Farrar (Early Days of Christianity, 1882,
ch. xxviii.), Lee (Speaker's Comm. 1881), Wordsworth (1875), Randall
(Pulpit Comm., 1890), Milligan (Discussions on the Apocalypse, 1893;
also his edition in the fourth vol. of Schaff’s Commentary), E. W.
Benson (The Apoc., 1900), Selwyn, and Briggs (Messiah of the
Apostles, pp. 285-461); cf. further G. H. Gilbert (The First Inter-
preters of Fesus, 1901, pp. 332-397), F. Palmer’s The Drama of the
Apocalypse (1903), H. Berg’s The Drama of the Apocalypse (1894),
Dr. F. C. Porter’s Messages of the Apoc. Writers (1905, pp. 169-
296), the English translations of Beyschlag’s Neutest. Theol. (vol. ii.,
247-361) and Wernle’s Die Anfange, pp. 256-274 (The Beginnings
of Christianity,” 1901, vol. i., pp. 360 f.), Sir W. Μ. Ramsay’s Letters
to the Seven Churches (1904), Hort’s posthumous fragment (A foc.
i.-iii., 1908), and Canon J. J. Scott’s The Apocalypse (1909).

German edd.—De Wette (1848), Bleek (Eng. tr. 1875), Diister-

INTRODUCTION 333

dieck (1887), B. Weiss (2nd ed. 1902), J. Weiss (die Schriften des
N. T., 1907), Bousset, and H. J. Holtzmann (Hand-Commentar, 3rd.
ed., 1908). Schmiedel’s Volksbuch (1906) is included in the English
edition of his Fohannine Writings (1908). There is a competent
Dutch commentary by J. M. S. Baljon (Utrecht, 1908); besides
French works by Havet (Le Christ. et ses origines, iv. 314-344), Reuss
(Paris, 1878), A. Crampon (Tournai, 1904), and Th. Calmes (Paris,
1905), with the last-named scholar’s pamphlet, L’Apoc. devant la
.tradition et devant la critique® (1907). Baljon’s critical introduction
is given in his Geschiedenis van de Boeken des nicuwen Verbonds
(1901), 241-265.

Of the commentaries which preceded Alford, almost the only
English works which retain any critical value are those of Moses
Stuart (Andover, 1845: on the lines of Liicke) and Trench (Com-
.mentary on the Epp. to the Seven Churches, 1861, sixth edition,
1897).

Since the present commentary was drafted, six years ago, a
‘number of monographs, including some of those just mentioned, have
been issued. I have occasionally inserted references to them in the
‘text, for the sake of convenience and completeness, but, for the
-sake of independence, the notes have otherwise been left untouched.

πα. i ius hss δν
ον.

2
}
i);

ο.

if

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ.’

1. I. "᾽ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς α Sc. Hoe
. A bi ο sins σ
*Seigar τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ,” ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν (article
absent
as from

Matt. i. 1, cf. Win. § το, 10). For eschat. connotation, cf. Rom. ii. 5, viii. το. b John xii. 49,

xiv. 10: constr. John vi. 52. c John v. 20, x. 32.

10m. with 8Ο, etc. (edd.), from the title the του θεολογσυ of Q and (with ex-
pansions) many cursives, which was a description of the apostle John in the fourth
century as the author of the fourth gospel, and applied to him here as the exponent
of divine oracles (θεολογος = προφητης, Philo, de Vit. Mos., ii. τι; Luc., Alex., 19,
22) or as the herald of God (cf. Chrys., Ovat., 36). Inscriptions show that θεολογοι
were sacred officials in Pergamum, Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. (Deissm., 231-232, Licht

vom Osten, 252 f.), who were frequently υµνωδοι as well.

2 Punctuate Geos δειξαι τ. 8. αντου, with WH, Ws., Bs., Hort.

On the aiterna-

tive form Iwaver (39), c/. Win. § 5, 266, Schmiedel (EZ. Bi., 2504-2505), Thumb 2of.,

Helbing 29-30.

CuHaPTER I.—Vv. 1-3. The superscrip-
tion. Απ. Ἰωάννου is the ecclesiastical
title (distinguishing it from the apocalypse
of Peter, or of Paul, etc.) of what professes
in reality to be an ἀπ. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
(subjective genitive), z.e., a disclosure of
the divine μυστήρια (Dan. ii. 19, 22, 28,
Theod.) in the immediate future (ἃ δεῖ
γ. ἐν τάχει) which has been communi-
cated (ἔδωκεν, cf. on iii. 9) by God to
Jesus (cf. v. 7) and which in turn is trans-
mitted by Jesus (Gal. i. 12) to John asa
member of the prophetic order.

Ver. 1. δούλοις, in specific sense of
x. 7, xi. 18, after Dan. ix. 6, το; Zech.
i. 6, and Amos iii. 7 (ἀποκαλύψῃ
παιδείαν πρὸς τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ τοὺς
προφήτας). Fesus Christ is used only
in i. I-5 (xxii. 21 ?), Lord Fesus only in
xxii. 20, Lord (i.e., Jesus) only in xi. 8 and
xiv. 13; elsewhere either 6 Χριστός (xx.
4, 6) αὐτοῦ (xi. 15, xii. 10) or (as in
Hebrews) the simple ¥esus. & δεῖ κ.τ.λ.
(from Dan. ii. 28-29), either object of
δεῖξαι (Vit. ii. 229) or more probably
in opposition to qv. ἐν τάχει--''5οοπ”
(as in Clem. Rom. xxiii. 5 and the in-
structive logion of Luke xviii. 8). This
is the hinge and staple of the book.
When the advent of Jesus is hailed as
a relief, it is no consolation to say that
the relief will come suddenly; sudden

Or not, it must come soon (x. 7), if it is
to be of any service. The keynote of the
Apocalypse is the cheering assurance
that upon God’s part there is no re.
luctance or delay; His people have not
long to wait now. καὶ ἐσήμανεν (so of
what is future and momentous, Ezek.
Xxxili. 3, Acts xi. 26, etc.: Heracleitus
on the Delphic oracle, οὔτε λέγει οὔτε
κρύπτει ἀλλὰ σηµαίνει) ἀποστείλας
(from seventh heaven, in Asc. Isa. vi.
13), a loose Heb. idiom for ‘he ({.ε.,
Jesus here and in xxii. 16, God in xxii.
6) sent and signified it”. διὰ (as in
Asc. Isa. xi. 30, etc.) τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ
(cf. Test. Jos. vi. 6). Jesus is the medium
of all revelation, but ἀποκάλυψις is fur-
then conceived of as transmitted through
the angelus interpres, a familiar and im-
portant figure in rabbinic (cf. E. F. i.
592, 593) and apocalyptic tradition (see
reff. and on Acts vii. 30), who stands
here between Jesus and the prophet as
a sort of double of the former. Like
Hermas (Mand. xi. g), the post-exilic
tradition required the executive function
of this angel, in order to (a) satisfy the
yearning for some means of divine com-
munication, and (5) at the same time to
maintain reverence for the divine glory
(Baldensperger, 48 f.). But John’s Chris-
tian consciousness here and elsewhere 1°

336

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ i

dZech.i. ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ * ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ “lwdvvy, 2. ὃς

Q. 13, li. 3,

3 A = ~ A
Dan. νι ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν "λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν µαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

16,ix. 21 f.,

Ap. Bar. ὅσα { εἶδεν.
es

(Ramiel),

etc.: Dieterich’s Mithras Liturgie, 47 f.

e Ver. 9.

3. µακάριος 6 Σ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς

f {.ε., in present apocalypse. g 2 Cor.

ili. 15, Acts xv. 21, Matt. xxiv. 15, 1 Tim. iv. 13, Clem. Hom. xix.

too large for the traditional and artificial
forms of its expression. Unless this angel
is identified with that of x. 1 f., he plays
only a scanty and tardy réle (xvii. 1 f.,
xxi. 5 Ε) in the series of visions; the
prophet’s sense of direct experience (e.g.,
in i. g f.) bursts through the cumbrous
category of an intermediate agent be-
tween himself and Christ. It is by a
conventional form of religious sym-
bolism prevalent in this genre of litera-
ture, that Jesus, like Yahweh in Ezekiel
(cf. x. I, 3, xliv. 2), is represented both as
addressing the prophet directly and as
instructing him indirectly. The latter
mode of expression (cf. Milton’s Uriel
and 4 Esd. iv. 1) was due to a hypos-
tatising tendency which was not confined
to Judaism. As Plutarch points out (¢f.
below on viii. 5 and xv. 8), the daemons
in Hellenic religion are a middle term
between the divine and the human; they
prevent the former from being disturbed
or contaminated by direct intercourse
with men, and they also act as inter-
preters who communicate the divine will
to men (cf. De Iside 25 ; Oakesmith’s Re-
ligion of Plutarch, pp. 121 f., 163 f.).
Wherever the reaction against material-
ism prevailed, especially in the popular
religion of the empire, the belief in
daemons or spirits as intermediate
agents gave expression to the convic-
tion that human weakness could not
come into direct touch with the divine
glory (cf. Friedlander, iii. 430 f. ; Hatch’s
Hibbert Lectures, 245 f.).

Ver. 2. ἐμαρτ. (epistol. aor., cf. Phim.
το, cf. further Thuc. i. 1 ξυνέγραψε). Ady.

τ. 6., like FTW VAT (LXX λόγος τοῦ

θεοῦ, e.g., Jer. i. 2), a collective term for
God’s disclosures to men (τοὺς λόγους,
3), or as here for some specific revelation
more exactly defined in ὅσα εἶδεν, all
that was seen or even heard (Amos i.
I) in visions being described by this
generic term. The double expression
the word of God and the testimony
borne by Fesus Christ (xxii. 16, 20;
cf. xix. 10) is an amplified phrase for
the gospel. The subject upon which
Jesus assures men of truth is the re-
velation of God’s mind and heart, and

the gospel is that utterance of God—that
expression of His purpose—which Jesus
unfolds and attests. The book itself is
the record of John’s evidence; he testi-
fies to Christ, and Christ testifies of the
future as a divine plan. For the re-
velation of God, in the specific form of
prophecy, requires a further medium
between Jesus and the ordinary Chris-
tian; hence the réle of the prophets.
On the prophetic commission to write,
cf. Asc. Isa. i. 4-5 and i. 2, παρέδωκεν
αὐτῷ τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας οὓς
αὐτὸς εἶδεν, κ.τ.λ. The primitive sense
of µαρτ. (=oral confession and procla-
mation of Jesus by his adherents) ‘thus
expands into a literary sense (as here)
and into the more sombre meaning of
martyrdom (ii. 13, John xviii. 37-39, xix.
19; cf. Lightfoot on Clem. Rom. v.). It
is significant that the λόγος τ. 0. of
Judaism was not adequate to the Chris-
tian consciousness without the paptupia
Ἰησοῦ.

Ver. 3. The first of the seven beati-
tudes in the Apocalypse (xiv. 13, xvi. 15,
xix. 9, xx. 6, xxii. 7, 14), endorsing the
book as a whole. In the worship of the
Christian communities one member read
aloud, originally from the O.T. as in the
synagogues, and afterwards from Chris-
tian literature as well (apostolic epistles,
Col. iv. 16, and sub-apostolic epistles),
while the rest of the audience listened
(Eus. H. E. iv. 23). In its present form
the Apocalypse was composed with this
object in view. Cf. Justin’s description
of the Christian assemblies on Sunday,
when, as the first business, τὰ ἄπομνη-
μονεύµατα τῶν ἀποστόλων ἢ τὰ συγ-
γράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται
(Apol. i. 67). The art of reading was
not a general accomplishment in the
circles from which the Christian societies
were for the most part recruited, and
this office of reader (ἀναγνώστης), as
distinct from that of the president, soon
became one of the regular minor posi-
tions in the worship of the church.
Here the reader’s function resembles
that of Baruch (cf. Jer. xxii. 5, 6).
τηροῦντες τὰ, κ.τ.λ., carefully heeding
the warnings of the book, observing its
injunctions, and expecting the fulfilment

2—4.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

gar

λόγους * τῆς προφητείας καὶ ‘mmpoovtes τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ yeypappeéva.- Wi Cf: xxil:

*6 γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.

4. Ιωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ: ᾿ χάρις ὑμῖν

18-το.
salutation).

of its predictions, instead of losing heart
and faith (Luke xviii. 8). Cf. Hipp. De
Antich. 2 and En. civ. 12, '' books will
be given to the righteous and the wise
to become a cause of joy and uprightness
and much wisdom”. The content of the
Apocalypse is not merely prediction;
moral counsel and religious instruction
are the primary burden of its pages.
The bliss of the obedient and attentive,
however, is bound up with the certainty
that the crisis at which the predictions
of the book are to be realised is im-
minent; they have not to wait long for
the fulfilment of their hopes. This, with
the assurance of God’s interest and inter-
vention, represented the ethical content
of early Christian prediction, which would
have been otherwise a mere satisfaction
of curiosity ; see on ver. το.

[Note on i. 1-3. If this inscription
(absent from no MS.) is due to the
author, it must have been added (so
Bruston, Julicher, Hirscht, Holtzm., Bs.),
like the προοίµιον of Thucydides, after
he had finished the book as a whole.
But possibly it was inserted by the later
hand of an editor or redactor (Vdlter,
Erbes, Briggs, Hilg., Forbes, Well-
hausen, J. Weiss, Simcox=elders of
Ephesus, John xxi. 24) rather than of a
copyist (Spitta, Sabatier, Schén), who
reproduced the Johannine style of the
Apocalypse proper. At the same time,
the change from the third to the first
person (ver. g) is not unexampled (cf.
Jer. i. 1-3, 4 f.; Ezek. i. 1-4; Enoch re-
peatedly), and forms no sure proof of
an original text overlaid with editorial
touches; nor is a certain sententious
objectivity (cf. Herod. i. 1, ii. 23, etc.)
unnatural at the commencement of a
book, when the writer has occasion to
introduce himself. The real introduc-
tion begins at ver. 4 (cf. xxii. 21).]

Vv. 4-8. The prologue.

Ver. 4. ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλ., seven being
the sacred and complete number in
apocalyptic symbolism (E. Bi. 3436).
The ταῖς must refer proleptically to
to ver. 11; for other churches existed
and flourished in proconsular Asia at
this time, ε.σ., at Troas, Magnesia,
Hierapolis and Colossae, with which

k After Dan. vii. 22 (Lk. xxi. 8-9), cf. Ap. Bar. xxiii. 7.

i Lk. xi. 28,
John xiii.
17; con-
trast be-
low, xxii.

1 Sc. ety (primit. Christ.

the prophet must have been familiar.
These seven are selected by him for
some special reason which it is no
longer possible to disinter (see above,
Introd., § 2). ἀπὸ 6 Oy, κ.τ.λ., a
quaint and deliberate violation of gram-
mar (Win. § 10, Ic.; Moult. i. g) in
order to preserve the immutability and
absoluteness of the divine name from
declension, though it falls under the
tule that in N.T. and LXX parenthetic
and accessory clauses tend to assume an
independent construction. The divine
title is a paraphrase probably suggested
by rabbinic language (e.g., Targum
Jonath. apud Deut. xxxii. 39, ego ille,
qui est et qui fuit et qui erit); the
idea would be quite familiar to Hellenic
readers from similar expressions, ¢.g., in
the song of doves at Dodona (Ζεὺς ἦν,
Ζεὺς ἔστιν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται) or in the titles
of Asclepius and Athene. Simon Magus
is said to have designated himself also
as 6 ἐστὼς, 6 στὰς, 6 στησόµενος, and
the shrine of Minerva (=Isis) at Sais
bore the inscription, I am all that hath
been and is and shall be: my veil no
mortal yet hath raised (Plut. de Iside,
9), the latter part eclipsed by the com-
forting Christian assurance here. jv,
another deliberate anomaly (finite verb
for participle) due to dogmatic reasons ;
no past participle of εἰμί existed, and
γενόμενος was obviously misleading.
ὁ épx., instead of 6 ἐσόμενος, to cor-
respond with the keynote of the book,
struck loudly in ver. 7. In and with his
messiah, Jesus, God himself comes ; ἐρχ.
(the present) acquires, partly through the
meaning of the verb, a future signifi-
cance. For the emphasis and priority
of ὤν ἵπ this description of God, see the
famous passage in Aug. Confess. ix. το.
τ. ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων: a puzzling concep-
tion whose roots have been traced in
various directions to (a) an erroneous’
but not unnatural interpretation of Isa.
xi. 2-3, found in the Targ. Jonath. (as in
En. Ixi. 11, sevenfold spirit of virtues)
and shared by Justin (Dial. 87, cf.
Cohort. ad Graec., ο. 32, ὥσπερ οἱ ἱεροὶ
προφῆται τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα εἰς
ἑπτὰ πνεύματα µερίζεσθαί φασιν), or—
more probably—to the later Jewish

335 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΝΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 1.

~ Ν = ol
ὢν καὶ 6 ἦν καὶ ὁ "ἐρχόμενος: καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν
f ς a , a) iste - ’ Pye ee ‘ α΄, ἃ A
raf. ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων & ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ: 5. καὶ ἀπὸ ᾿Ιησοῦ
n From
=. x £ A ~
Hab. ii.3,Xptotod, °S µάρτυς 6 "πιστός, 6 πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ 6
ech, ft.
το - , ~ ~ ~ - - A
_* dpxwv τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς ' τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι | ἡμᾶς

m i. 8, iv. 8, καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ 76
Ex. iil. die

τα, Heb. we
χα. 1-2. John xviii. 37.

p ii. το, 13, cf. Ps. Ixxxviii. 38 (LXX).
Clem. Rom. xxiv.

1 Cor. xv. 20, Col. i. 18,
r Isa. lv. 4 (LXX), only here in Apoc. i ?

The λουσαντι . . . απο of PQ, min., vg., Me., Aeth., Areth. (so Bg., Trench,
Ἐπν., de W., Balj., Sp., Bs., Burgon: Corruption in Trad. Text, 59-60; for constr. cf.
Deissm., 227) is a corruption of λυσαντι εκ (NAC, 1, etc., Syr., Arm., Anda, Pr., edd.,
cf. xx. 7), probably due to misconception of Heb. use of ev (WH), and to the associa-
tion of the two ideas (cf. Iren. iv. 27, 1: qui abluit et emundat eum hominem qui
peccato fuerat obstrictus, and Plato's Cratylus, 405 B 6 dwokovwv τε καὶ ἀπολύων

τών κακώγ).

notion (0) of the seven holy angels
(Tobit xii. 15; cf. Gfrorer, i. 360 {)
which reappears in early Christianity
(cf. Clem. Al. Strom. vi. 635, ἑπτὰ μέν
εἶσιν οἱ τοῦ μεγίστου δύναμιν ἔχοντες
πρωτόγονοι ἀγγέλων ἄρχοντες), modi-
fied from (ο) a still earlier Babylonian
conception, behind (6), of the seven
spirits of the sky—the sun, the moon,
and the five planets. The latter is not
unknown to Jewish literature before 100
a.D. (cf. Jub. ii. 2 £; Berachoth, 32, 3),
corresponding to the Persian Amshas-
pands (Yasht, xix. 19, 20, 5. B. E. xxxi.
145) and reflected in “the seven first
white ones” or angelic retinue of the
Lord in Enoch xc. 21 f. (Cheyne, Orig.
Ps. 281-2, 327 f., 334 f.; Stave, 216 f. ;
Liiken, 32 f.; R. ¥. 319). Whether the
prophet and his readers were conscious
of this derivation or not, the concep-
tion is stereotyped and designed to ex.
press in archaic terms the supreme
majesty of God before whose throne
(i.e., obedient and ready for any com-
mission, cf. v. 6) these mighty beings
live. They are not named or divided in
the Apocalypse, but the objection to
taking the expression in the sense of (a)
denoting, as in Philo (where, ¢.g., 6 κατὰ
ἑβδομάδα ἅγιος or κινούμενος is a charac-
teristic symbol of the divine Logos), the
sevenfold and complete energy of the
Spirit in semi-poetic fashion, is the
obvious fact that this is out of line with
the trinity of the apocalypse, which is
allied to that of Luke ix. 26; 1 Tim. v.
21; Just. Mart. Apol. i. 6. The Spirit in
the Apocalypse, as in Jude, 2 Peter and
the pastoral epistles, is wholly prophetic.
It has not the content of the »pirit in
Paul or in the Fourth Gospel. Since the
writer intends to enlarge upon the person
«f Jesus, or because the seven spirits

stood next to the deity in the traditional
mise-en-scene, he makes them precede
Christ in order.

Ver. 5. ἀπὸ, κ.τ.λ., another gramma-
tical anomaly; as usual the writer puts
the second of two nouns in apposition,
in the nominative.—6 p. 6 π. Jesus not
merely the reliable witness to God but
the loyal martyr: an aspect of his career
which naturally came to the front in
“the killing times”, 6 πρωτότοκος (a
Jewish messianic title by itself, Balden-
sperger, 88) τ. v., his resurrection is the
pledge that death cannot separate the
faithful from his company. The thought
of this and of the following trait (cf.
Matt. iv. 8 f.) is taken frém Ps. Ixxxvili.
28, Kaya πρωτότοκον θήσομαι αὐτόν,
ὑψηλὸν παρὰ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν τῆς γῆς.
On the two allied functions of ruling
and witnessing (Isa. lv. 4) cf. the dif-
ferent view of John xviii. 37. At the in-
spiring thought of Christ’s lordship the
prophet breaks into adoration—ayarevte
κ.τ.λ. The eternal love (cf. ili. το) which
Christ bears to his people is proved by
his death, as a revelation of (4) what he
has done for them by his sacrifice, and
(b) what he has made of them (so Eph.
v. 25-26=Apoc. xix. 7, 8). The negative
deliverance from sins (cf. Ps. cxxix. 8) at
the cost of his own life (ἐν instrumental)
is a religious emancipation which issues in
(6) a positive relationship of glorious religi-
ous privilege.—Baotdelay, ἱερεῖς, a literal
(cf. Charles on Jub. xvi. 18) and inac-

curate rendering of Ὁ ΓΙ nobnn

(Exod. xix. 6) to emphasise the royal
standing of the Christian community in
connexion with their Christ as ἄρχων,
κ.τ.λ., and also (Tit. ii. 3) their indivi-
dual privilege of intimate access to God
as the result of Christ’s sacrificial death.

Sande

1, 18-19.
t ’ a a ~ A - .
βασιλείαν 1 ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ " πατρὶ αὐτοῦ: " αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ Totv. 10) ος
I et. il.
κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἁμήν. 9: if
3 ” a im - 2 acc,
7." Ιδοὺ έρχεται * μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν, καὶ ὄψεται αὐτὸν ” πᾶς ii-17, Jos.
nt. XX.
ὀφθαλμὸς, καὶ οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν : καὶ " κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ο, Jub.
κ : ee, μμ ολ ’ XVi. 13.
πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. ναί: dry. u Cf. on xxi.
7 (Ps.

27) (LXX).

sd. xiii. 3; cf. on Apoc. xiv. 14.
9; from Hab. ili. ro, LXX. a John xi. 27

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

y “ The world,” Did. xvi.; cf. Matt. xxvi. 64.

lxxxviii.

2 ν Resuming réay. Same doxology as in 1 Pet. iv. 11 ; see also Mk. xiii. 26, 2 Thess.
is 2: and Chase in Camb. Texts and Stud. i. (1891) 168 f. i
4

w xvi. 15. x Mk. xiii. 26, xiv. 62,

Z XViii.

1βασιλεις και (P, 1, 28, 36, etc., And.) is one of several glosses introduced (like
tepav or tepatixny of Syr., S. for vepers, or ημων of C, Lat. for ηµας) to ease the
difficulty of the original βασιλειαν (ΑΘ, etc., vg., Syr., Areth., edd.) [like ιερατευµα

I Pet. il. 5, ο].

καὶ ἐποίησεν, the harsh anacolouthon
breaks up the participial construc-
tion. ἡμᾶς, emphatic. ‘‘ We Christians
are now the chosen people. In us the
Danielic prophecy of a reign of the saints
is fulfilled and is to be fulfilled.” This
is a characteristically anti-Jewish note.
Persecution (cf. 1 Peter ii. 5) deepened
the sense of continuity in the early Chris-
tians, who felt driven back on the truth
of election and divine protection; they
were the true successors of all noble suf-
ferers in Israel who had gone before (cf.
the argument of Heb. xi. 32—xii. 2). In
the Apocalypse the Christian church is
invariably the true Israel, including all
who believe in Christ, irrespective of
birth and nationality. God reigns over
them, and they reign, or will reign, over
the world. In fact, Christians now and
here are what Israel hoped to become,
v1Z., priest-princes of God, and this posi-
tion has been won for them by a messiah
whom the Jews had rejected, and whom
all non-Christians will have to acknow-
ledge as sovereign. According to rab-
binic tradition, the messianic age would
restore to Israel the priestly standing
which it had lost by its worship of the
golden calf; and by the first command-
ment (Mechilta on Exod. xx. 2), “slaves
became kings”. There may also be an
implicit anti-Roman allusion. We Chris-
tians, harried and despised, are a com-
munity with a great history and a greater
hope. Our connection with Christ makes
us truly imperial. The adoration of
Christ, which vibrates in this doxology
dcf. Expos.® v. 302-307), is one of the most
impressive features of the book. The
prophet feels that the one hope for the
loyalists of God in this period of trial is
«ο be conscious that they owe everything

to the redeeming love of Jesus. Faith-
fulness depends on faith, and faith is
tallied by the grasp not of itself but of its
object. Mysterious explanations of his-
tory follow, but it is passionate devotion
to Jesus, and not any skill in exploring
prophecy, which proves the source of
moral heroism in the churches. Jesus
sacrificed himself for us; αὐτῷ 7 δόξα.
From this inward trust and wonder,
which leap up at the sight of Jesus and
his grace, the loyalty of Christians flows.

This enthusiasm for Jesus naturally
carries the prophet’s mind forward (7, 8)
to the time when the Lord’s majesty will
flash out on mankind. He resumes the
line of thought interrupted by the doxol-
ogy of 55-6.

Ver. 7. A reminiscence and adaptation of
Dan. vii. 13 (Theod.) and Zech. xii. 10-14.
The substitution of ἐξεκέγτησαν (so John
xix. 37, Justin’s Afol. i. 52, Dial. xxxii.,
cf. \xi., cxviii., adding eis) for κατωρχ-
ήσαντο (LXX mistranslation in this

passage, though not elsewhere, of 1121)

—shows that the original text was used
(though Liicke and Ewald hold that ἐξ.
was the LXX reading till Origen), and that
it was interpreted in some (Johannine?
Abbott, Diatessarica, 1259-1262, 2317)
circles as a prophecy of the crucifixion.
Only, the reference is no longer to repent-
ance (Zech.), but, by a turn of character-
istic severity, to remorse and judgment.
There is a remarkable parallel in Matt.
xxiv. 30, where patristic tradition (cf.
A. C. 233-36) early recognised in τὸ
σημεῖον τ. ὑ. a. the cross itself, made
visible on the day of judgment. The
first of the three signs preceding Christ’s
advent in the clouds, acc. to Did. xvi. 6
(cf. Zech. ii. 13 LXX), is σημεῖον ἐκπετά-

goo

ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν “ev τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ: 6. καὶ ἐποίησεν Hpdss v.9, 1 Pet.

~

540

b Ge Riedel
(Seukke
1991,

205 {.).
The
patristic

reference
of this verse to Jesus is defended by Abbott,

d Isa. xliv. 6, Amos iv. 13; except (Cit.) 2 Cor. vi.

17 f., in connection with retribution ; Charkeaile
Dan. vii. 2, Ex. xii. 3, 4 Esd. 11. 42, etc.

σεως ἐν οὐρανῷ (Christ with outstretched
arms, as crucified 2); and, acc. to Barn.
vii. 9, ‘they shall see him on that day
wearing about his flesh τὸν ποδήρη
κόκκινον’.. Note (a) that the agreement
with John xix. 37 is mainly verbal; the
latter alludes to the crucifixion, this pas-
sage to an eschatological crisis. (6) No
such visible or victorious return of Christ
is fulfilled in the Apocalypse, for visions
like xiv. τά f., xix. 12 f., do not adequately
correspond to i. 7, xxii. 12, etc. (c) No
punishment of the Jews occurs at Christ’s
return, for the vengeance of xix. 13 f.
falls on pagans, while xi. 13 lies on an-
other plane. καὶ, κ.τ.λ.: the monoto-
nous collocation of clauses (Vit. i. 9-16)
throughout the Apocalypse with καί, is
not necessarily a Hebraism ; the syntax of
Aristotle (e.g., cf. Thumb, 129), betrays a
similar usage. καὶ ott. κ.τ.λ., Selected as
a special class (καὶ τότε µετανοήσονυσιν,
ὅτε οὐδὲν ὠφελήσουσι, Justin). The re-
sponsibility of the Jews, as opposed to
the Romans, for the judicial murder of
Jesus is prominent in the Christian litera-
ture of the period (Luke-Acts, cf. von
Dobschiitz in Texte u. Unters. xi. I, pp.
61, 62), though the Apoc. is superior
to passages like 2 Clem. xvii. πᾶσαι
«.T.A.=the unbelieving pagans, who are
still impenitent when surprised by the
Lord’s descent (ἐπὶ--'' because of,” cf.
xviii. 9 in diff. sense); a realistic state-
ment of what is spiritually put in John
xvi. 8, 9.—This forms an original element
in the early Christian apologetic. To
the Jewish taunt, “‘ Jesus is not messiah
but a false claimant: he died,” the reply
was, “ He will return in visible messianic
authority ” (Mark xiv. 62 = Matt. xxvi. 64,
significant change in Luke xxii. 69). In
several circles this future was conceived
not as areturn of Jesus, nor in connexion
with his historical appearance, but as the
first real manifestation of the true messi-
anic character which he had gained at
the resurrection (cf. Titius, 31, 32). See
on xii. 4 f. val, ἁμήν: a double (Gk.
Heb.) ratification of the previous oracle.

Ver. 8. Only here and in xxi. 5 f. is
God introduced as the speaker, in the

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

‘ead
?

8. “Εγώ εἰμι "τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ,') λέγει κύριος 6 θεός, °S ὢν'
καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ * παντοκράτωρ.
9. ᾿Εγὼ "Ἰωάννης, ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει

18. Ε., cf. Isa. xli. 4, xliii. το, etc. c Ver. 4.
18, only in Apoc. (?) in N.T. Here, as 3 Macc. vi..
305, and Kattenbusch (ii. 533 f.). ε xxii. 8,

Apocalypse. The advent of the Christ,
which marks the end of the age, is brought
about by God, who overrules (παντο-
κράτωρ always of God in Apocalypse,
otherwise the first part of the title might
have suggested Christ) even the anomalies.
and contradictions of history for this provi-
dential climax. By the opening of the
second century πατὴρ παντοκράτωρ had
become the first title of God in the Ro-
man creed; the Apocalypse, indifferent to
the former epithet, reproduces the latter
owing to its Hebraic sympathies. ἐγώ
eipt: Coleridge used to declare that one
chief defect in Spinoza was that the
Jewish philosopher started with Jt is in-
stead of with I am. τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ:
not the finality (Oesterley, Encycl. Relig.
and Ethics, i. 1, 2), but the all-inclusive
power of God, which comes fully into
play in the new order of things inaugu-
rated by the second advent. The sym-
bolism which is here put in a Greek form
had been developed in rabbinic specula-

tion upon ὨΝ: With this and the fol-
lowing passage, cf. the papyrus of Ani
(E. B. D. 12): “ He leadeth in his train
that which is and that which is not yet.
. . . Homage to thee, King of kings,
and Lord of lords, who from the womb
of Nut hast ruled the world and Akert
[the Egyptian Hades]. Thy body is of
bright and shining metal, thy head is of
azure blue, and the brilliance of the tur-
quoise encircleth thee.” For the con-
nexion of a presentiment of the end (7, 8)
with an impulse to warn contemporaries
(ο f.) see 4 Esd. xiv. το f., where the
warning of the world’s near close is fol-
lowed by an injunction to the prophet
to ‘“‘set thine house in order, reprove
thy people, console the humble among
them”; whereupon the commission to
write under inspiration is given.

i. Q-iii. 22, an address to Asiatic Chris-
tendom (as represented by seven chur-
ches) which in high prophetic and ora-
cular style rallies Christians to their
genuine oracle of revelation in Jesus and
his prophetic spirit. At a time when
lecal oracles (for the famous one of.
Apollo near Miletus, see Friedlander, iii.

o—9.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

341

~ 3 “a 3 , > ~ , ~
καὶ βασιλείᾳ καὶ ' ὑπομονῇ ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ, ἐγενόμην ἐν TH νήσῳ τῇ f Keynote

καλουµένῃ Πάτμω "Sd τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν µαρτυρίαν

19, Clem. Rom. ΧΧΧΥ., είο.
practically (cf. Eus., Η. Ε., iii 18, 1-3).

561 f.), besides those in Greece and Syria
and Egypt, were eagerly frequented, it
was of moment to lay stress on what had
superseded all such media for the faithful.
Cf. Minuc. Felix, Oct. 7, “‘pleni et mixti
deo uates futura praecerpunt, dant caute-
lam periculis, morbis medelam, spem
afflictis, operam miseris, solacium calami-
tatibus, laboribus leaamentum”.

i. 9-20, introductory vision.

Ver. g. The personality of the seer is
made prominent in apocalyptic literature,
to locate or guarantee any visions which
are to follow. Here the authority with
which this prophet is to speak is condi-
tioned by his kinship of Christian exper-
ience with the churches and his special
revelation from God. ἀδελφός (cf. vi. 11,
xli, 10): for its pagan use as=fellow-
member of the same (religious) society,
of. C. B. P. i. 96 f., and Dittenberger’s
Sylloge Inscr. Graec. 474, 10 (ἀδελφοὶ
ols κοινὰ τὰ πατρῷα). θλίψει, put first
as the absorbing fact of their εχρετῖ-
ence, and as a link of sympathy between
writer and readers; καὶ βασιλεία, the
outcome of θλίψις in the messianic
order: distress no end in itself; καὶ
ὑπομονῇῃ, patient endurance the moral
condition of participation in ἡ θλίψις
and ἡ βασιλεία, by which one is nerved
to endure the presence of the former
without breaking down, and to bear the
temporary delay of the latter without
impatience. While paxpo@vpia is the
absence of resentment at wrong, ὑπο-
p-ovy =not giving way under trials. See
Barn. ii., “the aids of our faith are fear
and patience, long-suffering and _ self-
control are our allies’’; also Tertul-
lian’s famous aphorism, ‘‘ubi Deus, ibi
et alumna eius, patientia scilicet”. —év
Ἰησοῦ (a Pauline conception, only τε-
peated in Apocalypse at xiv. 13), either
with all three substantives or merely
(cf. 2 Thess. iii. 5) with ὑπομονή. In
any case ὑπ. is closely linked to ἐν
*I1.; such patience, as exemplified in
Jesus, and inspired by him, was the car-
dinal virtue of the Apocalypse and its
age. Inthe early Christian literature of
this period ‘“‘we cannot name anything
upon which blessedness is so frequently
made to rest, as upon the exercise of
patient endurance ” (Titius, 142). ἐγενό-

Wes.” Vi.

of age,

Heb. vi.
14%. 30;
Lk, xxi.

g In sense of vi. 9, xx. 4, cf. Epict. Diss. iii. 24, 118. διὰ = ἕνεκεν

µην ἐν (“1 found myself in”: implying
that when he wrote he was no longer
there), not by flowing waters (as tre-
quently, e.g., En. xiii. 7), but in the small,
treeless, scantily populated island of Pat-
mos, one of the Sporades, whither crimi-
nals were banished sometimes by the
Roman authorities (Plin. Hist. Nat. iv.
12, 23). Relegatio to an island was not
an infrequent form of punishment for
better-class offenders or suspects under
the black régime of Domitian, as under
Diocletian for Christians (cf. Introd.
§ 6). No details are given, but probably
-it meant hard labour in the quarries, and
was inflicted by the pro-consul of Asia
Minor. Why John was only banished,
we donot know. As “the word of God
and the witness of Jesus” are not quali-
fied by any phrase such as ὅσα elder
(ver. 2, and thereby identified with the
present Apocalypse), the words indicate
as elsewhere (cf. διὰ, κ.τ.λ., reff.) the
occasion of his presence in Patmos, i.e.,
his loyalty to the gospel (cf. θλίψις),
rather than the object of his visit.
The latter could hardly be evangelising
(Spitta), for Patmos was insignificant
and desolate, nor, in face of the use of
διὰ, can the phrase mean “for the pur-
pose of receiving this revelation” (Bleek,
Liicke, Dtisterdieck, Hausrath, B. Weiss,
Baljon, etc.). Either he had voluntarily
withdrawn from the mainland to escape
the stress of persecution (which scarcely
harmonises with the context or the gen-
eral temper of the book) or for solitary
communion (cf. Ezek. i. 1-3), or, as is
more likely, his removal was a punish-
ment (cf. Abbott, 114-16). The latter
view is corroborated by tradition (cf.
Zahn, § 64, note 7), which, although
later and neither uniform nor wholly
credible, is strong enough to be taken as
independent evidence. It can hardly be
explained away as a mere elaboration
of the present passage (so, 6.σ., Reuss,
Bleek, Bousset); the allusion to paprv-’
ptoy is too slight to have been suggested
by the darker sense of martyrdom, and it
is far-fetched to argue that the tradition
was due to a desire to glorify John with
a martyrdom. Unless, therefore, the re-
ference is a piece of literary fiction (in
which case it would probably have beer

22

342

b (From b

Zech. i. 6,
vii.12, etc,
LXX), cf.
trast γεν. ἐν ἑαυτῷ Acts xii. 11.

᾿Ιησοῦ. ro. ἐγενόμην

elaborated) it must be supposed to be
vague simply because the matter was
perfectly familiar to the circle for whom
the book was written. It is to those
exercised in prudence, temperance, and
virtue that (according to Philo, de incor-
rupt. mundi, § 1, cf. Plutarch’s discussion
in defect. ογαο. 38 f.) God vouchsafes
visions, but John introduces his personal
experience in order to establish relations
between himself and his readers rather
than to indicate the conditions of his
theophany.

Ver. το. Ecstasy or spiritual rapture,
the supreme characteristic of prophets in
Did. xi. 7 (where the unpardonable sin
is to criticise a prophet λαλοῦντα ἐν
πνεύματι), Was not an uncommon experi-
ence in early Christianity, which was
profoundly conscious of living in the long-
looked for messianic age (Acts ii. 17 f.,
cf. Eph. iii. 5), when such phenomena
were to be amatter of course. Through-
out the Apocalypse (xxi. 5, etc.) John
first sees, then writes; the two are not
simultaneous. While the Apocaiypse is
thus the record of a vision (ὅρασις, ix. 17),
the usual accompaniments of a vision—
z.e., prayer and fasting—are significantly
absent from the description of this in-
augural scene, which is reticent and
simple as compared, e¢.g., with a passage
like Asc. Isa. iv. 10-16. It is possible,
however, that the prophet was engaged
in prayer when the trance or vision over-
took him (like Peter, Acts x. g-11, cf.
len. ad Polyc. ii. 2, τὰ δὲ ἀόρατα αἴτει,
ἵνα σοι Φανερωθῇ), since the day of
weekly Christian worship is specially
mentioned on which, though separated
from the churches (was there one at
Patmos ?), he probably was wrapt in
meditations (on the resurrection of Christ)
appropriate to the hour. The Imperial
or Lord’s day, first mentioned here in
early Christian literature (so Did. xiv.,
Gosp. Peter 11, etc.) contains an implicit
allusion to the ethnic custom, prevalent
in Asia Minor, of designating the first
day of the month (or week ?) as Σεβαστή
in honour of the emperor's birthday (see
Thieme’s Inschr. Maeander, 1906, 15,
and Deissmann in E.Bi. 2813 f.). Chris-
tians, too, have their imperial day (cf.
Introd. § 2), to celebrate the birthday of
their heavenly king. With his mind
absorbed in the thought of the exalted

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ L

ἐν πνεύµατι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρα: καὶ

iv. 2, xxi. 10; condition of vision, Acts Vii. 55; = ἐν ἐκστάσει (Acts xi. 5, xxii. 17), con-

Jesus and stored with O.T. messianic
conceptions from Daniel and Ezekiel,
the prophet had the following ecstasy in
which the thoughts of Jesus and of the
church already present to his mind are
fused into one vision. He recalls in
spirit the usual church-service with its
praises, prayers, sudden voices, and
silences. (Compare Ign. Magn. ix. εἰ
οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγµασιν ἄναστρα-
φέντες εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος ᾖλθον,
µηκέτι σαββατίζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυρια-
κὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέ-
τειλεν δι αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ
- +» καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπομένομεν.) John’s
service of God (ver. 2) involved suffer-
ing, instead of exempting him from the
trials of ordinary Christians; the subse-
quent visions and utterances prove not
merely that in his exile he had fallen
back upon the O.T. prophets for conso-
lation but that (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 28, 29) he
was anxiously brooding over the condi-
tion of his churches on the mainland.
Cf. Dio Chrys. Orvat. xiii. 422, where the
philosopher dates the consciousness of
his vocation from the period of his exile.
Upon the other hand, the main criterion
of a false prophet (Eus. H. E. v. 17, 2),
apart from covetousness, was speech
ἐν παρεκστάσει, {.6., the arrogant, igno-
rant, frenzied rapture affected by pagan
Cagliostros, who were destitute of any
unselfish religious concern for other
people. ὀπίσω pov, the regular method
of spiritualistic voices and appearances:
σάλπιγγος, loud and clear, not an un-
usual expression for voices heard in a
trance (cf. Martyr. Polyc. xxii. 2, Moscow
MS.). The following Christophany falls
into rhythmical expression. As a τενε]α-
tion of the Lord (ver. 1, cf. 2 Cor. xii. 1),
with which we may contrast Emerson’s
saying (‘I conceive a man as always
spoken to from behind and unable to
turn his head and see the speaker”), it
exhibits several of the leading functions
discharged by Jesus in the Apocalypse,
where he appears as (a) the revealer of
secrets (i. 1 f., v. 5), (6) the guardian and
champion of the saints (ii., iii., εἴς.), (c)
the medium, through sacrifice, of their
relationship to God, (d) associated with
God in rewarding them, and (6) in the
preliminary overthrow of evil which ac-
companies the triumph of righteousness.
Compare the main elements of the divine

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

10—13.

343
ἤκουσα | ὀπίσω µου φωνὴν μεγάλην "ὡς σάλπιγγος 11ο )λεγούσης, i C/. Esek.
«3Ο βλέπεις γράψον εἰς βιβλίον καὶ πέµψον "ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλη- k δε φωνήν;
σίαις, cis Ἔφεσον καὶ εἰς Σμύρναν kal εἰς Πέργαμον καὶ eis Θυάτειρα wis and
τι where
voice re-

curs, also
Soph.

καὶ εἲς Σάρδεις καὶ eis Φιλαδελφίαν καὶ εἰς Λαοδικίαν '.

12. Καὶ ἐπέστρεψα " βλέπειν τὴν φωνὴν ἥτις ἐλάλει pet ἐμοῦ -
καὶ ἐπιστρέψας εἶδον ἑπτὰ "λυχνίας χρυσᾶς, ‘Ajax, 17.

1 = λεγού-
σαν, false
attract.to
4 o. instead
m ii. 8, etc., xxii. 16. For ἐκκλ. cf. on 1 Thess. 1.2. n Cf. Jos., Ant., ix. 4, 54
p Cf. xiv. 14, Ez. i. 26, from Dan. vii. 13 (cf. Abbott, 175),

13. καὶ ἐν pécw” τῶν λυχνιῶν Sporov P utdv ἀνθρώπου

of ϕ.
© Exod. xxxvii. 23 (cf. Abbott; 194 f.).

1 For the orthography of Ἔμυρναν (ἵμυρναν Sy, vg.) see on ii. 8.

2 Almost invariably AC, like A (LXX), write eppeow for εν µεσω (cf. Meisterhans,
Gramm. d. att. Inschr., 110 f.): the original νιον (of SQ, 1, etc., Andc, so Ti., WH,
Simcox, Bj., Swete, Bousset) has been corrected, as at xiv. 14, into νιω by ACP, etc.,
ΟΥΡ., Ar. (so ΑΙ., Ws., WH marg.): the µαστοις (απ. λεγ. in this sense) of CPQ,
min., Ar. (edd.) has also been corrected into µασθοις (3, min., Ti.) or even µαζοις
(A, min., so Lach., Ws.); µαζους uirorum µαστους (Luke, xxiii. 29) mulierum:
χρυσαν, an irregular contraction, is smoothed out in ${cPQ into χρυσην (for the

papyri-usage, cf. Class. Rev., 1901, 35).

nature as conceived by the popular reli-
gion of contemporary Phrygia, viz., (d)
prophetic power, (4) healing and purify-
ing power, and (c) divine authority (sym-
bolised by the axe): C. B. P., ii. 357.

Ver.11, γράψον (cf. Herm. Vis. II. iv. 3);
this emphasis put upon the commission
to compose and circulate what he sees in
the vision, is due to the author’s claim of
canonical authority and reflects a time
when a literary work of this nature still
required some guarantee, although at an
earlier date smaller oracles had been
written and accepted (e.g., that which
determined the flight of the early Chris-
tians to Pella, Eus. H. E., iii. 5, 3).
John’s réle, however, is passive in two
senses of the term. He seldom acts or
journeys in his vision, whereas Jewish
apocalypses are full of the movements of
their seers; nor does his vision lead to
any practical course of action, for—un-
like most of the O.T. prophets—he is not
conscious of any commission to preach or
to reform the world. The prophet is an
author. His experience is to be no luxury
but a diffused benefit ; and as in Tob. xii.
20 (‘and now... . write ina book all that
has taken place”) and 4 Esd. xii. 37
(‘‘ therefore write in a book all thou hast
seen, and thou shalt teach,” etc.), the
prophet is careful to explain that compo-
sition is no mere literary enterprise but
due to a divine behest. The cities are
enumerated from Ephesus northwards to
Smyrna (forty miles) and Pergamos (fifty
miles north of Smyrna), then across for

forty miles S.E. to Thyatira, down to
Sardis, Philadelphia (thirty miles S.E. of
Sardis), and Laodicea (forty miles S.E. of
Philadelphia). Cf. on ver. 4 and Introd.
§ 2. Except Pergamos and Laodicea,
the churches lay within Lydia (though
the writer employs the imperial term for
the larger province) which was at that
period a by-word for voluptuous civilisa-
tion.

Ver. 12. The seven golden lamp-stands
are cressets representing the seven chur-
ches (20), the sevenfold lamp-stand of the
Jewish temple (cf. S. C. 295-99) having
been for long used as a symbol (Zech.
iv. 2, 10). The function of the churches
is to embody and express the light of the
divine presence upon earth, so high is
the prophet’s conception of the com-
munities (cf. on ii. 4, 5); their duty is to
keep the light burning and bright, other-
wise the reason for their existence dis-
appears (ii. 5). Consequently the prim-
ary activity of Jesus in providence and
revelation bears upon the purity of those
societies through which his influence is
to reach mankind, just.as his connexion
with them on the other hand assures
them of One in heaven to whom out of,
difficulties here they can appeal with
confidence.

Ver. 13. The churches are inseparable
from their head and centre Jesus, who
moves among the cressets of his temple
with the dignity and authority of a high
priest. The anarthrous ¥. 4. is the
human appearance of the celestial mes-

344

q Only here
in N.T.:
Sir. xxvii.
8.

r Like
angels in
xv. 6.

ζώνην χρυσᾶν.

ts χιών

t From En. xiv. 20 (cvi. 2, 10), cf. Matt. xxviii. 3,
XXiii, 19-20, Hom. Iliad, xiii. 474.

1For a late variant (αι τρ. A. ωσει ερ.
the words to Daniel, cf. Simcox in Expos

siah, as in En. xlvi. 1-6 (where the Son
of man accompanies God, who, as the
Head of Days, had a head “white as
wool”) and Asc. Isa. xi. 1. The difficult
ὅμοιον is to be explained (with Vit. ii.
127, 223, 227) αξ-- ὡς (ii. 18, vi. 14, ix.
7, 8, xxi. 11) or otov, ‘something like,” a
loose reproduction of the Heb. (‘‘un étre
semblable 4 nous, un homme”). The
whole passage illustrates the writer’s
habit of describing an object or person
by heaping up qualities without strict
regard to natural or grammatical collo-
cation. ποδήρης (sc. χιτὼν or ἐσθής), a
long robe reaching to the feet, was an
oriental mark of dignity (cf. oni. 7, and
Ezek. ix. 2, 11, LXX), denoting high
rank or office such as that of Parthian
kings or of the Jewish high priest who
wore a purple one. High girding (with
a belt?) was another mark of lofty
position, usually reserved for Jewish
priests, though the Iranians frequently
appealed to their deities as “‘high-girt”
(t.e., ready for action=cf. Yasht xv. 54,
57, ‘‘ Vaya of the golden girdle, high-
up girded, swift moving, as powerful in
sovereignty as any absolute sovereign in
the world”). The golden buckle or répary
was part of the insignia of royalty and
its φίλοι (Ι Macc. x. 8,9, xi. 58). The
author thus mixes royal and sacerdotal
colours on his palette to heighten the
majesty of Christ’s appearance. New,
golden (as in Iranian eschatology), shin-
ing, white—are the usual adjectives which
he employs throughout the book for the
transcendent bliss of the life beyond and
its heavenly tenants; “‘ golden” had been
used already in Greek as a synonym for
precious, excellent, divine.

Ver. 14. ὡς χ.; another conventional
simile for celestial beings. 7 κ. κ. ai τ.,
a pleonastic expression; either = ‘‘his
head, i.e. his hair,” or ‘‘his forehead
and his hair”; scarcely a hendiadys for
“the hair of the head” (Bengel).
Jewish tradition rationalised the white

Slav. En. i. 5, xxxvii. 1.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ i
ἐνδεδυμένον Ἱποδήρη καὶ " περιεζωσμένον πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς
14. ἡ δὲ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ at τρίχες λευκαὶ ὡς ἔριον λευκόν,

καὶ ot ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς "AOE πυρός:

u ii. 18, xix. 12, Sir.

και το ενδ. αυτου λ. ws xtwv), conforming
2 iv. 316-318.

hairs into a proof of God’s activity as
a wise old teacher (Chag. 14, cf. Prov.
xx. 27 f.), and the Daniel-vision might
suggest the fine paradox between the
divine energy and this apparent sign of
weakness. But such traits are probably
poetical, not allegorical, in John’s vision ;
they body forth his conception of Jesus as
divine. In Egyptian theology a similar
trait belongs to Ani after beatification.
The whole conception of the messiah in
the Apocalypse resembles that outlined
in Enoch (Similitudes, xxxvii.-lxxi.), where
he also possesses pre-existence as Son of
man (xlviii.) sits on his throne of glory
(xlvii. 3) for judgment, rules all men
(κα, 6), and slays the wicked with the
word of his mouth (Ixii. 2); but this
particular transference to the messiah
(i. 14, 17, 18, ii. 8, xxii. 12, 13), of what is.
in Daniel predicated of God as the world-
judge, seems to form a specifically N.T.
idea, unmediated even in Enoch (xlvi. 1),
although the association of priestly and’
judicial attributes with those of royalty
was easy for an Oriental (it is predicated
of the messiah by Jonathan ben Usiel on
Zech. iv. 12, 13). ὥς PASE πυρός, like
Slav. En. i. 5, from Dan. x. 6; cf. Suet.
August. 79, ‘‘oculos habuit claros et
nitidos, quibus etiam existimari uoluit
inesse quiddam diuini uigoris ; gaudebat-
que si quis sibi acrius contuenti quasi
ad fulgorem solis uultum submitteret”’.
Divine beauty was generally manifested
(Verg. Aen. v. 647 f.) in glowing eyes (in-
sight and indignation), the countenance
and the voice; here also (ver. 15) in feet
to crush all opposition. The messiah is.
not crowned, however (cf. later, xix. 12).
Xx-=some hard (as yet unidentified) metat
which gleamed after smelting. The most
probable meaning of this obscure hybria
term is that suggested by Suidas: χαλ-
KohiBavov: εἶδος ἠλέκτρου τιµιώτερου
χρυσοῦ, ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἤλεκτρον ἀλλότυπον
χρυσίον μεμιγµένον ὑέλῳ καὶ λιθείᾳ (HA.
actually occurring in LXX, Ezek. i. 27)-

14—17.

ΑΠΟΚΔΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

345

A ~
15. καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι ᾿ χαλκολιβάνῳω, ὡς ἐν Kapivy v ii. τῇ, of.

πεπυρωµένης * }

καὶ " ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ ὡς φωνὴ ὑδάτων πολλῶν :
16. καὶ * ἔχων ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀστέρας ἑπτά :

Ezek. 1. 7

(LXX).
w Ezek. i.

24, xliii. 2

(Heb.),

4 Esd. vi.

Δ ~ A = 17.
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόµατος αὐτοῦ ῥομφαία δίστοµος ὀξεῖα ἐκ- x Pres. pte.

Tropevopery *

9 3 a , x A
καὶ ΄ ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ ὡς 6 ἥλιος Φαίνει ἐν τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ.

= pres.
indic.
(Heb.
idiom ?)
as often.

17. Καὶ ὅτε εἶδον αὐτόν, "ἔπεσα πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ὡς y 2 Thess.

νεκρός: καὶ > ἔθηκεν τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ λέγων, “Mh Φφοβοῦ:

z Judg. ν. 31, Slav. En. i. 5, xix. 1.

ii. 8, cf.

4Esd. xiii.
4, 1Ο, ang
Isa.xlix.2.

a Isa. vi. 5, Dan. viii. 17-18, x. 17-19, En. xiv. 13-14, 19, 24-25,
Slav. En. i. 7-8, Tob xii. 16, Add. Esth, xv. 15, Matt. xxviii. 4.

b Dan, x. 10, 12.

1 πεπυρωµενοι (PQ, etc., And., Ar., so Al., WH marg.) and mwervpwpevo(py, min.,
vg., Sah., Syr., S., Aeth., Vict., so Ti, Bj., Bs., Holtzm.) seem variant corrections of
the original genitive πεπνρωµενης (AC, so Lach., Tr., WH, Ws., Sw.)—Pr. = sicut

de fornace ignea.

The reference then is to amber or to some
composition like brass or (copper) bronze;
only, it contains gold (cf. vulg. = aurichal-
cum, a valuable and gleaming metal).
Abbott (201) sees a corruption of some
phrase like χαλκὸν ἐν κλιβάνῳ, while

others suggest χαλκός and {2 (ο

glowing white brass). Haussleiter would
upon inadequate grounds omit ὡς ἐκ. κ.
πεπ. (219-24).

Ver. 16. The care and control exer-
cised by Christ over the churches only
come forward after the suggestions of
majesty and authority (13-15) which
followed the initial idea of Christ’s
central position (ἐν péow) among the
churches. Cf. v. 6 (ἐν péow) for another
reference to Christ’s central authority—
ἔχων, κ.τ.λ. For the astrological back-
ground of this figure, cf. Jeremias 24 f.
The traditional symbol, of which an
interpretation is given later (ver. 20),
probably referred to the seven planets
rather than to the Pleiades or any other
constellation. Ifthe description is to be
visualised, the seven stars may be pic-
tured as lying on Christ’s palm in the
form of the stars in the constellation of
Ursa Μα]οτ--ῥομφαία, κ.τ.λ. By a
vivid objectifying of the divine word
(corresponding to that, e.g., in Isa. ix.
8 f., ix. 4, and suggested by the tongue-
shaped appearance of the short Roman
sword or dagger), the figure of the sharp
sword issuing from the mouth is applied
(in Ps. Sol. xvii. 27, 39, as here) to the
messiah, as in Jewish literature to God
(Ps. cxlix. 6, etc.) and to wisdom (Sap.
xviii. 15), elsewhere to the λόγος τοῦ

θεοῦ (Heb. iv. 12, cf. Apoc. xix. 13-15):
Christ’s power of reproof and punish-
ment is to be directed against the church
(ii. 12 f.) as well as against the world of
heathen opposition (xix. 21, where the
trait is artistically moreappropriate). As
a nimbus or coronata radiata sometimes
crowned the emperor (“image des rayons
lumineux qu’il lance sur le monde,” Beur-
lier), so the face of Christ (ὄψις as in John
xi. 44, cf. below, x. 1) is aptly termed,
as in the usual description of angelic
visitants (reff.), bright as sunshine un-
intercepted by mist or clouds. This is
the climax of the delineation.

Ver. 17. ἔπεσα κ.τ.λ., the stereo-
typed behaviour (cf. Num. xxiv. 4) in
such apocalyptic trances (Weinel, 129,
το. kes 7. 375), Ες for the terror of
spiritual experience cf. Schiller’s lines:
“Schrecklich ist es Deiner Wahrheit
| Sterbliches Gefass zu seyn”); Jesus,
however, does here what Michael (En.
Ixxi. 3) or some other friendly angel
does in most Jewish apocalypses. There
is no dialogue between the prophet and
Christ, as there is afterwards between
him and the celestial beings—py 9.
The triple reassurance is (1) that the
mysterious, overwhelming Figure reveals
his character, experience and authority,
instead of proving an alien unearthly
visitant; (2) the vision has a practical
object (‘‘ write,’ το) bearing upon hu-
man life, and (3) consequently the
mysteries are not left as baffling enigmas.
All the early Christian revelations which
are self-contained, presuppose the risen
Christ as their source; the Apocalypse
of Peter, being fragmentary, is hardly

346

ς Isa. xliv.
6, xlviii.
12, cf.
below on
iii. 14.

d Cf. xxii.
3, 16f.

e Job xxxviii. 17, Sap. xvi. 13.

, A - 5,
θανάτου καὶ τοῦ adou.

f = κλεῖδας (Helbing 4ο).
the grave, see Rohde’s Psyche (1894), 491 f., 673 f.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ is

fol 4
ἐγώ εἰμι °6 πρῶτος καὶ 6 " ἔσχατος, 18. καὶ] ἐγενόμην νεκρός καὶ
ἰδοὺ Lav εἰμὶ eis τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων' “καὶ ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς ἕ τοῦ
19. Γράψον οὖν ἃ εἶδες, καὶ ἃ εἰσὶ καὶ ἃ

6 Gen. obj. For Hades = θαν. or

10m. και ο ζων, after εσχατος, with primitive Latin text (Pr., Tic., Beatus, etc.),
Haussl. 218-220, Wellh. The words (a tharginal gloss., from και κι. ζ. €.?) are more
likely to have been added (and retained for their bearing on Christ’s pre-existence)

than omitted; they add nothing to the sense or continuity of the passage.

The

expression is used of God in iv. 9-10, as of Yahveh in Ο.Τ. XQ om. και (’ ΙΓ ο ζων
was a marginal note, it would enter the text at first without kat,” Simcox).

an exception to the rule. The present
vision presents him as superhuman,
messianic, militant and divine. But the
writer is characteristically indifferent to
the artistic error of making Christ’s right
hand at once hold seven stars and be
laid on the seer (16, 17). Cf. the fine
application of the following passage by
Milton in his “ Remonstrant’s Defence ”.
The whole description answers to what
is termed, in modern psychology, a '' pho-
tism ”.

Ver. 18. Not “it is I, the first and
the last” (which would require ἐγώ eipe
before μὴ Φοβοῦ), but “I am, etc.”
The eternal life of the exalted Christ is a
comfort both in method and result;
ἐγενόμην νεκρός (not ὡς; really dead),
his experience assuring men of sym-
pathy and understanding; καὶ idov,
κ.τελ., his victory and authority over
death=an assurance of his power to
rescue his own people from the grim
prison of the underworld (Hades, cf.
3 Macc. ν. 50, the intermediate abode of
the dead, being as usual personified in
connexion with death). A background
for this conception lies in the primitive
idea of Janus, originally an Italian sun-
god, as the key-holder (cf. Ovid’s Fasiz,
i. 129, 130, Hor. Carm. Sec. 9, 10) who
opens and closes the day (sun = deus
clauiger), rather than in Mithraism
which only knew keys of heaven, or
in Mandzan religion (Cheyne’s Bible
Problems, 102-106). The key was a
natural Oriental symbol for authority
and power (cf. in this book, iii. 7, ix. I,
xx. I). Jewish belief (see Gfrérer, i.
377-378) assigned three keys or four
exclusively to God (‘‘ quos neque angelo
neque seraphino committit ’’); these in-
cluded, according to different views,
“‘clauis sepulchorum,” ‘clavis uitae,”
“ clauis resurrectionis mortuorum’”’. To
ascribe this divine prerogative to Jesus as
the divine Hero who had mastered death

is, therefore, another notable feature
in the high Christology of this book.
For the whole conception see E. B. D.
ch. lxiv. (fifth century B.c.?): “I am
Yesterday and To-day and To-morrow
. . . I am the Lord of the men who are
raised again; the Lord who cometh
forth from out of the darkness.” It is
based on the theophany of the Ancient
of Days in Dan. vii. g f. (yet cf. x. 5, 6),
who bestows on the ideal Israel (ὡς vids
ἀνθ.) dominion. John changes this into
a Christophany, like the later Jewish tra-
dition which saw in vids ᾱ. a personal,
divine messiah. When one remembers
the actual position of affairs, the confi-
dent faith of such passages is seen to
have been little short of magnificent.
To this Christian prophet, spokesman of
a mere ripple upon a single wave of dis-
sent in the broad ocean of paganism,
history and experience find unity and
meaning nowhere but in the person of
a blameless Galilean peasant who had
perished as a criminal in Jerusalem.
So would such early Christian expecta-
tions appear to an outsider. He would
be Staggered by the extraordinary claims
advanced on behalf of its God by this
diminutive sect, perhaps more than
staggered by the prophecy that imperial
authority over the visible and invisible
worlds lay ultimately in the hands of
this deity, whose power was not limited
to his own adherents.—Christophanies
were commissions either to practical
service (Acts x. 19, etc.), or, as here, so
composition.

Ver. 1ο. οὖν, at the command of him
who has authority over the other world
and the future (resuming ver. II. now
that the paralysing fear of ver. 17 has
been removed). Like the author of 4th
Esdras, this prophet is far more interested
in history than in the chronological
speculations which engrossed many of the
older apocalyptists. The sense of γράψον

186---20,

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 347

µέλλει γενέσθαι 1 μετὰ ταῦτα. 20. "τὸ µυστήριον τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων h Anacolou-

οὓς εἶδες ἐπὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς µου, καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ λυχνίας τὰς χρυσᾶς-- -

thon, µ--
nom. pen-
dens, A.
irreg. at-
tracted into case of ows after εἶδες

1For γινεσθαι [Luke xxi. 36] (ΝΑ, 1, 38, etc., Andc, Areth., WH, Bs., Bj.,
Sw., Lach.) read γενεσθαι (N\Q*CQP, etc., Andpal, Al. Ti., Ws.).

κ.τ.λ. is not, write the vision already
seen (ἃ εἶδες, i. 10-18), the present (ἃ
εἰσὶν, i. 20-iii, 20, the state of the
churches, mainly conceived as it exists
now and here), and the future (@ μέλλει
γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα, {.ε., iv. I f.), as
though the words were a rough pro-
gramme of the whole book; nor, as
other editors (e.g., Spitta) unconvincingly
suggest, is ἃ εἰσὶν = '' what they mean,”
epexegetic of, ἃ εἶδες, or εἶδες (cf. x. 7,
xv. I) in a future perfect sense (Selwyn).
The following chapters cannot be re-
garded merely as interpretations of i.
Io-18, and the juxtaposition of μέλλει
γεν. (from LXX of Isa. xlviii. 6) fixes the
temporal meaning of εἰσίν here, even
although the other meaning occurs in a
different context in ver. 20. Besides,
i. 10-18 is out of all proportion to the
other two divisions, to which indeed it
forms a brief prelude. The real sense
is that the contents of the vision (εἶδες,
like βλέπεις in νετ. 11, being proleptic)
consist of what is and what is to be,
these divisions of present and future
underlying the whole subsequent Apo-
calypse. The neut. plur. with a plural
verb and a singular in the same sent-
ence, indicates forcibly the indiffer-
ence of the author to the niceties of
Hellenistic grammar. For the whole
see Dan. ii. 29, 30, also Barn. i.: ‘‘ The
Lord (δεσπότης) hath disclosed to us
by the prophets things past and present,
giving us also a taste of the firstfruits of
the future”; v.: “We ought, there-
fore, to be exceedingly thankful to the
Lord for disclosing the past to us and
making us wise in the present; yea as
regards the future even we are not void
of understanding”. Moral stimulus and
discipline were the object of such visions :
as Tertullian declares of the Mortanist
seers: ‘‘uidunt uisiones et ponentes
faciem deorsum etiam uoces audiunt
manifestas tam salutares quam occultas ”
(de exhort. cast. το).

Ver. 20. µυστ. (as in Dan. ii. 27,
LXX ; see below on x. 7) = “the secret
symbol”. These two symbols, drawn
from the lore of contemporary apoca-
lyptic, are chosen for explanation, partly
as an obscure and important element in

the foregoing vision which had to be set
in a new light, partly because they afford
a clue to ali that follows (especially the
opening section, ii. 1, 5). The seven-
branched lamp-stand was a familiar
symbol, frequently carved on the lintel
of a synagogue. Along with the silver
trumpets and other spoils of the temple
it now lay in the temple of Peace at
Rome. The fanciful symbolism, by
which the cressets shining on earth are
represented — in another aspect — as
heavenly bodies, corresponds to Paul’s
fine paradox about the Christian life of
the saints lying hidden with Christ in
God; even unsatisfactory churches, like
those at Sardis and Laodicea, are not
yet cast away. Note also that the light
and presence of God now shine in the
Christian churches, while the ancestral
Jewish light is extinguished (4 Esd. x.
22): ‘* The light of our lamp-stand is put
out”). It is curious that in Assyrian
representations the candelabrum is fre-
quently indistinguishable from the sacred
seven-branched tree crowned with a star
(R. S. 488); Josephus expressly de-
clares (Ant. iii. 6. 7, 7. 7) that the seven
lamps on the stand signified the seven
planets, and that the twelve loaves on
the shew-bread table signified the signs
of the zodiac (Bell. v. 5, 5), while Philo
had already allegorised the lamp-stand
(=seven planets) in quis haeres, § xlv.
This current association of the λύχνοι
with the planets is bound up with the
astral conception of the angels of the
churches (ayy. = “angels” as elsewhere
in Apocalypse), who are the heavenly
representatives and counterparts or pa-
tron angels of the churches, each of the
latter, like the elements (e.g., water
xvi. 5, fire xiv. 18; see further in Bal-
densperger, 106, and GfrGrer, i. 368
f.), the wind (vii. 1), and the nether
abyss (ix. 11), having its presiding
heavenly spirit. The conception (EF.
F. i. 593, 504) reaches back to post-
exilic speculation, in which Greece,
Persia and Juda had each an influen-
tial and responsible angelic prince (Dan.
x. 13, 20-21, xii. 1), and especially to the
Iranian notion of fravashis or semi-
ideal prototypes of an earthly personality

348

i Similar
explana-

ῃ -.. τε \ ς ah te , ef.
tions, xiii. at ἑπτὰ, ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαι εἰσί.
II. τ. “Τοι ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Εφέσῳ] ἐκκλησίας γράψον. Τάδε λέγει

18, xvii. 7,
9, Mk. xiii.
14, 1 Cor.
XV. 51,

Rom. xi. 25 (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 1 f.).

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

πι.

‘ot ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες ἄγγελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν εἰσί: καὶ at λυχνίαι

1 The variant τω (AC, Pr., τω της 36, cf. Ws., 64-65) for the της (τω εν εκκλησια
Έφεσου = S) of ΜΩΡ, Arm., Απά., Areth. is preferred by Lach., Tr., Naber, WH
(136-137), Sx., Sw., and Hort (38-40): for χρυσων (QP, etc., Ti., WH, Bij.,
Bs.) Lach., Tr., Ws., Sw. (after AC) substitute χρυσεων (cf. Helbing, 84 f).

(here, a community), associated with re-
miniscences of the Babylonian idea that
certain stars were assigned to certain
lands, whose folk and fortunes were bound
up with their heavenly representatives
(cf. Rawlinson’s Cuneif. Inscript. West.
Asia Minor, ii. 49, iii. 54, 59, etc.).
Afterwards (cf. Tobit) individuals were
assigned a guardian spirit. This belief
(Gfrorer, i. 374 f.) passed into early Chris-
tianity (Matt. xviii. το, Acts xii. 15,
where see note), but naturally it never
flourished, owing to Christ’s direct and
spiritual revelation of God’s fatherly
providence. The association of stars
and angels is one of the earliest de-
velopments in Semitic folklore, and
its poetic possibilities lent themselves
effectively as here to further religious
applications; e.g., Enoch (i. 18) had
long ago represented seven stars, “like
spirits,” in the place of fiery punishment
for disobedience to God’s commands.
As Dr. Kohler points out (EZ. F. 1.
582-97), the determining factors of
Jewish angelology were the ideas of
‘the celestial throne with its ministering
angels, and the cosmos with its evil
forces to be subdued by superior angelic
forces,” which corresponds to the puni-
tive and protective réles of angels in the
Johannine Apocalypse. But in the latte1
they are neither described at length nor
exalted. They are simply commissioned
by God to execute his orders or instruct
the seer. The supreme concern of God
is with the earth and man; angels are
but the middle term of this relationship,
at most the fellow-servants of the saints
whose interests they promote (see below
on xix. 9, το, xxii. 8,9). Christians, un-
like the Iranians (e.g. Bund. xxx. 23,
etc.), offer no praises to them; they re-
serve their adoration for God and Christ.
However graphic and weird, the delinea-
tion of demons and angels in this book
is not grotesque and crude in the sense
that most early Jewish and Christian
descriptions may be said to deserve these
epithets. Here the guardian spirit who

is responsible for a church’s welfare,
would, roughly speaking, be identified
with itself; his oversight and its exist-
ence being correlative terms. Hence
there is a sense in which the allied
conception of ayy. is true, namely, that
the ayy. is the personified spirit or
genius or heavenly counterpart of the
church, the church being regarded as
an ideal individual (so Andr., Areth.,
Wetst., Bleek, Liicke, Erbes, Beyschlag,
Swete, etc.) who possesses a sort of
Egyptian Ka or double. By itself, how-
ever, this view lies open to the objection
that it explains one symbol by another
and hardly does justice to the naive
poetry of the conception. The notion
of guardian angels was widespread in
the early church (Hermas, Justin, Clem.
Alex., Origen, etc.), independently of this
passage. Statius (Szlv. i. 241) says that
Domitian ‘ posuit sua sidera” (ἱ.ε., of
his family) in the heaven, when he
raised a temple to the Flavians—a con-
temporary parallel upon a lower level of
feeling, but indicating a similar view of
the heavenly counterpart (cf. Ramsay,
Seven Letters, 68 f.) The Apocalypse,
though presupposing the exercise of dis-
cipline and the practice of reading,
prayer, and praise within the Christian
communities, entirely ignores officials of
any kind; and the following homilies are
directly concerned with the churches
(ii. 7, ἐκκλησίαις, not the angels), their
different members (cf. ii. 24) and their
respective situations. Hence the poetic
idealism of the ἄγγελοι soon fades, when
the writer’s practical sense is brought to
bear. As the scene of revelation is év
πνεύματι and its author the heavenly
Christ, the writer is instructed to ad-
dress not τοῖς ἁγίοις (e.g., ἐν Εφέσφ),
but their patron spirit or guardian angel.
The point of the address is that the
revelation of Jesus is directly conveyed
through the spoken and written words of
the prophets, as the latter are controlled
by his Spirit.

CuapTer II, 1-CHapTeEr III. 20. The

aes

-

péow τῶν ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν τῶν χρυσῶν :

\ , ΔΝ
τὸν κόπον καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν σου, καὶ ὅτι οὐ δύνῃ "βαστάσαι κακούς,
‘ , ,
καὶ émelpagas τοὺς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι ἀποστόλους "καὶ οὐκ

ὀφρὺν βαστάσει), ''Τποι canst not so much as tolerate”.

“tested, put to the proof”. e Cf. on i. 6.

seven open letters or pastorals (in the
modern and ecclesiastical sense of the
term) are appeals for vigour and vigil-
ance which reflect a mind in which
imaginative, even mystic fervour was
accompanied by shrewd penetration into
the existing state of morals and religion
in the Asiatic communities. Their dis-
orders and difficulties do not escape the
notice of the prophet. He will neither
spare nor despair of the churches. He
speaks in the name of a Lord who knows
not only who are his, but what they are,
One who is keenly alive to their plight
and struggles (οἶδα, ii. 1, etc.) alike
against inward corruption and the ex-
‘ternal pressure of the Empire, one to
whom their obscure provincial conflict
is a matter of infinite moment.

ii. 1-7, to Ephesus.

Ver. 1. The political and commer-
‘cial primacy of Ephesus, conjoined
with its prestige as a centre for the
Imperial cultus which flourished be-
‘side the local cult of Diana, lent it
cecumenical importance in the Eastern
Empire. Christianity had for about
half a century already made it a
-sphere and centre, and its position was
enormously enhanced after the crisis of
7ο A.D. in lalestine, when Asia Minor
became one of the foci of the new faith
{cf. von Dobschiitz, pp. too f.). The
-description of the speaker is carried on
from i. 12, 16, 20, with κρατῶν for
-€xwv (the church is neither to be plucked
nor to be dropped from his hand) and
the addition of περιπατῶν to ἐν µέσῳ
(activity and universal watchfulness, cf.
Abbott, pp. 196 f.), touches which make
the sketch more definite, but which are
too slight to be pressed into any signili-
cance, unless one supposes a subtle
general contrast between the ideal of the
churches—“a star shining by its own
inherent light”—and their actual con-
dition upon earth which, like the lamp,
requires constant replenishing and care,
if its light is not to flicker or fade.

Ver. 2. οἶδα: nothing escapes his
notice, neither the good (2-3, 6) nor the
bad (4, 5) qualities. ἔργα = the general
course and moral conduct of life, exem-

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

249

© κρατῶν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ, ὁ " περιπατῶν ἐν α Lev. xxiv.

4, ΧΧΥΙ. 12
(LXX),

b Not in ii.
9, 13.

c (Cf. Epict.
Diss. 1. 3,
2 ovdeis

8 σουτ.

ἁτ John iv. 1, cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 5:

2. Οἶδα τὰ Pépya σου, καὶ

plified more especially in its active and
passive sides, as exertion and endurance,
by κόπος and ὑπομονή, which are knit
together by the final σου as epexegetic of
épya. The κόπος, or hard work, is
further specified in the text of ver. 2
(the church’s vigorous dealing with im-
postors), while the ὑπομονή is developed
in ver. 3. For a parallel, verbal rather
than real, see 1 Thess. i. 3. Here duty
follows privilege (ver. 1), and communion
with Christ involves practical energy and
enterprise on earth. The remarkable
prominence of ἔργα in this book corre-
sponds to its O.T. conception of the fear
of God which, as a religious principle,
manifests itself effectively in works.
The phrase has nothing to do with the
special sense in which Paul had em-
ployed it during a bygone controversy.
Works here are the result of an inner
relation to God (xii. 11).—Patient endur-
ance (2, 3, 7) wins everything and
triumphs over opposition, as in the case
of the Maccabean martyrs (4 Mace. i.
11) who are lauded for their courage,
καὶ TH ὑπομονῇ -.. νικήσαντες τὸν
τύραννον τῇ ὑπομονῇῃ.- βαστάσαι, the
weak are a burden to be borne (Gal.
vi. 2): the false, an encumbrance to be
thrown off. Patience towards the for-
mer is a note of strength: towards the
latter, it is a sign of weakness. The
prophet is thoroughly in sympathy (cf.
2 John 10, 11) with the sharp scrutiny
exercised at Ephesus over soi-disant
missioners; he gladly recognises the
moral vigour and shrewdness which
made the local church impatient of
itinerant evangelists whose character
and methods would not stand scrutiny.
Pretensions, greed and indolence were
the chief sins of this class, but the
prophet does not enter into details. He
is content to welcome the fact that un-’
complaining endurance of wrong and
hardship has not evaporated the power
of detecting impostors and of evincing
moral antipathy to them, upon the prin-
ciple that ὑπομονή, as Clem. Alex.
finely explained (Strom. ii. 18), is the
knowledge of what is to be endured and
of what is not. The literature of this

359

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

Le

~ ‘
f For these εἰσί, καὶ ‘edpes αὐτοὺς eudeis, 3. καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις, καὶ

unedu-
cated
forms in
-ες, Cf.
Moulton,

g For
phrase, cf. Matt. v. 23.
Cf. Eph. iii. 17, v. 2, 1 Tim. i. 5.

ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά µου, καὶ οὐ * κεκοπίακες.

4. “AN ἔχω

ἕκατὰ god ὅτι τὴν " ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκαςὶ 5.
μνηµόνευε οὖν πόθεν πέπτωκες, καὶ µετανόησον καὶ τὰ πρῶτα.

ht Thess. iii. 12, iv.9, 2 Thess. 1.3; Clem. Rom. xxxiii. 1, xlix. 7.
i See Acts xxvi. 20.

1 For the perfective flexion (Helbing, 103-104) αφηκας (SQccA PQ, etc., Al. Lachm.,
Bs., Ws.) [Matt. xxiii. 23] some (Ti., Tr., WH, Bj., Sw.) substitute αφηκες (ΝΟ).

2 For the εκπεπτωκας of P, 1, etc., S., Andpal, vg., Vict., read either πεπτωκες (N,
Ti., WH, Bj., Sw.) or -as (ACQ, etc., Απάς, Areth., Cyp., Pr., Al. Lachm., Tr., Ws.),

period (x John, Didaché, etc.) is full of
directions upon the moral and religious
tests which a community should apply to
these itinerant evangelists and teachers
called “apostles”. The popularity and
spread of Christianity rendered precau-
tions necessary on the part of the faith-
ful against unscrupulous members of
this order, which had already attracted
men of quite inferior character as well
as of heretical beliefs. The evtl men
here includes these pseudo-apostles as
well as the Nikolaitan libertines of ver.
6 (cf. 15) with whom perhaps the
“apostles” were in sympathy; ἐπείρ.
and evp. denote some definite and recent
crisis, while µισ. reflects the permanent
obstacles of the local situation. This
temper of the church is warmly com-
mended by Ign. (ad Eph. ix.) at a later
period; “I have learned that certain
folk passed through you with wicked
doctrine (κακὴν διδαχήν). but you would
not allow them to sow seed in you”.
With equal loftiness and severity of tone,
John like Ignatius might have added:
τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν, ὄντα ἄπιστα, οὐκ
ἔδοξέν pou ἐγγράψαι (Smyrn. ν.).

Ver. 3. The tenses as in ver. 2 de-
note a general attitude still existing, the
outcome of some special stage of perse-
cution for the sake of the Christian name.
κεκοπίακες, cf. κόπον (ver. 2), a slight
play on words; “ nouilaborem tuum, nec
tamen laboras, i.e., labore non frangeris ”
(Bengel). Tired in loyalty, not of it.
The Ephesian church can bear anything
except the presence of impostors in her
membership.

Ver. 4. Brotherly love, an early and
authentic proof of the faith; as in ver.
19, 2 John 5-6, 3 John 6, and the striking
parallel of Matt. xxiv. 12 (see 10) where,
as at Corinth (see also Did. xvi. 3) party-
spirit and immorality threatened its ex-
istence. Jealous regard for moral or
doctrinal purity, and unwavering loyalty
in trial, so far from necessarily sustain-
ing the spirit of charity, may exist side by
side, as here, with censoriousness, sus-

picion, and quarrelling. Hence the neg-
lect of brotherly love, which formed a
cardinal fault in contemporary gnosticism:
(ει, 1 John, 1. ου τ το ο ο ο) may
penetrate the very opposition to such
error. During any prolonged strain
put upon human nature, especially in a
small society driven jealously to maintain
its purity, temper is prone to make in-
roads on atiection and forbearance; it
was inevitable also that opportunities
for this should be given in early Chris-
tianity, where party-leaders tended to
exaggerate either the liberal or the puri-
tan element in the gospel. When Ap-
ollonius of Tyana visited Ephesus, one
of the first topics he raised was the duty
of unselfish charity (Vit. Apoll. iv. 3).
The historical reference here is probably
to the temporary decline of the Ephesian
church after Paul’s departure (see Acts
xx. 29 f., etc.) Its revival took place
under the ministry of the Johannine
circle, who—carrying on the spirit of
Paulinism with independent vigour—
made it the most prominent centre of
Christianity in the East. With wv. 2-4,
compare Pliny, H. N. ti. 18: ‘deus est
mortali iuuare mortalem, et haec ad aeter-
nam gloriam uia ”; also Pirke Aboth, ii.
15, where R. Jehoshua, a contemporary
Jewish sage, says: ‘‘an evil eye [1.6., envy,
niggardliness], and the evil nature, and
hatred of mankind put a man out of the
world” (cf. 1 John iii. 15). This em-
phasis upon brotherly love as the
dominant characteristic of the church
and the supreme test of genuine faith, is
early Christian, however, rather tham
specifically Johannine (see the account of
the young aristocratic martyr Vettius Epa-
gathus, Ep. Lugd.). The purity which is
not peaceable cannot be adequate to the
demands of Jesus, and nowhere did this.
need reinforcement more than in the
townships of Asia Minor, where factious-
ness and division constantly spoiled their
guilds and mutual relations.

Ver. 5. πόθεν, from what a height.
Contrast Cic, ad Attic. iv. 17: ‘nom

3---6.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΥΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

351

,
ἔργα ‘moincov: εἰ δὲ py, ἔρχομαί “oor καὶ | κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν ΚΙ. 16, iii. 3.
Ε

σου ἐκ τοῦ }

tecordor unde ceciderim, sed unde re-
surrexerim”. To realise that a decline
has taken place, or to admit a lapse, is
the first step and stimulus to amendment
(see the fine passage in Bunyan’s pre-
face to Grace Abounding, and the
κ Hymn of the Soul,” 44, 45, in Acts of
Thomas). Once this is brought home to
the mind (µνηµόνενε, a prolonged effort),
repentance quick and sharp (µετανόησον,
aor.) will follow, issuing in a return to
the first level of excellence (καὶ τὰ πρῶτα
ἔργα ποίησον), i.e., to the initial charity
(2 John 6, 8; love shown in deeds). The
way to regain this warmth of affection is
neither by working up spasmodic emotion
nor by theorising about it (Arist. Eth.
Nic. ii. 4), but by doing its duties. (“The
two paracletes of man are repentance and
good works,” Sanhed. 32). Itis taken for
granted that man possesses the power of
turning and returning; the relation of
Christ’s redeeming death to the forgive-
ness of sins throughout the Christian life,
although implied, is never explicitly
argued (as in Hebrews) by this writer.
The present (€px.) emphasises the
nearness of the approach, while the
future (κιν.) denotes a result to follow
from it. σοι either a dat. incommodi or
(more probably) a local dat. (rare in clas-
sical literature, cf. Aesch. Pr. V. 360)
with ‘the sense of motion to a place”
(Simcox, Lang. N. T. 81), if not an in-

correct reproduction of Heb. J> (as

Matt. xxi. 5, Blass). Cf. fourn. Theol.
St. iii. 516. Kwyow κ.τ.λ., (“ efficiam
ut ecclesia esse desinas,” Areth.) ; not
degradation but destruction is the threat,
brotherly love being the articulus stantis
aut cadentis ecclesiae. So, ina remark-
able parallel from Paul (Phil. ii. 14-16),
quarrelsomeness forfeits the privileges of
Christ’s care and service, since the func-
tion of being φωστῆρες ἐν κόσµῳ, λόγον
ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες depends upon concord
and charity in the church (πάντα ποιεῖτε
χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν καὶ διαλογισμῶν). A
slackened senseof the obligation to mutual
love formed the cardinal sin at Ephesus;
to repent of this was the condition of
continued existence as a church; utility
or extinction is the alternative held out
to her. The nature of the visitation is
left unexplained; the threat is vague,
but probably eschatological. The Apo-
calypse, however, knows nothing of the

τόπου αὐτῆς, ἐαν μὴ µετανοήσῃς.

Pe Τ
6. ᾽Αλλὰ τοῦτο phrase
see vi. 14.

Jewish idea that Israel’s repentance would
bring the advent of messiah (cf. Schtirer’s
Hist. Il. ii. 163, 164), as though the
transgressions of the people hindered his
appearance.

Ver. 6. The message ends with a
tardy echo of 2 b. The prophet admits
that one redeeming feature in the church
is the detestation of the N. Not all the
spirit of animosity at Ephesus is amiss.
When directed, as moral antipathy,
against these detestable Nikolaitans (cor-
responding to the Greek quality of
µισοπονηρία), it is a healthy feature of
their Christian consciousness. The
Nikolaitans have been identified by
patristic tradition, from Irenzeus down-
wards, with the followers of the proselyte
Nikolaos (Acts vi. 5, where see note), who
is alleged, especially by Tertullian and
Epiphanius, to have lapsed into anti-
nomian license, as the result of an over-
strained asceticism, and to have given his
name to a sect which practised religious
sensuality in the days before Cerinthus.
The tenets of the latter are in fact de-
clared by Irenzus to have been antici-
pated by the Nicolaitans, who represented
the spirit of libertinism which, like the
opposite extreme of legalism at an
earlier period, threatened the church’s
moral health. But if the comment of
Vict. were reliable, that the N. principle
was merely ut delibatum exorcizaretur
et manducari posset et ut quicumque
fornicatus esset octauo die pacem ac-
ciperet, the representation of John would
become vigorously polemical rather than
historically accurate. The tradition of
the N.’s origin may of course be simply
due to the play of later imagination upon
the present narrative taken with the
isolated reference to Nikolaos in Acts vi.
6. On the other hand it was not in the
interest of later tradition to propagate
ideas derogatory to the character of an
apostolic Christian; indeed, as early as
Clem. Alex. (Strom. ii. 20, iii. 4; of.
Constit. Ap. vi. 8), a disposition (shared
by Vict.) to clear his character is evident.’
Whatever was the precise relation of the
sect to Nikolaos, whether some tenet of
his was exploited immorally or whether
he was himself a dangerously lax teacher,
there is no reason to doubt the original
connexion of the party with him. Its
accommodating principles are luminously
indicated by the comment of Hippolytus

352 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ h,
mPs. ἔχεις, OTL "' μισεῖς τὰ ἔργα τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν, "G& κἀγὼ μισῶ. 7. “oO
CXXXIX.

nm aA , nw
21,cf.on ἔχων οὓς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις: TO

Rom. xii.

9.
n Cf. Polyk. Phil. ii. ο.

(ἐδίδασκεν adiapopiav βίου) and the
phrase attributed to him by Clem. Alex.
(παραχρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκὶ δεῖ), a hint
which is confirmed, if the Nikolaitans
here and in ver. 15 are identified with
the Balaamites (νικο-λαος, in popular
etymology, a rough Greek equivalent for
Dy ys, perdidit uel absorpsit popu-
lum). This symbolic interpretation has
prevailed from the beginning of the
eighteenth century (so Ewald, Hengsten-
berg, Diist., Schiirer, Julicher, Bousset).
The original party-name was probably
interpreted by opponents in this deroga-
tory sense. It was thus turned into a
covert censure upon men who were
either positively immoral or liberally
indifferent to scruples (on food, clubs,
marriage, and the like) which this puri-
tan prophet regarded as vital to the pre-
servation of genuine Christianity in a
pagan city. A contemporary parallel of
moral laxity is quoted by Derenbourg,
Hist. de la Palestine (1867), p. 363. If
Nikolaos was really an ascetic himself,
the abuse of his principles is quite in-
telligible, as well as their popularity with
people of inferior character. Pushed to
an extreme, asceticism confines ethical
perfection to the spirit. As the flesh
has no part in the divine life, it may
be regarded either as a foe to be con-
stantly thwarted or as something morally
indifferent. In the latter case, the prac-
tical inference of sensual indulgence is
obvious, the argument being that the
lofty spirit cannot be soiled by such in-
dulgence any more than the sun is
polluted by shining on a dunghill.

Ver. 7. A stringent demand for atten-
tion (πίστις, ὦτα ψυχῆς: Clem. Alex.)
to the utterances of prophets who were
inspired by the Spirit (of prophecy, cf.
on xix. το). These as usual are ejacula-
tory, positive and Ὀτίεί--ἐκκλ. scattered
Jocal communities, and not a Catholic
organisation, being the conception of the
Apocalypse, it is for use in their public
worship that this book is written (i. 3).
It is a subordinate and literary question
whether the seer means in such phrases
as this to designate himself (Weinel, 84 f.)
liturgically as the speaker, or whether
(as the synoptic parallels suggest) they
form an integral part of the whole men-
age. In any case the prophet represents

ο Mk. iv.23, etc., fr. Ezek. iii. 27.

himself simply as the medium for receiv-
ing and recording (cf. i. το) these oracles
of the Spirit (cf. xiv. 13, xix. 9, Xx. 17).
Unlike other writers suchas Paul and
the authors of Hebrew and τ John, he
occupies a passive réle, throwing his
personal rebuke and counsels into the
form Thus saith the Spirit: but this
really denotes the confidence felt by the
prophet in his own inspiration and au-
thority. The Spirit here, though less
definitely than in Hermas, is identified
with Jesus speaking through his prophets :
it represents sudden counsels and semi-
oracular utterances (cf. on i. Το), not a
continuous power in the normal moral
life of the saints in general. The seven
promises denote security of immortal life
(positively as here and ver. 28 or negatively
as ver. 11), privilege (personal, ver. 17, or
official, ver. 27), honour (iii. 5, 21), or
increased intimacy (iii. 12). As usual,
(cf. τ Cor. ii. of.), the higher Christian
γνῶσις is connected with eschatology.

Observe the singling out for encourage-
ment and praise of each soldier in the
host of the loyal. The effect resembles
that produced by Pericles in his panegyric
over the Athenians who had fallen in the
Peloponnesian war: ‘together they gave
up their lives, yet individually they won
this deathless praise” (Thue. ii. 43, 2).
γικῶν (a quasi-perfect), in Herm. Mand.
xii. 2, 4 f., 5. 2, 4, 6.2, 4 (over'sin and
devil), might have its usual Johannine
sense, the struggle being obedience in face
of the seductions and hardships which
beset people aiming to keep the divine
commandments (cf. on John xvi. 33).
For a special application of the term, see
χν.2. But behind the general usage lies
the combination of “to be pure or just”
and ‘‘to conquer or triumph” in the
Hebrew sédek andthe Syriac zedha. Fur-
thermore, νικών throughout is equivalent
to the Egyptian eschatological term “ vic-
torious,’ applied to those who passed
successfully through life’s temptations
and the judgment after death. Its
generic sense is illustrated by 4 Esd. vii.
[128]: ‘‘here is the intent of the battle
to be fought by man born upon earth: if
he be overcome, he shall suffer as thou
hast said; but if he conquer, he shall re-
ceive the thing of which I speak” (i.e.,
paradise and its glories). The Essenes

7—8.

AITOKAAY¥IS ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

353

Ρνικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ "φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν ρ Εη.].2.

lal , an A
τῷ "παραδείσω τοῦ θεοῦ.

“8. Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς] ἐν Σμύρνη ἐκκλησίας γράψον' Τάδε

I xxii. 2, 14, 19.

q Redun-
dant,
Moult.

i. 85,
Win. § 22,
a

s Ezek. xxxi. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 4, Lk. xxiii. 43; Basen 148.

1 For της ΟΡΟ (Ti., Al. Ws., Bs., Bj.) Lach., WH, Sw. prefer tw (A, cf. ii.
I, 18): Zpvpvy (Ν, am., fuld., S., Ti.), an orthography which ceases on Coins
towards end of Trajan’s reign (according to Waddington, Fastes des provinces

asiatiques, i. 158).

according to Josephus (Ant. xviii. I, 5),
held the soul was immortal, περιµάχητον
ἡγούμενοι τοῦ δικαίου τὴν πρόσοδον---
eternal life the reward of an untiring, un-
soiled fight against evil. The imagery of
the metaphor is drawn from Jewish es-
chatology which anticipated the reversal
of the doom incurred in Eden; cf. Test.
Levi, 18, καὶ δώσει τοῖς ἁγίοις Φαγεῖν
ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, also En. xxiv.
ποτε ανν κκ τς εἴο,, and! (for
Egyptian ideas) below on iii. 21. The
garden-park of God (π. = a garden with
fruit-trees, Wilcken’s Griech.» Ostraka, i.
157) is one of the intermediate abodes,
possibly (as in Slav. En. viii. 1, and Paul)
the third heaven where the favoured saints
live after death in seclusion and bliss,
So Iren. ν. 5. 1 (abode of translated) and
ν. 36, 1-2, where heaven is for the Chris-
tians of the hundredfold fruit, paradise
for the sixty-fold, and the heavenly city
for the thirty-fold (a very ancient Chris-
tian tradition). The tree of life blooms
in most of the apocalypses (cf. on xxii. 2).
Philo had already allegorised it into
θεοσέβεια 6 τῆς τελείας ἀρετῆς χαρακτήρ.
But the allusion corresponds to the gene-
ral eschatological principle (borrowed
from Babylonia, where cosmological
myths passed into eschatological) that
the end was to be a transcendently fine
renovation of the original state (Barn. vi.
8). pov a deliberate addition to the Ο.Τ.
phrase ; Christ’s relation to God guaran-
tees his promise of such a privilege (iii.
12). God’s gift (Rom. vi. 23) is Christ’s
gift. He is no fair promiser like Anti-
gonus II., whom men dubbed δώσων for
his large and unfulfilled undertakings
(Plut. Coriol. xi.).

Vv. 8-11. The message (shortest of
the seven) to the Christians in Smyrna,
“one of the first stars in the brilliant belt
of the cities of Asia Minor” (Mommsen),
a wealthy and privileged seaport, and
like Sardis a constant rival of Ephesus
for the title of primacy which properly
belonged to Pergamos, the real capital of
the province. It is probably owing to

the petty jealousies of these urban com-
munities that the prophet refrains from
speaking of one to the other (as Paul did,
with his churches), by way of example.
Ver. 8. The title from i. 17-18,
with special reference to ver. το and
its situation, also to the promise of ver.
11. The Smyrniote Christians, in peril
of death, are addressed and encouraged
by One who himself has died—and risen
to life. He is familiar [ver. 9] with the
rough brake and briars through which faith
must struggle to win its crown, and this
familiarity is as usual put forward as the
first elerment of encouragement. The
other notes of help are (i.) the unap-
proachable wealth of a devoted life, (ii.)
the justice of their claim in spite of their
opponents’ prestige and pretensions, (iii.)
the providential limit assigned to their
trial, and (iv.) itsample reward, besides the
fact that Christ does not conceal from
them the worst.—mrTwy. Contrast R.
Jochanan’s aphorism: ‘‘ Whosoever ful-
fils the Torah in poverty will at length
fulfil it in wealth; and whosoever neg-
lects the Torah in wealth, will at length
neglect it in poverty” (Pirke Aboth, iv.
13). The subsequent allusion to Jews
acquires fresh point from a comparison
with (Chagigah, gb) another contemporary
rabbi’s comment on Isa. xlviii. 10: ‘‘ this
means that the Holy One sought for all
good qualities to give to Israel, and
found only poverty”.—lov8. Does the
prophet resent (see on this, von Dobs-
chiitz, Texte u. Unters. xi. 1. 35 f.) the
Jewish claim to the title of God’s people,
declaring in so many words (as Matt, xxi.
43), that Judaism, so far as it is genuine,
is now inside the church, and that the
Jewish nation has forfeited its privilege’
and is now a pseudo-church (Harnack,
H. D. i. 177-179)? If the passage does
not breathe this common antipathy, the
calumnies may be supposed to have taken
the form of taunts upon the Christian de-
lusion of believing that a Palestinian
peasant and criminal was messiah, or of
slanders upon Christian morals and mo-

354

Diat. πάσχειν.
2781.

v Result of
θλῖΨις (Heb. x. 33-34) ?
iv, 21. x Cf. 1 Pet. iii. 16, iv. 4.

(Blass, § 72, 2). a iii. 9, 2 Cor. xi. 14-15.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

Il.

οὐκ εἰσὶν, ἀλλὰ συναγωγὴ "τοῦ Σατανᾶ. 19. Μηδὲν] φοβοῦ & µέλλεις
ἰδοὺ μέλλει βάλλειν 6 διάβολος ἐξ ὑμῶν eis φυλακὴν

w 2 Cor. vi. 10, viii. 9, Jas. ii. 5, cf. Ps. xxxiv. 10-11, and espec. Tobit
y John iii. 25.

z Constr. iii. 9, Rom. ii. 19, Lk. xx. 20
b 2 John 4, partitive by harsh Hellenistic usage,

‘For µηδεν (NP, etc., vg., Syr., Aeth., Andacbav, Areth., Cypr., Pr., Ti., Sx., Bs.)
Lach., Al., Diist., Tr., WH, Ws., Bj., Sw. read the easier and less probable pr

(ACQ, 8, 38, 49, Arm, Andpal),

tives (reff.), or of malicious, anonymous
accusations laid before the Roman au-
thorities with reference to revolutionary
designs on the part ofthe churches. ‘‘ Les
Orientaux prennent d’ordinaire la religion
comme un prétexte de taquineries” (Re-
nan). Judaism was strong at Smyrna, and
its hostility to the Christians (see Otto’s
notes on Just. Dial. xvi. 11, xxxv., etc.)
would not be lessened by the accession of
converts from the old faith to the new
(ign. ad Smyrn. i. 2, describes the saints
and faithful folk of Christ εἴτε ἐν Ἰουδαίοις
εἴτε ἐν ἔθνεσιν); the reasons for such
social animosity and interference are
analysed in Jowett’s note on 1 Th. iii.
13, in E. G. Hardy’s Christranity and
the Roman Government, pp. 45-53, and in
Ramsay’s Seven Letters, 272 f. At the
martyrdom of Polykarp in Smyrna, some
years after the Apocalypse was written
(as later still at the death of Pionius, 250
A.D.) the Jews made themselves conspic-
uous by denouncing him with the pagan
mob before the Asiarch (ἀκατασχέτῳ
θυμῷ καὶ µεγάλῃ φωνῇ), eagerly assisting
to heap faggots on his pile (προθύμως, ὡς
ἔθος αὐτοῖς), and helping to prevent the
Christians from obtaining the martyr’s
body Wench) umay καὶ ἐνισχυόντων
τῶν Ἰονδαίων: Mart. Polyk. xii., xvii.).
The name of “ Jew,” ancient and honour-
able, is claimed (καὶ οὐκ εἰσί) for believers
in Jesus the messiah, who constitute the
real people of God with a legitimate
claim to the privileges and titles of the
Ο.Τ, community. ‘‘ Now by our faith we
have become more than those who
seemed to have God” (2 Clem. ii. 3).—
συν. oat. a bitter retort to the contem-
porary claims of Judaism with its σ. τοῦ
κυρίου (cf, Num. xvi. 3, xx. 4, Ps. Sol.
xvii. 18, σ. ὁσίων). The allusion here is
to Jewish, in ver. 13 (throne of S.) to
pagan, and in ver. 24 (depths of S.) to
heretical, antagonism.

Ver. ΙΟ. µη. Φφοβοῦ, κ.τ.λ. ‘Thou
orderest us to endure, not to love, trials.
A man may love to endure, but he does
not love what he endures’”’ (Aug. Conf.
x. 28). Ill-treatment, as well as misrepre-
sentation, is traced back to a diabolic
source, in the common early Christian
manner (Weinel, 13 f.). The Imperial
authorities (διάβολος as in 1 Peter v. 8),
although often instigated by the Jews,
had the sole power of inflicting imprison-
ment, in this case for a refusal to worship
the emperor’s image; the prophet here
predicts an imminent persecution of this
kind (compare Acts ix. 16, and above
Introd. § 6) lasting for a short and limited
time (δέκα Hp. see reff., originally due to the
rough Semitic division of a month into
decades). The local intensity of feeling
upon the Imperial cultus may be gathered
from the fact that in 23 Α.Ρ. Smyrna had
secured from Tiberius and the senate, after
keen competition, the coveted distinction
of possessing the second temple decreed
by the province to the Imperial cultus.
Hence the struggle anticipated here is
desperate (ἄχ. ϐ.); martyrdom is no
remote contingency. Compare Ep.
Lugd., where the martyr-crisis is taken
as an anticipation of the final persecution
(cf. Apoc. iii. το, xiii. 7-15): ‘‘ with all his
might the adversary assailed us, giving us
a hint of what his unbridled advent would
be like at the end”; the martyrs ‘ en-
dured nobly all the assaults heaped on
them by the mob. They were shouted
at, struck, haled about, robbed, stoned,
imprisoned ; in fact they suffered all that
an infuriated mob likes to inflict on
enemies and opponents.”—Then follows
a commandment with promise: Ὑγίνου
(not ἴσθι), ‘show thyself” throughout all
degrees of trial and inany emergency. It
is more than doubtful if this is a subtle
local allusion to the loyalty and local
patriotism upon which Sardis prided her-

Ο----13.

ἵνα πειρασθῆτε: καὶ ἔξετε θλίψιν ἡμερῶν "δέκα.
3 ἄχρι θανάτου, καὶ δώσω σοι τὸν ᾿στέφανον τῆς * ζωῆς.
ἔχων obs ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις “O νικῶν οὗ
μὴ ἀδικηθῇ ἐκ τοῦ ἔ θανάτου τοῦ © δευτέρου.

“12. Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Περγάµω ἐκκλησίας γράψον. Τάδε
λέγει 3 ὅ ἔχων τὴν ῥομφαίαν τὴν δίστοµον τὴν ὀξεῖαν: 13. Οἶδα

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

$33

[ή
γίνου πιστὸς © Gen. xxiv.
ε 55, Num.
ττ. ο. χτο,
Dan. 1.12,
14.

d xii. 11,
Acts xxii.
4, Phil. ii.
8, Sib. Or
ii.47, Ign.,
Polyk. ii.

ποῦ κατοικεῖς, ὅπου 6 θρόνος τοῦ Σατανᾶ, καὶ κρατεῖς ‘Td ὄνομά µου, «; Pet. v.

i. 12. f Gen, epexeg.
= Sir. xxi. 3. The spiritual jus gladii.

self and which she had urged as her plea
to Tiberius (Tacit. Ann. iv. 56). On the
honours subsequently paid to martyrs in
Smyrna, cf. Mart. Polyk. xvii. τοῦτον μὲν
yap ὑιὸν ὄντα τοῦ θεοῦ προσκυνοῦμεν,
ποὺς δὲ μάρτυρας ὡς μαθητὰς καὶ μιμητὰς
τοῦ κυρίου ἀγαπῶμεν (also Euseb. Η. Ε.
iv. 15. 46, 47), with the contemporary cry
of 4 Esd. viii. 27: ‘“‘Look not at the
deeds of the impious but at those who
have kept Thy covenants amid affliction”
(z.e., the martyrs), also the subsequent
Christian honour paid by Hermas (Vis.
iii. 1, 2), who reserves the right hand of
God for the martyrs who have ‘suffered
for the sake of the Name,” enduring
“stripes, imprisonments, great afflictions,
crosses, wild beasts”. For καὶ with fut.
after imperative, see Eph. v. 14, James iv.
7.---στέφ. ἵ. Life, the reward assigned
in ver. 7 to the triumph of faith is here
bestowed upon the loyalty of faith. To
hold one’s ground is, under certain cir-
cumstances, as trying and creditable as it
is under others to win positive successes.
The metaphor of στέφ. with its royal,
sacerdotal, and festal (Cant. iii. τι, Isa.
xxviii. 1, Herm. Sim. viii. 2) associations,
would call up civic and athletic honours
to the local Christians, the latter owing
to the famous games at Smyrna, the
former from the fact that στ. frequently
-occurs also in inscriptions as = public hon-
our for distinguished service (paid, e.g., to
Demosthenes and Zeno), whilst the yearly
appointment of a priest at Eumeneia to
the temple of Zeno was termed παράληψις
τοῦ στέφανου (C. B. P. ii. 358). Com-
pare, with the ἄξιοι of iii. 4, the sentence
in Ep. Lugd. upon the martyrs: ἐχρῆν
γοῦν τοὺς yevvatous ἀθλητὰς, ποικίλον
ὑπομείναντας ἀγῶνα καὶ µεγάλως νικήσαν-
τας, ἀπολαβεῖν τὸν µέγαν τῆς ἀφθ-
αρσίας στέφανον, and the Greek phrase
for noble deeds, afta στεφάνων (Plut.
Pericl. 28).

Ver. 11. οὐ μὴ (emphatic): no true
Christian, much less one who dies a

g See on xx. 6, 14.
i Cf. on ver. 10, and iii. 8.

4, 2 Tim.
; 5 iv. 8, Jas.
h xix. 15, Heb. iv. 12, En. Ixii. 2; its stroke

martyr’s death, need fear anything beyond
the pang of the first death. The second
death of condemnation in the lake of fire
leaves the faithful scatheless, no matter
how others may suffer from the terrors
(cf. on ili. 12) which haunted the ancient
outlook (especially the Egyptian) upon
the dark interval between death and
heaven. Cf. the sketch of Ani, seated on
his throne and robed in white, holding
sceptre and staff, and crying: ‘‘I am not
held to be a person of no account, and
violence shall not bedone me. Iam thy
son, O Great One, and I have seen the
hidden things that belong tothee. I am
crowned king of the gods, and shall not
die a second time in the underworld”
(E. B. D. 9ο). Ifa Christian keep him-
self loyal till death, the prophet here
guarantees that Christ will keep him safe
after death. After the promise of ver. 10
however, this sounds like an anticlimax.
The general tenor of the message indi-
cates that John was rather more cordial
and sympathetic to the Smyrniote church
than to the Ephesian.

Vv. 12-17. The message to Pergamos,
the Benares or Lourdes of the province.

Ver. 12. The title is apt in view of
ver. 16.

Ver. 13. Two features in the local
situation menaced Christianity. Perga-
mos, besides forming a legal centre for
the district (ad eam conueniunt Thyatireni
aliaeque inhonorae ciuitates, Plin. v. 33),
was an old centre of emperor-worship in
Asia Minor; in 29 B.c. a temple had been
erected to the divine Augustus and the
goddess Roma, and a special priesthood
had been formed (ὑμνῳδοὶ θεοῦ Σεβαστοῦ |
καὶ θεᾶς “Pdépns). Another feature,
shocking to early Christian feeling, was
the local cult of Aesculapius (cf. Zahn,
§ 73, note 2), whose favourite symbol (e.¢.,
on coins) was a serpent (‘‘the god of Per-
gamos, Mart. ix. 17); so Pausan. Cor, 27,
(iii. 402), κάθηται δὲ ἐπὶ θρόνου βακτη-
piav κρατῶν, τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν τῶν χειρῶν

356

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΎΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

πι.

krTim.v. καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω τὴν "πίστιν ' µου καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ᾽Αντίπας]Ἰ 6

I xiv. 12;
“in me”.

µάρτυς µου, 6 ™ πιστός µου, ὃς ἀπεκτάνθη τα) ὑμῖν, ὅπου 6 σατανᾶς

m Christ's κατοικεῖ. 14. ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἔχω κατὰ ood ὀλίγα, έχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας THY

own title

(i.5,ii. διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ, ὃς ἐδίδασκεν "τῷ Βαλὰκ "βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον

14).
n Heb. dat.

(Job xxi. 22 ον πο) >} correct constr.in ver.20. ο Peculiar to Apocalypse; for τίθεναι or ποιεῖν.

1 As an alternative to taking Αντιπας as indeclinable, WH (after Lachm.) suggest
the genit. Αντιπα (final C taken up from following O); so Nestle, Zahn, Schmiedel,
Bj., Sw. With ev ats or ats (before Αντιπας, so Ws., Bs.), supply either exstitit

(Haym) or occisus est (Quaestt., 102, 2950).

The αντειπας of S. might suggest a

significant appellation rather than any personal noun (Gwynn).

ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς ἔχει τοῦ δράκοντος. In
addition to these fashionable cults, a
magnificent throne-like altar to Zeus
Soter towered on the Acropolis (Paus. ii.
73, 75. iii. 556, 557) Commemorating the
defeat of the barbarian Gauls by Attalus
two centuries earlier, and decorated by a
famous frieze of the gods warring against
the giants (the latter, a brood of vigorous
opponents, having often human bodies
and serpentine tails, cf. below, ix. 19).
No wonder Pergamos was called ‘‘a
throne of Satan” by early Christians
who revolted against the splendid and
insidious paganism of a place where
politics and religion were firm allies.
Least of all at this cathedral centre of
the Imperial cultus could dissent be
tolerated. The Asiarch, ¢.g., who con-
demns Polykarp is the local high priest
of the altar, and the animus against
Czesar-adoration which pervades the
Apocalypse easily accounts for the last
phrase 6 ϐ. τ. o., particularly as the
symbol of the serpent in the Aesculapius
cult would come vividly home to pious
Jewish Christians in the church, as a
reminder of Satan (¢.g., xii. 9 and passim).
The priesthood of this cult, “a vast col-
lege, believed to be in possession of cer-
tain precious medical secrets,’ came
“nearest, perhaps, of all the institutions
of the pagan world, to the Christian
priesthood,” its rites being ‘‘ administered
in a full conviction of the religiousness,
the refined and sacred happiness, of a
life spent in the relieving of pain” (Pater,
Marius the Epicurean, i. 30; see Use-
ner’s Gétternamen, 1896, pp. 147 f., 350,
and Dill’s Roman Soc. from Nero to M.
Aur. 459 f.). κρατεῖς, κ.τ.λ., ‘And the
magistrate pressed him hard, saying,
‘Swear the oath [by the genius of
Cesar] and I will release thee; curse the
Christ.’ But Polykarp replied, ‘ For
eighty-six years I have served him, and
he has never injured me. How then can

I blaspheme my King, who has saved
me?’” (Mart. Polyc. ix., Jewish analogies
in 2 Macc. viii. 4, Ass. Mos. viii. etc.).
Some definite outburst of persecution
at Pergamos is in the writer’s mind
(ἠρνήσω). To disown or abjure faith in
Jesus, saying Κύριος Katoap, implies
here as in the gospels the moral fault of
cowardice, elsewhere (e.g. 1 John, Jud.
4, 2 Peter ii. 1) erroneous doctrine. The
circumstances and surroundings of the
local church are taken into account, as
usual, in the prophet’s estimate; they
either claim some allowance to be made,
or reflect additional credit and lustre on
the particular community. 6 pdptus,
κ.τ.λ. He is faithful who retains his
faith. Antipas (-- Αντίπατρος, Jos. Ant.
xiv. I, 3; the name occurs in a third
century inscription of Pergamos, Deissm.
187), is mentioned by Tertullian (adv.
Gnost. scorp. 12); otherwise he is un-
known. His Acts appear to have been
read by Andreas and Arethas, and, ac-
cording to Simon Metaphrastes, he was
an old, intrepid bishop of Pergamos
whose prestige drew upon him the honour
of being burned to death in a brazen
bull during Domitian’s reign. The sober
truth is probably that he formed the first
prominent victim in the local church,
possibly in Asia Minor, to the demands
of the Imperial cultus. Carpus, Papylus,
and Agathoniké, the other martyrs of
Pergamos named by Eusebius (H. Ε., iv.
15, 48), died at a later period. On the
whole verse see Ep. Lugd., ‘‘then did
the holy martyrs endure indescribable
torture, Satan eagerly striving to make
them utter τι τῶν βλασφήμων”. The
textual variants arose from a failure to
to see that Αντίπας (or -a) was a genitive
and that µάρτυς was in characteristic
irregular apposition to it. The name is.
neither a personification nor typical.
Ver. 14. ὀλίγα, the errorists are a.
mere minority; they do not represent or

----ἴδ.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

397

ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ισραήλ, Ὁ φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ “ πορνεῦσαι. pt Cor.

15. οὕτως ἔχεις καὶ σὺ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν
16. Μετανόησον: εἰ δὲ py, "ἔρχομαί σοι ταχύ καὶ

ες , 1
οµοιως.

Vili. 7-13
X. 20-30.
q xiv. 8,
XVii. 1-5,
4-5, XVili-
3519: τ il. 5, ili. 3

1Al., Diist., Lachm., WH, Sw. (after ACQ, Arm.) om. των before Νικ.

affect the main body of the church, whose
fault is not sympathy but indifference.
This carelessness arose probably from
contempt or fear rather than through ig-
norance.—éket (in the midst of loyalty
and martyrdom). «pat. (not τὸ ὄνομά
μον, but) lax principles worthy of a
Balaam, the note of a pupil of Balaam
being (according to Pirke Aboth, v. 19),
an evil eye, a proud spirit, and a sensual
soul. Contemporary opponents of Gnostic
tendencies evidently found it an effective
weapon to employ O.T. analogies or iden-
tifications such as this or the similar ones
in 2 Tim. iii. 8, Jud.tr. In the Hexateuch
(JE=Num. xxv. 1-5, P= Num. xxv. 6-18,
xxxi. 8-16, Josh. xiii. 22) Balaam is τερτε-
sented as a magician who prompts the
Moabite women to seduce the Israelites
into foreign worship and its attendant
sensualism ; but in the subsequent Jewish
Midrash (followed here) his advice is
given to Balak (Joseph. Ant. iv. 6, 6; cf.
iv. 6, 11 for Zimri, and Philo’s Vit. Mos.
i. 48-55), and the sorcerer comes to be
regarded as the prototype of all corrupt
teachers and magicians (for this sombre
reputation, see Ε.Σ. ii. 467), as of this
party at Pergamos who held—to John’s
indignation—that it was legitimate for a
Christian to buy food in the open market,
which had already been consecrated to
an idol. This problem, which had oc-
curred years before in a sharp form at
Corinth, was certain to cause embarrass-
ment and trouble ina city like Pergamos,
or indeed in any pagan town. where en-
_tertainments had a tendency towards
obscenity. It is a curious instance of
how at certain periods a scruple may
assume the rank of a principle, and of
how the ethical inexpediency of some
practices lies in their associations rather
than in their essential elements. Such
questions of religious conscience in
the East were frequently connected with
food; for the association of the latter
with sexual vice, see the notes on Acts
xv. 20 (also 1 Cor. x. 4, 8, in its con-
text). The literal sense is preferable,
although the usage of the Apocalypse
makes the metaphorical sense of ποργ.
eossible, as a general description of

νου VY.

pagan religions viewed under the aspect
of unfaithfulness to the true God (cf.
John viii. 41, Philo de migr. Abr. § 12)

For the connexion between certain forms
of popular religion in Phrygia and pros-
titution, see C.B.P., i. 94 f. Such burning;
questions arose from the nature of the
early Christian society, which never as-
pired to form a ghetto, and consequently,
in a pagan township, had to face many
nice problems with regard to the pru-
dence and limits of conformity or the
need of nonconformity (cf. 2 Cor. vi. 16,
17). In social and trading pursuits the:
individual Christian met and mingled
with fellow-citizens outside his own re-
ligious circle, and these relationships
started serious points of ethical principle
(Dobschitz, 26 f., 183 f.). The line was
drawn, but not always at the same place;
and naturally laxity lay on the borders of
enlightenment.

Ver. 15. οὕτως κ.τ.λ. Are the N. put
parallel to, or identified with, the Balaa-
mites ? The latter becomes more probable
when the symbolical sense of N. and B.
(see above, on ver. 6, and Kalisch’s Bible
Studies, i. 23) is adopted. In this event
a single class of errorists is in view ; they
are instigating and seducing the local
Christians much as Balaam managed (by
means of Balak, in rabbinic tradition,
cf. the slight play on βαλεῖν) to get the
Israelites enticed to ruin (Sanh. 105 a).
Josephus explains that Balaam showed
Balak how to win a victory over the
Israelites (νίκην τινὰ . . . κατ᾽ αὐτῶν
κερδᾶναι) by enticing them to lust, and
such a symbolic allusion is quite in the
manner of the Apocalypse. The Niko-
laitans, who probably resembled Cerin-
thus or Carpokrates in their tenets, are no
better than a Balaam. And the Jewisn
dictum was (Sanh. 106 b) that whenever
one discovered anything bad in Balaam’s ,
life, one should preach about it.

Ver. 16. The church as a whole must
repent of her too tolerant attitude to
these errorists, but the threatened visi-
tation is directed against the errorists
themselves in the shape of some physical
malady or mortal sickness, according to
the current belief in early Christianity

23

358

8 xii. 7, χΗῖ."πολεμήσω peT αὐτῶν ἐν TH ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ στόµατός µου.

4, XVil. 14

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΤΩΑΝΝΟΥ

1.

17. Ὁ

” ’ col - ~ A
(Hebra- €Xwv os ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις: TO νικῶντι

ism
corns); cf. Isa. Ixiii. το.

(cf. on τ Cor. v. 4-5, 13, xi. 30, Everling:
die paul. Angelologie, etc., 20f.). Grotius
refers the threat to the prophetic order
(‘‘prophetas suscitabo in ecclesia”). But
the ethnic conscience generally regarded
pestilence or any physical calamity as a
punishment inflicted by the god for some
offence against his ritual or some breach
‘of morals. In the Hexateuch, the sword
opposes (Num. xxii. 23, 31) and finally
‘slays (xxxi. 8) Balaam. The run of
‘thought in the verse is that if the church
-does not repent, 2.6., if she does not act
-on her own initiative and expel the wrong-
‘doers (in the hope of them ultimately com-
ing to a better mind, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5), she
‘must submit to having them cut out of her,
and thus being irretrievably lost by death.
‘The church is responsible for her erring
members, and the exercise of discipline
is viewed as a duty to them as well as
to herself and God. Weak laxity is false
kindness, the prophet implies; it merely
exposes offenders to an alternative far
more dreadful than discipline itself. The
sword, Vict. remarks on i. 16, is used to
punish deserters as well as to win victory
for the faithful. For instrumental év in the
pre-Christian vernacular, see Tebtunis
Papyri vol. i. (p. 86) ἐν paxatpy-ats.
Ver. 17. The reward for those who
deny themselves pagan pleasures in this
world is (as in ver. 26) participation in
the privileges (Pereqg Meir 5), reserved
for God’s people in the latter days (here
=a victor’s banquet, Gen. xiv. 18), not
as hitherto (7, 11) simply participation in
eternal life. The imagery is again rab-
binic (2 Macc. ii. 4-6, Apoc. Bar. vi. 7-9).
Previous to the destruction of Jerusalem,
Isaiah or the prophet Jeremiah was sup-
posed to have hidden the ark of the cove-
nant (cf. on xi. 19) with its sacred con-
tents, including the pot of manna. At
the appearance of the messiah, this was
to be once more disclosed (cf. Mechilta
on Exod. xvi. 25, etc.). It is significant
how the writer as usual claims for his
messiah, Jesus, the cherished privileges
and rights to which contemporary Juda-
ism clung as its monopoly, and further
how he assumes that all the past glories
of Ο.Τ. relizion upon earth—as well as
all the coming bliss, which in one sense
meant the transcendent restoration of

, 3A CoM 7 A / ‘ ‘ πα ~
δώσω αὐτῷ τοῦ ‘pdvva τοῦ κεκρυµµένου, καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ ψῆφον

t Sib. vii. 149, John vi. 31-32; partit. gen.

these glories—were secured in heaven
for the followers of Jesus alone (vii. 17,
xxi. 2, efc.). ‘See Ἄρδο Bary πα. ὅ,
where “the treasury of manna will again
descend from on high,” at the messianic
period, that the saints may eat of it; the
Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, fol-
lows Philo (quis ver. div. 39, leg. allegor.
iii. 59, 61, etc.) in using manna as a type
of the soul’s nourishment in the present
age. There does not seem to be any
allusion to the rabbinical legend under-
lying Sap. xvi. 20.—The strange associa-
tion of manna and white stones, though
possibly a reminiscence of the rabbinic
notion preserved in Joma 8 (cadebant
Israelitis una cum manna lapides preti-
osi), cannot be explained apart from the
popular superstitions regarding amulets
which colour the metaphor. White
stones represented variously to the
ancient mind acquittal, admission to a
feast (tessera hospitalis), good fortune,
and the like. But the point here is their
connexion with the new name. This
alludes to the mysterious power attached
in the ancient mind to amulets, stones
(cf. Ε.Σ. i. 546-550, where vignettes are
given ; also Dieterich’s Mithras-Liturgie,
31 f.) marked with secret and divine
names (Jeremias, 79-80, Pfleid. Early
Christ. Conc. of Christ, 112 f.), the pos-
session of which was supposed to enable
the bearer to pass closed gates, foil
evil spirits, and enter the presence of the
deity. If the new name (cf. Heitmiller’s
Im Namen Fesu, 128 Ε.), is thus regarded
as that of Jesus—the irresistible, invin-
cible name above every name—the pro-
mise then offers safe entrance through
all perils into the inner bliss and feast of
God; the true Christian has a charmed
life. But when the new name is taken
to apply to the individual, as seems more
likely here, another line of interpretation
is required, and the origin of the phrase
(though tinged still with this amulet-
conception of a stone, the more potent
as it was hidden somewhere on the
person, cf. Prov. xvii. 8, etc.), is best
approached from a passage like Epict. i,
το, where the philosopher is trying to
dissuade a man from undertaking the
duties of priesthood in the Imperial cultus
at Nikopolis. What good will it do him

17—18.

, Cg Wee cy a 3 u x ,
λευκήν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ψῆφον ὄνομα "καινὸν yeypappevoy,

οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ λαμβάνων.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

309

ὃ οὐδεὶς u Isa. Ixii.
2, Ixv. 15.
v Cf. on
Acts xvi.

“18. Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν " Θυατείροις] ἐκκλησίας γράψον, 14.

10η the variant τω (Lach., WH, Sw.) for της, cf. ii. 1,8. The singular form,
νατειρη (Q, vg., etc.), is less well supported ; similar collocations of singular (i. 11)
and plural are not uncommon (E. B1., 4538), 5064b).

after death, to have his name used to
mark his year of office in public docu-
ments? ‘‘Myname will remain,” replies
the man. ‘‘ Write it on a stone and it
will remain,” is the retort of Epictetus—
plainly a colloquial expression for per-
manence. This would fit in with the
Apocalyptic saying excellently (see Schol.
on Pind. Olymp. vii. 159). Still more
apposite, however, is an ancient ceremony
of initiation (as among the aborigines of
New South Wales: Trumbull, Blood-
Covenant, 1887, pp. 335-337), by which
each person, on the close of his novitiate,
received a new name from the tribe and
at the same time a white stone or quartz
crystal. The latter was considered to be
a divine gift, and was held specially
sacred, never to be surrendered or even
shown. These boons formed part of the
religious covenant which marked the
entrance of a man into the closest rela-
tion with the deity of his tribe and also
into the full enjoyment of manhood’s
privileges. Hence, if we suppose some
such popular rite behind the language
here, the idea is apt: the victor’s reward
is the enjoyment of mature and intimate
life with his God (so Victor.). For the
symbolism of a name as evidence of
personal identity (and inferentially of
a Πεν’ name as proof of a renovated,
enduring nature), see E.B.D. 75: “ May
my name be given to me in the Great
House, and may I remember my name
in the House of Fire. .. . If any god
whatsoever should advance to me, let
me be able to proclaim his name forth-
with ” (the latter clause illustrating Apoc.
iii. 12). The significance attached by
the Egyptian religion especially to the
yeu or name was due to the belief that its
loss meant the extinction of a man’s ex-
istence. The idea in the prophet’s mind
is little more than that developed, e.g.,
in Mrs. Browning’s sonnet, ‘“‘ Comfort” :
‘*Speak low to me, my Saviour, low
and sweet, From out the hallelujahs
sweet and low, Lest I should fear and
fall, and miss Thee,” etc. As the suc-
ceeding chapters are full of the state
and splendour of heaven, with royal
majesty predominating, the prophet finds

place here for the more intimate and
individual aspect of the future life, de-
picting God in touch with the single
soul (cf. xiv. 1). In addition to this, he
conveys the idea that outside the Chris-
tian experience no one can really know
what God is or what He gives; the re-
deemed and victorious alone can under-
stand what it means to belong to God
and to be rewarded by him.—Wiinsch
has recently pointed out (Excav. in Pales-
tine, 1898-1900, p. 186) that, as in Egypt
the sacred paper (χάρτης ἱερατικὸς) was
used for solemn appeals to the gods (Brit.
Mus. Papyrt, xlvi. 308), ‘‘in like manner,
doubtless, in Palestine, limestone had
some superstitious significance, but of
what special kind we do not know. Per-
haps it is in this connexion that in Apoc.
ii. 17 “Τε that overcometh” is to receive
‘‘a white stone” inscribed with a “new”
spell, evidently as an ‘“‘amulet”’. There
may also be a further local allusion to the
ψῆφοι and names which were supposed
to be received by votaries of Asclepius as
they lay in a trance or dream (Aristides,
i. 352, 520). For the initiation-custom,
cf. Spence and Gillen’s Native Tribes of
Central Australia, pp. 139-140, where the
secret, individual name is described as
given only to those who are “ capable of
self-restraint ”” and above levity of con-
duct. Clem. Alex. (Strom. i. 23) pre-
serves a Jewish tradition that Moses got
three names—Joachim, Moses, and
Melchi (1.ε., king), the last-mentioned ἐν
οὐρανῷ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν, ὡς φασὶν οἱ
μύσται.

Vv. 18-29. Thelongest message of the
seven is to a church in the least im-
portant of the cities (judged from the
historical standpoint) Thyatira, a town-
ship of Northern Lydia, the holy city
of Apollo Tyrimnaios, adjacent to the
high road between Perg. and Sardis. It
soon became a centre of Montanism.

Ver. 18. yadKkodtB. Some local al-
lusion to the bronze-work for which
Thyatira was famous. Son of God
(cf. Kattenbusch ii. 563 f.) is practic-
ally an equivalent for messiah (Luke iv.
41), or for the superhuman personality of
Jesus as divinely commissioned (cf. Grill,

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ h

360

w Likewv. Τάδε λέγει "6 vids τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅ ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ ὡς
26-27. Ay 5.
from Ps. ” Φλὸξ 1 πυρός, καὶ ” οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ: 19. Οἶδα
ii. 7-9; , \
only here σου τὰ ἔργα καὶ τὴν ” ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν διακονίαν καὶ

in Apoc. Β , A

Inine τὴν 3 ὑπομονήν σου, καὶ τὰ ἔργα σου τὰ ἔσχατα "πλείονα τῶν

script.= = A A >

dius filius, πρώτων. 20. "ANN ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι ἀφεῖς τὴν yuvaika? °leLaBed

of Augus- a . 4

moe ἡ λέγουσα *éauTiy προφῆτιν, καὶ διδάσκει καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς ° ἐμοὺς

(Deissm.

166-167 ; ς we ς ‘ : ;

Inscript. Maris AZ get, iii. 174, etc.). Xi. 14, cf. ἔραυν. νετ. 23. y i. 15, ος ὥς. + συντ.

νετ. 27. 211 ΛΑ isk. b Contrast ii. 4-5, Matt. xii. 45, 2 Pet. ii. 20, cf. Ruth iii. το.
ς From 2 Kings ix. 22, cf. Sams. Agon. 1034-1045. d Constr. i. 5. e Possess. pron. only here:

in Apoc.

1For Φλογα (ACQP, etc., Lach., ΑΙ., WH, Ws., Sw.) read the harder Φλοξ (8 12
am., fuld., Pr:, Ti., Bs., Bj., sc. εστιν).

2The well-attested σου after Ύυναικα (AQ, min., Syr., Areth., Pr., etc., so
Grot., Al., Zahn, and J. Weiss) may have arisen from the repeated σου previously
or from 1 Kings xix.-xx. But any such allusion to the wife of the local bishop is
untenable, and to retain it as = “ thy woman” (Ramsay, Seven Letters, 341) is harsh

in the extreme.
Tert.

pp. 76-77) to carry out God’s purpose for
his people (cf. John x. 36). But the ex-
pression has pagan as well as Jewish
colouring; and there is undoubtedly an
apologetic allusion to the similar termino-
logy of the Imperial cultus (cf. Introd. § 6).

Ver. 19. Instead of being retrograde
like Ephesus, Thyatira has steadily pro-
gressed in the works of Christianity.
The sole flaw noted (see Ramsay’s dis-
cussions in D. B. iv. 758 f., Seven Letters,
338 f.) is an undue laxity shown to certain
members (not, as at Pergamos, a mere
minority) who, under the sway (cf.
Zahn, § 73, n. 7) of an influential woman,
refused to separate themselves from the
(ἐργασίαι) local guilds where moral
interests, though not ostensibly defied,
were often seriously compromised. The
prophet takes up a puritan attitude, cor-
roborated by that of the leading church of
the district (ii. 6); he demands in the
name of Christ that such inconsistent
members should withdraw—a severe and
costly step to take, amid the social ties
and interests of an Asiatic city, where
social clubs were a recognised feature of
civic life and appealed forcibly to several
natural instincts, especially when backed
by the approval of an oracular and impres-
sive leader in the local church.

Ver. 20. Women (cf. Acts xxi. 9; I
Cor. xi. 5, and the later Ammia in Phil-
adelphia: Eus. Η. E. v. 17. 2) occasionally
prophesied in the early church, and false
prophetesses were as likely to exist as
false prophets. This ‘Jezebel of a
woman, alleging herself to be a pro-
phetess,” seems to have been some in-

It is to be omitted with $§CP, min., g., vg., Me., Arm. Aeth.,

fluential female (as the definite imagery
of vv. 21-23 indicates); her lax prin-
ciples or tendencies made for a connexion
with foreign and compromising associa-
tions which evidently exerted a dangerous.
charm upon some weaker Christians in
the city. The moral issue corresponds
to that produced by the Nikolaitan party
at Pergamos (εἰδ. dayetv, πορνεῦσαι),
but the serious nature of the heresy at
Thyatira appears from the fact that it
was not simply propagated within the
church but also notorious (ver. 23) and
long-continued (τέκνα), thanks to ob-
stinacy among the Ahabs and adherents
of this prominent woman (ver. 21). They
prided themselves on their enlightened
liberalism (ver. 24). The definiteness of
her personality, the fact of her situation
within a Christian church which had
jurisdiction over her, and the association
of her practices with those of the Nikolai-
tans, who were members of the church,
render it impossible to identify this liber-
tine influence of J. with a foreign institu-
tion such as the famous shrine of the
Chaldean Sibyl at Thyatira (Schiirer:
Theol. Abhandlungen, pp. 39 f., a theory
suggested by Blakesley, in Smith’s DB),
or with the wife of the local Asiarch
(Selwyn, 123). Besides it was not the
cults but the trade-guilds that formed the
problem at Thyatira. Jastrow points
out (p. 267) that for some occult reason
female sorcerers were preferred to men
among the Babylonians; ‘the witch
appears more frequently than the male
sorcerer”. Hillel (Pirke Aboth, ii. 8: see
Dr. C. Taylor’s note) had already de.

το---23.

δούλους πορνεῦσαι καὶ Φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα.

, o ιο - ,
χρόνον ἵνα µετανοήσῃ, Skat ob θέλει µετανοῆσαι ἐκ τῆς πορνείας

αὐτῆς.

A 3 A ” Re
μετ’ αὐτῆς eis θλίψιν peyddny, ἐὰν μὴ µετανοήσουσιν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων gi.

αὐτῆς, 23.

γνώσονται πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι “6 ἐραυνῶν 1 " νεφροὺς

iMal. iii. 5, cf. Isa. Ivii. 3.

22. ἰδοὺ βάλλω αὐτὴν εἰς " κλίνην, καὶ τοὺς | μοιχεύοντας

k 2 Kings x. 7, Sir. xxiii. 24-25, En. x. 9.
Ezek. xxxiii. 27, Ps. Sol. vii. 4, etc.; LXX (θ.:- 1 1 Τ)-

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 361

oO

επ]. 3, xix.
2, 5, XXii.
3,6 =
Christ-

ians in

21. Καὶ ἔδωκα αὐτῆ

2of., xvi.

‘ A k , CARTS > ~ > 1 , ‘
καὶ τὰ "τέκνα αὐτῆς ἀποκτενῶ ἐν ᾿θανάτῳ" καὶ r1,c/.Sap.

xi. 23—
xii. 2.

h See Jud.
ΙΧ. 2-3.

1 Jer. xiv. 12, xxi. 7,

m Clem. Rom. xxi. n ἅπ.λεγ. N.T.

1¥For ερευννων (ΝΩΡ, etc., Al. Bs.) read (with AC, etc., edd.) the Egyptian
(Thumb pp. 176-177; Helbing, 7) form εραυνων.

clared, ‘‘ more women, more witchcraft’.
For the connexion of women and sorcery
cf. Blau’s Alijiid. Zauberwesen 18 f., 23 f.
—7 λέγουσα κ.τ.λ., an irregular nomin.
absolute, characteristic of the writer.
This LXX peculiarity of a detached parti-
ciple thrown into relief, which is not con-
finedto the Apocalypse (cf. Phil. iii. 16-19,
etc.), renders the participle almost a re-
lative (Vit. I., 202) ; but indeed any word or
group of words, thus singled out as char-
acteristic of some preceding noun_ tends
to become independent and to take its
own construction (II. 8f). See Zeph. i.
12 (LXX).

Ver. 21. The immorality was flagrant ;
more flagrant still was the obstinate per-
sistence in it, despite admonitions and
forbearance (cf. Eccles. viii. 11; Bar.
ΑΡ. xxi. 20; 2 Peter iii. ϱ). This allu-
sion to an abuse of God’s patience and
to a warning given already (hardly in
some writing like Jud. 2 Peter, Spitta) is
left quite indefinite; it was probably
familiar enough to the first readers of the
book. Interests and old associations
had proved hitherto too strong for this
prophetic counsel to be followed. Mem-
bership of a trade-guild, although it ne-
cessarily involved the recognition of some
pagan deity and often led to orgies, ‘‘ was
a most important matter for every trades-
man or artisan; it aided his business,
and brought, him many advantages
socially ” (Ramsay).

Ver. 22. κλίνην (bed, not a couch of
revelry) aegritudinis non amoris; disease
or sickness (cf. for the phrase, 1 Macc.
i, 5) the punishment of error, especially
of error accompanied by licentiousness.
The inscriptions from Asia Minor abound
with instances of the popular belief that
impurity, moral and even physical, was
punished by disease or disaster to oneself,
one’s property, one’s children. Sickness

might even go the length of death (x Cor.
xi. 29-30). The prophet, however, seems
to avoid calling Jesus or God σωτὴρ or
σώζων, a term appropriated by the po-
pular religions of Phrygia and lavished
on many deities as healers and helpers
(6. B. P. i. 262 f.). —potx., men and
women who imitate her licentiousness,
θλ., physical distress, illness.—peravoy-
σουσιν, the fut. indic., expresses rather
more probability than subj. with ἐὰν py
(cf. Blass, § 65,5). For tense of βάλλω
see Zech. viii. 7, LXX, etc.

Ver. 23. τέκνα, literally, perhaps with
an indirect allusion to the killing of
Ahab’s seventy sons. ἀποκτ. 0. (Hebra-
ism), ‘I will utterly slay”; see on
vi. 8. If any particular form of death
is meant, it may be pestilence (the in-
scriptions often mention fever), which
represented to an Oriental mind the pun-
ishment of God on man’s unfaithfulness.
The curious difference between the treat-
ment of the µοιχ. and the τέκνα is due
to the fact that (cf. Dan. vi. 24), a parent’s
sin was visited upon his family, both in
Jewish and in contemporary pagan belief
(cf. the Phrygian inscription, cited by
Mayor on Jas. ν. 12, κατηράµενος ἤτω
αὐτὸς καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ). Yet even
when both classes are allegorised into
active coadjutors and deluded victims,
the relative punishment looks unequal.
John, unlike Ezekiel (xiii. 17-23), holds
that the victims of the false prophetess
are willing and responsible for their posi-
tion.—maoar αἱ ἐκκλ., the judgment
was to be as notorious as evidently the
scandal had been. The idea recalls one
of Ezekiel’s favourite conceptions.—ey
κ.τ.λ. “I know the abysses,” and ‘‘dis-
cerner of hearts and searcher of the reins”
were old Egyptian titles for divine beings.
This intimate knowledge of man (cf.
16 c) pierces below superficial appear-

362

η ‘ a =~
ο Ps. vii.9, καὶ καρδίας: καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν ἑκάστω κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν.

XXVI. 2,
etc.

p Ps. Ixii.
£3, cf.
Apoc. xx.
12, Xxii.
12,2Clem.
Xviil. 4,
etc. Fresh clause, indep. of ὅτι, begins here.

ances, €.g., connexion with the church,
prophetic zeal, and plausible excuses.
As in Jer. xvii. 10, xx. 12 (cf. Ps. Sol.
viii. 8), the divine acquaintance with
man’s real, secret life forms the basis
of unerring and impartial judgment;
while, as in Jer. iv. 16, 17 (cf. Acts iv.
πα LIM. A. 20, 1% (Cor Vs ας mete.)
the prophetic denunciation or impreca-
tion has a direct effect upon the person
denounced (cf. von Dobschiitz, 270 f.).
The former would be a fairly novel idea
to most of those accustomed to the
Roman religio, which was ‘“‘one of ob-
servance, sacrifice, and outward act,
that in no way searched the heart of
the worshipper—a system of rules which
covered the circumstances of Roman
life” (H. O. Taylor, Ancient Ideals, i.
417, 418).

Ver. 24. To know “the depths” of the
divine being and counsel was a charac-
teristic claim of the Ophites and the later
Gnostics; cf. Iren. adv. Haer. ii. 22, 1
(qui profunda bythi adinuenisse se dicunt ;
cf. 3), and Tertullian’s sarcastic descrip-
tion (adv. Vadlent. 1), ‘‘ Eleusinia Ualen-
tiniana fecerunt lenocinia, sancta silentio
magno, sola taciturnitate coelestia. Si
bona fide quaeris, concreto uultu, sus-
penso supercilio Altum est aiunt.” ‘The
depth of knowledge” was a phrase of
Herakleitus, the famous Ephesian_philo-
sopher, and in the creed of the Dukho-
bortsui, a sect in modern Russia, the Holy
Spirit is Depth, the Father being Height
and the Son Breadth. Since ὡς λέγουσιν
refers to the errorists themselves, the
quoted phrase about ‘knowing the
depths of Satan” may (i.) contain an in-
dignant and sarcastic retort; ‘‘ depths of
—Satan,” not ‘‘ God,” as they boast (τοῦ
σ. being substituted for τοῦ θεοῦ); such
teaching and principlesaresimply infernal.
Or (ii.) as is more probable the words may
voice the actual claim of the errorists,
who considered that some accommoda-
tion to pagan practices gave them a
necessary acquaintance with the mean-
ing of evil (so e.g., Spitta, Pfleiderer,
Zahn, Jiilicher, Bousset). Their higher
standing gave them immunity from any
risks. They could fathom securely what

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

EH.

24.

Ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς λοιποῖς τοῖς ἐν Θυατείροις, ὅσοι οὐκ ἔχουσι τὴν
διδαχὴν ταύτην, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰ Ίβαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ὡς
λέγουσιν, "Od βάλλω ef ὑμᾶς ἄλλο βάρος: 25. πλὴν ὃ ἔχετε

q 1 Cor. ii. ro. r Cf. 1 John ν. 3.

the immature orthodox called immorality.
Devil-study, or even devil-worship (xiii. 4
is quite different) was not uncommon in
some of the Gnostic sects throughout
Asia Minor, e.g., the Cainites, the Naas-
senes, and the Ophites (the earliest
Gnostics, φάσκοντες µόνοι τὰ βάθη
γινώσκειν, Hipp. adv. Haer. ν. 6). The
idea was that as the principle of evil
would ultimately be redeemed, it might
be used meantime for the advantage of
the initiated. Compare Mansel’s Gnostic
Heresies. pp. 73, 96, 105. In En. Ixv. 6
the unrighteous are punished for their
acquaintance with ‘all the secrets of the
angels and all the violence of the Satans
and all their hidden power and all the
power of those that practise sorcery, and
the power of witchcraft.” The influence
of a movement like Gnosticism, whose
motto was eritis sicut deus scientes bonum
et mdlum, gave wide opportunities to
immorality, in its more popular applica-
tions. It produced the same sort of union
between subtlety and sensualism which
can sometimes be traced within Hindu-
ism. In contrast to this unwholesome
temper of speculation, the prophet substi-
tutes for speculative flights the obedience
of the normal Christian praxis (cf. Parad.
Lost, viii. 170-197, xii. 561-589), with a
plain allusion to the Jerusalem concordat
of the early church which is recommended
tacitly as a safe, wise rule of conduct.
In the case of the βαθέα τοῦ σατανᾶ,
ignorance is bliss. John is totally un-
sympathetic to the local liberals. He
does not combat the theoretical prin-
ciples at the root of their movement.
Like the prophets who wrote Jude and
2 Peter, he attacks instead of arguing,
quite content to judge it by its moral
fruits of libertinism. He bitterly declares
that such occasional results are the
deliberate object of the party. The
strange collocation of this error with the
habit of partaking of sacrificial food is
probably due to the prophet’s stern con-
viction that the latter, with its friendly
and liberal attitude to pagan customs,
fostered the former, in the case of people
who took an ultra-spiritual view of Paul’s
principle of Christian freedom.

24--28. III. 1.

κρατήσατε, " ἄχρι οὗ ἂν ἥέω.

/ ” - A A
τέλους τὰ ἔργα µου, δώσω "' αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν. 27. καὶ

ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν " ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾶ,

, 3,’ lol ΄
"συντρίβεται, “as κἀγὼ εἴληφα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός µου: 28. καὶ

, - oe
δώσω αὐτῷ τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωϊνόν.

, - - ,
τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΝΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 363

Jo

26. Καὶ 6 νικῶν καὶ 6 "τηρῶν ἄχρις “ Till

such time
as I
come"
(eschat.,
as iii. 11):
néw aor.
subj. from
Héa.

ti. 3, sug-
gested by

κρατ. 25.

ὡς τὰ σκεύη TO κεραμικὰ

29. Ὁ ἔχων ots ἀκουσάτω

“TIT. 1. Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Σάρδεσιν ἐκκλησίας γράψον, u Resuming

v Cf. Mic. v. 5, Isa. x. 24-26.
y Doubie promise here only (exe. iii. 12 ?).

Ver. 26. Triumph here consists in un-
flagging attention to the duties of a
Christian vocation, The ἔργα are (xiv.
12, xix. 8) the normal activities of this
calling, viewed as the outcome of a per-
sonal relation to Jesus; they are “ his,’
as commanded by him and executed in
his strength. The general idea of ths
and the following verse is that the only
irresistible force is the force of a life
which is able to resist seduction and
compromise, because it holds to faith
and purity. The promise of reward,
preceding (as in iii. 5, 12, 21) the appeal
for attention, is couched in terms of
messianic conquest (from Ps, ii. 8, ο).
In a more or less figurative form, the
tule of the saints, a cherished hope of
Jewish eschatology, had its own attrac-
tion for some circles of early Christianity
(see on v. 10 and 1 Cor. vi. 3; and for
ῥάβδῳ, the well-known flail wielded by
Horus, the Egyptian god of requital or
warfare): evidently it appealed to their
eagerness for a righting of present wrongs
and a reversal of the immoral sway of
captain ill over captive good. ‘The
ἐξουσία ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν (by which they
are not governed but shivered in irrepa-
rable ruin; cf. Isa. xxx. 14, Jer. xix. 11) is
defined with ferocious detail in 27; the
whole description is modelled on a tradi-
tionally messianic application of (LXX)
Ps. 11. 8, 9. For the shepherd’s staff as a
royal sceptre see E. Br. 4317. ὡς Kayo
κ.τ.λ., God, Christ, and the individual
Christian as in ill, 21 (John xvii. 16-22).
‘Tllud ὡς aliquam similitudinem, non
paritatem = significat”’ (Rosenmiiller).
John xxi. 15-17 is not ‘‘a deliberate cor-
rection of this terrible sentence” (Sel-
wyn, 105), but the mature expression of
Christian solicitude in a different province,
from which messianic incongruities have
been wholly purged.

Ver. 28. To ‘grant the morning-
star’”’ (a characteristically loose usage of
δίδωµι) means, not to invest him with its

w xii. 5, xix. 15, cf. Bar. iv. 25.

nom.
absol.
x Cf. John xiv. 6f., etc.

glory, nor to give him possession of Christ
himself, but (so Bleek, after Victor.) to
make the dawn of salvation or of life
eternal shine on him after his dark afflic-
tions. The victor shares in the divine
life (with its punitive government) and
honour above, or rather in the new
messianic era of Jesus himself (see note
on xxii. 16, where by a further applica-
tion the metaphor is directly connected
with Jesus). Staunch adherence to the
truth on the part of leaders and confes-
sors is similarly rewarded in Dan. xii. 3,
En. civ. ii. Semitic folklore found some
mystic connexion between the countless
brilliant stars in heaven and the departed
faithful, who became immortal (4 Esd.
vil. [97]), and the sense here might be
that the loyal Christian was sure of shining
like a star in immortality; cf. Ign. ad
Rom. ii. 2, καλὸν τὸ δΌναι ἀπὸ κόσμου
πρὸς Θεὸν, ἵνα εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνατείλω (and
passage cited oni. 10), But xxii. 16 (cf.
Job iii. g) tells against this, as does Ign.
ibid. vi. 2 (speaking of his martyrdom)
ἄφετέ pe καθαρὸν φῶς λαβεῖν: ἐκεῖ
παραγενόµενος ἄνθρωπος ἔσομαι. The
collocation of the morning star and the
judicial authority over the nations may
have been suggested to the prophet’s
mind (cf. 14, 20) by the prophecy, read
in a messianic sense, of Num. xxiv. 17.
The sequence and the Christian spirit
of the whole promise are certainly im-
proved if we omit 27 a with Selwyn (194)
and Jacoby (Neutest. Ethik, 1899, p-
446) and Wellhausen (with 23-28 a), since
the doubled promise and the later use of
the metaphor do not justify any suspi,
cion of 28 as a gloss (so Κόππεσκε,
Ῥ. 34). But it is as likely that the author
himself (cf. xvii. 14) added this co-opera-
tion with the vindictive messiah (cf. xii. 5,
xix. 15), as that an early copyist was
responsible for the insertion.

CuapTer II].—Vv. 1-6. The message
to Sardis. The title of the speaker
(drawn from i. 4, 16, 20), as general as

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΝΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ns

364 Ill.

aHerod. Τάδε λέγει 6 ἔχων τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἑπτὰ
vil, 138 3 ; + ο αν ¢ ax >” Εὶ ~ ae) λ
οὕνομα ἀστέρας" Οἶδα σοῦ τὰ έργα, ὅτι " ὄνομα ἔχεις ὅτι {ῆς, καὶ ” νεκρὸς
εἶχε, ὡς ο. a
ἐπ "A@jv-€t. 2. Γίνου “ypnyopav, καὶ ' στήρισον τὰ λοιπὰ ἃ ἔμελλον ἀπο-
ας ἐλαύ- x ft
ve, Plato θανεῖν ' οὐ yap εὑρηκά σου ἔργα] πεπληρωμένα ἐνώπιον τοῦ
Hipp. 5 mR > 2
ΜΙά/.281ε. Θεοῦ µου. 3. "μνηµόνευε οὖν πῶς ' εἴληφας καὶ ἤκουσας, καὶ τήρει

b ics li. 1”, 2A > x , ε- εν {ἂν / ‘
τ Tim. v. καὶ ee ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσης, © ἤξω ὡς " κλέπτης, καὶ
6: Philo, 5 , Co) ο 9. KN , > A ” 257
de proe 00 μὴ γνῶς” ‘qotay ὥραν ἤξω ἐπὶ σέ. 4. ᾽Αλλὰ έχεις ὀλίγα
fug. § το.

ε Eph. v. 14.

d Ezek. xxxiv. 4, 16 (Helbing 85). e See Gal. iii. 2f., Heb. x. 321. f John iii. 11, 33, xiv. 17,
xvii. 8. g il. 5, 16. h Jer. xlix. 9, Matt. xxiv. 43 =Lk. xii. 39, see on 1 Lhess. ν. 2. i Tem

poral ace. as xi. 2, 6, 9, xii. 6.

lea bef. εργα is om. by Lach., WH, Ws., Sw. (AC, 1 mg.).

2For yvws (ACP, 1, etc., Areth., Al.,
(marg.) read the correct γνωση with QQ,

in the similar letter to Ephesus, has no
special bearing on the subsequent ad-
dress, unless an antithesis be implied
between the plenitude of the divine
spirit and the deadness of a church
which had the name or credit of being
“alive”. The sweeping verdict of ver.
I upon the formalism of the local church
—which had lapsed from its pristine
vitality, just as the township of S. had
by this time declined from its old his-
torical prestige—is modified by the re-
cognition of better elements not yet too
far gone in decay to be recovered (2) and
of a goodly nucleus of members. The
metaphor is paralleled by a Jewish esti-
mate of orthodoxy (Kidd. 71 6) which
dubbed Mesene as ‘“ dead,” Media as
“ill,” Elymais as ‘in extremis,” and
the strict inhabitants of the Ghetto be-
tween the Tigris and the Euphrates as
soheal Gavia.

Ver. 2. ἔμελλον, epistol. impf.—aoov
ἔργα, “any works of thine”. Judged
from the Divine standpoint (ἔνωπ. θ.), no
matter how satisfactory is the verdict of
outsiders upon her or of her own com-
placency, her condition is decadent.

Ver. 3. Memory again the lever for
repentance (as at ii. 5); εἴληφας aoristic
pf. (cf. v. 7, Burton 88) rather than pf. of
existing result (Weiss, Bs.); πῶς = our
colloquial “how ” (practically equivalent
to «ναι. The melancholy feature
about contemporary indifference at S.
was that it had a fine beginning behind
it: yet this very circumstance afforded
hopeful ground for an appeal. καὶ τήρει
(the primitive deposit of the faith) καὶ (to
secure this steadfast adherence) µετανόη-
σον (aor., sharp and decisive act of re-
pentance). As ver. 4 (compared with ver.
2) implies, positive stains were visible in

Ws., Bs., Sw., Bj.) Lach. Ti. Tr. WH
vg., Aeth., Syr., Απάς, Pr.,

the local church no less than sins of
mere omission. Sardis and Laodicea,
which apparently were the only members
of this group untroubled by outside perse-
cution or inward error, were the least
satisfactory of all the seven. ἐὰν οὖν μὴ
γρηγορήσῃς, although the need is so
desperate (cf. below on xvi. 15). The
sudden and signal visitation of punish-
ment threatened in the following words
(for ὥραν in acc. cf. Moult. i. 63, Abbott’s
Diat. 2013) is left vaguely impressive.
It may be that (as in Jude 4, 18, and 2
Peter) jocal libertinism meant a slackening
of belief in the second Advent.

Ver. 4. Od. dv. “quasi paucos no-
minatos, 2.ε., bonos qui nominatione digni
sunt” (cf. the use of πρόσωπα = per-
sons or individuals, in Clem. Rom. and
Ignat.). ἐμόλ. (cf. Fragment of Un-
canonical Gospel, Oxvrhyn. 2 cent.
A.D., line 16 μεμολυμμένος ἐπάτησας,
κ.τ.λ.) the sullied garment an emblem of
moral stains, including but not identical
with that of πορνεύειν (xiv. 4, cf. Sir.
xxli. I, 2). The language reflects that ot
the votive inscriptions in» Asia Minor,
where soiled clothes disqualified the
worshipper and dishonoured the god.
Moral purity qualifies for spiritual com-
munion (note the dramatic contrast of
this ἄξιοι [cf. on ii. 16] with that of xvi.
6); the apocalyptic beatitude is: blessed
are the pure in life, for they shall join
God (see on xiv. 14, xix. 8). Note here
only in the seven messages an escha-
tological promise unintroduced by the
phrase 6 νικῶν, although νετ. 5 really
repeats the same idea. ottTws= ‘as being
victor ” (i.e., accordingly). The idea of
heavenly raiment is distinctively Persian
(Brandt, 575, 580; Ltiken, 122), but per-
meates Jewish eschatology from Enoch

2—7.

k 1

ὀνόματα ἐν Σάρδεσιν ἃ οὐκ

, a5 A. 3 a m¢ ” Le
περιπατήσουσι μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐν λευκοῖς, ™ ὅτι ἄξιοί εἰσιν.
o - ε ε , A Ν > N
οὕτως περιβαλεῖται Ev ἵματίοις λευκοις: καὶ οὐ MH

A A A iol ”
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς °BiBdou τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ’ ὁμολογήσω τὸ ὄνομα ο).
αὐτοῦ ) ἐνώπιον τοῦ πατρός pou καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ.
A A /
6. Ὁ ἔχων οὓς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.
~ ~ ,
“7, Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Φιλαδελφίᾳ ἐκκλησίας Ὑράψον, 2,

6, I, Xvi. 5, 2, etc. See Herm. Vis. I. 3, 2, Sim. ix. 24, 4, Clem. Rom. xlv. 8, etc.
p Reminisc. of syn., Matt. xii. 32, Lk, xii. 8.

Xvii. 8, XxX. 12, 15, Xxi. 27, En. cviii. 2.

(Ixii. 15, 16, the elect clothed after the
resurrection in eternal ‘‘ garments of
glory”) down to Slav. En. xxii. 8; 4
Esd. ii. 39, 45 (cf. Herm. Sim. viii. 2)
and Asc. Isa. iv. 16 (garments = spiritual
bodies in which the saints are vested at
the last day, stored up in seventh heaven ;
cf. viii. 26, ix. 24 f., uidi stolas multas et
thronos et coronas jacentes). περιβαλεῖται
κ.τ.λ.» like Joshua (Zech. iii. 3 f.) ; or (as
others suggest) like priests acquitted be-
fore the Sanhedrin, who were robed in
white. In the Apoc., as in En. Ixxxv.-
χο., white is the colour of righteousness,
associated with innocence (and joy?
Eccles. ix. 8), just as black with evil.
In Apoc. Pet. 5, the dwellers in Paradise
are clothed in év8upa ἀγγέλων φωτινῶν,
whilst the angels who (ver. 6) chastise
the wicked are robed in black. All such
metaphors reflect the primitive notion
that clothing somehow could form almost
a part of a man’s personality, correspond-
ing to his identity and character (E. Bi.
1140, 1ΙΤ41), rather than the Roman
custom of assuming a white toga uirilis
to mark entrance upon manhood’s privi-
leges (“uitae liberioris iter,’ Ovid).—
τῆς βίβλου τῆς ἵωῆς, this favourite
symbol of the Apocalypse whith goes
back even to pre-exilic Judaism (Isa. iv.
Sy ο Εκοα σε 35 Εν πείοι. tor the
Babylonian background, cf. Jeremias,
69 f.), had through the influence of Dan.
{xii. I) a great vogue in apocalyptic
dreams as an apt image no longer of a
share in the temporal felicity of God’s
reign but of personal salvation. For a
name to be erased from the book of life
{one’s deeds not corresponding, upon
scrutiny, to one’s position; cf. xx.
12, Jub. xxxvi. 10) meant condemnation,
or exclusion from the heavenly kingdom.
To have one’s name retained (‘‘ and never
will I blot out,” etc.) on the list of
heavenly citizens was by this time a
current metaphor for eternal fellowship
~with God and his people, and (by a

ATIOKAAY¥IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν

365

A .
και k xi. 13, see

ς M on Acts
5. O νικῶν 15, εἰς,
ΕΠ. Ixx. x
,
y ἐξαλείψω TO 1 Jude 23

(isa. lxiv

mC/f.lgnat.
ΦΥ.
σα. ᾱ,
Herm.

Sim, viii
n Cf. Jos.
nt. vi.

Ov. 1, xiii. 8

natural inference drawn in xiii. 8) for
predestination, the belief in which formed
then as always a vivid inspiration in dis-
tress and conflict. For the erasure of
names from the civic register, consequent
upon their owners condemnation, cf.
Dio Chrys. xxxi. 336 6, ὅταν δηµοσίᾳ
τινὰ δέῃ τῶν πολιτῶν ἀποθανεῖν ἐπ᾽
ἀδικήματι, πρότερον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
ἐξαλείφεται; Xen. Hell. ii. 3, 51, and
Arist. Pac. 1180. Also Dittenberger’s
Sylloge inscript. Graec.” 439° (iv. B.C.)
ὃς δ᾽ ἂν δόξηι μὴ Ov φράτηρ ἐσαχθῆναι,
ἐξαλειψάτο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῦ ὁ ἱερεύς, and
Orientis Grect Inscr. Sel. 21813" (1. B.C.)
ἐξαλείψαντας τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἐκείνον. The
special comfort of this verse is intelligible
when one reads the prayer offered in con-
temporary Jewish worship (cf. Shmone-
Esreh xii. Palest. recension): ‘ for apos-
tates let there be no hope, may the
kingdom of the haughty quickly collapse
in our days, and may the Nazarenes and
the Minim suddenly perish, may they be
blotted out of the book of Life and not
enrolled along with the righteous”.

The message to Sardis, the most vehe-
ment of the seven,has scme interesting re-
semblances to that addressed to Ephesus ;
cf. ii. r= ili. I, ii. 5 (pvnp.)=iil. 3, il. 5
(visitation) =iii. 5, il, O=ili. 4. The
hope described in ver. 5 is burlesqued by
Lucian (Peregr. xl.) who describes his
pseudo-Christian hero as seen after death
περιπατοῦντα ἐν λευκῇ ἐσθῆτι, φαιδρόν,
κοτίνῳ τε ἐστεμμένον. The metaphori-
cal references to raiment gain point in
view of the local trade in woollen goods
and dyed stuffs. ,

Vv. 7-13. The message to Philadelphia.

Ver. 7. ἐν Less than twenty years
later an equally favourable account of
the local church was given by Ignatius (ad
Phil. 3, 5, 10). ἅγιος κ.τ.λ., Jesus is
a messiah indeed, one deserving that
honoured name and realising its mean-
ing. The favourite Johannine term
ἀληθινός (=‘‘ true,” in the wider sense

366

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

Ill.

ς ει ων - /
q Unly here Τάδε λέγει 6% ἅγιος ὁ ἀληθινός, ὁ ἔχων τὴν * κλεῖν τοῦ 'Δαυείδ, ὁ

= Ghrist

,
(cf. Acts ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείσει καὶ κλείων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίγει: 8.

iil. 14, iv.
27, 30,

John vi.
6ο, etc.),
in Apoc.
Hendia-

dys = 6 ἀληθῶς ἅγιος (Grot.)? ‘ Holy and true,” of God vi. το, cf. iv. 8.
orthographical forms in ει or c, see Win. § 5, 13, 32, generally (§ 9, 7).
u Constr. vii. 2, 9, xiii. 8, 12, xx. 8, cf. xii. 6, 14, xvii. 9; redundant Heb. use,

ii. 12, Col. iv. 3.
Win. § 22, 7.

[Οἶδά σου τὰ Epya:]} ἰδοὺ δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν σου "θύραν ' ἠνεωγμένην,

- A
ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται κλεῖσαι " αὐτήν' ὅτι μικρὰν έχεις δύναμιν, καὶ

ri. 18. s Onsuch
t 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor.

1Pr, om. οιδα σου τα εργα (so Hauss. i. 211-212, breaking connection and har-

monistic).

of ‘‘genune,’ opposed to unreal rather
than to untruthtul, cf. Justin’s Dial.
cxvi., Athen. vi. 253 ο: no _ pseudo-
messiah, as local Jews asserted, ¢f.
8c and ο) is here grouped with ἅγιος
(i.e., not merely=legitimately messianic
as in John x. 36, Clem. Rom. xxiii.
5, but freed from creaturely weakness
and imperfection, his nature in intimate
touch with the divine fulness, Issel:
der Begriff der Heiligkeitt im Ν.Τ.,
1887, pp. 70, 110, Κ.Σ. 305), as in iil.
14, xix. II, xxi. 5, xxii. 6 with πιστός,
and in xv. 3, xvi. 7, xix. 2 with δίκαιος.
Slightly otherwise, Apoc. Bar. Ixvii. 7:
‘‘He is true, so that Πε” shall do you
good and not evil,” and below at xvi.
7 (though this sense might suit here
also, aS an amplification of ἅγιος).
κλεῖν κ.τ.λ. (based on Isa. xxii. 22) the
messiah, as Davidic scion, possesses the
absolute power of admission to and ex-
clusion from the divine realm. This part
of the title (cf. Job xii. 14, ἐὰν κλείσῃ
κατὰ ἀνθρώπων τίς ἀνοίξει;) alludes to
what immediately follows as well as to
the arrogant claim mentioned in ver. 9.
Christ alone, the heavenly κλειδοῦχος,
has the right to excommunicate. Com-
pare Savonarola’s brave reply to the
bishop of Vasona who had pronounced
his sentence of degradation (separo te ab
ecclesia militante atque triumphante) :—
Militante, non triumphante: hoc enim
tuum non est.

Ver. 8. οἶδά . . . ἔργα, as in the case
of Smyrna implying unqualified approval.
The reward of this steadfastness (8 c, το)
is threefold: (a) security in their relation
to God (8 b), through the love of Christ
for them (ο); (5) ultimate triumph over
their foes (ο), and (ο) deliverance in the
final crisis (10). The open door, here as
in Paul (for the ethnic use of the term
on sepulchres cf. C. B. P., ii. 395) is
usually taken to denote facilities for
preaching and advancing the faith among
outsiders, in which case the sense would

be that the extension of the gospel de-
pends upon, as it forms a high reward
of, open confession and a decided stand
for Christ. But in view of a passage
written by Ignatius to this very church
(ad Philad. 3, where Christ himself is
termed θύρα τοῦ πατρὸς, δι ἧς εἰσέρχο-
γται the patriarchs, prophets, apostles,
καὶ 7 ἐκκλησία) and of Clem. Rom. xlviii.
(where the gate of righteousness is de-
scribed as open in Christ), the phrase

-is better connected with Christ himself,

not with any good opening for Christian
activity. He makes access to God
through himself sure; despite trials and
temptations (vv. 8, g, 10) his church’s
standing is guaranteed by his authority
(as in John x. 7, 9, Christ ἡ θύρα τῶν
προβάτων). θύρα here is the open heart
of God for man; in ver. 20, man’s open
heart for God. Jesus, then, equipped
with the O.T. attributes of divine au-
thority, assures the church how futile
are such excommunications as the Jews
were levelling against them. The latter
have nothing to do with the conditions
of the kingdom. Faith in Jesus consti-
tutes a relation to God which cannot
either be impaired or rivalled. Only, the
perseverance of the saints is needed; an
assured position with God depends not
merely on Christ’s will and power but on
Christian loyalty as the coefficient of
grace. The church at P. is not blamed
for the slenderness of her equipment,
which evidently is due to causes outside
her control. She is praised for having
made good use of the slight resources
she possessed (cf. Mark xiv. 8). Other-
wise, though less well, a full stop might
be placed after αὐτήν, and ὅτι .. . τὸ
ὄνομα µου taken as the reason for the
promise ἰδοὺ . . . σε, just as in ver. ΙΟ
ὅτι . « « µου is followed by kayo...
γῆς.- -αὐτήν, pleonastic use of pron. after
relative, a Semitic idiom with Greek
affinities (Vit. ii. 138, Thumb 128, Blass.
§ 50, 4) confined to Apoc. (exc. cit. fz. LXX,

8—10.

a Ain ,
ἐτηβησάς µου τὸν λόγον, καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω τὸ ὄνομά µου.
ν ral > “a a A a ο

διδῶ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τοῦ " Σατανᾶ, τῶν λεγόντων
3 , A

Ιουδαίους εἶναι, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ ψεύδονται" ἰδοὺ «ποιήσω

> ‘ χο a A a“ lal
αὐτοὺς “iva Ἠξουσι καὶ 7 προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον τῶν ToS@v σου,

‘
καὶ γνῶσιν 1 ὅτι ἐγὼ " ἠγάπησά σε.

τα iv. 35, V. 42, etc., ἵνα =infin. of conseq. as ix. 20, xiii. 13.
Ζ John xi. 36, cf. Ps. Ixii. 8, Zech, viii, 20 f., John xvii. 23. See on xxi. 9.

Dan. xii. 5.

1For γνωσιν ACPQ, etc., Syr., Arm., Aeth., Andr., Areth.

AIIOKAAY¥IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

1Ο. Ὅτι ἐτήρησας τὸν "λόγον

367

9. ἰδοὺ ¥ Irreg.
form,W Ἡ
174,
Deissm.
192.

W ll. 9, =
““hypo-
crites,”
Did. viii.
Xe

x Constr.

y Isa. xlix. 23, xlv. 14, Ix. 14.

ai.g, cf. Sir. ii. 14,

c a
εαυτους

(edd.), the variant

γνωση(Ν, 14, Sah., Pr.) is preferred by Wellh. (cf. ii. 23 and Isa. xlix. 23).

Acts xv. 17)in N.T. In Enoch (xxxviii.
2, and passim) to deny the Lord of Spirits
is the capital crime,’.as opposed to “‘ be-
lieving in his name .

Ver. 9. διδῶ ἐκ (partit. gen., the con-
struction being dropped and resumed in
a rather harsh anacolouthon, ἵνα κ.τ.λ.).
The absence of ἐκ before Ney. does not
prevent it from being interpreted as in
apposition to συναγωγῆς rather than as
directly dependent on 886. On the
forms of 8i8wp. in Apocalypse see
Jannaris’ Hist. Gk. Gramm. 906, 51;
the wide usage of the verb is carried
on through the LXX from the equally
extended employment of the Hebrew
equivalent in the later stages of O.T.
literature. The Jewish synagogue is
denounced as Satanic, owing to its per-
secuting habits (Satan being regarded
as the final source of persecution as of
error, cf. above ver. 8 and on ii. 9).
Ignatius corroborates the malign acti-
vity of Jews at Philadelphia, who were
in the habit of molesting the church (ad
Philad. 6); he also refers them to the
malicious cunning of Satan. Appa-
rently Judaizing tendencies were rife
among Christians of Gentile birth at
Philadelphia. As in writing to Smyrna,
the prophet thereforeclaimed the ancestral
title ‘‘Jew” for the Christian church.
Faith in Christ, not mere nationality,
constituted true Judaism; the succession
had passed to Christianity. The promin-
ence assigned to this phase of polemic
is characteristic of the eriod, though
already presaged by Paul (in Rom. ix.
6-7, ii. 28, 29). The supercilious con-
tempt of these churchmen for all Chris-
tian dissenters from Judaism was to be
changed one day into humble respect.
The former would find out their grievous
mistake when it was too late. καὶ προσ-
κυνήσουσιν, κ.τ.λ., in the spirit and
realistic language of post-exilic Judaism
(see reff.), denoting abject submission and

homage before the glory of the church in
the future messianic reign (slightly other-
wise in I Cor. xiv. 25). What they fondly
expected from the Gentiles, they were
themselves to render to Christians—such
would be the grim irony of providence.
Compare with what follows, the earlier
expectation of Jub. i. 25: ‘‘and they
shall all be called children of the living
God, and every angel and spirit will
know, yea they will know that these are
my children, and that I love them”.
καὶ γνῶσιν, κ.τ.λ., still Isaianic in col-
ouring (from xliii. 4, xlix. 23). Christ’s
love to his church (wy. =‘‘ I have loved ”’)
will be proved by her triumphant survival
of perils. Her final position, when the
conditions of earth are reversed, will
throw light upon the divine affection
which underlay her previous persever-
ance, and which meantime is a secret
save to those who experience it. The
promise of dominion over the Jews here
corresponds to that of authority over the
Gentiles in ii. 26, 27, except that the
latter is definitely eschatological. The
Jews tardily awaken to the privileges of
the church as to the claims of Jesus (see
on i. 7). Probably they scoffed at the
claim of the Philadelphian Christians to
be objects of the true God’s love. The
answer is that faith in Jesus means a
revelation of Divine love (the revelation
of it), apart from which no Christian life
can be accounted for.

Ver. 10. The position of pov shows
that it belongs not to τὸν λόγον τῆς
ὑπομονῆς as a whole, but to ὑπομονῆς
(2 Thess. iii. 5). The precise sense ‘
therefore is not ‘‘my word about pati-
ence” (i.e., my counsel of patience as
the supreme virtue of these latter days,
so Weiss, Bousset, etc.), but ‘‘the word,
or the preaching, of that patience which
refers to me” (i.¢., the patient endurance
with which, amid present trials, Christ is
to be served; so Alford, Spitta, Holtzm.).

308

b Matt.
XxXiv.2z f.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

III.

τῆς ὑπομονῆς µου, κἀγώ σε τηρήσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας Tod ” πειρασμοῦ

cf. Apoc. τῆς ’ μελλούσης ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης, πειράσαι τοὺς

Wile Bike fy να 4
σε κατοικουντας επι TIS YS.

71.
ε Α comfort μηδεὶς λάβη τὸν στέφανόν σου.
, > ~ lal A A A ” > ‘ > ” A
στύλον ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ µου, "καὶ ἔξω οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃ ἔτι, καὶ

(XXii.7,20) »
nota
threat (ii.
16), cf.
XXii. 12.
Win. § 22, 54, Abbott, Diat. 1920.
g Emphatic, as opposed to Isa. xxii. 25.

See Ps. xxxviii. (xxxix.), 8: καὶ νῦν τίς ἡ
ὑπομονή µου; οὐχὶ 6 κύριος; The second
reason for praising the Philadelphian
Christians is their loyal patience under
persecution, as well as the loyal confes-
sion of Christ (ver. 8) which had possibly
brought on that persecution. κἀγὼ
«7A. (“I in turn”; cf. similar con-
nection in John xvii. 6-8), a reproduction
of the saying preserved in Luke xxi, 36.
The imminent period τοῦ πειρασμοῦ
refers to the broken days which, in
eschatological schemes, were to herald
messiah’s return. Later on, this period
is specifically defined as a time of seduc-
tion to imperial worship (cf. xiii. 14-17,
vil. 2, with Dan. xii. 1, LXX). The
Philadelphian Christians will not only
triumph over the contempt and intrigues
of their Jewish foes but also over the
wider pagan trial (which is also a tempta-
tion), inasmuch as their devotion, already
manifested in face of Jewish malice,
will serve to carry them through the
storm of Roman persecution. The re-
ward of loyalty is in fact fresh power
to be loyai on a higher level: ‘the
wages of going on, and ever to be’.
This seems better than to take the world-
wide trial as the final attempt (viii. 13,
xi. Το, etc.) to induce repentance in men
or to punish them, from which the P.
Christians (cf. vii. 1-8, and Ps. Sol. xiii.
4-10, xv. 6, 7) would be exempt; but it is
impossible from the grammar and difficult
from the sense, to decide whether τηρεῖν
é« means successful endurance (pregnant
sense as in John xvii. 15) or absolute
immunity (cf. 2 Peter ii. 9), safe emerg-
ence from the trial or escape from it
entirely (thanks to the timely advent of
Christ, νετ. 11). Note the fine double
sense of τηρεῖν: unsparing devotion is
spared at least some forms of distress
and disturbance. It is like Luther’s
paradox that when a man learns to say
with Christ, ‘‘The cross, the cross,”
there is no cross. Rabbinic piety (Sanh.
98 ϐ) expected exemption from the tribula-
tion of the latter days only for those who

d ii. 25, c/. 4 Macc. vi. 18-21, Heb. x. 36. I
f Gal. ii. 9 (see Lgft.’s note), Isa. xxii. 23, Jer. i. 18.

ο» ο: , a 3 C7
πε, ερχοµαι ταχυ’ κρατει ο εχείς, ινα

12. Ὁ νικῶν, ποιῄσω αὐτὸν

e Nom. pendens, as ii. 7. For constr.,

were absorbed in good works and in
sacred studies.

Ver. 11. ‘You have not long to wait
and suffer now”; a fresh motive tor
tenacity of purpose. Compare with what
follows the tradition of R. Simon (in
Tract. Shabb. bab. 88 a) that on the occa-
sion of Exod. xxiv. 7, the Israelites were
each crowned with two crowns by 600,000
angels—one when they said we will do,
the other when they said we will be
obedient; but on the occasion of Exod.
xxxili. 6 these crowns were snatched off
by 1,200,000 devils. In the last day, at
the messianic age, God restores these
crowns (according to Isa. xxxv. 10). The
sense is not altered if ἵνα ... σου (like
Luke xii. 20) is taken as a vivid form of
the passive ‘‘ lest thou be deprived of thy »
crown” (cf. Col. ii. 18 with 2 Tim. iv. 8),
forfeiting it through misconduct.

Ver. 12. The reward of steadfastness
here is a stable relation to God and ab-
solute (trebly verificd) assurance of cternal
life, permanence ἐν τῷ va@ (verbally
inconsistent with xxi. 22) τοῦ θεοῦ
pov (four times in this verse). From
Strabo (xii. 868 B, ἤ τε Φιλαδελφία .. .
οὐδὲ τοὺς τοίχους ἔχει πιστούς, ἀλλὰ
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν τρόπον τινὰ σαλεύονται καὶ
διίστανται: xiii. 936 B, πόλις Φιλ.
σεισμῶν πλήρής:' οὐ γὰρ διαλείπουσιν
οἱ τοῖχοι διϊστάμενοι, καὶ ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλο
µέρος τῆς πόλεως κακοπαθῶν, κ.τ.λ.) We
learn that the city was liable to frequent
and severe earthquakes, one of which had
produced such ruin a while ago (Tac.
Ann. ii. 47) that the citizens had to be
exempted from Imperial taxation and
assisted to repair their buildings. These
local circumstan:es (cf. Juv. vi. 411; Dio
Cass. Ixviiil. 25; Renan, 335) lend colour
to this promise, which would also appeal
to citizens of a city whose numerous fes-
tivals and temples are said to have won
for it the sobriquet of “a miniature
Athens” (E. Bi. 3692). The promise is
alluded to in Ep. Lugd., where God's
grace is said to have ‘‘ delivered the weak
and set them up as στύλους ἑδραίους

il

γράψω ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ μου καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως h Gal. iv.
Ἀτῆς καινῆς “Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἡ καταβαίνουσα !

τοῦ θεοῦ µου,

1The ungrammatical η

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 369

9)

, Heb.
xi. 10, Xii.
22,xill.14.
i Seeon xxi.
2,10; false apposition.

ἐκ τοῦ

καταβαινουσα (Sy*AC) has been corrected into η κατα-

βαινει (Q, Andr., Ar.) ana της καταβαινουσης (NCA).

able by means of their patience to stand
all angry onsets of the evil one,” and
Attalus of Pergamos is termed a στύλον
καὶ ἑδραίωμα of the local Christians.
Permanent communion with God is fur-
ther expressed in terms of the widespread
ethnic belief that to be ignorant of a
god’s name meant inability to worship
him, whereas to know that name implied
the power of entering into fellowship
with him. “Just as writing a name
on temple-walls puts the owner of the
name in continual union with the deity
of the temple, so for early man the know-
ledge, invocation and vain repetition of
the deity’s name constitutes in itself an
actual, if mystic, union with the deity
named” (Jevons’ Introd. Hist. Religion,
1896, p. 245; of. Jastrow, p. 173). καὶ
γράψω, κ.τ.λ., inscriptions upon pillars
being a common feature of Oriental
architecture, cf Cooke’s North Semitic
Inscriptions, p. 266, names on pillars ;
also Keitzenstein’s Poimandres,20. The
provincial priest of the Imperial cultus
erected his statue in the temple at the
ciose of his year’s official reign, inscribing
on it his own name and his father’s, his
place of birth and year of office. Hence
some of the mysterious imagery of this
verse, applied to Christians as priests of
God in the next world. This is more
}robable than to suspect an allusion to
what was written on the high priest’s
forehead (Exod. xxviii. 36, cf. Apoc. vii.
3, xiv. I, xvii. 5, xxii. 4). Pillars were
also, of course, sculptured now and then
in human shape. For the first (a) of the
three names, cf. Baba Bathra, 75, 2: R.
Samuel ait R. Jochanan dixisse tres
appellari nomine Dei, justos (Isa. xliii.
7), Messiam (Jer. xxiii. 6), Hierosolyma
(Ezek. xlviii. 35); also Targ. Jerus. on
Exod. xxvili. 30, quisquis memorat
illud nomen sanctum [2.ε., τετραγράµµα-
τον] in hora necessitatis, eripitur, et
occulta reteguntur. Where a name
was equivalent in one sense to personality
and character, to have a divine name
conferred on one or revealed to one was
equivalent to being endowed with divine
power. The divine “hidden name’

(Asc. Isa. i. 7 Jewish: “as the Lord liveth
whose name has not been sent into this

world,” cf. viii. 7) was (according to En.
Ixix. 14 f.) known to Michael, and had
talismanic power over demons. Perhaps
an allusion to this also underlies the apo-
calyptic promise, the talismanic metaphor
implying that God grants to the victorious
Chris:ian inviolable safety against evil
spirits (cf. Rom. viii. 38, 39). The second
(b) name denotes (cf. Isa. lvi. 5, Ezek.
xlviii. 35) that the bearer belongs not
merely to God but to the heavenly city
and society of God. Since rabbinic
speculation was sure that Abraham had
the privilege of knowing the mysterious
new name for Jerusalem in the next
world, John claims this for the average
and honest Christian. On the connexion
between the divine name and the temple,
see 3 Macc. ii. 9, 14, Judith :x. 8, etc.
The third (ο) ‘‘ my own new name” (xix.
12) is reflected in Asc. Isa. ix. 5 (the Son
of God, et nomen eius non potes audtre
donec de carne extbis); it denotes some
esoteric, incommunicable, pre-existent
(LXX of Ps. lxxi. 17, En. lxix. 26, cf. R. F.
249, 344) title, the knowledge of which
meant power to invoke and obtain help
from its bearer. The whole imagery
(as in ii, 17, xix. 12) is drawn from the
primitive superstition that God’s name,
like a man’s name, must be kept secret,
lest if known it might be used to the
disadvantage of the bearer (Frazer's
Golden Bough, 2nd ed. i. 443 f.). The
close tie between the name and the per-
sonality in ancient life lent the former a
secret virtue. Especially in Egyptian
and in Roman belief, to learn a god’s
name meant to share his power, and
often “the art of the magician consisted
in obtaining from the gods a revelation of
their sacred names”. The point made
by the prophet here is that the Christian
God bestows freely upon his people the
privilege of invoking his aid successfully,
and of entering into his secret nature;
also, perhaps, of security in the mys-
terious future across death. See the
famous ch. cxxv. of E. B. D. where the suc-
cessive doors will not allow Nu to pass till
he tells them their names (cf. chapters cxli.
f.). Ignatius tells the Philadelphians (ob-
viously referring to this passage, ad Phil.
6) that people unsound upon the truth of

~

370 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΠΠ.
κ νο οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ µου, καὶ τὸ “dvoud µου τὸ καινό. 13. Ὁ
Ne oe. ἔχων ots ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.
ee i ας Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον, Τάδε
ο μα ο. ὁ sale : "μάρτυς 6 πιστὸς καὶ " ἀληθινός, ° ἀρχὴ πας
ene κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ" 15. Οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρὸς Et οὔτε
n= Genu-

tne, Did., xiii. 1-2.

Jesus Christ are to him στῆλαι καὶ τάφοι
νεκρῶν, ἐφ᾽ ois γέγραπται µόνον ὀνόματα
ἀνθρώπων. The µόνον is emphatit. In
the survival of P. during the later con-
quests which left the other six towns of
the Apocalypse more or less ruined,
Gibbon (ch. Ixiv.) irrelevantly finds “a
pleasing example that the paths of honour
and safety say sometimes be the same ”.

Vv. 14-22. The message for Laodicea,
where a church existed by 60 a.p. (Col.
iv. 16).

Ver. 14. Jesus is the Amen because he
guarantees the truth of any statement,
and the execution of any promise, made
by himself. He is consequently the
faithful and true witness, whose counsel
and rebuke (18, 19) however surprising
and unwelcome, are therefore to be laid
to heart as authoritative. A faithful
witness is one who can be trusted never
to misrepresent his message, by exag-
geration or suppression, (ἀληθινός practi-
cally = ἀληθής as often, since a real
witness is naturally a truthful and com-
petent one) his veracity extending not
only to his character but to the con-
tents of his message. In point of sin-
cerity and unerring insight (as opposed
to “false” in both senses of the term),
Jesus is the supreme moral critic; the
church is the supreme object of his criti-
cism. He is also absolutely trustworthy,
and therefore his promises are to be be-
lieved (vv. 20, 21), or rather God’s pro-
mise€s are assured and realised to men
through him (cf. π. καὶ ἀ. in 2 Macc. ii.
11). Compare the fine Assyrian hymn
of Ishtar (Jastrow, p. 343): “ Fear not!
the mind which speaks to thee comes
with speech from me, withholding noth-
ing. . . . Is there any utterance of mine
that I addressed to thee, upon which
thou couldst not rely?” (also, Eurip.
on 1537). The resemblance of 4 ἀρχή
κ.τ.λ., to a passage in Colossians is note-
worthy as occurring in an open letter to
the neighbouring church of Laodicea
Philonic passages in Grill, pp. 106-110).
Here the phrase denotes ‘the active
SOurce or principle of God’s universe or
‘Creation ” (ἀρχή, as in Greek philosophy

ο See on Col. i. 15 f., also Just. A pol. ii. 6, Diognet. vii.

and Jewish wisdom-literature,=aitia or
origin), which is practically Paul’s idea
and that of John i. 3 (‘tthe Logos idea
without the name Logos,” Beyschlag).
This title of “ incipient cause” implies a
position of priority to everything created;
he is the first in the sense that he is
neither creator (a prerogative of God in
the Apocalypse), nor created, but creative.
It forms the most explicit allusion to the
pre-existence of Jesus in the Apocalypse,
where he is usually regarded as a divine
being whose heavenly power and position
are the outcome of his earthly suffering
and resurrection: John ascribes to him
here (not at xii. 5, as Baldensperger, 85,
thinks) that pre-existence which, in more
or less vital forms, had been predicated of
the messiah in Jewish apocalyptic (cf.
En. xlviii.). This pre-existence of mes-
siah is an extension of the principle of
determinism ; God foreordained the salva-
tion itself as well as its historical hour.
See the Egyptian hymn: “He is the
primeval one, and existed when as yet
nothing existed; whatever is, He made
it after He was. He is the father
of beginnings. . . . God is the truth,
He lives by Truth, He lives upon Truth,
He is the king of Truth.” The evidence
for the pre-existence of messiah in Jew-
ish Christian literature is examined by
Dr. G. A. Barton, ¥ourn. Bibl. Lit. τοο»,
ΡΡ. 78-91. Cf. Introd. § 6.

Ver. 15. The moral nausea roused by
tepid religion. It is best to be warm,
and energetic; but even a frank repudia-
tion of religion is at least more promising
from an ethical standpoint (Arist. Nzk.
Eth. vii. 2-10) than a half-and-half attach-
ment, complacently oblivious of any short-
coming. The outsider may be convinced
and won over; there is hope of him, for
he is under no illusion as to his real re-
lation to the faith. But what can be
done with people who are nominal Chris-
tians, unable to recognise that they need
repentance and that Jesus is really out-
side their lives (ver. 20)? Cf. Dante’s
Inferno, iii. 30 f. For such homely meta-
phors and their ettectiveness, compare
the critigism of Longinus in περὶ ὕψους

{3--1δ.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 371

PLeatés: 3 ὄφελον ψυχρὸς ἧς ἢ ἵεστός: 16. οὕτως ὅτι " Χλιαρὸς et, ϱ dar hey.

ray

~ , / ..
καὶ οὔτε [εστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός, µέλλω σε " ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόµατός Rom. xii,

μου.

Il.

‘ 7
17. ὅτι λέγεις, "ὅτι 'πλούσιός εἰμι καὶ " πεπλούτηκα καὶ οὐ- 4 C/. Moult.

1. 200,

, Ν :
δὲν | χρείαν ἔχω, καὶ οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σὺ εἶ “6 ταλαίπωρος καὶ ἐλεεινὸς Helbing,

καὶ πτωχὸς καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ γυμνός" 18. συμβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι

Matt. xii. 33? Ἐρὶίοι. ili. 15, 13.
1 Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. viii. 9.

ram. λεγ. N.T.
u Hos. xii. 8 (9), Zech. xi. 5.

73-74)

Win. § 12,

5. For

idea,

5 John i. 32, cf. Plato’s Symp., 204a.
v Art. as in Lk. xviii. 13.

1ονδενος (Ν ΡΟ, 1, Areth, etc.) is a correction of the difficult and original ovdev
{‘‘like nil opus est,” Simcox: cf. Epict. iii. 7) AC, 12, Andbav, edd.

(xxxi.): ‘Sometimes a plain expression
like this tells more forcibly than elegant
language; being drawn from common
life, it is at once recognised, whilst its
very familiarity renders it all the more
convincing”. The spirit of the verse re-
sembles that which pervaded Christ’s
denunciation of the religious authorities
in his cay for their ὑπόκρισις, and his
more hopeful expectations with regard
to the harlots and taxgatherers (Ecce
Homo, ch. xili.); the former condition
of religious life was to Jesus a sickening
feature in the situation. Just as spiritual
death, in the case of the Sardis Chris-
tians, meant a lost vitality, so in the case
of Laodicea lukewarmness implies that
a condition of religious warmth once ex-
isted. ‘‘ He who was never fervent can
never be lukewarm.” In his analysis of
this state (Growth in Holiness, ch. xxv.),
Faber points out not only that its corre-
lative is a serene unconsciousness and
unconcern (cf. ver. 17 6), but that one
symptom is a complacent attention to
what has been achieved (cf. 17 a) rather
than sensitiveness to what is left undone,
with ‘‘a quiet intentional appreciation of
other things over God” (cf. ver. 20),
which is all the more mischievous that
it is not open wickedness.

Ver. 16. The divine disgust at luke-
warm religion. Christ, says the prophet,
is sick of the lukewarm: as the purpose
(μέλλω) of rejection does not exclude
the possibility of a change upon the part
of the church which shall render the
execution of the purpose needless, advice
to repent immediately follows upon the
threat. The latter is unconditicnal only
in form. Exclusion from God’s life forms
one side of the penalty, humiliating ex-
posure before men the other (18).

Ver. 17. Priding herself not merely on
the fact but (as is implied) on the means
by which it had been secured (viz., per-
sonal skill, merit) and finally on the in-
dependent self-reliant position thus at-
tained: a profuse certificate of merit,

self-assigned. To conceit and self-decep-
tion the prophet wrathfully ascribes the
religious indifference at Laodicea. ‘‘No
one,” says Philo (Pragm. p. 649, Mang.),
“is enriched by secular things, even
though he possessed all the mines in the
world; the witless are all paupers.”
The reference is to spiritual possessions
and advantages. It is irrelevant to
connect the saying with the material
wealth and resources of Laodicea, as
exemplified in the fact that it was re-
built by its citizens after the earthquake
in 60-61 A.r. without help from the im-
perial authorities (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 27).
For one thing, the incident is too far
back ; for another, the Apocalypse is con-
cerned not with the cities but with the
Christian churches. Such an allusion
may have been in the writer’s mind,
especially if the church included in its
membership prosperous and influential
citizens, since complacency and self-satis-
faction are fostered by material comfort.
“Tf wealthily then happily,” in Laodicea
as in Padua. Still, these weeds spring
from other soils as well. An inefficient
ministry (cf. Col. iv. 17) and absence of
persecution or of special difficulties at
Laodicea probably helped to account for
the church’s languid state. As John sug-
gests, the church which is truly rich in
spiritual and moral qualities does not
plume itself upon them (ii. 9). οὐκ οἶδας,
cf. the echo of this in Oxyrhynchite Logia,
i. 3: τυφλοί ciow τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν καὶ
οὐ βλέπ[ουσιν, πτωχοὶ καὶ οὐκ οἴδασιν
τ]ὴν πτωχιαν (2), where blindness and
poverty and unconsciousness of both
occur. σύ, emphatic ; ἐλεεινός, ‘needing
pity’ rather than (as Dan. ix. 23, x. 11,’
LXX) “finding pity”; tad. (cf. with
νετ. 19, Sap. iii. 11: σοφίαν γὰρ καὶ
παιδείαν 6 ἐξουθενῶν ταλαίπωρος), only
here and Rom. vii. 24 in N.T., two
passages representing the extremes of
misery—unconscious and conscious. ὁ
κ.τ.λ. = ‘the embodiment ΟΕ”).

Ver. 18. The counsel is conveyed in the

372

Col. ii. 3, ; ; ος : igs mh i

iv.16. . γυμνότητός σου: καὶ ᾿κολλούριον " ἐγχρίσαι
x Zech. xiii. ,

9. For ἵνα Bdérys.

constr. ii.

II, Vili. II ᾿

= dative. y ΠΠ. 4, vii. 9, 14, xix. 14. z See on xvi. 15.

iii. 11-12 = Heb. xii. 5-6, Ps. Sol. x. 2, 1 Cor. xi. 32.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΝΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

III.

τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου

Ig. ἐγὼ 'ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ "ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω"

α1 John ii. 20, 27. b Prov.
ς John iii. 20, xvi. 8 (R.J. 365), Sir. xviii. 13.

1¥For εγχρισον (P, 1, g2 marg., 96, etc.) read εγχρισαι (infin. not imper; the
technical term; Gz. Aey. in N.T.) with SQAC, etc., vg., Pr., Anda, edd.

dialect of the local situation. ἀγοράσαι
in the poor man’s market (Isa. lv. 1, cf.
Matt. vi. 19, 20), significant words as
addressed to the financial centre of the
district. ‘From me,” is emphatic; the
real life is due to man’s relation with
Christ, not to independent efforts upon
his own part. Local Christians needed
to be made sensitive to their need of
Christ; in Laodicea evidently, as in
Bunyan’s Mansoul, Mr. Desires-awake
dwelt in a very mean cottage. ‘‘ Re-
fined”’=genuine and fresh, as opposed
to counterfeit and traditional (cf. Plato,
Rep. iii. 413 ε, 416 e). For παιδεία
wrought upon the people of God by a
divine Davidic king whose words are
πεπυρωµένα ὑπὲρ χρυσίον τίµιον, see
Ps. Sol. xvii. 47, 4δ.--ἵμάτια. Laodicea
was a famous manufacturing centre,
whose trade largely consisted of tunics
and cloth for garments. The allusion is
(cf. below, on ver. 20 and xvi. 15) to care-
less Christians caught off their guard by
the suddenness of the second advent.
κολλούριον or κολλύριον (cf. the account
of a blind soldier’s cure by a god [Aescu-
lapius ?] who bade him κολλύριον συντ-
ρῖψαι, Dittenberger’s Sylloge Inscript.
Graec. 807, 15 f.), an eye-salve for tender
eyes: an allusion to the ‘‘ Phrygian
powder ’”’ used by oculists of the famous
medical school at Laodicea (C. B. P.
i. 52). To the Christian Jesus supplies
that enlightenment which the Jews found
in the law (Ps. xix. 8); ‘‘uerba legis corona
sunt capitis, collyrium oculis” (Τγαεί.
Siphra fol. 143, 2); ‘‘uerba legis corona
sunt capitis, torques collo, collyrium
oculis”’ (Vajikra R., fol. 156, 1). True
self-knowledge can be gained only by
the help of Christ, z.e., in the present
case mediated by Christian prophecy.
Like Victor., Lightfoot (Colossians, p. 44)
interprets this allusion by the light of
Eph. i. 8, Col. i. 27, as a rebuke to the
vaunted intellectual resources of the
Church; but there is no need thus to
narrow the reference. It is to be ob-
served that John does not threaten Lao-

dicea with the loss of material wealth
(cf. Pirke Aboth, cited above on ii. g) in
order to have her spiritual life revived.
Ver. το. The prophet now relents a
little; the church has still a chance
of righting herself. Such a reproof as
he has given in Christ’s name, and the
discipline it involves (παιδεύω, wider
than ἐλ.) are really evidence of affection,
not of antipathy or rejection. This is ths
method of God at least (ἐγώ, emphatic ;
‘“‘whatever others do’’), with whom cen-
sure does not mean hostility. Φφιλῶ, the
substitution of this synonym (contrast
Heb. xii. 6) for the LXX Gyamd is τε-
markable in view of the latter term’s
usage in the Apocalypse; the other
variation ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω (ἐλ. B,
παιδ. $A, LXX) is probably ornate rather
than a duplicate. The love of Christ for
his people is mentioned in the Apoca-
lypse only here (with a reminiscence if
not a quotation of O.T.), ini. 5, and in
11. g (incidentally). In the latter pas-
sage, the divine love sustains and safe-
guards those who are loyal; here it in-
flicts painful wounds upon the unworthy,
to regain their loyalty. {€yAeve (pres.)=
a habit, µετανόησον (aor.)=a definite
change once for all. The connexion
(οὖν) seems to be: let the foregoing τε-
buke open your eyes at once to the need
of repentance, and also to the fact that it
is really love on my part which prompts
me thus to expose and to chastise you;
such a sense of my loving concern, as
well as of your own plight, should kindle
an eager heat of indignation (2 Cor, viii.
11, ἄλλα ῆλον) gathering into a flame
of repentance that will burn up indiffer-
ence and inconsistency (cf. Weinel, 188
f.). The urgent need of immediate τε-
pentance rests not only on the special
character of the temptation to which the
local Christians were succumbing (‘It is
a great grace to find out that we are
lukewarm, but we are lost if we do not
act with vigour. It is like going to sleep
in the snow, almost a pleasant, tingling
feeling at the first, and then—lost for

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

10---21.

373

\
20. ᾿Ιδοὺ ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν καὶ ἆ And
not ?—
then fate
of Matt.
XXVi. 64.
e Constr.
xiv. 13,
XVi. I, XXi.
3; crying “ open” (apert), cf. John x. 3. f Gen. xxvi. 29-31, En. Ixii. 14-15. g Ver. 12, Suspended
nom. (Abbott, Diat. 2421). Ἡ 1 Macc. x. 63, cf. Lk. xxii. 30, a reminiscence of Col. iii. 1, Eph, ii. 6?

/ 4 Δ
ζήλευε οὖν καὶ µετανόησον.
κρούω: 3 ἐάν τις "ἀκούσῃ τῆς "φωνῆς µου καὶ ἀνοίδῃ τὴν θύραν,
Ν 3 X , 1 > her ν , > > A A oe"
καὶ εἰσελεύσομαι Ἰ πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ’ δειπνήσω μετ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς

3 A ο [ο a
pet ἐμοῦ. 21. Ὁ 5 νικῶν, δώσω αὐτῷ " καθίσαι pet ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ
t ‘

1 Before εισελευσοµαι add (Hebraistic, introd. apodosis, x. 7, xiv. 10) και SQ, etc.,
Ande, Pr. (Ti., WH marg., Bj., Bs.): the apparent absence of ακουση της φωνης
µου και from the text used by Orig., Hil., Epiph. might suggest that the words were
a natural though (as their excellent textual attestation shows) an early gloss upon

ανοιξη.

ever,” Faber), but on the fact that this
warning was their last chance.

Ver. 20. The language recalls Cant.
ν. 2 (φωνὴ ἀδελφιδοῦ µου κρούει ἐπὶ τὴν
θύραν. ἄνοιξον por, for contemporary
evidence of the allegorical use of Can-
ticles see Gunkel’s note on 4 Esdras. v.
20 f. and Bacher’s Agada d. Tannaiten,
i. 109, 285 f. 425, etc.) interpreted in the
eschatological sense (γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς
ἐστιν ἐπὶ θύραις Mark xiii. 29 = Matt.
xxiv. 33) of the logion in Luke xii. 35-
38 upon the servants watching for their
Lord, ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος
εὐθέως ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτῷ (whereupon, as
here, he grants them intimate fellowship
with himself and takes the lead in the
matter). To eat with a person meant, for
an Oriental, close confidence and affec-
tion. Hence future bliss (cf. En. κ. 14)
was regularly conceived to be a feast (cf.
Dalman i. § 1, C. 4 α and Volz 331), or,
as in Luke xxii. 29, 30 and here (cf. ver.
21), feasting and authority. This tells
against the otherwise attractive hypo-
thesis that the words merely refer to a
present repentance on the part of the
church or of some individuals in it (so e.g.
de Wette, Alf., Weiss, Simcox, Scott), as
if Christ sought to be no longer an out-
sider but a welcome inmate of the heart
(cf. Ruskin’s Sesame and Lilies, § 95).
The context (cf. 18 and 21),a comparison
of xvi. 15 (which may even have origin-
ally lain close to iii. 20), and the words of
Jas. v. 9 (i80 ὁ κριτῆς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν
ἕστηκεν) corroborate the eschatological
interpretation (so eé.g. Diist -rdieck, Pfleid.,
Bousset, Forbes, Baljon, Swete, Holtz-
mann), which makes this the last call
of Christ to the church when he arrives
on the last day, though here Christ stands
at the door not as a judge but as a friend.
Hence no reference is made to the fate
of those who will not attend to him.
In ii. 5 and 16, ἔρχομαι σοι need not
perhaps be eschatological, since the com-
ing is conditional and special, but ἔρχομαι

NOL Vc 2

“=

S. reads και ανοιξει (thus beginning the apodosis).

by itself (iii. rr) and ἥξω (ii. 25) must be,
while iii. 3 probably is also, in view of the
context and the thief-simile. The immi-
nent threat of iii. 16 is thus balanced by
the urgency of iii. 20. For the eschato-
logical ἰδού cf. i. 7, xvi. 15, xxi. 3, xxii.
7,12. Φωνῆς, implying that the voice is
well-known. To pay attention to it, in
spite of self-engrossment and distraction,
is one proof of the moral alertness
(ζήλευε) which means repentance. For
the metaphorical contrast (reflecting the
eternal paradox of grace) between the
enthroned Christ of 21 and the appealing
Christ of 20, cf. the remarkable passage
in Sap. ix. 4, 6f., 10 f., where wisdom
shares God’s throne and descends to toil
among men; also Seneca’s Epp. xli.
(quemadmodum radii solis contingunt
quidem terram, sed ibi sunt unde mitt-
untur; sic animus magnus et sacer con-
iiersatur quidem nobiscum, sed haeret
origini suae [Apoc. v. 6]: illinc pendet,
illuc spectat ac nititur, nostris tanquam
melior interest). By self-restraint, mo-
deration, and patience, with regard to
possessions, a man will be some day a
worthy partner of the divine feast, says
Epictetus (Enchir. xv.): ‘‘ but if you
touch none of the dishes set before you
and actually scorn them, τότε οὐ µόνον
ἔσει συµπότης θεῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ συνάρχων.

Ver. 21. δώσω κ.τελ. Το share
Christ’s royal power and judicial dignity
is a reward proffered in the gospels, but
Jesus there (cf. Mark x. 40) disclaimed
this prerogative. God's throne is Christ's,
as in xxii. I. vuk@v=the moral purity and
sensitiveness (cf. 18 and on ii. 7) which
succeeds in responding to the divine ap-
peal. The schema of God, Christ, and
the individual Christian (cf. on ii. 27) is
characteristically Johannine (7. John xv.
9 f., xvii. το f., xx. 21), though here as in
ver. 20 (contrast John xiv. 23) the es-
chatological emphasis makes the paral-
lel one of diction rather than of thought.

The scope and warmth of the promises

4

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

Ill.

θρόνῳ µου, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός pou

ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ.

a > [ή ”.
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.

(ο Laodicea seem rather out of place in
view of the church’s poor religion, but
here as elsewhere the prophet is writing
as much for the churches in general as
for the particular community. He speaks
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. This consideration,
together with the close sequence of
thought in 19-21 forbids any attempt to
delete 20, 21 as a later editorial addition
(Wellhausen) or to regard 20 (21) as an
epilogue to the seven letters (Vitringa,
Alford, Ramsay) rather than as an in-
tegral part of the Laodicean epistle.
Such a detachment would be a gratui-
tous breach of symmetry. But, while
these closing sentences are not a sort of

anticipates the following visions (iv.-v.).
To the prophet the real value and signi-
ficance of Christ’s life were focussed
in his sacrificial death and in the rights
and privileges which he secured thereby
for those on whose behalf he had suffered
and triumphed. This idea, already sug-
gested ini. 5, 6, 17, 18, forms the central
theme of the next oracle.

The ἐκκλησίαι now pass out of sight
till the visions are over. During the
latter it is the ἅγιοι who are usually in
evidence, until the collective term πόλις
is employed in the final vision (cf. iii. 12).
John knows nothing of any catholic
ἐκκλησία. To him the ἐκκλησίαι are so
many local communities who share a
common faith and expect a common
destiny; they are, as Kattenbusch ob-
serves, colonies of heaven, and heaven is
their mother-country. Partly owing to
O.T. associations, partly perhaps on ac-
count of the feeling that an ἐκκλησία (in
the popular Greek sense of the term) im-
plied a city, John eschews this term.
He also ignores the authority of any
officials; the religious situation depends
upon the prophets, who are in direct
touch with God and through whom the
Spirit of God controls and guides the
saints. Their words are God’s words;
they can speak and write with an
authority which enables them to say,
Thus saith the Spirit. Only, while in
the contemporary literature of Chris-
tianity the prophetic outlook embraces
either the need of organisation in order
to meet the case of churches which are
scattered over a wide area and exposed

22. ‘O ἔχων οὓς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει

to the vagaries of unauthorised leaders
(Pastoral Epistles and Ignatius), or con-
tention among the office-bearers them-
selves (a sure sign of the end, Asc. Isa.
iii. 20 f.), John’s apocalypse stands
severely apart from either interest.
ΝΟΤΕ on i. g-iii. 22. We have no
data to show whether the seven letters
or addresses ever existed in separate
form, or whether they were written before
or after the rest of the visions. All evi-
dence for such hypotheses consists of
quasi-reasons or precarious hypotheses
based on some a priori theory of the
book’s composition. The great proba-
bility is that they never had any réle of
their own apart from this book, but were
written for their present position. As
the Roman emperors addressed letters to
the Asiatic cities or corporations (the in-
scriptions mention at least six to Ephesus,
seven to Pergamos, three to Smyrna,
etc.), so Jesus, the true Lord of the
Asiatic churches, is represented as send-
ing communications to them (cf. Deiss-
mann’s Licht vom Osten, pp. 274 f.).
The dicit or λέγει with which the Im-
perial messages open corresponds to the
more biblical τάδε λέγει of ii. 1, etc.
Each of the apocalyptic communications
follows a fairly general scheme, although
in the latter four the appeal for attention
follows (instead of preceding) the mystic
promise, while the imperative repent oc-
curs only in the first, third, fifth, and
seventh, the other churches receiving
praise rather than censure. This arti-
ficial or symmetrical arrangement, which
may be traced in or read into other
details, is as characteristic of the whole
apocalypse as is the style which—when
the difference of topic is taken into ac-
count—cannot be said to exhibit peculi-
arities of diction, syntax, or vocabulary
sufficient to justify the relegation of the
seven letters to a separate source. Even
if written by another hand or originally
composed as a separate piece, they must
have been worked over so thoroughly by
the final editor and fitted so aptly into
the general scheme of the whole Apoca-
lypse (cf. ερ. i. 7 = ακκι. ᾱ απι το α.
EY 2= xx, το. πμ. τγ- πα το προ κκ.
4: i. 25 = κα]. το. . ο eerie
απ. 5 (= απ. 8, σκ. τη Π το - μα το
ανα. τα. il. οτ τμ ο “νο,
etc.), that it is πο longer possible to dis-

22—IV. 1.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

aS

IV. 1. "ΜΕΤΑ ταῦτα "εἶδον, Kal ἰδοὺ θύρα ἠνεωγμένη ἐν τῶα vii. 1,9,

οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἡ φΦωνὴ ἡ “πρώτη ἣν ἤκουσα ὡς σάλπιγγος 4 λαλούσης

b xiv. 14, xix. 11, Zech. ν. 9. ci. 10.

entangle them (or their nucleus). The
special traits in the conception of Christ
are mainly due to the fact that the writer
is dealing here almost exclusively with
thejinner relation of Jesus to the churches.
They are seldom, if ever, more realistic
or closer to the messianic categories of
the age than is elsewhere the case
throughout the apocalypse; and if the
marjoram of Judaism or (as we might
more correctly say) of human nature is
not wholly transmuted into the honey of
Christian charity—which is scarcely sur-
prising under the circumstances—yet the
moral and mental stature of the writer
appears when he is set beside so powerful
a counsellor in some respects as the later
Ignatius. Here John is at his full
height. He combines moral discipline
and moral enthusiasm in his injunctions.
He sees the central things and urges
them upon the churches, with a singular
power of tenderness and sarcasm, in-
sight and foresight, vehemence and re-
proach, undaunted faithfulness in rebuke
and a generous r adiness to mark what
he thinks are the merits as well as the
failings and perils of the communities.
The needs of the latter appear to have
been twofold. One, of which they were
fuliy conscious, was outward. The
other, to which they were not entirely
alive, was inward, The former is met
by an assurance that the stress of per-
secution in the present and in the im-
mediate future was under God’s control,
unavoidable and yet endurable. The
latter is met by the answer of discipline
and careful correction; the demand for
purity and loyalty in view of secret errors
and vices is reiterated with a keen
sagacity. In every case, the motives of
fear, shame, noblesse oblige, and the like,
are crowned by an appeal to spiritual am-
bition and longing, the closing note of
each epistle thus striking the keynote of
what follows throughout the whole
Apocalypse. In form, as well as in
content, the seven letters are the most
definitely Christian part of the book.
The scene now changes. Christ in
authority over his churches, and the
churches with their angels, pass away;
a fresh and ampler tableau of the
vision opens (cf. on i. 1g), ushering in
the future (vi.-xxii. 5), which—-as dis-
closed by God through Christ 4. 1)—is

is
d Loose appos. to σ. instead of φωνή, cf. ix. 13,

ed
Xviil. 1,
xix. το
12.
etc.
prefaced by a solemn exhibition of God’s
supremacy and Christ’s indispensable
position in revelation. In Apoc. Bar.
xxiv. 2 the seer is told that on the day of
judgment he and his companions are to
see ‘‘ the long-suffering of the Most High
which has been throughout all genera-
tions, who has been long-suffering to-
wards all those born that sin and are
righteous.” He then seeks an answer to
the question, ‘‘ But what will happen
to our enemies I know not, and when
Thou wilt visit Thy works (2.ε., for judg-
ment)” ? This is precisely the course of
thought (first inner mercies and then

notion) God reveals, or at least prepares,
his purposes before executing them.
Chapter iv. and chapter v. are counter-
parts; in the former God the Creator,
with his praise from heavenly beings,
is the central figure: in the latter the
interest is focussed upon Christ the
redeemer, with his praise from the
human and natural creation as well.
Chapter ν. further leads over into the
first series of events (the seven seals,
vi.-vili.) which herald the dénouement.
Henceforth Jesus is represented as the
Lamb, acting but never speaking, until
in the epilogue (xxii. 6-21) the author
reverts to the Christological standpoint
of i.-iii, Neither this nor any other
feature, however, is sufficient to prove
that iv.-v. represent a Jewish source
edited by a Christian; the whole piece
is Christian and homogeneous (Sabatier,
Schin, Bousset, Pfleiderer, Wellhausen).
Chapter iv. is a preliminary description
of the heavenly court: God’s ruddy
throne with a green nimbus being sur-
rounded by a senate of πρεσβύτεροι and
mysterious ἴφα. Seven torches burn
before the throne, beside a crystal ocean,
while from it issue flashes and peals ac-
companied by a ceaseless liturgy of
adoration from the πρεσβύτεροι and the
ἴφα, who worship with a rhythmic emo-
tion of awe.

CHAPTER IV.—Ver. 1. μετὰ . . . ἰδού
introducing as usual in an independent
clause (instead of a simple accus., Vit. ii.

376

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

La

eCf.1 Kings μετ ἐμοῦ, A¢ywy,! “:᾿Ανάβα Ode, καὶ δείξω σοι ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι per?

Xxii. 1ο.

f (Of local
position
=“stood’’)
Jer. xxiv.
I, Jo. xix.
29, etc.

g Used in
Apoc. with gen., dat., and acc. indifferently.

A ”
ταυτα .

2. εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι *

καὶ ἰδοὺ θρόνος ΄ ἔκειτο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
καὶ 5 ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον © καθήµενος *

1The λεγουσα of NCP, 1, 02 marge, Areth., etc. is a correction of orig. λεγων'

Ν "ΑΦ, etc., Ande, edd. [an awkward consty. ad sensum = ὙΩΝ

8 f., 31, 173, 174, to which he reverts in
ver. 4) some fresh and weighty revelation ;
lesser phases are heralded by the simpler
καὶ εἶδον. The phrase indicates a pause,
which of course may have covered days as
well as hours in the original experience of
the seer, if we assume that his visions came
in the order in which they are recorded,
He is no longer in the island but up at the
gatesofheaven. In his trance, a heavenly
voice comes after he has seen—not
heaven opened (the usual apocalyptic
and ecstatic symbol, e.g. Acts x. Il=a
vision, xi. 5, Ezek. i. 1, Matt. iii. 16, Ap.
Bar. xxii. 1) but—a door set open (ready,
opened) in the vault of the mysterious
upper world which formed God’s house.
Then follows the rapture (which in i. 9
precedes the voice). The whole vision is
composed by a man familiar with O.T.
prophecy, in Semitic style: short clauses
linked by the monotonous καί, with little
or no attempt made at elaboration of any
kind. Traits from the theophany of God
as a monarch, surrounded by a triple
circle (cf. the triple circle surrounding
Ahuramazda), are blended with traits
drawn from the theophany in nature.
The ordinary Jewish conception (Gfrérer,
i. 365 f.) tended to regard God as the
royal priest, to whom angels rendered
ceaseless levitical praise and service (cf.
Apoc. iv.-v.), or as a glorified rabbi whose
angels act as interpreters of the heavenly
mysteries for man (cf. Apoc. x. and
apocalyptic literature in general with its
angelic cicerones). In the seven heavens
of Chagiga, 12b, the third is the place
where “the millstones grind manna for
the righteous” (Ps. Ixxviii. 23, 24, cf.
Apoc. ii. 17), whilst in the fourth are the
heavenly Jerusalem (cf. Apoc. xxi. 1ο)
and the temple (Apoc. xv. 5 f.) and the
altar (Apoc. viii. 3 f.) where the great
prince Michael offers an offering, but in
the fifth the ministering angels, who sing
God’s praise by night, are silent by day
to let Israel’s adoration rise to the Most
High (see on ver. 8). ἀνάβα ὧδε (cf.

; of. Vit. i, 204 {].

the common phrase, ἀναβαίνειν eis τὸν
οὐρανόν, of penetration into heavenly
mysteries), from Exod. xix. 16, 24, φωνὴ
τῆς σάλπιγγος Hyer µέγα . « εἶπεν δὲ
αὐτῷ Κύριος . . . ἀνάβηθι. As in the
Ο.Τ. the revelation is vouchsafed spon-
taneously, whereas in Iranian theology
(é.g-, in the Vendidad) ‘‘it is the wish of
man, not the will of God, that is the
first cause of the revelation” (Darmes-
teter, S. B. E. iv. p. Ixxxv.). The seer
does not enter the door till he is
called; to know the divine will is the
outcome of revelation, not of inquiry
or speculative curiosity (similar idea in
I Cor. ii. 94). Enoch (xiv. 94.) also does.
not enter the palace of God with its fire-
encircled walls, but sees through the
open portals “a high throne, καὶ τὸ εἶδος.
αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ κρυστάλλινον . . . καὶ ὄρος
χερουβίν . . « and from underneath the
great throne came streams of flaming
fire so that I could not look thereon.
And the great Glory sat thereon and his
raiment shone more brightly than the
sun and was whiter than any snow.”” He
is finally called by God to approach but
not to enter. Cf. Ap. Bar. li. 11, Test.
Levi. v, ‘‘and the angel opened unto me
the gates of heaven, and 1 saw the holy
One, the Most High, seated on the
throne”.

Ver. 2. <A fresh wave of ecstasy
catches up the seer. εὐθέως . . πνεύµατι,.
repeating i. το, not because the author
had forgotten his previous statement,
and still less because anew source begins
here (Vischer), but simply because every
successive phase of this Spirit-conscious-
ness, every new access of ecstasy, was.
considered to be the result of a fresh in-
spiration; so the O.T. prophets (e.g.,
Ezek. xi. I καὶ ἀγέλαβέν µε πνεῦμα
κ.τ.λ. followed by νετ. 5 καὶ ἔπεσεν én”
ἐμὲ πνεῦμα, ii. 2 and iii. 24; cf. Enoch
xiv. Q καὶ ἄνεμοι ἐν τῇ Spdoer pov...
εἰσήνεγκάν µε eis τὸν οὐρανόν followed
by νετ. 14 ἐθεώρουν ἐν τ. 6. µ. καὶ ἰδοὺ
κ.τελ., Ixxi. 1 ands, etc.). The primitive.

2—3.

3. καὶ 6 καθήµενος ὅμοιος " ὁράσει λίθῳ
καὶ Ἶρις ' κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ™ ὅμοιος ὁράσει σµαραγδίνω.

k xxi. 20, Exod. xxviii. 20, xxxix. 13, Ezek. xxviii. 20.
πι Cf. Win. § 11, 1.

also it is substituted for τόξον of LXX.

Christian conception of the Spirit was
that of a\sudden and repeated trans-
port rather than a continuous experience
(Acts iv. 8, 31, etc.), particularly in the
region of ecstasy. The royal presence is
depicted in this theophany by means of
similes and metaphors (partly rabbinic)
which originally were suggested in part
by the marvellous atmospheric colouring
of an Eastern sky during storm or sunset ;
several had been for long traditional and
fanciful modes of expressing the divine
transcendence (e.g., En. xiv. 18 f. the
divine glory like crystal, etc.) which
dominates the Apocalypse. God is a
silent, enthroned (cf. 1 Kings xxii. I9
etc.), eternal Figure, hidden by the very
excess of light, keeping ward and watch
over his people, but never directly inter-
fering in their affairs till the judgment,
when mankind appears before his throne
for doom and recompense. This reluct-
ance to name or describe God, so char-
acteristic of the later Judaism, was allied
to the feeling which mediated his action
upon the world through angels or through
his Christ (see oni. 1 and xv. 8). For
the tendency to describe God and heaven
in priestly terms, cf. Gfrérer, i. 276 f.
The whole of the present passage is illus-
trated by Pirke Elieser, iv.: ‘‘majestas
sancti benedicti est in medio quattuor
classium angelicarum. Ipse _ insidet
throno excelso eleuatus, atque solium
eius sublime suspensum est sursum in
aere, figura autem gloriae eius est sicut
color Chasonal, juxta uerba prophetiae
(Ezek. i. 27) . . . atque oculi per totum
orbem discurrunt. Sagittae eius sunt
ignis et grando ; a dextra eius uita est,
a sinistra mors, sceptrum ignitum in manu
eius. Expansum est ante eum uelum, et
septem angeli qui prius creati sunt, famu-
lantur ei ante uelum.. . infra thronum
gloriae eius est sicuti lapis sapphiri.”
Ver. 3. The sources of the general
conception lie far back in passages like
Isa. vi. 1 f., Ezek. i. 26 f., Dan. vii. ο f.,
Enoch xxxix., xl., xlvi., mediated by rab-
binical interpretations. But it should
be noted that in the palace-temple of
Hatra, the Parthian capital, one well-
known frieze contained a row of figures
including the griffin, the eagle, the
human face, the head of an ox, and an
emblem on the cornice apparently repre-

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

377

h “In αρ-
pear-
ance,”

i Cf. on xxi.

Σἰάσπιδι Kal * capdiw *

ς
11.
1 Ezek. i. 28, ἄπ. Aey. Ν.Τ., cf. x. r,where

senting the sun. With a sublime re-
straint, the author leaves the royal pre-
sence undefined, though he is more defi-
nite and explicit on the whole than (say)
Ezekiel. The latter’s advance in this
respect upon his predecessors was εχ-
plained by the rabbis (cf. Streane’s Cha-
giga, p. 73) as a needful counteractive to
the Jewish belief that visions were im-
possible outside Canaan, and as a help
to men of the captivity who needed
‘special details to support them in their
trials” (cf. above, i.g f.). The σάρδιον,
a flesh-coloured, semi-transparent, often
golden or ruddy gem, answers to our
red jasper or cornelian, so-called perhaps
from Sardis, whence the stone was origi-
nally exported. ὅμοιος, adj. only here
with two terminations. ‘The striking
simile 6p. dp. A. i. κ. σ. recalls the por-
trait statues of Roman emperors and
others, in which the raiment is worked
out in hard-coloured stones—a fashion
introduced in the last years of the re-
public from Ptolemaic Egypt” (Myres,
E. Bi., 4812).—ltpigs. The nimbus or
halo round the throne is green, op. (cf.
Deissm. 267) being malachite or more
probably an emerald (xxi. 19), to which
the ancients attributed a_talismanic
power of warding off evil spirits. ‘Thou
hast made heaven and earth bright with
thy rays of pure emerald light” (hymn
to Ra, E. B. D. 8). The rabbis (Cha-
giga, 16 a) discouraged any study of the
rainbow, as it symbolised the glory of
God. As the symbol of God’s covenant,
it may be here a foil to the forbidding
awe of ver. 5 a (which develops 3 a, as
5 6 develops 3 6-4); ‘‘ Deus in judiciis
semper meminit foederis sui’’ (Grotius.)
But, like the parabolic details of Jesus,
these traits are mainly descriptive. The
association of jasper, sardius, and emerald
isa genuinely Hellenic touch: cf. Phaedo,
ττο, where Plato describes the real earth
under the heavens of paradise as a place
where in perfection lie such things ag
exist here but in fragmentary beauty—
for example, the pebbles esteemed here,
σάρδιά τε καὶ ἰάσπιδας καὶ σµαράγ-
δους. Flinders Petrie, taking op. as
rock-crystal, argues that the rainbow
here is of the prismatic colour which a
hexagonal prism of that colourless stone
would throw (Hastings, D. B. iv. 620).

378

η Sc. εἶδον
from ἰδού.
ο On the

300.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΥΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

IV.

4. Καὶ κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου] "θρόνους εἴκοσι ᾿τέσσαρας:
καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους εἴκοσι τέσσαρας πρεσβυτέρους καθηµένους,
περιβεβλημένους ἐν ἱματίοις λευκοῖς *
καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν Ὁ στεφάνους χρυσοῦς.

Ρ Sap. ν. 19-16, 2 Macc. xiv. 4, cf. Jos. Ant., iii. 7, 7.

1@povor (PQ, etc., Areth., Bg., Al. Bs.) after θρονου seems a correction of (ana-
coluthon) θρονους SA, 34, 35, Andc, etc. (Lach., ΤΙ., WH marg., Bj., Sw., Ws.).

Ver. 4. This verse breaks the continu-
ous description of 3 and 5 ; it is evidently
an original touch of the writer intro-
duced into the more or less traditional
scenery of the eternal court where ‘‘all
the sanctities of heaven stood thick as
stars”? (cf. v. 11). The conception of
twenty-four πρεσβύτεροι royally (i. 6)
enthroned as divine assessors, with all
the insignia of state, reaches back in
part to a post-exilic apocalypse (Isa.
xxiv. 23, βασιλεύσει κύριος ἐν Σιὼν καὶ
eis “Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν πρεσ-
Βυτέρων δοξασθήσεται), in part to the
historic gerousia. But their attire (golden
crowns, white robes) and functions are
royal rather than judicial or sacerdotal.
They are heavenly beings, angelic figures
corresponding to the θρόνοι of Col. i. 16
(cf. Isa. Ixiii. 9 οὐ πρεσβὺς οὐδὲ ἄγγελος).
The significance of the doubled 12 has
been found in the twelve patriarchs or
tribes + the twelve apostles (Andr., Areth.,
Vict., Alford, Weiss, etc.), in Jewish and
Gentile Christianity (Bleek, de Wette,
Weizsacker, Swete), or in the twenty-
four classes of the post-exilic priests with
their “elders ’’ (Schiirer, Η. ¥. P. i. 216
f., so from Vitringa to Ewald, Hilg.,
Renan, Spitta, Wellh., Erbes, Briggs).
But the notion of the church as a fusion
or combination of the old and the new
covenants is alien to primitive Christian-
ity, and the ‘“‘elders’’ are not the ideal
or celestial representatives of the church
at all. They pertain to the heavenly
court, as in the traditional mise-en-scéne
of the later Judaism, which had appro-
priated this and other imaginative sugges-
tions of the heavenly court (Schrader,®
pp. 454 f.), or judicial council from
the Babylonian astro-theology, where
μετὰ τὸν ζῳδιακὸν κύκλον were ranged
four-and-twenty stars, half to the north,
and half to the south, of which the
visible are reckoned as belonging to
the living, the invisible to the dead,
οὓς δικαστὰς τῶν ὅλων προσαγο-
pevovow (Diod. Sic. ii. 31, quoted by

Gunkel in S. C. 302-308, who rightly
finds in the same soil roots of other
symbols in this passage, such as the four
{6a and the seven λαμπάδες). In Slav.
En. iv. 1, immediately after “(πε very
great sea”’ in the first heaven is men-
tioned (cf. Apoc. iv. 6), Enoch is shown
“the elders and the rulers of the orders
of the stars;”’ so in ¥udicium Petri,
εἴκοσι γὰρ καὶ τέσσαρές εἰσι πρεσβύ-
τεροι, twelve on the right hand of God
and twelve on the left, as in Acta Perpet.
The twenty-four star-deities of the Baby-
lonian heaven had thus become adoring
and subordinate angelic beings (cf. ἡμῶν,
ver. 11) in the apocalyptic world of the
later Judaism, and our author retains
this Oriental trait, together with the
seven torches, the halo, etc., in order to
body forth poetically his conception
of the divine majesty (so, after Gunkel,
Jeremias, and Bousset, Bruston, J.
Weiss, Scott, Forbes, Porter). A partial
anticipation of this feature, as well as of
some others, in the Apocalypse occurs
not only in the ‘sacred council” of
Doushara, the Nabatean deity (cf. Cook's
North Semit. Inscr., pp. 221 f., 443 f.),
but in Egyptian mythology, as, e.g., in
the following inscription from the tomb
of Unas (5th dynasty, 3500 B.c.) ‘‘ His
place is at the side of God, in the most
holy place ; he himself becomes divine
(neter), and an angel of God; he himself
is triumphant. He sits on the great
throne by the side of God [Apoc. iii. 2r].
He is clothed with the finest raiment of
those who sit on the throne of living
right and truth. He hungers not, nor
thirsts, nor is sad, for he eats daily the
bread of Ra, and drinks what He drinks
daily, and his bread also is that which is
spoken of by Seb, and that which comes
forth from the mouth of the gods [Apoc.
vii. 16, 17, xxi. 4]. Not only does he eat
and drink of their food, but he wears
the apparel they wear—the white linen
and sandals, and he is clothed in white

. and these great and never-failing

4—6. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

379

4 a
5. Kat %éx τοῦ θρόνου ἐκπορεύονται ἀσιραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ α Ps. xvii.
14, Χχῖχ.,

αβρονταί * Jub. ii. 1.

καὶ " ἑπτὰ "λαμπάδες πυρὸς καιόµεναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου σος é
εἰσιν] τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ]. Tie

6. καὶ” ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου ὡς "θάλασσα ! ὑαλίνη, ὁμοία κρυσ- αμ Sie.

τάλλῳ. eee

Καὶ ἐν µέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου τέσσερα δα ταν τος.

Ezek. i.
22f., ἄπ. λεγ. N.T,

1Kither a εισιν (ΔΡ, 1, 36, 94, Syr., ΤΙ., WH, Sw., Bj.) or a εστιν (A, Lach.,
Ws., Bs.) is to be read for at εισιν (Q, etc., S., Areth.).

* Konnecke (Emendationen zu Stellen N.T., 34) and Bs. (?) om. και κνκλω του
θρονου as a gloss (so min., Me., Harl., Arm., Tic.), while Bruston takes και εν

µεσω Tov θρονου as the mistranslation of Bp 57F ns) (= and the throne was

in the midst of it, {.ε., of the glassy sea). For τεσσαρα here and in ver. 8 read
τεσσερα (A, edd.), as generally throughout Apoc. (a κοινή-{οτπι, possibly Ionian:
Helbing, 5-6, Thumb, 72), though “the papyri would seem to supply decisive evi-
dence for τεσσαρα as the first century form” (Class. Review, 1901, Ρ. 33, cf. 1904,

p. 107).

gods give unto him of the Tree of Life
[Apoc. ii. 7] of which they themselves do
eat, that he likewise may live.”

Ver. 5. The impression of awe is
heightened by traits from the primitive
Semitic theophany which, especially in
judgment, was commonly associated with
a thunderstorm (@wvat=the shrieks and
roaring blasts of the storm). Thunder in
the Apocalypse is either a sort of chorus
in praise of God (as here) or punitive
(e.g., xvi. 18); in Enoch lix. 1 the seer
beholds the secrets of the thunder, ‘‘ how
it ministers unto well-being and blessing,
or serves for a curse before the Lord of
Spirits”. For the ‘‘torches of fire”
(seven being a sacred number=collective
and manifold power, Jastrow 265, Trench
62-70) cf. Ezek. i. 13 ὡς ὄψις λαμπάδων
συστρεφοµένων ἀναμέσον τῶν ζῴων καὶ
Φφέγγος τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς
ἐξεπορεύετο ἀστραπή, and Apoc. Bar.
xxi. 6, where “holy living creatures,
without number, of flame and fire”’ sur-
round the throne. Fulness, intensity,
energy, are implied in the figure, which
reflects the traditional association (in
the primitive mind) of fire and flame
with the divinity, and especially with
the divine purity or holiness of which
they were regarded as an outward ex-
pression. There may be an allusion
to the ignes aeterni or sempiterni of
Roman mythology, an equivalent for the
heavenly bodies; but Jewish eschato-
logy had for over two centuries been
familiar with the seven watchers of the
heavenly court and their counterparts in

Persian and Babylonian mythology. The
combination of fire and crystal (ver. 6, see
also xv. 2) goes back originally to Exod.
xxiv. 9, 1Ο, 17, and Ezek. i. 22, 27, medi-
ated by passages like En. xiv. 9, 17 f.,
21-23; while the groundwork of the symbol
answers to the seven Persian councillors
(Ezra vii. 14, Esth. i. 14) who formed
the immediate circle of the monarch, a
counterpart of the divine Amshaspands,
as well as to the sacred fire of Ormuzd,
which (on Zoroastrian principles) was
to be kept constantly burning. Seven
burning altars, evidently representing a
planetary symbolism, also occur in the
cult of Mithra, while in the imageless
temple of Melcarth at Gades fires always
burned upon the altar, tended by white-
robed priests.—5 c reads like an editorial
comment or a liturgical gloss; the
πρεσβύτεροι, ¢.g., are undefined.

Ver. 6. For a sea in heaven, cf. above
(on νετ. 4). In Test. Patr. Levi. 2 the
sea lies within the second (first) heaven
ὕδωρ κρεµάμενον ἀνάμεσον τούτου Ka-
κείνου, and in the Egyptian paradise the
triumphant soul goes to ‘‘the great lake
in the Fields of Peace,” where the gods
dwell. The description, ‘a sea of glass,
like crystal” (i.e., transparent, ancient
glass being coarse and often semi-opaque,’
and ὕαλος being primarily=transparent,
not vitreous) borrowed partly from archaic
tradition (coloured by Egyptian and As-
syrian ideas), is intended to portray the
ether, clear and calm, shimmering and
motionless. Rabbinic fancy compared
the shining floor of the temple to crystal,

ly

καὶ τὸ ζῶῷῶον τὸ

4δο ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ
uErom "γέμοντα ὀφθαλμῶν ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν. 7.
zek.i.10, on
x. 12. πρῶτον ὅμοιον λέοντι, καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ζῶον ὅμοιον ” µόσχῳ, καὶ τὸ
ν Num.

xxiii. 22, Τρίτον ζῶον ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου, καὶ τὸ τέταρτον Loov

xxiv.8 ο ον
w “apiece” ὅμοιον ἀετῷ πετοµένῳ.
(distribut. ,,
as John
li. 6, etc.) ‘
x Isa. vi. 3, και
cf. Slav.
En. xi. 2,
ΧΧΙ. I.
y Notin
Isa. vi. 3
(LXX), ef. on i. 8.

lo’ > a
8. καὶ τὰ τέσσερα Loa, ἓν Kab’ ἓν αὐτῶν
ἔχων " ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν Ἰ καὶ ἔσωθεν γέµουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν,
* ἀνάπαυσιν ” οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες,
“Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ 7 παντοκράτωρ,
ς 4 ρε αλ κε , ”»
ὁ ἦν καὶ 6 dv καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

1Itis arbitrary to omit (Wellh.) κυκλοθεν . . . οφθαλμων, and the variant addi-
tion (και εξωθεν, Q, Pr., etc.) after κνκλοθεν is an attempt to smooth out the phrase

and the hot eastern sky is likened (in Job
Xxxvii. 18) to a molten mirror, dry and bur-
nished. Heaven is a sort of glorified
temple (x Kings vii. 23, the sea in the
Solomonic temple being copied from the
oblong or round tank which represented
the ocean at every Babylonian temple,
while the earth was symbolised by the
adjoining zikkurat), and the crystal fir-
mament is a sort of sea. In Slav. En.
iii. 1-3 the seer observes, in the first
heaven, the ether, and then ‘‘a very
great sea, greater than the earthly sea”.
καὶ ἐν µέσῳ, «.T.A. : “ and in the middle
(of each side) of the throne and (conse-
quently) round about the throne,” the

four DVT of Ezek. i. 5, 18 (of. Apoc.

Bar. li. 11). γέμοντα κ.τ.λ., a bizarre but
archaic symbol for completeness of life
and intelligence rather than for Argus-
like vigilance. The four angels of the
presence in En. xl. 2 move out, like
Milton’s seven (Par. Lost, iii. 647 f.), on
various errands (Ixxi. 9, cf. Ixxxviii. 2, 3).
The {6a of John are stationary, except in
xv. 7, where the context (cf. vi. 6) might
suggest that the seer took them to repre-
sent creation or the forces of the natural
world (cf. the rabbinic dictum: quattuor
sunt qui principatum in hoc mundo ten-
ent, inter creaturas homo, inter aues
aquilo, inter pecora bos, inter bestias leo).
Note also that when they worship (9), the
πρεσβύτεροι acknowledge God’s creative
glory (11), and that the O.T. cherubim
are associated with the phenomena of the
storm-cloud. The seer does not define
them, however, and they may be, like the
πρεσβύτεροι, a traditional and poetical
trait of the heavenly οουτί.-- τέσσερα, cf.
Slav. En. xxx. 13,14. The posture of the
{oa may be visualised from a comparison
of the Alhambra Court of the Lions.

Ver, 7. µόσχῳ, ‘an ox or steer ”’ (as

LXX). The four animals are freely
compounded out of the classical figures
of Ezekiel’s cherubim and the seraphim
in Isa, vi.; the latter supply the six
wings apiece. This function of cease-
less praise (8-9) is taken from Enoch
Ixi. 10 f., where the cherubim and
seraphim are also associated but not
identified with the angelic host (though
in xl. the cherubim are equivalent to the
four archangels); for a possible Baby-
lonian astral background, cf. Zimmern
in Schrader,® 626-632, and Clemen’s Re-
ligionsgeschichtliche Evkldvung des N.
T. (1909), pp. 74 f. Behind them lie the
signs of the zodiac (the bull, the archer,
the lion and the eagle, as a constellation
of the North ; so, e.g., Gunkel, ' Bruston,
etc.). The analogous figures of the four
funerary genii before the Egyptian throne
represent the four points of the compass.

Ver. 8. A description of the sounds
and songs of heaven follows the picture
of its 8ἱΡΗ8.---Ὑέμουσιν, either with τὰ
τ.ζ. (ἔχων for once a real participle) or an
asyndeton (if ἔχων here, as elsewhere in
the Apocalypse, must be supplied with a
copula), κυκλ. κ. ἐ. = ‘round their
bodies and on the inside” (i,e., under-
neath their wings), For the ceaseless
praise, which resembles that of Nin-ib,
the Assyrian deity, cf. on ver. 7 and ver.
11, also Enoch xxxix, 12 (the trisagion
sung by the sleepless ones, 7.e., angels),
Slav, En. xvii., and Test. Levi 3 (where
endless praise is the function of denizens
in the fourth heaven). The first line of
the hymn is Isaianic, the second (6 ἦν
κ.τ.λ.) is characteristic of the Apocalypse.
In En. xli. 7 the sun and moon in their
orbits ‘‘ give thanks and praise and rest
not; for to them their thanksgiving is
rest”. In the Apocalypse, however, the
phenomena of nature are generally the
objects or the scourges of the divine

j—il.

AILOKAAY¥VIZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

381

A nw
0. καὶ ὅταν ” δώσουσι 1 τὰ Lda δόξαν καὶ "τιμὴν καὶ ’ εὐχαριστίαν z C/. Mouit:
1. 105,

~ / ‘ ~ , ~~ a fal ~ ese
τῷ καθηµένω ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ, τῷ "ζῶντι eis τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» α Ps. xxviii,

του ὁ

a ~ na ~ a
µένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
~ ‘ lol ~ ~
τῶν αἰώνων, καὶ * βαλοῦσιν τοὺς στεφάνους αὐτῶν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου,

λέγοντες,

lel c -
πεσοῦνται οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες * πρεσβύτεροι ἐνώπιον τοῦ καθη-

(xxix.) 1,
r Tim. i.
17, Apoc.
ν. 13, Vii.
12, cf.
Par. Lost,
iv. 677f.,
Vii. 600 f.
b vii. 12.

II. “"Agtos et, 6 ' Κύριος καὶ 6 θεὸς ἡμῶν, *AaBetv τὴν δόξανι Heat,

ατα x Ae , ἅ
και την τιμην και την δύναμιν

2 Chron. vii. 3. ;
Dio Cass. xxxvi., Cicero’s pro Sextio, 27.
3, Xvi. 7), Abbott, Diat. 2681, Helbing, 34.

e Verg. Georg. iv. 212, Mart. x. 72, Tiridates in Tac. Ann. xv. 29,
f Nom. practically = vocative
ΕΝ. 12, cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 11,

XXxii. 40

ζω ἐγὼ εἰς

τοναιωγα.
dv. 14, cf.
Tigranes in
(contrast xi. 17, xv

1 For δωσουσι AP, min., Anda (edd.), δωσωσι (890, min., Bs.) [cf WH, app.
172] and δωσι (min., S., Andc, Areth.) are variants (Pr. cum dederant, vg. cum
-darent); cf. Win. § 14, 9; § 13, 7—the former being an unusual conj. aor.

wrath. The precedence of 6 ἦν over 6
ὤν may be due to the emphasis of the con-
text upon (ver. 11) the definite creative
action of God. Since the πρεσβύτεροι
worship God as the eternal (ver. 10),
while the {ga acknowledge him as the
ἅγιος, the latter epithet probably retains
its Ο.Τ. sense, {.ε., absolute life and
‘majestic power (xvi. 5). The trisagion
occurs in the Babylonian recension (iii.)
of the Shmone-Esreh, among the daily
prayers of the Jewish community. See
further Encycl. Rel. and Ethics, i. 117,
118.

Ver.g. The frequentative meaning of
᾿δώσουσι comes trom the sénse rather
than from the grammar of the passage.
“Whenever,” etc. (4.ε., throughout the
-course of this book, v. 8 f., xi. 16 f., xix.
4) is ‘‘a sort of stage-direction ” (Simcox).
It would be harsh to take the words as a
proleptic allusion to the single occur-
rence at xi. 15 f. (J. Weiss). To give or
-ascribe δόξα to God is reverently to ac-
knowledge his supreme authority, either
spontaneously and gladly (as here and
xix. 7, where ‘‘ honour” becomes almost
‘* praise ”) or under stress of punishment
(xi. 13, xiv. 7, xvi. 9) and fear of judg-
ment. The addition of τυµή in doxo-
logies amplifies the idea, by slightly
emphasising the expression of that vene-
ration and awe felt inwardly by those
who recognise his 86a. To fear God
-or to be his servants is thus equivalent
upon the part of men to an attitude of
pious submission and homage. To “ give
thanks” is hardly co-ordinate with δ.κ.τ.,
but follows from it as a corollary (cf. Pss.
xCvi.-xcviii.). Such worship is the due
~of the living God (vii. 2, x. 6, xv. 7),

whereas to eat ‘‘ meat sacrificed to idols
is to worship dead gods” (Did. vi. 3, Che
Apoc, ii. 14, 20). The Apocalypse, how-
ever, never dwells on the danger of idolatry
within the Christian church; its attention
is almost absorbed by the supreme ido-
latry of the Emperor, which is silently
contrasted in this and in other passages
with the genuine Imperial worship ot the
Christian church. ‘‘ He who sits on the
throne” (a title of Osiris in E. B.D.) is the
only true recipient of worship. Cf. the
hymn to “ Ra when he riseth ”: “Those
who are in thy following sing unto thee
with joy and bow down their foreheads to
the earth when they meet thee, thou
lord of heaven and earth, thou king of
Right and Truth, thou creator ot
eternity”,

Ver. 10. To cast a crown before the
throne was a token that the wearer dis-
claimed independence ; an Oriental (Par-
thian) token of respect for royalty (reff.).
Cf. Spenser’s Hymne of Heavenly Beautie
(141-154) and the pretty fancy in Slav.
En. xiv. 2 where the sun’s crown is
taken from him as he passes through
the fourth heaven (before God) and given
to God.

Ver. 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. I). The enthusiastic assent of the
πρεσβύτεροι to the adoration of the
Creator is expressed in word as well as
in action. σύ emphatic=the usual apo-
calyptic (R.J., 295, 296) emphasis on
creation as a proof of God’s power ip

΄

382 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ Vv.
h Cf. 4 Esd. ὅτι “od ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα,

vi. 6, and αν | η x , 4 1 κ. τς , ”

on x. 6 καὶ * διὰ τὸ θέληµά σου ἦσαν ] καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν.

e€low. ν ας

iConstr.cf. WV. I. Καὶ εἶδον "ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν τοῦ καθηµένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου

πα τα,

John vi. βιβλίον γεγραμµένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν, ” κατεσφραγισµένον

57, XV. 3

(dat. in- ;

etrum.). α κκ. χι b am. λεγ. N.T., cf. Dan. viii. 26, xii. 4, 9 (Isa. xxix. 11).

louk ησαν Q, 14, 38, 51, ‘‘created out of nothingness’’: A om. και εκτισθησαν,
Pr., 36 om. ησαν και. For similar instances of the elision or addition of a negative,
see Nestle’s Einf., 250-251 (E. Tr., 311-312).

2 The strongly supported variant εξωθεν (PQ, min., S., gig., vg., Arm., Aeth.,
Hipp., Pr., etc., so Bousset) for οπισθεν (KQA, 1, 14, Syr.) hardly alters the general
sense of the passage, and is probably conformed to εσωθεν, cf. Zahn’s Einl., § 72, 7.

providence and claims on mankind (e.g.
4 Esd. iii. 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. De-
spite 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 (σύ,
σου 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 specula-
tion, the former holding that creation
was for the sake of Israel (cf. 4 Esd. vi.
55, vii. If, ix. 13, Apoc. Bar. αν. 18,
10, 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, διὰ τὸ τὸν θεὸν
τοῦτον καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ὑμνεῖσθαι
μετ) ᾠδῆς συνεχῶς (Dieterich 36 f., cf.
Apoc. Pet. 19-20). Test. Levi 3 ἐν δὲ
τῷ pet’ αὐτόν cior θρόνοι κ. ἐξουσίαι ἐν ᾧ
ὕμνοι ἀεὶ τῷ θεῷ προσφέρονται.

CuHapTeR V.—Ver. 1. The central
idea of this sealed roll or doomsday
book lying open on the divine hand (c/.
Blau, Studien zur alt-heb. Buchwesen,
36 f., E. J. Goodspeed, Fourn. Bibl.
Lit. 1903, 70-74) is reproduced from
Ezekiel (ii. ο f.) but independently deve-
loped in order to depict the truth that
even these magnificent angelic figures of
the divine court are unequal to the task
ofrevelation. Jesusisneeded. For God,
a motionless, silent, majestic figure, does
not come directly into touch with men
either in revelation or in providence.
He operates through his messiah, whose
vicarious sacrifice throws all angels into
the shade (cf. the thought of Phil. ii. 5-
11). For the ancient association of a
many-horned Lamb with divination, cf.
the fragmentary Egyptian text edited by
Krall (Vom Konig Bokhoris, Innsbriick,
1898) and the reference to Suidas (cited
in my Hist. New Testament,? p. 687).
βιβλίον, which here (as in i. 11, xxii. 7-
18) might mean “ letter” or ‘ epistle”’
(cf. Birt’s Ant. Buchwesen, 20, 21), ap-
parently represents the book of doom or
destiny as. a _papyrus-roll (i.e. an
ὀπισθόγραφον, cf. Juv. i. 6) which is so
full of matter that the writing has flowed
from the inside over to the exterior, as is
evident when the sheet is rolled up.
Here as elsewhere the pictorial details
are not to be pressed; but we may
visualise the conception by supposing
that all the seals along the outer edge
must be broken before the content of the
roll can be unfolded, and that each
heralds some penultimate disaster (so
4 Esd. vi. 20). There is no proof that
each seal meant a progressive disclosure
of the contents, in which case we should
have to imagine not a roll but a codex in
book form, each seal securing one or two
of the leaves (Spitta). Zahn (followed
by Nestle, J. Weiss, and Bruston) im-

I—5.

σφραγῖσιν ἑπτά.

αὐτό.

AITOKAAY¥IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

383

2. Καὶ εἶδον ἄγγελον "ἰσχυρὸν κηρύσσοντα ἐν ε Defined

~ by o. mu.
, aA a ’
Φωνῇ µεγάλῃ, “Tis ἄξιος ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον, καὶ doar τὰς c/. Ps.
a mes ή νι _ 2 clii. 20.
oppayidas adtod;’’ 3. καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ
~ ~ 4A ~ ~ Lad
τῆς γῆς οὐδὲ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν
4. Καὶ ἐγὼ ἔκλαιον πολὺ ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη ἀνοῖξαι
Ν ἆ ο ᾱ 5 a , d = Genit.
5. kat “ets "ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων © partit.

τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό.

proves upon this theory by taking ὅπ.
with κατεσφρ. and thus eliminating any
idea of the βιβλίον being ὀπισθόγραφον:
it simply rests on (ἐπὶ) the right hand, as
a book does, instead of being held ἐν
the right hand, as a roll would be. But

ἐπὶ τ. 8. is a characteristic irregularity οἱ

grammar ; to describe a sealed book as
‘‘ written within ” is tautological; ἀνοῖξαι
could be used of a roll as well as of a
codex ; and ἔσωθεν would probably have
preceded yeyp. had it been intended by
itself to qualify the participle. A Roman
will, when written, had to be sealed seven
times in order to anthenticate it, and
some have argued (e.g. Hicks, Greek
Philosophy and Roman Law in the Ν. Τ.
157, 158, Zahn, Selwyn, Kohler, J.
Weiss) that this explains the symbolism
here: the βιβλίον is the testament as-
suring the inheritance reserved by God
for the saints. The coincidence is in-
teresting. But the sacred number in
this connexion does not require any
extra-Semitic explanation and the horrors
of the seal-visions are more appropriate
to a book of Doom. Besides, the Apoc.
offers no support otherwise to this inter-
pretation, for the sole allusion to
κληρονομεῖν is quite incidental (cf. on
xxi. 7). The sealing is really a Danielic
touch, added to denote the mystery and
obscurity of the future (not of the past,
En. Ixxxix.-xc.). On the writer’s further
use of the symbol of the book of Doom,
cf. below on ch. x., xi. 16-19. The
silence following the opening of the last
seal certainly does not represent the
contents of the book (= the promised
Sabbath-rest, Zahn). This would be a
jejune anti-climax. Possibly the cosmic
tragedies that follow that seal ατε in-
tended to be taken as the writing in
question. The βιβλίον is therefore the
divine course and counsel of providence
in the latter days (ἡ πάνσοφος τοῦ θεοῦ
καὶ ἀνεπίληπτος µνήµη, Areth.). Only,
while an angel read all the divine policy
to Daniel (Dan. x. 21), the Christian
prophet feels that Jesus alone is the true
interpreter and authority, and that the
divine purpose can only be revealed or

realised through his perfect spiritual
equipment (iii. 1, v. 6, cf. 1. 5, ii. 27, iii.
21, Xvi; τή, οἳς:]

Ver. 2. The καὶ after ἀνοῖξαι is either
epexegetic or the mark of a hysteron
proteron (cf. the awkward οὔτε βλέπειν
of 3-4, unless look here means to look
into the contents). The cry is a chal-
lenge rather than an appeal.

Ver. 3. ὑποκάτω, the under-world of
departed spirits or of daemons. Not even
angels ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (cf. Mark xiii. 32)
can discharge this function; their rdle
in the Apocalypse is prominent but
limited. Gunkel prefers to think of a
magical background to the whole sym-
bolism ; the book defies the necromancy
of the universe, but yields to the superior
power of ‘‘the new god, the lord of the
book”. For the mythological basis of
the idea of an opened heavenly book ¢f.
Winckler (Alt-orient. Forsch. ii. 386) and
Brandis (Hermes, 1867, 283). The triple
division of the universe was originally
Babylonian but it had long ago become
a popular religious idea, (cf. Phil. ii. ro).

Ver. 4. A naive expression of disap-
pointment, the expectation of iv. 1 being
apparently thwarted. The sense of con-
solation and triumph is so strong in this
book that no tears are shed in self-pity.
The prophet only weeps at the apparent
check to revelation.

Ver. 5. ἀνοῖξαι . . . σφραγίδας, cf.
Dittenberger’s Sylloge Inscr. Graec.
790% (first century) τὰς σφ. ἀνοιξάτω.
Christ’s success is due to his legitimate
messianic authority as a Davidic scion
(ῥίζα = shoot or sprout on main stem, cf.
Sibyll. iii. 396); the Davidic descent of
Jesus was a tenet of certain circles in
primitive Christianity (Dalman i. § 12).
Possibly there is an allusion to the origi-
nal bearing of the O.T. passage :—Jesus
irresistible and courageous, yet in origin
humble. In 4 Esdr. xii. 31, 32 the
messiah's rebuke to the Roman empire is
thus described: leonem quem uidisti de
silva euigilantem mugientem et loguentem
ad aquilam et arguentem eam iniquitatis
... hic est unctus, quem reseruauit
altissimus in finem [dierum, qui dicitur

354

© Constr.
XV. ο (iii.
27,28,
Sol. iv. 13
ἐνίκησε
σκορτπ-
ίσαι),
infin. of
remote
purpose (Blass, § 69, 3).
I Chron. xxviii. 4.
56, Apoc. xiv. 1.

α 212

ας αὐτοῦ

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

f Gen. xlix. 9, Heb. vii. 14.
h Diminut. preferred in Apoc. to auvds of 4th gospel, etc.

Vv.

λέγει µοι, ''Μὴ κλαῖε" ἰδοὺ "ἐνίκησεν ὅ λέων & ἐκ τῆς φυλῆ»
12 , ε cf - ς αν

Ιούδα, 5 ἡ pila Δαυείδ, ᾿ ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ σφραγῖ-
6. Καὶ εἶδον ἐν µέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων

, lol
ζώων καὶ ἐν µέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων " ἀρνίον ' ἑστηκὸς] ὡς ἐσφαγ-

g xxii. 16, Isa. xi. 1=Rom. xv. 12,
i Acts vii.

1 For εστηκος (APQ, min., Orig., Hipp., Lach., ΑΙ., WH, Bj., Sw., Ws.) Ti.,
Tr., Bs. read [Win. § 14, 5] εστηκως (1, 7, 28, 32, 87), which probably arose from
dittography. Except for xviii. το, this is the only use of the longer participial form
(cf. Helbing, 103) in the Apocalypse (even xiv. 1—s.v.l.—reproducing the shorter

form).

ex semine David]. ῥάβδος, in sense of
‘‘shoot”” occurs with ῥίζα in Isa. xi. 1
(cf. 10 ; Ezek. xix. 11, 12, 14) ; hence the
combination with the idea of “sceptre”’
(ἐνίκησεν, cf. ii. 27) in a messianic con-
notation (cf. on xxii. 16). The enigma
of the world’s history lies with Christ,
to be solved and to be controlled. Jewish
eschatology (En. xlvi. 3, xlix. 1) had al-
ready proclaimed the revealing power of
messiah, who is ‘‘ mighty in all the
secrets of righteousness... and who
reveals all the treasures of that which is
hidden”. John claims that Jesus is the
legitimate messiah, whose power to un-
fold God’s redeeming purpose rests upon
his victorious inauguration of that pur-
pose. The victory of Christ in v. 5 f.
follows dramatically upon the allusion in
ili, 21, but it is to press the sequence too
far when this scene is taken to represent
his arrival in heaven “ just after the ac-
complishment of his victory” (Briggs).

Ver. 6. Christ, crucified and risen, is
in the centre. To him all things bow
and sing. It is prosaic to attempt any
local definition, as though the author had
some architectural plan in his mind (ἐν p.
= “half-way up the throne,” or by repe-
tition = “ between,” cf. Gen. i. 7), or to
wonder how so prominent a figure had
hitherto escaped his notice. Plainly the
ἀρνίον did not originally belong to the
mtse-en-scéne of iv., though the symbol
may have none the less had an astral
origin (= Ram, in Persian zodiac). The
prophet brilliantly suggests, what was a
commonplace of early Christianity, that
the royal authority of Jesus was due to
his suficring for men, but the framework
of the sketch is drawn from messianic
dogmas which tended to make Christ
here a figure rather than a personality.—
apviov (like θηρίον, diminutive only in
form) is not taken from Jer. xi. 19 f.
(LXX) by a writer who placed it in iuxta-

>

position with “lion” owing to the re

semblance of sound between FJIAW and
aries (so variously Havet and Selwyn,
204-208), nor substituted (Vischer, Rauch)
for the “lion” of the original Jewish
source, but probably applied (cf. Hort on
1 Peter i. 19) to Jesus from the messianic
interpretation of Isa. xvi. I or lili. 7,
though the allusions elsewhere to the
Exodus (xv. 2 f.) and the Johannine pre-
dilection for the paschal Lamb suggest
that the latter was also in the prophet’s
mind. The collocation of lion and lamb
is not harder than that of lion and root
(ver. 5), and such an editor as Vischer
and others postulate would not have left
“lion” in νετ. 5 unchanged, Christ is
erect and living (cf. xiv. 1 and Abbott’s
Foh. Vocabulary, 1725), ὡς ἐσφαγμένον
(as could be seen from the wound on
the throat), yet endowed with complete
power (κέρατα, Oriental symbol of force,
cf. reff. and the rams’ horns of the
Egyptian sun-god) and knowledge. For
ἀρνίον and ἀμνός, cf. Abbott, 2tof. In
Enoch Ixxxix. 44 f. (Gk.) David is ἄρνα
prior to his coronation and Solomon “a
little sheep” (i.e., a lamb).—d8adpots
κ.τελ., the function ascribed by Plutarch
(de defectu ογαο. 13) to daemons as the
spies and scouts of God on earth. The
naive symbolism is borrowed from the
organisation of an ancient realm, whose
ruler had to secure constant and accurate
information regarding the various pro-
vinces under his control. News (as the
Tel-el-Amarna correspondence vividly
shows) was essential to an Oriental
monarch. The representation of Osiris
in Egyptian mythology consisted of an
eye and a sceptre (cf. Apoc. ii. 27), denot-
ing foresight and force (Plut. de Iside,
51), while the ‘‘eyes” and “ears” of a
Parthian monarch were officials or officers
who kept him informed of all that trans-
pired throughout the country. Else-

6—8.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 385

, ” κ ,
µένον, ἔχων “κέρατα ἑπτὰ καὶ | ὀφθαλμοὺς | ἑπτά, οἵ εἶσι τὰ ™ ἑπτὰ k After

πνεύματα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀπεσταλμένοι εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν.
καὶ " εἴληφεν ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς τοῦ καθηµένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου.
ὅτε ἔλαβε τὸ βιβλίον, τὰ τέσσερα ἵῷα καὶ οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσ-
βύτεροι ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου, " ἔχοντες ἕκαστος } κιθάραν καὶ

(Άργος πανόπτης = starry heaven), 5.Ο. 125, 2088.
0 1.€. οἱ πρεσβ. (loose syntax) ?

aoristic (Blass, § 59, 4).

where the seven spirits are identified with
seven torches, but John is more con-
cerned to express from time to time his
religious ideas than to preserve any homo-
geneity of symbolism (seven eyes simi-
larly varied in Zech. cf. reff.). The in-
consistency cannot, in a writing of this
nature, be taken as evidence of interpola-
tion or of divergent sources, though it
may be an editorial gloss. An analogous
idea underlies Plutarch’s explanation of
the ‘‘ travelling ” power of Isis (Iside, 60),
for which he adduces the old Greek ety-
mology (= knowledge and movement,
θεὸς from θέειν “to run”); and this
etymology in turn (cf. Otto on Theoph.
ad Autolyc. i. 4) reaches back to a star
cultus.—N.B. In the Apoc. apvfov, which
is opposed to θηρίον and is always (ex-
cept xiii. rz f.) used of Jesus, denotes not
only the atoning sacrificial aspect of
Christ (ν. 6, 9 f., 12, xii. 11) but his
triumphant power (horned) over outsiders
(xvii. 14) and his own people (vii. 16 f.),
Neither the diminutive (cf. below, on xii.
17) nor the associations of innocence and
gentleness are to be pressed (cf. Spitta,
Streitfragen der Gesch. F¥esu, 1907,
173 f.). The term becomes almost semi-
technical in the Apocalypse. Asa pre-
Christian symbol, it is quite obscure.
The text and origin of the striking pas-
sage in Test. Ios. xix. do not permit
much more than the inference that the
leader there (a µόσχος) becomes an
ἀμνός, who, supported by Judah the lion,
ἐνίκησεν πάντα τὰ θηρία. The virgin-
birth is probably a Christian interpola-
tion. No sure root for the symbolism
has yet been found in astro-theology
(Jeremias 15 f.). For attempts to trace
back the idea to Babylonian soil, cf.
Hommel in Exp. Times, xiv. 106 f.,
Havet, 324 f., and Zimmern in Schrader,’
5074. One Babylonian text does mention
the blood of the lamb as a sacrificia!
substitute for man, which is all the more
significant as the texts of the cultus are
almost wholly destitute of any allusion
to the significance of the blood in sacri-
fice. But no influence of this on pre-

Dan. vii.

7. Kat ἦλθεν 20 f., viii.
. Ὁ Επ, xc.
8. και 37f., etc.
11. 4, iv. 6,
from

Zech. iv,
IO (ili. ϱ):

eyes=

wae wee - stars
N Viii. 5, Cf. iii. 3, Vii. 14, Xix. 3,
Ρ Xiv. 2, xv. 2.

m iv. 5,

Christian messianism, or of contemporary
cults on this element of Christian sym-
bolism, can be made out from the extant
evidence. In any case, it would merely
supply the form for expressing a reality
of the Christian experience.

Ver. 7. A realistic symbol of the idea
conveyed in John iii. 35, xii. 49, etc.

Ver. 8. A thrill of satisfaction over
Christ’s ability. ‘‘It is the manner of
God thus to endear mercies to us, as he
endeared a wife to Adam. He first
brought all creatures to him, that he
might first see that there was not a help-
meet for him among them” (Goodwin).
John lays dramatic emphasis on ¥esus
only. ἐνωπ. τ. & (as before God him:
self, xix. 4).—y. θ., cf. Soph. Oed. Tyr. 4,
πόλις § ὁμοῦ μὲν θυμµιαµάτων yeper.
An essential feature in the rites of Roman
sacrifice was music played on fibicines ;
the pateva, a shallow saucer or ladle with
a long handle attached, was also em-
ployed to pour wine on the altar. Harps
held by living creatures who had no
hands but only wings, and the colloca-
tion of a harp played by a person who is
at the same time holding a bowl, are
traits which warn us against prosaically
visualising such visions. Hirscht com-
pares the adoration of Rameses II. be-
fore the sun-god, the monarch’s left hand
holding his offering, his right grasping
a sceptre and scourge. The fragrant
smoke of incense rising from the hand
of a worshipper or from an altar in the
primitive cultus (cf. Ezek. vili. 2) to
lose itself in upper air, became a natural
symbol for prayer breathed from earth to
heaven; see Philo’s τὸ καθαρώτατον τοῦ
θύοντος, πνεῦμα λογικόν.- αἱ .. . ἁγίων,
probably an editorial gloss like xix. 8 b,
suggested by the verbal parallel in viii. 3
(so, ¢.g., Spitta, Volter, Briggs, Jilicher,
J. Weiss, Wellhausen, etc.). Contrast
with this verse (and ver. 4) the descrip-
tion of the enthusiastic seamen and pas-
sengers who ‘‘candidati, coronatique,
et tura libantes,” praised and blessed
Augustus in the bay of Puteoli as ‘‘ He
by whom we live, and sail secure, and

356

q Ps. οκ. 2.

r =a, by
false at-
traction.

8 Isa. xlii.
10, Ps.
XXXiii. 3,
cxliv. 9,
etc.

t So xiv. 3,
cf. Judith
XVi. I (A),
13 (15),
Ps. Sol.
iii. 2, etc.,
and Eus.

αὐτοῦ *

u Cf. Isa.
lili. 7.
v See on
1 Cor. vi. 20, and below xiv. 3-4.
cf. 4 Esd. iii. 7.
1 Kings xxii. 19, cf. 1 Pet. iii. 22.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

II. Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα ” φωνὴν ἀγγέλων

wi. 5, cf. 1 Pet. i. 18-19.
y i. 6, Briggs here also would omit the καί.

Vv.

Φιάλας χρυσᾶς γεμούσας θυμιαμάτων [" al εἶσιν at προσευχαὶ τῶν
ἁγίων] ' 9. καὶ " ἄδουσιν ᾠδὴν ἕκαινὴν λέγοντες,
*"Agtos et λαβεῖν τὸ βιβλίον καὶ ἀνοῖξαι τὰς σφραγίδας

ὅτι " ἐσφάγης καὶ " ἠγόρασας τῷ Θεῷ " ἐν τῷ " αἵματί σου,
~ ‘ A
*éx πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους,
10. καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν 7 βασιλείαν καὶ 7 ἱερεῖς :
\z , Ἱ αι πει. melee
καὶ ” βασιλεύσουσιν * ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

πολλῶν κύκλῳ τοῦ

θρόνου καὶ τῶν Lwwv καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν

X vii. 9, fr. Dan. iii. 2, 4, 7,
Ζ XXil. 5. a vii. 11,

1 For βασιλευσοµεν (Pr., vg.), βασιλευσουσιν (XP, 1, min., S., etc., Bg., Ti., Ws.,
Holtzm., Bs., Bj., Briggs, etc.) is preferable to βασιλευουσιν (AQ, min., Syr., Anda,
Lach., Al. Ττ., WH, Sw., Jacoby 448-449) in sense of Matt. ν. 5.

2 After ηκονσα Ti., Tr. (WH marg.), Bj., Sw. add ως (903, min., Syr., Areth.,

etc.).

enjoy our freedom and fortunes”’ (Suet.
Vit. Aug. 98.)

The scene or stage of the apocalyptical
drama 1s occupied by an angelic and
heavenly chorus, who upon this solemn
and glad occasion give their plaudite
or acclamation ,of glory {ο the Lord.
The future which God rules is revealed
by him through Christ ; and this moves
enthusiastic gratitude, till the universe
rings from side to side with praise.

Ver. 9. ᾠδὴν κ. followed (14) by ἀμήν,
as in the worship of the church on earth
(Col. iii. 16, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 16). ὥδουσιν
(historic present) no longer to God as
creator (iv. 11) but to the Lamb as re-
deemer, for the cost and scope and issue
of his redemption. This unique and
remarkable passage in early Christian
literature marks the growing sense and
value attaching to Jesus as being far
more than a mere national messiah, in
fact as the one assurance of God
possessed by men, as their pledge of
bliss and privilege and pardon. And
this is due to his redeeming function,
upon which the relationship of men
to God depends. It is a further stage
of the Christian development when, as
in Asc. Isa. ix. 27-32, the vision and
praise of Jesus is followed by that of
the Holy Spirit (35, 36) and of God
himself (37-42). The prophet John’s
“theolcgy”’ is less advanced. Uni-
versal allegiance and homage paid not,
as in the contemporary sense of the
οἰκουμένη, to a Czsar’s proud preten-

sions, but to the sacrifice of a Christ (see
G. A. Smith, Hist. Geogr. 478, 479) isa
new thing in the world. An undivided
church, gathered from the divisions of
humanity, is also a new and unexpected
development, to which a foil is presented
by the exclusiveness voiced at the annual
Jewish paschal rite, and in the daily
Shema-prayer (‘‘ For Thou hast chosen
us from amongst all nations and tongues.
. . - Blessed be the Lord that chose in
love his people Israel’’). For ἀγοράζειν
(cf. note on i. 5)=the buying of slaves,
cf. Dittenberger’s Orientis Gr. Inscript.
Selectae, 33535.

Ver. το. An allusion not so much to
the idea of xx. 4, where the literal sway
of the saints (=life eternal, in substance)
is confined to a certain section of them,
or to xxii. 5 (on the new earth, cf. xxi.
1), as to ii. 26. Compare the primitive
patristic notion, reflected, ε.σ., by Vict.
oni. 15: adorabimus in loco ubi steterunt
pedes eius, quoniam ubi illi primum stete-
runt et ecclesiam confirmauerunt, i.e., in
Judza, ibi omnes sancti conuenturi sunt
et dominum suum adoraturi. The whole
verse sets aside implicitly such a Jewish
pretension as of Philo, who (de Abrah.
το) hails Israel as the people 6 pot δοκεῖ
τὴν ὑπὲρ παντὸς ἀνθρώπων γένους ἵερω-
σύνην καὶ προφητείαν λαχεῖν.

Ver. ττ. This outer circle of myriads
(the following χιλιάδες is an anti-climax)
of angelic retainers—a favourite trait in
the later Jewish pageants of heaven—does
not address praise directly to the Lamb.

Sus. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

387
pupiddes µυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων, 12. "λέγοντες φωνῇ b From _
µεγάλη, ah ee.

“Αξιός ] ἐστιν τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἐσφαγμένον λαβεῖν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ oy ae
Ἁπλοῦτον καὶ "σοφίαν καὶ ἰσχὺν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν καὶ Hedko- ο Consth

ί ad sens. =
πό λεγοντες.
I Kat wa ί ὁ ερ τῷ οὐ Ω Αα ~ Lge d Rom, x.
as πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ © ὑπο- x2, ti 33
ἢ η ὶ η ο il. iv
κάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα, ἤκουσα το, Eph.
= iii. 8.
eas e Cf. onvii.

a a a 12.
“T@ καθηµένω ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ” καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ Ἰ ἡ εὐλογία καὶ HE vii’ 1,

A ~ -
τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. . Se ary
10, Eph. i.
ν Ακ. 8 21, cf. ver.
3 and Ps. cxlv. 4, Ign. Trall. ix. 1. h Irreg. apposition like xvii. 10, xix. 14, etc. iOn

art. cf. Win. § 18, 42.

‘agtos A (Bg., Ti., WH marg., Ws.), constr. ad sensum [αξιος ει, S.], is prefer-
able to the easier αξιον of 9Ο), min., Syr.

2 rw θρονω AQ, min., Andc (edd.) is preferable to του θρονου of WP, 1, etc., S.,

Areth. (WH text, Bj.).

Ver. 12. For similar arrangements in
Jewish doxologies, see Gfrorer, ii. 146-8 ;
and, for ἰσχ. Ty. δόξ. see Dan. ii. 37
(LXX). τήν groups together the seven
words of the panegyric; honour and
glory and praise are due to one whose
victorious death has won him the power
of bestowing incalculable riches on his
people and of unriddling the future,
against all opposition (Weiss). The
refrain of δύν. is heard in xi. 17, and
δόξα had been already associated with
“wealth” and ‘‘power” (Eph. i. τὸ f.) or
““wisdom”’ (2 Cor. iii. 7 f., iv. 4, etc.) in
Christ (contrast Isa. lili. 2 LXX). The
act of taking the book (ver. 7) suggests
the general authority and prestige of the
Lamb, which is acknowledged in this
doxology. The order in 12, 13 is the same
as in Ps. ΟΙ. 20-22, where the angels
are followed by creation in the worship.
When God's creatures and servants
magnify, praise, and bless him, yielding
themselves to his dominion, and ac-
knowledging that to him all the strength
and wealth and wisdom of life rightly
belong, God is honoured. Christ was
glorified by God (cf. Acts iii. 13, Rom.
vi. 4, John xvii. 1) at the resurrection,
when God’s power raised him to eternal
life; he is glorified by men in their hom-
age and submission to him as the sole
medium of redemption and revelation.

Ver. 13. From the whole creation a
third doxology rises, catching up the last
word (εὐλογίᾳ) of the preceding, and ad-
dressed—as in the primitive and distinc-
tive confessions of early Christianity

(e.g., John xvii. 3, 1 Tim. ii. 5) to God
and Jesus alike (vii. το). In this chorus
of praise (i. 6), by a sweep of the poet’s
imagination, even departed spirits and
sea-monsters (ἐπὶ τ. θαλ., rather than
seafaring men) join—‘‘even all that is
in” earth and sea and heaven (cf. the
title of the sun in the Rosetta inscription
of 196 B.c., péyas βασιλεὺς τῶν τε ἄνω
κ. T. κάτω χωρῶν). Sacrifice is on the
throne of the universe; by dying for
men, Jesus has won the heart and confi-
dence of the world. Thus the praise of
God the creator (ch. iv.) and the praise
of Jesus the redeemer (ch. v.) blend in
one final song, whose closing words indi-
cate that the latter's prestige was not
confined to a passing phase of history.
The crime for which the messiah de-
thrones the rulers (in Enoch xlvi.) is just
‘‘because they do not praise and extol
him, nor thankfully acknowledge whence
the kingdom was bestowed upon them,
. . - because they do not extol the name
of the Lord of Spirits”. In the papyrus
of Ani (E. B. D. 3) Ra is worshipped by
the gods ‘‘who dwell in the heights and
who dwell in the depths ”; whilst Isis and
Osiris, as possessing supreme power,
received honour “‘in the regions under
the earth and in those above ground”
(Plut. de Iside, 27). Compare the fine
rabbinic saying of Rabbi Pinchas and R.
Jochanan on Ps. ο. 2: ‘though all
offerings cease in the future, the offering
of praise alone shall not cease; though
all prayers cease, thanksgiving alone
shall not cease”.

388

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

V. 14—VI1.

‘kal ot πρεσβύ-

ἔλεγον, "''᾽Αμήν

sie το]. 14. Καὶ τὰ τέσσερα Loa
1 Detached τεροι ἔπεσαν καὶ προσεκύνησαν.
Amen’

:γίδων, καὶ

Apol. i. 65, 67. a See v. 5, etc.

VI. 1. ΚΑΙ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὸ ἀρνίον * play " ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ σφρα-
b> EEA > a ~ ς . F
ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἴῷων λέγοντος ὡς φωνὴ

b See v. 11.

1For φωνης (P, 1) read φωνη [harsh ex. of nom. indep.] ACQ,, etc., And., Areth.

Ἡσ Παος. dice ar, Ες.

Ver. 14. The prologue is brought to
a splendid close by ‘‘amen” from the
four £@a, who have the last as they had
the first word (iv. 8), followed by silent
adoration from the πρεσβύτεροι. As in
the liturgical practice of early Christian
assemblies, so in the celestial court, the
solemn chant of praise to God is suc-
ceeded by the “amen” (‘ad similitu-
dinem tonitrui ... amen reboat,” Jerome) ;
Φ, Areth:, etc. “AIL, bring this out by
reading here τὸ ᾽Αμήν. By prefacing the
struggle on earth (vi. f.) with a vision of
the brilliant authority and awe of heaven
(ν., v.), the prophet suggests that all the
movements of men on earth, as well as
the physical catastrophes which overtake
them, are first fore-shadowed in heaven
(the underlying principle of astrology, cf.
Jeremias, 84 f.) and consequently have
a providential meaning. In ἵν., v. the
writer takes his readers behind the scenes;
the whole succeeding tide of events is
shown to flow from the will of God as
creator of the universe, whose executive
authority is delegated to Jesus the re-
deemer of his people. This tide breaks
in two cycles of seven waves, the seventh
(viii. 1) of the first series (vi. 1-vii. 17)
issuing in a fresh cycle (viii. 2-xi. 19) in-
stead of forming itself (as we should ex-
pect) the climax of these preliminary
catastrophes in nature and humanity,
disasters which were interpreted (R. F.
237-239) as the premonitory outbursts of
an angry deity ready to visit the earth
with final punishment. Observe that
throughout the Apocalypse wind and fire
are among God’s scourges handled by
angels in order to punish the earth and
the waters, according to the conception
preserved in Apol. Arist. 2: ‘ Moreover,
the wind is obedient to God, and fire
to the angels; the waters also to the
daemons, and earth to the sons of men”
(Ante-Nicene Library, ix. 257 f.). The
visitation is divinely complete, sevenfold
like Ezekiel’s oracles against the nations
(xxv.-xxxii.). Apoc. vi.-ix. has, for its
staple, little more than a _ poetic ela-
boration of Mark xiii. 8 (cf. 24, 25),

Diist., Bj. [φωνῃ 7, 87, 93, WH, Sw. Ws.)

international complications due to the
scuffling and strife of peoples, and
physical disasters as a fit setting for
them.

The vision of the seven seals opened
(vi. I-viii. 2): vi. 1, 2, a Parthian inva-
sion.

CHAPTER VI.—Ver.1. The command
or invitation ἔρχου is not addressed to
Christ (as xxii. 17. 20). If addressed to.
the seer, it is abbreviated from the
ordinary rabbinic phrase (weni et uide)
used to excite attention and introduce
the explanation of any mystery. The
immediate sequel (omitted only in
ver. 4), καὶ εἶδον, does not, however,.
forbid the reference of ἔρχου to the
mounted figures ; hearing the summons,
John looked to see its meaning and result.
The panorama of these four dragoons.
(“ad significandum iter properum cum
potentia ”) is partly sketched from Semi-
tic folk-lore, where apparitions of horse-
men (ο. 2 Macc. iii. 25, etc. s) ‘the
Beduins always granted me that none
living had seen the angel visions. . .
the meleika are seen in the air like horse-
men, tilting to and fro,’ Doughty, Arab.
Deserta, i. 449) have been a frequent
omen of the end (cf. ¥os. Bell. vi. 5:
Sth. Or. iii. 796), partly reproduced from
(Persian elements in) Zech. i. 7 f,, vi.
1-8, in order to bring out the disasters (cf.
Jer. xiv. 12, xxi. 7) prior to the last day.
The direct sources of vi. and ix. lie in
Lev. xxvi. 19-26; Ezek. xxxili. 27, xxxiv..
28 f., and Sir. XXXxix. 29, 30 (“fire and
hail and famine and θάνατος, all these
are created for vengeance; teeth of wild
beasts and scorpions and serpents and a
sword taking vengeance on the impious
to destroy them”). An astral background,
in connection with the seven tables of
destiny in Babylonian mythology, each
of which was dedicated to a planet of a
special colour, has been conjectured by
Renan (472); cf. Chwolson’s Die Ssabier,
ili. 658, 671, 676 f. For other efforts to:
associate these horsemen with the winds
or the πας see Jeremias (pp. 24 f.).
and Μ. W. Miller in Zeitr. f. d. neutest..

—5-

βροντὴς, ° “"Epxou”’.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

‘ . “| 5
2. Kat εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος “λευκός, καὶ © *¥!

389

Vel es
i

κ ‘ A \ ed
6 καθήµενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔχων "τόξον ' καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στέφανος, καὶ να

ἐξῆλθε νικῶν καὶ ἵνα νικήση.

g Cf. on iii. 9.

Wiss. (1907), 290-316. But the proofs
are fanciful and vague, though they
converge upon the view that the colours
of the steeds at least had originally
some planetary significance. The series,
as usual, is divided into the first four
and the second three members. The
general contents of vi. 1-8 denote various
but not successive phases of woe (only
too familiar to inhabitants of the astern
provinces) which were to befall the em-
pire and the East during the military
convulsions of the final strife between
Rome and Parthia. The ‘‘ primum omen,”
for John as for Vergil, is a white horse,
ridden by an archer.

Ver. 2. White = royal and victorious
colour, cf. the white horse of the Persian
kings (Philostr. Vit. Ap. i.). The tri-
umphant figure of the mounted bowman
is by no means to be identified with that
of the Christian messiah or of the gospel.
It would be extremely harsh and con-
fusing to represent the messiah as at once
the Lamb opening the seal and a figure
independently at work. The initial period
of the gospel was not one of irresistible
triumph, and matters have become too
acute for John to share the belief voiced
in Mark xiii. 10. Besides, the messiah
could hardly be described as preceding
the signs of his own advent, nor would
he be on the same plane as the following
figures. The vision is a tacit antithesis,
not an anticipation, of xix. 11 f.; the
triumph of the world which opens the
drama is rounded off by an infinitely
grander triumph won by Christ.—vicov
κ. κ.τ.λ. John was too open-eyed to
ignore the fact that other forces, besides
the Christian gospel, had a success of
their own on earth. What is this force?
Not the Roman Empire, as if the four
steeds represented the first four emperors
(so, variously, Renan, Spitta, Weiz-
sacker), but a raid of the Parthians (so
most edd. from Vitringa to Erbes, Vdlter,
Holtzm., Bousset, Bruston, Ramsay,
Scott), which represented war in its

VOL. V.

3. Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγ- 4
Sa τὴν δευτέραν, ἤκουσα τοῦ δευτέρου ζῴου λέγοντος, '΄ Ερχου”..

4. Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἄλλος ἵππος πυρρός *
ἐδόθη αὐτῷ λαβεῖν τὴν εἰρήνην ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ 5ἵνα Ἡ ἀλλήλους ε
Εσφάξουσιν ' καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ µάχαιρα µεγάλη.

40.
Sib. Or.
iii. 176,
Verg.
be EMER an ca Aen. iti-
καὶ τῷ καθηµένω ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν 537f.
‘ t -
(Servius),
am. λεγ.

ate iar,
5. Καὶ ore ¢ xii. 3, an.
λεγ.

h Mk, xiii. 8, etc., Ap. Bar. Ixx. 3, 4 Esd. vi. 24, xiii. 31, Sib, Or. ii. 156.

most dreaded form for inhabitants of the
Eastern provinces. There is no need to
find any definite reference to the raid of
Vonones (Wetstein) or of Vologesus who
invaded Syria in 61-63 Α.Ρ. The simple
point of the vision is that the Parthians
would be commissioned to make a suc-
cessful foray, carrying all before them.
The bow was the famous and dreaded
weapon of these oriental cavalry ;
Νικήτωρ was a title of Seleucus, and
νικητής of the Persian satrap. One
plausible hypothesis (developed by Erbes):
refers the basis of the seal-visions to (a)
the triumphs of Augustus and Tiberius,
(6) the bloody feuds in Palestine under
Caligula, (c) the famine in Syria under
Claudius (Ac. xi.), (d) the subsequent
pestilence, (6) the Neronic martyrs, and
(7) the agitations of the empire under
Galba, etc. (for portents cf. Plin. Ef. vi.
16, 20; Tacit. Hist. i. 4). Buta similar
collocation of portents is found in the
reign of Titus; and apart from the mis-
interpretation of the first seal, it is arbi-
trary and jejune to suppose that this
prophet’s splendid, free reading of provi-
dence was laboriously spelt out from
details of more or less recent history.

Vv. 3, 4. The second seal opened :
A swordsman representing (red = martial
colour) war and bloodshed, “is permitted
to make men slay one another”. The
allusion to the merciless weapon (Plut.
de Iside, 11) of the sword as Rome’s
national arm thus places the Parthian
and Roman empires side by side (τῆς
γῆς generally, not Judaea in particular),
but the vision of war is also connected
directly with the two following visions
of famine (5, 6) and mortality (from pesti-
lence, 7, 8). The seven punishments
drawn up by rabbinic theology (Pirke
Aboth, v. 11 f.) were: three kinds of
famine, pestilence, noisome beasts, and
captivity or exile.

Vv. 5, 6, The third seal opened =
famine.

Ver. 5. The spectral figure of Hunger

25

~

390

1 Cf. Lam.
iv. 8-9
(blood-
lessness) :

“"Epxou’”’.

αἰανής
and αἶθοψ
for λιμός.
k Prov. xvi.
x1, Ezek.
iv. 16, v.
1, xlv. το.
κ ἡμερή-
σιος
τροφή
(Diog.
Laert. 8,
18, cf. Herod. vii. 251).

aor. of prohibition. ο Hom. II. viii. 479.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

πι ” ~ ~
αὐτὸν ἔχων "ζυγὸν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ.

τετάρτου ζώου λέγοντος, '' Ἔρχου '.

m Gen. price (Sc. πωλεῖται): cf. Matt. xx. 2.

Vi.

» ‘ a , ~

ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν τρίτην, ἤκουσα τοῦ τρίτου ζώου λέγοντος,
A ° 5

Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος µέλας, καὶ 6 καθήµενος ἐπ᾽

6. καὶ ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν

> / A , ΄
ἐν µέσω τῶν τεσσάρων ζωων λέγουσαν,
1 a , A ~
“ Xotveg σίτου ™ δηναρίου, καὶ τρεῖς Χοίνικες κριθῶν * δηναρίου *
‘ x ελ ‘ BY 3 \ 2 ah} / ”.
και το εΛαιον και τον οινον μη α ικησης.

7. Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγίδα τὴν τετάρτην, ἤκουσα φωνὴν τοῦ

8. καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος

A ~ ~
°xAwpds, kal 6 καθήµενος ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ 6 Θάνατος
2

n Thuc. ii. 71, iv. 98,

2 Read avtw (NVQ, 5, Απά., Areth., Tr. marg.: cf. xiv. 4, 9, xix. 14) for per αντου
(edd.), and, after εδοθη, avtw (Q, min., vss., Bg., Bs.) for the correction αντοις

(SACP, edd.).
second, third, and fourth riders (Wellh.)].

‘holds a balance or pair of scales (ζ. liter-
ally = the beam, see reff.) for measuring
‘bread by weight, to personify (ver. 6)
bad times, when provisions became
cruelly expensive. One χοῖνιξ of wheat,
the usual rations of a working man
for a day, is to cost twelve times its
normal price, while the labourer’s daily
pay will not command more than an
eighth of the ordinary twenty-four mea-
sures of the coarser barley. Grain is
not to disappear entirely from the earth,
otherwise there would be no famine.
But food-stuffs are to be extremely scanty
and therefore dear (cf. Lev. xxvi. 26; Ezek.
iv. 16). These hard times are aggravated
(καὶ adversative) by the immunity of
oil and wine, which are, comparatively
speaking, luxuries. One exasperating
feature of the age would be the sight of
wine and oil flowing, while grain trickled
slowly into the grasp of the famishing.
The best explanation of this realistic
exception is to regard it as a water-mark
of the Domitianic date (for details see
the present writer’s study in Expos. Oct.
1908, 359-369). In 92 Α.Ρ. Domitian had
made a futile attempt to injure the cultiva-
tion of the vine in the provinces, which
led to widespread agitation throughout
Ionia. His edict had soon to be with-
drawn, but not till it had roused fear and
anger. Hence the words hurt not the
wine have the force of a local allusion to
what was fresh in his readers’ minds.
The point of the saying lies in the recent
events which had stirred Smyrna and the
surrounding townships, and which pro-
vided the seer with a bit of colour for his
palette as he painted the final terrors.

[In any case, the avrots refers to Death and Hades, not to the

It is as if he grimly said: ‘“* Have no
fears for your vines! There will be no
Domitian to hurt them. Comfort your-
selves with that. Only, it will be small
comfort to have your liquid luxuries
spared and your grain reduced almost to
starvation point.” Or, the prophet’s
meaning might be that the exemption
of the vine would only pander to drunken-
ness and its attendant ills. The addition
of τὸ ἔλαιον is probably an artistic em-
bodiment, introduced in order to fill out
the sketch. The cultivation of the olive
accompanied that of the vine, and the
olive meant smooth times. It is no era
of peace; far from that, the prophet im-
plies. But the olive, “the darling of
Peace” (as Vergil calls it), flourishes un-
checked, so mocking and awry are the
latter days. For ἀδικεῖν = “injure” (a
country), see reff., vii. 2, and Dittenber-
ger’s Sylloge Inscr. Graec. 557. This
Domitianic reference of vi. 6 was first
worked out by S. Reinach (Revue Arch-
éolog. 1g01, 350 f.) and has been accepted
by Harnack, Heinrici, Bousset, J. Weiss,
Abbott, Holtzmann, Baljon, and others.
There is no allusion to Jos. Bell. v. 13, 6,
or to the sparing of gardens during the
siege of Jerusalem (S. Krauss, in
Preuschen’s Zeitschrift, 1909, 81-89).

Vv. 7, 8. The fourth seal opened.
pestilence and mortality.

Ver. 8. χλωρός, pale or livid as a
corpse.—émavw αὐτοῦ, for the ordinary
ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, a grammatical variation which
has no special significance. In this
Dureresque vignette the spectre of Hades,
bracketed here as elsewhere with Death,
accompanies the latter to secure his booty

6—10.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

39°

σ ~ ~ .
καὶ 6 Άδης Ἱ ἠκολούθει Ἡ αὐτῷ ' καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ἐπὶ τὸ i. 18, xx.

/ a lol 3 a r3 ς / κ 3 a \ >
τέταρτον τῆς γῆς ἀποκτεῖναι "ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν λιμῷ καὶ ἐν
"θανάτω καὶ ' ὑπὸ τῶν θηρίων τῆς γῆς.

= = q
τὴν πέµπτην σφραγῖδα, εἶδον ὑποκάτω τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τὰς " ψυχὰς

13-14,
Hos. xiii.
14, Isa.
XVili. 5.
Xiv. 13, cf.
Luke ix.

g. Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε

A = A 49.
τῶν ἐσφαγμένων " διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τὴν " µαρτυρίαν τ Instrum.

ἣν εἶχον, 10. καὶ ἔκραξαν φωνῇ µεγάλη, λέγοντες, '΄ Ἔως πότε, ὁ

pestilence (LXX).

of victims. So Nergal, the Babylonian
Pluto, is not content with ruling the
regions of the dead but appears as an
active personification of violent destruc-
tion, especially pestilence and war, in-
flicting his wounds on large masses rather
than on individuals (Jastrow, 66,67). A
similar duality of conception, local and
personal, obtained in Semitic and Hel-
lenic mythology (cf. ε.ρ., ix. II); only,
Death is not here personified as an angel
(with Jewish theology, cf. Eisenmenger’s
Eindecktes ud. i. 854 f., 862 f.). As the
chief partner in this grim league, he is
given destructive power over a certain
quarter of the earth (τὸ τέτ. colloquially) ;
his agents are the usual apocalyptic
scourges (cf, Ezek. xiv. 21, Ps. Sol. xiii.
2f., with Plut. Istde, 47 for the Iranian
expectation of λοιμὸς καὶ λιμός as inflic-
tions of Ahriman) against which the Jew-
ish evening prayer was directed (“keep
far from us the enemy, the pestilence, the
sword, famine and affliction”). War,
followed by famine which bred pestilence,
was familiar in Palestine (Jos. Antiq. xv.
g) during the first century Α.Ρ. Indeed
throughout the ancient world war and
pestilence were closely associated, while
wild beasts multiplied and preyed on
human life, as the land was left untilled.
In Test. Naphth. 8, etc., Beliar is the
captain of wild beasts. Note that the
prophet sees only the commissions, not
the actual deeds, of these four dragoons:
not until vi. 12 f. does anything happen.
The first four seals are simply arranged
on the rabbinic principle (Sohar Gen. fol.
91), “ quodcunque in terra est, id etiam in
coelo est, et nulla res tam exigua est in
mundo quae non ab alia simili quae in
coelo est dependeat”. The four plagues
(a Babylonian idea) are adapted from
Ezek. xiv. 12 f. Contemporary disasters
which may have lent vividness to the
sketch are collected by Renan (pp. 323 f.).

Vv. g-11. The fifth seal opened.

Ver. 9. The scene changes from earth
to heaven, which appears as a replica of
the earthly temple with its altar of burnt
offering. As the blood of sacrifices flowed

t Rare with act. verb.

« Abbott,
Diat.
23324.

5 xvili. 8;=

u xx. 4 (cf. Heb. xii. 23). ν 1. 9, Xii. 17.

at the base of the altar (xvi. 7), the blood

representing the life, the symbolism is
obvious. It was mediated by rabbinic
ideas of the souls of the just (e.g., of

Moses) resting under the divine throne

of glory; cf. R. Akiba’s saying, “' qui-

cumque sepelitur in terra Israel, perinde
est ac si sepeliretur sub altari : quicumque
autem sepelitur sub altari, perinde est
ac si sepeliretur sub throno gloriae”’

(Pirke Aboth, 26). The omission of

᾿Ιησοῦ after µ. may suggest that the

phrase is intended to include not so
much the heroic Jews who fell in the
defence of their temple against Rome

(Weyland) as pre-Christian Jewish mar-

tyrs (cf. Heb. xi. 39, 40) who are raised

to the level of the Christian church, and
also those Jews who had been martyred
for refusing to worship the emperor (cf.

vii. 9, xvil. 6, and Jos. B. F. vii. το, 1).

But the primary thought of the Christian

prophet is for Rome’s latest victims in

the Neronic persecution and the recent
enforcement of the cultus under Domi-
tian. The general idea is derived from

Zech. i. 12, Ps. Ixxix. 10, and En. xxii. 5

(‘‘and I saw the spirits of the children

of men who were dead, and their voice

penetrated to the heaven and com-
plained,” from the first division of Sheol).

Ver. 10. Like Clem. Rom., John is
fond of δεσπότης as implying the divine

might and majesty (3 Macc. ili. 29, v. 28).

This severe and awe-inspiring concep-

tion (cf. Philo, quis rer. div. haer. 6) means

that God will vindicate his holiness, which
had been outraged by the murder of the
δοῦλοι for whom he is responsible. In
contemporary pagan religions through-
out Asia Minor, the punishment of
wrong-doing is often conceived in the
same way, οἱδ., as the answer to the
sufferer’s appeal (cf. Introd. § 2), not
simply as a spontaneous act of divine
retribution. ‘“ How long wilt thou refrain
from charging and avenging our blood

upon (ἐκ as in 1 Sam. xxiv. 13, Ps. xlii. 1)

those who dwell on the earth” (i.e.,

pagans)? The bleeding heart of primitive

Christendom stands up and cries, “I

392

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

Vi.

Ww =oBepos " δεσπότης 6 ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός, οὐ * κρίνεις καὶ "ἐκδικεῖς τὸ 7 αἷμα.

κύριος
(Philo),
Plato,
Buthyd. ἑκάστῳ " στολὴ * λευκή, καὶ
302: cf.

on Luke

ii. 29, Acts iv. 24, Did. x. 3, Dan. iii. 37, ix. 8, etc.
i Ziii. 4, 5, 18.

2, Deut. xxxii. 43, etc. y John xvi. 2.

have suffered”. For ἐκδικεῖν αἷμα cf.
Dittenberger’s Sylloge Inscript. Graec.
816" (1 cent. A.D.) ἵνα ἐγδικήσῃς τὸ
αἷμα τὸ ἀναίτιον, etc.; for ἐκδ. ἐκ. (=

Ὢ) of vengeance, cf. Luke xviii. 3-8

(ἀπὸ), a close parallel in thought, though
this pathetic, impatient thirst for blood-
revenge, which has “the full drift of
Ps. xciv. below it” (Selwyn) is inferior
not only to r Peter ii. 23 but to the
synoptic wail. The Jewish atmosphere
is unmistakable (cf. 2 Macc. vii. 36; also
Deissmann’s Licht vom Osten, 312 f.), but
this does not mean that the passage was
necessarily written by a Jew. In that
case we should have expected some allu-
sion to the vicarious, atoning power of
the martyrs’ death (R. ¥. 181). The
prophet evidently anticipated further
persecution, since he wrote on the
verge of the end precipitated by the
Domitianic policy (cf. on ii. 13). Such
persecution follows natural disturbances,
as in the synoptic apocalypse (Matt.
(xxiv. 6-7, 21 f.), but the outline of the
fifth seal is taken from Enoch, where
(xlvii.) the prayer and blood of the mar-
tyred saints ‘‘rise from the earth before
the Lord of Spirits,” while the angels
rejoice that such blood has not been shed
in vain. In En. xevii. 3-5 the prayer of
the righteous for vengeance overtakes
their persecutors on the day of judgment
with woeful issues (xcix. -3, 16). ‘‘ Per-
sist in your cry for judgment, and it shall
appear unto you; for all your tribula-
tion will be visited on the rulers, and on
all their helpers, and on those who
plundered you” (civ. 3, cf. xxii. 6, 7,
where Abel’s spirit complains of Cain).—
κατ. κ.τ.λ. always in Apocalypse op-
posed to the saints, almost as ‘‘the
world’”’ to ‘the pious”’ in modern phrase-
ology. This usage is largely paralleled
by that of the Noachic interpolations in
Enoch (see Charles on xxxvii. 5), where
the phrase has either unfavourable or
neutral associations. ἅγιος here (as
John xvii. 11= Did. x. 3, πανάγιος Clem.
Rom. xxxv. 3, lviii. 1) applied by a com-
paratively rare usage (1 Peter i. 15 and
Apoc. iy. 8 being dependent on O.T.) to
ποά, whose intense holiness must be

ε Αα 5 A , 9/5 ol a ”” Ν 2S > “~
ημῶν ἐκ TOV κατοικούντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; II. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς
a> / 3 A 9 > , 5

ἐρρέθη αυτοις ινα αναπαυσωνται ETL

x 2 Kings ix. 7, 2 Chron. xxiv. 22, cf. Hab. i.
a As ix. 4 for ἐρρήθη Attic.

in antagonism to the evil and contradic
tions of the world (Titius, 9-11).

Ver. 11. The white robe assigned each
(Blass, § 32, 4) of these martyr-spirits as
a pledge of future and final glory (vii. 9)
and a consoling proof that no judgment
awaited them (xx. 4-6), is a favourite gift
in the Jewish heaven (cf. Enoch Ἰκι.
15 f., and Asc. Isa. ix. 24 f.). The inter-
mediate state was a much debated ques-
tion in apocalyptic literature, and early
Christian thought fluctuates between the
idea of a provisional degree of bliss (as.
here and, e.g., Clem. Rom. i. 3, “those
who by God's grace have been perfected
in love possess the place of the pious,.
and they shall be manifested at the visit-
ation of God’s kingdom”) and a direct,
full entrance into heavenly Ρτϊνί]εσες---
especially, though neither uniformly nor
exclusively, reserved for martyrs (Clem.
Rom. v., Polyk. ad Phil. ix. 2, Heb. xii.
23, etc.); cf. Titius, 44-46. A cognate
idea is reproduced in Asc. Isa. ix. 6 f.,
where in the seventh heaven Abel, Enoch
and the Jewish saints appear all clothed
‘in the garments of the upper world’
(i.e., in their resurrection-bodies) but not.
yet in full possession of their privileges,
not yet seated on their thrones or wear-
ing their crowns of glory. These are not.
theirs, till Christ descends to earth and
ascends to heaven again.—‘And they
were told to rest (or wait quietly) for a
little while yet,’’ as they had been doing
till the successive shocks of providence
stirred them to an outburst of eager and
reproachful anticipation. To rest implies.
to cease crying for vengeance (cf. iv. 8).
Gfrorer (ii. 50) cites a rabbinic tradition
that the messiah would not come until

all souls in ape (an intermediate resting-.

place of the departed?) were clothed’
with bodies. ἕως κ.τ.λ., this is closely
and curiously reproduced, not so much
from ideas preserved in the contemporary
Apoc. Bar. xxiii. 4, 5 (where the end of”
the world comes when the predestined
number of human beings is completed) as.
from the religious tradition also used in
Clem. Rom. ii., lix., Justin (Afo/. i. 45),
and the contemporary 4th Esdras (iv.
36 f., quoniam in statera ponderauit»

11-14.

χρόνον μικρόν, ἕως πληρωθῶσιν }

° ἀδελφοὶ ὃ αὐτῶν ot µέλλοντες * ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί.
Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγίδα τὴν ἕκτην ' καὶ "σεισμὸς μέγας For
ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ἐγένετο ; µέλας ὡς σάκκος “τρίχινος, καὶ ἡ
σελήνη ὅλη ἐγένετο ὡς αἷμα, 13. καὶ οἱ " ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
ἔπεσαν eis τὴν γῆν, ὡς συκῆ βάλλει τοὺς * dduvOous αὐτῆς ὑπὸ

ἀνέμου μεγάλου σειοµένη΄ 14.

form, cf. Helbing, 73-74.
Dio Cass. Ixvi. 23, etc.

f Isa. xiii. το, 1. 3,
g am. λεγ. N.T.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀπεχωρίσθη ὡς

395

~ A
καὶ ol σύνδουλοι badT@y καὶ oLb Note

repet. of
poss. gen.
1X. 21.

12.

ethnic
use (=
fellows of
same
religious
commun-
ity) cf.
6. Β.Ε.α.
96 f.

d On Aeolic

€ Vili. 5, xi. 13, Xvi. 18, Matt. xxiv. 7, 4 Esd. vi. 14, Ap. Bar. Ixx. 8,
Joel ii. 3, 10, 30-31. Matt. xxiv. 29, Ass. Mos. x. 4 f.
h Isa, xxxiv. 4, Ezek. xxxil. 7-8, cf. Sib. Or. iii. 82, viii. 238, 413 (190).

1 For πληρωσονται (Areth.) read πληρωθωσιν (AC, 29, vg., S., Cypr., Bg., Diist..
Lach., WH, Ws., Bj., Sw., Bs.) [πληρωσωσιν SPQ, etc., And., Ti., Al. Tr.,

Holtzm.).

saecula et mensura mensurauit tempora
et non commouit nec excitauit, usquedum
impleatur praedicta mensura... quando
impletus fuerit numerus similium uobis)
which thinks not of mankind but of the
righteous (cf. Apoc. Bar. xxx. 2, and
Heb. xi. 40). The atmosphere of this
belief goes back to the first century B.c.,
as in Enoch (xlvii., cf. ix. xxii.) “and the
hearts of the holy were filled with joy
that the number of righteousness had
drawn nigh, and the prayer of the right-
eous was heard, and the blood of the
tighteous required, before the Lord of
Spirits” (cf. below, ch. xi. 15 f.). The
thought is repeated in Ep. Lugd. from
this passage (‘‘day by day those who
were worthy were seized, filling up their
number, so that all the zealous people
and those through whom our affairs here
had been especially established, were
collected out of both churches’). It
had been already developed otherwise
in 4th Esdras ‘iv. 35 f., where the seer’s
impatience for the end is rebuked and
God’s greater eagerness asserted. ‘‘ Did
not the souls of the righteous question
thus in their chambers, saying, ‘ How
long are we still to stay here ? et quando
ueniet fructus ‘areae mercedis nostrae? ’
And the archangel Jeremiel answered
them and said, ‘When the number of
your fellows is complete’.” Substituting
martyrs for the righteous, the author of
our Apocalypse has exploited the idea
thus familiar to him as a devout Jew;
his first four visions come mainly through
Zechariah ; for the next he adapts this
later post-exilic notion. The Neronic
victims and their fellows occupied in his
mind the place filled by the early Jewish
saints in the reverent regard of contem-
porary Jews. As Renan notices (317 f.),

this thirst for vengeance was in the
air after Nero’s death, shared even by
Romans; one legend (Suet. Nero, xlviii.,
Dio, Cass. lxili. 28) told how, as Nero
fled to his last retreat, during a thunder-
peal the souls of his victims burst from
the earth and flung themselves upon
him.—As the safety of the physical uni-
verse rested on the safety of the right-
eous, according to the Jewish notion, so
any massacres of the latter at once affected
the stability of the world. Hence the
sequence of vv. rr and 12 {. There is no
hint that these physical aberrations were
temporary. Yet the following catastro-
phes (vii. f.) plainly presuppose a universe
in its original and normal condition. It
depends upon the theory adopted of the
book whether this points merely to such
discrepancies as are not unfamiliar in
literature (especially imaginative litera-
ture), or to recapitulation, or to the pre-
sence of different sources.

Vv. 12-17. The sixth seal opened (cf.
Crashaw’s Το the Name of F¥esus, 220-
234).

1 12-14. The earthquake (reff.), dar-
kening of sun by atmospheric disturb-
ances, (Verg. Georg. i. 463 f., Lucan i.
75 f.,522f. Compare Ass. Mos. x. 4 f.:
et tremebit terra. Usque ad fines suas
concutietur . . . sol non dabit lumen et
in tenebras conuertet se, etc.; for Baby-
lonian background cf. Schrader,® 392
f.), reddening of the full moon as in a
total eclipse (cf. reff.), the dropping of
stars, the removal of the sky, and the
displacement of mountain and island
(En. i. 6, see below on xiv. 20) are all
more or less stereotyped features of the
physical situation in apocalyptic eschat-
ology, where naturally (cf. Jos. Bell. iv.
4, 5) agonies and distortions of the uni-

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ γι.

394

- : - - a ,
i Jer. iv. 24, βιβλίον ἑλισσόμενον, ‘kat πᾶν ὄρος καὶ νῆσος] ἐκ τῶν τόπων
Ezek.

see 2 A > , = ‘ ς al a“ ~ ‘ ε k
XXXviiil. αὐτῶν ἐκινήθησαν 15. και οι βασι εις της γῆς καὶ οἱ ΄ µεγισ-
20, Nah. - ‘ C405 | , ‘ ς m , SN ς Ἡἃ ‘ ‘ -
i.5, cf. TGves καὶ οἱ Χιλίαρχοι καὶ οἱ '' πλούσιοι καὶ οἱ ἰσχυροὶ καὶ πᾶς

ΕΙ. να ο |.
Οµαες.ῖν. δοῦλος καὶ ἐλεύθερος
26. , A ο 2 ρ

k xviii. 23 πέτρας τῶν " ὀρέων, 16.
= the
Parthian

chiefs (Macedonian term)? cf. Dan. v. 23, LXX, Ps. Sol. ii. 36. C §
n From Hos. x. 8, Isa. ii. ro f., vi. 16, Ezek. xxxix. 17-20, Luke xxiil. 30;

m Jas. v. 1.

a characteristic of the wicked in En. xcvii. 3, 6. 4, cil. I.

cf. Helbing, 41.

‘ > A
3 έκρυψαν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς

n ‘ / λα ‘ a“ /
καὶ λέγουσι τοῖς ὄρεσι καὶ ταῖς πέτραις,

1 On form see Win. § 8, 9.

o For uncontracted form,

1 The πασα prefixed to νησος by S. smoothes out the constr. of παν.

verse precede some divine punishment of
men (Verg. Georg. i. 365 f.).

Vv. 15-17. Note the sevenfold descrip-
tion of the effect produced on humanity
(xix. 18, cf. xiii. 16), the Roman χιλίαρχοι
(=tribuni), the riches and rank of men
(tox. a dramatic touch =defiant authority,
like Mrs. Browning’s Lucifer: ‘ strength
to behold him and not worship him,
Strength to be in the universe and yet
Neither God nor God’s servant’’; see
especially Ps. Sol. xv. 3, 4), the dis-
tinction of slaves and free as a pagan,
never as an internal Christian, division;
also the painting of the panic from O.T.
models (reff.). Those who are now the
objects of dread, cower and fly to the crags
and caves—a common sanctuary in Syria
(cf. Introd. § 8). Mr. Doughty describes
a meteoric shock in Arabia thus:
‘Ca thunder-din resounded marvellously
through the waste mountain above us;
it seemed as if this world went to wrack.
κ... The most in the mejlis were of
opinion that a ‘star’ had fallen’’ (Ar.
Des. i. 462, 463). The Hosean citation
(cf. Jer. viii. 3) here, as in Luke, gives
powerful expression to the dread felt by
an evil conscience; even the swift agony
of being crushed to death is preferable to
being left face to face with the indigna-
tion of an outraged God. To stand (cf.
Luke xxi. 36) is to face quietly the
judgment of God (1 John ii. 28), which
is impossible except after a life which
has resolutely stood its ground (Eph. vi.
13) amid reaction and served God (Apoc.
vi. Το, 11). The panic of kings, etc., is
taken from the description of the judg-
ment in Enoch Ikxii.-lxiii., where before
the throne of messiah ‘the mighty and
the kings” in despairing terror seek
repentance in vain; ‘‘and one portion of
them will look on the other, and they
will be terrified, and their countenance
will fall, and pain will seize them,” at
the sight of messiah. In Apoc. Bar. xxv.

also the approach of the end is heralded
by stupor of heart and despair among
the inhabitants of the earth, while a
similar stress falls (in Sap. vi. 1-9) on
kings, etc., and (in En. xxxvii.-lxxi.
generally) on the earth’s rulers. There
is no need to suspect kat... G@pviov
(16) as an editorial gloss (Vischer, Spitta,
Weyland, de Faye, V6lter, Pfleiderer, von
Soden, Rauch, J. Weiss, Briggs) ; it may
be a characteristic touch designed to
point the Ο.Τ. citation (for αὐτοῦ in 17
or in xxii. 3 cf. 1 Thess. iii. 11, 2 Thess.
ii. 16, 17), rather than a scribal or editorial
insertion in what was originally a Jewish
source.

The great day of God’s wrath has
come, but the action is interrupted by an
entre-acte in vii., where as in x. I-xi. 13,
the author introduces an intermezzo be-
tween the sixth and the seventh members
of the series. A change comes over the
spirit of his dream. But although this
oracle is isolated by form and content
from its context, it is a consoling rhap-
sody or rapture designed to relieve the
tensicn by lifting the eyes of the faithful
over the foam and rocks of the rapids on
which they were tossing to the calm,
sunlit pool of bliss which awaited them
beyond. They get this glimpse before
the seventh seal is opened with its fresh
cycle of horrors. The parenthesis con-
sists of two heterogeneous visions, one
(1-8) on earth and one (9-17) in heaven.
The former (and indeed the whole see
tion, cf. the ἑστῶτες of g) is an implic#
answer to the query of vi. 17, τίς δύναται
σταθῆναι; it is an enigmatic fragment of
apocalyptic tradition, which originally
predicted (cf. Ezek. ix. 1 f.) God's safe-
guarding of a certain number of Jews,
prior to some catastrophe of judgment
(‘Cry havoc, and let slip the winds of
war!’’) upon the wicked. The chapter
is nota literary unit with editorial touches
(Weyland, Erbes, Bruston, Rauch), nor is

15—I7. ΑΠΟΕΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 395
“ Técete ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ κρύψατε ἡμᾶς p (Luke
ή 3 BC 4 A ; XXlil. 30),
ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ καθηµένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, tii 14,
ο ea a > A ae) , Nah. i. 6,
καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου, ο...
eo e ie , ς , a 3 a aA Ze Bi i.
17. Pore ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ µεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς adtod,} Eee ate,
q Win. § 14,

‘ , δ , q - ”
καὶ τίς δύναται 3 σταθῆναι ;

4:

αυτων (NC, 35, vg., Syr., S., Haym., etc., Ti., Tr., WH, Sw., Bj.) is an emen-
dation of the original and difficult αυτου (APQ, min., Me., Arm., Aeth., And.,

Areth., Pr., Lach., Al., Ws., Bs.).

g-17 acontinuation of vi. (Spitta). Vv.
1-8 are a Jewish fragment incorporated
by the author} who writes 9-17 himself
(so, ε.ρ., Vischer, Pfleiderer, Schmidt,
Porter, Bousset, von Soden, Scott, Well-
hausen). The fact that a selection, and
not the whole, of the Jews are preserved,
does not (in view of 4 Esdras) prove
that a Jewish Christian (Volter, J. Weiss)
must have written it. The scenery is
not organic to John’s proper outlook.
After ver. 8 he shows no further interest
in it. The winds are never loosed.
The sealing itself is not described. The
sealed are not seen. An apparent allu-
sion to this remnant does occur (xiv. I),
but it is remote; John makes nothing
of it; and the detached, special character
of vii. 1-8 becomes plainer the further
we go into the other visions. The sealed
are exempted merely from the plague of
the winds, not from martyrdom or perse-
cution (of which there is no word here);
one plague indeed has power to wound,
though not to kill, them (ix. 4, 5). The
collocation of the fragment with what
precedes is probably due in part to cer-
tain similarities like the allusions to the
wind (vi. 13), numbering (vi. 11), and
the seals (vi. 1 f.). The real problem is,
how far did John take this passage liter-
ally? This raises the question of the
relationship between 1-8 and 9-17; either
(a) both are different forms of the same
belief, or (6) two different classes of
people are meant. Inthe former event
(a) John applies the Jewish oracle of 1-8
to the real Jews, 1.6., the Christians, who
as a pious remnant are to be kept secure
amid the cosmic whirl and crash of the
latter days (vi. 12-17, cf. iii. το and the
connexion of Nahum i. 5, 6, and 7). The
terror passes and lo! the saints are seen
safe on the other side (9-17). This in-
terpretation of Christians as the real
Israel or twelve tribes is favoured not
only by early Christian thovght (cf. 1
Peter i. 1, Jas. i. 1, Herm. Sim. ix. 17),
but by the practice of John himself (e.g.,
xviii. 4). Here as elsewhere he takes

the particularist language of his source
in a free symbolic fashion; only, while
the archaic scenery of 1-8 suffices for a
description of the safeguarded on earth,
he depicts their beatified state (g-17) in
ampler terms. The deeper Christian con-
tent of his vision implies not deliverance
from death but deliverance through death.
His saints are not survivors but martyrs.
Hence the contrast between 1-8 and 9-17
is one of language rather than of temper,
and the innumerable multitude of the
latter, instead of being a supplement to
the 144,000, are the latter viewed after
their martyr-death under a definitely
Christian light. The O.T. imagery of
1-8 mainly brings out the fact that the
true Israel (Gal. vi. 16) is known and
numbered by God; not one is lost.
The alternative theory (b) holds that in
taking over this fragment and adding
another vision John meant Jewish Chris-
tians by the 144,000. The latter identi-
fication (5ο, e.g., Prim., Vict., Hausrath,
Vischer, Spitta, Hirscht, Forbes, Bousset)
is less probable, however, in view of the
general tenor of the Apocalypse (cf.
Introd. § 6), for the usual passages cited
as proof (cf. notes on xiv. 1 f., xxi. 12
and 24) are irrelevant, and while John
prized the martyrs it is incredible that
9-17 was meant to prove that martyrdom
was required to admit Gentile Christians
even to a second grade among the elect
(Weizsacker, Pfleiderer), A Jewish
Christian prophet might indeed, out of
patriotic pride, regard the nucleus of
God’s kingdom as composed of faithful
Jews, without being particularist in his
sympathies. Paul himself once held this
nationalist view (Rom. ix.-xi.), but it
is doubtful if it represented his final,
position, and in any case the general
conception of the Apocalypse (where
Christians are the true Jews, and where
particularist language is used metaphori-
cally, just because literally it was obso-
lete) tells on the whole in favour of the
view that 9-17 represents 1-8 read in the
light of v. ο (so, e.g., de Wette, Bruston-

396

a Inanet?
(like
Tiamat,
En. xviii. . μ
S.c.411f.). TS γῆς,

b Jer. xlix.

36, Ezek.
XXXVii. ϱ, Dan. vii. 2.

Porter, Wellhausen, and Hoennicke: das
Fudenchristentum, 194 f.). Only, the
general description of redeemed Chris-
tians in v. 9 is specifically applied in vii.
14 to the candidatus martyrum exercitus.
Here as elsewhere John apparently con-
ceives the final trial to be so searching
and extensive that Christians will all be
martyrs or confessors. The wonderful
beauty of 9-17, whose truth rises above
its original setting, requires no comment.
it moved Renan (479, 480), after criticis-
ing “le contour mesquin” of the Apoca-
lypse in general, to rejoice in the book’s
‘‘symbolical expression of the cardinal
principle that God is, but above all that
He shall be. No doubt Paul put it better
when he summed up the final goal of the
universe in these words, that God may be
all in all, But for a long while yet men
will require a God who dwelis with them,
sympathises with their trials, is mindful
of their struggles, and wifes away every
tear from their eyes.”

CHAPTER VIi.—Ver. 1. As on the
synoptic scheme (Matt. xxiv. 31), physical
convulsions and human terrors are fol-
lowed by a pause during which the
saints are secured. It is impossible and
irrelevant to determine whether the winds’
blast and the sealing were already con-
joined in the fragment or oral traditions
which lay before this editor, or whether
their combination is due to himself.
They reflect the tradition underlying the
synoptic apocalypse (Mark xiii. 24-27,
etc., cf. Apoc. vi. 12-vii. 3), but here the
safeguarding of the elect comes before,
instead of after, the advent, and the four
winds are agents of destruction instead
of mere geographical points; besides, the
role of messiah is omitted altogether.
It is assumed not merely that these
angels are the spirits of the four winds
(Zech. vi. 5, and repeatedly in Enoch, e.g.,
Ixix. 22, “the spirits of the waters and
of the winds and of all zephyrs”), but
that some onset of the winds is imminent
(ver. 2, cf. En. xviii. 22), as part of the
horrors of the last catastrophe (for puni-
tive winds, see Sir. xxxix. 28). Stray
hints proving the existence of such a
tradition (cf. Dan. vii. 2) have been col-
lected (cf. S.C. 323 f.; A.C. 246, 247)
¢.¢., from Sibyll. viii. 203 f., etc., where a

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

τέσσαρας γωνίας τῆς γῆς, "κρατοῦντας "τοὺς τέσσαρας

vh.

ΥΠ. 1. Meta τοῦτο εἶδον τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους ἑστῶτας ἐπὶ τὰς

» ἀνέμους

ἵνα μὴ πνέῃ ἄνεμος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, µήτε ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης,

hurricane is to sweep the earth previous
to the resurrection of the dead (trees
being here singled out as most exposed
to a storm’s ravages). If such allusions
are not mere echoes of the present pas-
sage, they would appear to indicate a
runlet of eschatological tradition flowing
behind more important ideas. Or are
the saints like trees of God (Ps. Sol. xiv.
2, 3) never to be uprooted by a wind
or onset of foes (bid. viii. 6, xvii. 13) ?
It is no longer possible to be sure. In
En. xviii 1 f. by a semi-Babylonian touch,
the four winds are identified with the
four pillars of the heaven and the founda-
tions of the earth ; in Apoc. Bar. vi.. 4, 5,
four angels with lamps are restrained by
another angel from lighting them (cf.
also E. Bi. 5303). There seems to be no
allusion to the notion of a blast (from the
sea) as a form of mortal fate (e.g., Oed.
Col. 1659, 1660 ; Iliad, vi. 345 f.); on the
contrary, the idea goes back to Zech.
vi. 8 (LXX), whence the prophet had
already developed vi. 1-8. As xiv. τ t.
roughly answers to vii. 9 f., so the ap-
pearance of wild beasts out of the
agitated sea of the nations (in Dan. vii.
1-8) corresponds to the sequence of
Apoc. vii. 1-4, and xiii. τ f.

The earth is a rectangular plane or
disc on which John looks down from
heaven’s dome resting on it, to observe
(ver. 2) a fifth angel “' ascending” from
the sun-rising (the east as the source of
light, cf. on xvi. 20, the site of paradise,
the sphere of divine activity ?). ζῶντος,
here (as in xv. 7; cf. Heb. x. 31) in Ο.Τ.
sense (cf Deut. xxxii. 39 f. ; Ezek. xx. 33;
Jer. x. 10, etc.) of vitality to succour and
to punish, God’s “life” being manifested
in his effective preservation of the saints
and chastisement of their enemies or of
the world in general. He lives and keeps
alive. Here, as in the parent passage,
Ezek. ix. 4-6 (cf. Exod. xii. 13 f. and the
‘‘ Egyptian” character of the plagues in
chap. viii.), the true δοῦλοι of God are
distinguished by a mark denoting God’s
ownership. Before the crisis good and
evil must be discriminated (Spitta, 80 f.).
Cf. Ps. Sol. xv. 6 f. on the immunity of
the righteous, ὅτι τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ
δικαίους εἰς σωτηρίαν, λιμὸς καὶ po; data
καὶ θάνατος μακρὰν ἀπὸ δικαίων: here-

=—4-

AIOKAAYY¥VIZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 397

Spyte ἐπὶ wav! δένδρον. 2. Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἀναβαίνοντα « Cf. Jos.
ell.

ἀπὸ ἆ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου, ἔχοντα σφραγίδα Θεοῦ °Lavtos* καὶ ἔκραξε ii. 7,8
ig A 2 i and below
Φωνῇ µεγάλη τοῖς τέσσαρσιν ἀγγέλοις ois ἐδόθη ξ αὐτοῖς ἀθικῆσαι : = rag
ο E ο . Xvi. 14
τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, λέγων, 3. “Mh ἕ ἀδικήσητε τὴν γῆν andon
“ xxi. 13:
μήτε τὴν θάλασσαν, µήτε τὰ δένδρα, ἄχρι " σφραγίσωµεν τοὺς Isa. xli.2,
a a ο Β τν. a Ezek.
δούλους τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῶν * µετώπων αὐτῶν”. 4. Καὶ xiii. 2
» Q > x fal > , ν , Βατ. iv.
ὔκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων * ExaTov τεσσεράκοντα τέσ- 36, y. 5.
a a En. v. 1,
capes ᾿ χιλιάδες, ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ πάσης ™ φυλῆς υἱῶν ™ lopayd* © Jub.xxil4,

f Cf. on iii.
8

h 1.ε. the angels, as Matt. xxiv. 31. For tha

i vii. 11-12, xix. 5. k Only (in N.T.) in ix. 4,

1 Irreg. indep. nom. after accus., as often in Apoc.,
πι Only here in Apoc., except xxi. 12 (also an interpolated source 2).

g Aor. subj. “action not yet begun,” Burton, 164.
more common ἄχρις οὗ or av cf. Blass, § 65, 10,
XU. 10; κιν. το νι. 5, XX. 4, αχ. 4.
cf. ix. 11, ii. 18, etc.

1 For παν (NP, 1, etc., Ti., Β]., Sw., WH) Lach., Tr., Al. Diist., Ws. read τι
(CQ, min., vg., Pr.) [επι δενδρου A, Me., Syr. Arm., Aeth. (Bs = δενδρον ?): conj.

Naber (deleting also p. τα δενδρα in ver. 3) επι ανυδρου].

as these plagues hunt down the wicked,
“τὸ γὰρ σημεῖον τῆς ἀπωλείας ἐπὶ τοῦ
μετώπου αὐτῶν. This royal, sacred sign,
which in Ezekiel is the cross or Tau as
the symbol of life and is here probably

rryry >, authenticates the bearers as
God’s property (cf. Herod. ii. 113, vii.
233) and places them beyond risk of loss.
It identifies them with his worship and
also (cf. on ii. 17) serves to protect them
as an amulet against harm (see Deissm.
351, 352 ΟΠ Φυλακτήρια as protective
marks and amulets). In Test. Sol. (tr.
Conybeare, Few. Quart. Rev. 1898, p.
34) an evil spirit declares he will be
destroyed by the Saviour ‘‘ whose number
(στοιχεῖον), if anyone shall write it on
his+ forehead, he will defeat me”. Mr.
Doughty also describes (Ar. Des. i. 171)
a false Christ in Syria who declared he
had God’s name sculptured between his
eyebrows; {.ε. the wrinkles resembled
the Arabic hieroglyph for Allah. For the
religious significance of such tattooing as
a mark of divine ownership see R. S. 316;
and, for the connection of vi. 12 f. and
να, 1 f., the basal passage in Dan. xi. 40,
44, xii. I. The parallel device of Anti-
christ later on (xiii. 16, etc.) shows that
this sealing is something special, baptism
or the possession of the Spirit (asin Paul)
ys the guarantee of destined bliss. A
contemporary expression of the idea oc-
curs in Clem. Rom. lix., lx.: ‘* We
will ask that the Creator of all things
preserve intact to the end the appointed
number of his elect throughout all the
world, etc.”. As Apoc. vi. 1-8 and 12
‘f. are free reproductions, with a special
-oplication, of the ideas underlying Mark

xiii. 7, 8, 24, 25, so Apoc. vii. 1 f. is an
imaginative sketch on the lines of Mark
xiii. 27. The Apocalypse, however, has
no room for the false messiahs of Mark
xiii. 6, 22, etc. (cf. on Apoc. xiii. 11 f.) as
a peril. See further 4 Esd. vi. 5, ‘‘ Ere
they were sealed who laid up the treasure
of faith,” and Melito (Otto ix. 432, 476)
the apologist, who preserves a dual tra-
dition of the end, including wind as
well as fire = et selecti homines occisi
sunt aquilone uehementi, et relicti sunt
iusti ad demonstrationem ueritatis, (whilst
at the deluge of fire) seruati sunt iusti in
arca lignea iussu dei. But the Apoc-
alypse like Philo, stands severely apart
from the current Stoic notion, adopted
in Sib. iv. 172 f.; 2 Peter, etc., of a de-
struction of the world by means of a final
conflagration,

Ver. 4. After a pause, in which the
sealing is supposed to have taken place,
the writer hears that the number of the
sealed is the stereotyped 144,000, twelve
thousand from each of the twelve tribes
of Israel (a ‘‘ thousand ” being the primi-
tive subdivision of a clan or tribe, like the
English shire into ‘“‘hundreds”). The
enumeration of these tribes (5-8) contains
two peculiarities, (a) the substitution of
Joseph for Ephraim, a variation to which ,
we have no clue, and (b) the omission of
Dan. The latter reflects the growing dis-
repute into which Dan fell; it either
stands last (e.g. in P.; Josh. xix. 4ο f.;
Jud. i. 34) or drops out entirely, while
it is curiously connected in the Talmud,
as already in Test. XII. Patr. (Dan. =)
with Beliar, and in Irenzus (v. 30, 32) as
in Hippolytus (de Antichr. 5, 6) with the

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΤΩΑΝΝΟΥ

VIL.

ἐκ φυλῆς lovda δώδεκα χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι °

ἐκ Φυλῆς ‘PouBhy δώδεκα Χιλιάδες *
ἐκ φυλῆς Γὰδ δώδεκα χιλιάδες :
6. ἐκ φυλῆς ᾽Ασὴρ δώδεκα χιλιάδες "

ἐκ φυλῆς Νεφθαλεὶμ, δώδεκα χιλιάδες *

ἐκ φυλῆς Μανασσῆ δώδεκα χιλιάδες "

7. ἐκ φυλῆς Συμεὼν δώδεκα χιλιάδες "

ἐκ φυλῆς Λευεὶ δώδεκα χιλιάδες "

ἐκ φυλῆς Ισσαχὰρ δώδεκα χιλιάδες *

nCf.oniii. ϐ,
8

ο Cf. ν.ο.

p Irreg.
appos. to
plur.
sense of ο.
ὀχλος. ες, 4

qNom.after ἐθύνατο, ἐκ
(sc.) ιδοὺ;
cf. John
xii. 13,

ἐκ φυλῆς Ζαβουλὼν δώδεκα χιλιάδες -

ἐκ φυλῆς ᾿Ιωσὴφ δώδεκα χιλιάδες: .

ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαμεὶν δώδεκα Χιλιάδες: ἐσφραγισμένοι.

ΜΕΤΑ ταῦτα εἶδον ὄχλον πολύν,ὶ ὃν ἀριθμῆσαι " αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς.
ὁπαντὸς έθνους καὶ φυλῶν καὶ λαῶν καὶ ’γλωσσῶν,

A A ‘ -
Pégtates ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου, περιβεβλη-

4 , α ‘ ~ Δ
Lev.xxiii. µένους στολὰς λευκάς, καὶ " φοίνικες ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν ΄ Io. καὶ

40. is
rSeeonxix. Κράζουσιν φωνῇ µεγάλῃ λέγοντες,

1 and xii.
10.
S V. 13, ΧΙΙ.
10, ΧΙΧ. I.
t v. II-12.
u Cf. Win.
§ 13. 20.
v xi. 16.

”.

3 ,
ἀρνιῳ.

’ ~ lol c A ~ - ~
““H Towtypla "τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν τῷ καθηµένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ ᾿τῷ

ς ε A
11. ‘Kal πάντες ol ἄγγελοι " εἰστήκεισαν κύκλω τοῦ θρόνου καὶ
a 9 A , \ A
τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζώων, καὶ ᾿ ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ

1 Read, for και t. οχλος πολυς, the οχλον πολυν of A, vg., Me., Aeth., Cypr., Pr.
(Lach.) (Syr. = κ.µ.τ. ειδον οχλυν πολυν ον, κ.τ.λ.].

origin of Antchrise This sinister repu-
tation (cf. A.C. 171-174, Selwyn 200-294,
Erbes 77 f.), current long before Irenzus’
day, rested on the haggadic interpretation
of passages like Gen. xlix. 17; Deut. xxxiii.
22: and Jer. viii. 16. Andreas, comment-
ing on xvi. 12, thinks that Antichrist will
probably come from Persia, ἔνθα ἡ φυλὴ
τοῦ Δάν.

Ver. ο. ἔθν. κ. ϕ. curious and irregular
change from singular to plural. ἑστῶτες
=erect, confident, triumphant. For the
white robes, see on vi. 11 (the number of
the martyrs being now completed). Cer-
tain religious processions in Asia Minor
consisted of boys robed in white and
bearing crowns of leafy boughs (Deissm.
368 f.); and in some Asiatic inscriptions
νίκη is associated with the palm branch,
which in one case is placed alongside of
the meta or goal (C. B. P. ii. 496). The
carrying of palm-branches was a sign of
festal joy in the Greek and Roman (=
victory at the games Liv. x. 47, Verg. Aen.
v. 109), as well as in the Jewish world (1
Macc. xiii. 51; 2 Macc. x. 7), accom-
panied by the wearing of wreaths of

green leaves. For the robes, see Liv.
xxiv. Io: ‘* Hadriae aram in coelo, spe-
ciesque hominum circum eam cum can-
dida ueste visas esse”. Here=‘“‘scilicet
de antichristo triumphales ” (Tertullian).
For the numberless multitude, see Enoch
xxxix. 6, where ‘‘ the righteous and the-
elect shall be for ever and ever without
number before” the messiah, in the
mansions of bliss; white raiment and
crowns of palm in Herm. Sim. viii. 2-4.

Ver. το. “Salvation” (or, if ἡ be
pressed, the salvation we enjoy) be as-
cribed ‘‘ to our God and to the Lamb ”.
The subordinate nature of the seven
Spirits (i. 4, iv. 5) is shown by the fact
that no praise is offered to them through-
out the Apocalypse, although in Iranian
theology (Bund. xxx. 23): ‘‘ all men be-
come of one voice and praise aloud
Atharmazd and the archangels in the-
renovated universe”.

Vv. 11-12. The angels standing around
once again adore God, catching up the
previous praise with ‘‘Amen,” and utter-
ing a sevenfold ascription of praise upon
their own behalf, closed with another

5—I4.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

399

a a a - Ae
θρόνου ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ Θεῷ, 12. λέ- w Ioitial

yovTes,
wise?

We ‘ Ne , ανα ο ‘ ~ ma ες a > ‘ IA
καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ * ἰσχὺς τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

~ ” > , ”
των αἰώνων. Gapny.

13. Καὶ ” ἀπεκρίθη els ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λέγων por, “'Οὗτοιν
οἱ περιβεβλημένοι τὰς στολὰς τὰς λευκάς, τίνες εἰσὶν καὶ πόθεν
ἦλθον ; 14. καὶ "εἴρηκα αὐτῷ, “' Κύριέ µου, σὺ ' οἶδας”..
εἶπέ por, “' Οὗτοί εἶσιν οἱ ἐρχόμενοι "ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης,

b Ezek. xxxvii. 3, Job xxi. 15.

“Amen”. The article is repeated before
each substitute, asin v. 13. The divine
‘*wisdom ” is shown in the means devised
by the divine power to redeem (ν. 12) and
deliver (vii. 14) men, in straits where no
human prudence could prevail. See
Clem. Rom. Ix. and Ps. Sol. xvii. 25.

Ver. 13. ‘‘ And one of the elders ad-
dressed me, saying”; for similar open-
ings of a dialogue, see Jer. i. 11,
Zech. iv.2. Perhaps, like Dante (Parad.
iv. 10-12), John although silent showed
desire painted on his face. The form
of inquiry resembles Homer’s τίς πόθεν
els ἀνδρῶν; πόθι τοι πόλις, or Vergil’s
qui genus? unde domo?, more closely
still the similar sentences which recur
in Hermas. See throughout, Zech. iv.
1, 6, and Asc. Isa. ix. 25, 26 (and I said
to the angel ‘‘ For whom are these robes
and thrones and crowns reserved?”
And he said to me: ‘‘ They shall be
missed by many who believe the words
of him of whom I told thee [i.e., Anti-
christ]” ; also xi. 40, uos autem uigilate in
sancto spiritu ut recipiatis stolam uestram
et thronos et coronas gloriae in caelo
iacentes). It is the origin and character,
not the number, of the company which
interests the prophet.

Ver. 14. κύριέ pov (‘‘ Sir”) the re-
spectful address of an inferior to his
superior in age or station, the πρεσβύτεροι
being conceived as angelic beings (as in
Dan. x. 17, 19, 4 Esd, iv. 3, etc.).—‘* Thou
knowest ” (and I fain would know also).
The great distress is plainly the period of
persecution and martyrdom (vi. 11) pre-
dicted (e.g., Matt. xxiv. 21, from Dan xii.1)
to herald the final catastrophe. It is still
expected by Hermas (Vis. ii. 2. 7, iv. 2.
5, 3. 6) ; but he less religiously attributes
the white garments (i.e., purity of soul)
to the virtues. As the crisis with its
outcome of faith and loyalty in all
nations (ver. g) is to be world-wide, this

Amen,
XX. 4;
XXil. 20.

Αμήν ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ *oopia καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία x Cy. v. 12;

σ. and
δύναμις
Job xii. 13
(cf. Dan.
il. 20).
Asin 1
Chron.
ΧΧΙΧ. 11.
’ . z Constr.
Kat” Mate. xi.
25, Cant.
il. 1Ο.
a Aoristic
- pf., v. 7.
ο Contrast Rom. ii. 8-9, and compareApoc. iii. 10.

passage seems to imply, although in a
characteristically vague and incidental
fashion (cf. v. 9, xiv. 6, etc.), the idea of
Mark xiii. 1ο. But the situation of the
Apocalypse is so acute, that mission
operations are at a standstill. Instead of
the gospel invading and pervading the
pagan world, the latter has closed in
upon the churches with threatening
power, and in the brief interval before the
end practically nothing can be looked
for except the preservation of the faithful.
Those “ who come out of the great dis-
tress” are further described as having
washed their robes and made them white
in the blood of the Lamb; which por-
trays their character and conduct andat the
same time explains the secret of theit
triumphant endurance. ‘‘ Mehr gedacht
als geschaut ist das Bild” (J. Weiss).
The great thing is not to emerge from.
trial, but to emerge from it with un-
stained faith and conscience. And this
is possible, not to man’s unaided efforts,
but to the sacrificial power of Christ, the
experience of which forms the last line of
defence in the struggle. The confessors.
and martyrs owed their moral purity to
what they obtained through the sacrifice
of Jesus. But moral purity became in
this case something more intense (as
the context and the emphatic language
of this verse imply) than the normal
Christian experience of forgiveness and
holiness. By a turn of thought which
is developed later by Ignatius and Ter-
tullian (Scorp. xii. sordes quidem baptis-
mate abluuntur, maculae uero martyrié
candidantur), it is suggested that in their
martyrdom (cf. Dan. xii. 10) these saints
were able to make the redeeming power
of Jesus peculiarly their own ; the nature
of their cruel sufferings identified them es-
pecially with their Lord. Itis noticeable
that the mystic union of the individual.
Christian with Christ mainly comes for-

400

d Reward
andielony et Sk,
(e.g. Jer. TOU Gpvtou.
XXXi. g-

12); Lev- 15.
itic privi-
lege
(Deut. x.
8, etc., of.
Ps. Sol. ii.
40).

Ε ΧΙ. το,
XXli. 3
(wor-
ship).

f Divine
favour
and proe
tection,

16.

17.

Ps. Sol, vii. 1, 5; cf. xxi. 3, John i. 14, also Lev. xxvi. 11, Isa. iv. 5, Ezek. xxxvii. 27, etc.
i i Ezek. xxxiv. 23, Ps. xxiii. 1, John x. 1f.; not Death,

cxxi. 6; from Isa. xlix. 1Ο.
Clem. Rom. li.

h Xvi. ο.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

Ἀ , δελ lol ,
καὶ 6 καθήµενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου

ὅτι τὸ dpviov τὸ ava μέσον 1 τοῦ θρόνου
καὶ © ὁδηγήσει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ Σ ζωῆς πηγὰς * ὑδάτων,

k xxi. 6, xxii. 1, 17, John iv.

VII

καὶ ἔπλυναν τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐλεύκαναν αὐτὰς ἐν τῷ αἵματι

διὰ τοῦτό εἶσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ,
καὶ λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς ἐν τῷ vad αὐτοῦ *

f , ΕΒΕ > ,
σκηνωσει επ αυτους.

οὐ πεινάσουσιν ἔτι, οὐδὲ διψήσουσιν ἔτι,
Σ οὐδὲ μὴ πέσῃ em αὐτοὺς 6 ἥλιος, οὐδὲ πᾶν " καῦμα |

ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς,

6 Ps.

10, vii. 8 (Jer. ii. 13), Cant. iv. 15.

Tava µεσον, the true reading, is not a subtle allusion to mediatorship (Abbott,
198-199) but a loose synonym for εν µεσω (cf. Weymouth, Fourn. Philol., 1869, ii.
318-322): the ζωσας of min., Me., Syr. (ζωην και επι S.) is a correction of the orig.
gen. of quality ζωης (MSS., edd.), which is thrown to the front (like σαρκος in

I Pet. iii. 21) for emphasis.

ward in the Apocalypse (cf. xiv. 13) when
the martyrs and confessors are men-
tioned, as if the writer held that such an
experience alone could yield the deepest
consciousness of communion with One
who was conceived essentially as a Lamb
who had been slain, a faithful witness,
etc. (cf. Titius, 216, 217). On the high
respect for martyrs, of which this forms
an early trace, see Weinel, 142-144. At
the same time it is to the blood of the
Lamb, not to their own blood, that they
owe their bliss and triumph; redemption,
not martyrdom, is the essential basis of
their deliverance. People might be re-
deemed without becoming martyrs ; as,
for example, either recreant Christians or
those who happened to die a natural
death. But no one could be a martyr
without having the strength of redemp-
tion behind him.

Ver. 15. Ritual as well as pastoral
traits from the O.T. fill out the concep-
tion of this final bliss with its favoured
position (ἐνώπ. Opdv.). Note the singular
tenderness of the oxymoron—je that
sitteth on the throne (the majestic al-
mighty God) shall overshadow them
with a presence of brooding, intimate,
care ; followed by ποιμανεῖ here (as op-
posed to ii. 27) in its literal sense of
tender shepherding on the part of Jesus.
The messiah as shepherd was an ancient
and familiar conception. This verse is
partly adapted from Enoch xlv. 4-6.
Unlike John i. 14, it reflects a Christian
fulfilment of the Jewish anticipation (cf.
xiii. 6, xxi. 3; Zech. ii. ro f.; Sir. xxiv.

8 f.) that the Shekinah would return in
the era of final bliss.

Ver. 16. οὐ py with both fut. indica-
tive and subjunctive (=ii. 11), in emphatic
assertions. For the absence of scorching
as a trait of the Hellenic Utopia, cf.
Dieterich, 31-33. If katpa corresponds
here to the sense of the Isaianic equiva-
lent καύσων, the reference is to the
scorching sirocco. Sothe Egyptian dead
yearned for a cooling breeze in the next
world—“ Let me be placed by the edge
of the water with my face to the north,
that the breeze may caress me, and my
heart be refreshed from its sorrows ”
(see Maspero, Dawn of Civil. p. 113).

Ver. 17. {wis goes with ὑδάτων
(‘living waters’) though prefixed for
emphasis, like σαρκὸς in 1 Peter iii. 21
(cf. xvi. 3 πᾶσα ψυχὴ ζωῇς) ; a favourite
Johannine idea. In Enoch xlii, xlviii,
the fountains contain wisdom which
is drunk by all the thirsty, though in
the centre there is also ‘‘a fountain of
righteousness which was inexhaustible” ;
elsewhere in the division of Sheol assigned
to the spirits of the righteous there is ''
bright spring of the water of life” (xxii, 9)
in accordance with the Pythagorean
belief that the dead suffered from thirst
in the underworld (Luke xvi. 24, ef.
Dieterich, 97 f.). In the familiar vignette
of ancient Egyptian eschatology, the de-
ceased kneels before Osiris who pours out
to him the water of life (the motto being
that the soul may live); cf. Renouf’s
“ Hibb. Lect.,” p. 141, and for ‘“‘living ”
waters as divine, R. S.127. In the ideal

15-17. ΥΠΙ. 1-2. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 401
καὶ ᾿ ἐξαλείψει 6 Θεὸς πᾶν '' δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν | Isa. xxv. 8.
Aaa m Form (cf.

αυτων. ; XXi. 4) cf

ε) ” 9 - ‘ c , hey, nom.

VIII. 1. ΚΑΙ ὅταν "ἤνοιξε τὴν oppayida τὴν ἑβδόμην, ἐγένετο peculiar

bd AS A > mu ie ς , 9 9 N ec eae , to Apoc.
σιγὴ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὡς ἡμιώρον. 2. Kat εἶδον τοὺς "ἑπτὰ ἀγγέ- in Ν.Τ.
a ὅταν τες.
equiv. for

ὅτε (Blass, § 65, 9): indic. with ὅταν (iv. 9, Mark ii. 20, Luke xiii. 28); a relative clause conditional

in form but definite in force (Burton, 316).
c En. xx., Luke i. 19, etc.

realm of the good Shepherd-King Yima,
Iranian belief saw neither hunger nor
thirst for the faithful, and found no place
for death (cf. Apoc. xxi. 4) or falsehood
(Apoc. xxi. 8) of any kind (passages and
parallels in Béklen, 133 f.).—é68nyjoe,
a touch of local colour for Asiatic Chris-
tians, since sheep and shepherds were a
common feature in the Lycos valley (C. B.
P. i. 40-42); but the heaven of the Apo-
calypse is, in Semitic fashion, pastoral or
Civic, with touches of Babylonian splen-
dour, unlike some later apocalypses, e.g.,
that of Peter (15 f.) where the Hellenic
conception of Gods garden in the next
world predominates (Dieterich, το f.).—
Briggs explains the variants σκηνώσει
ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς (vii. 15) and ox. pet’ αὐτῶν
(xxi. 3), ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθ. (xxi. 4) and ἐκ τῶν
ὀφθ. (vii. 17) as variant translations of

Jw OAT and OMPPy ; but,
like ἐπὶ τὸ µέτωπον (xiii. 16), ἐπὶ τῶν
µετώπ. (vii. 3, etc.), these are probably
nothing more than rhetorical variations.
Unlike the synoptic tradition (e.g., Matt.
ii. 6) and the fourth Gospel (x. 1, 18), the
Apocalypse confines Christ’s shepherding
to the future life (see also ii. 26, 27). In
Isa, liii. 6, 7, the wayward roving habits
of sheep express the temper of God’s
people, whilst the patient submissiveness
of a lamb for sacrifice denotes the func-
tion of God’s servant; in the Apocalypse,
the latter (not the former) occurs. The
saints are God’s flock in heaven, not on
earth (contrast 1 Peter ii, 25, v. 2 f.).

Whatever elements have been em-
ployed in the following series (viii.-xi.) of
trumpet-visions, no adequate data exist
to prove that John has edited a Jewish
or Jewish-Christian source here any more
than in vi. The vision, which forms the
result of the breaking of the seventh seal
(viii. I, 2), opens, after a prelude (2-5), in
viii. 6 and does not close till xi. 19 (cf.
νι, 5).

CuapTer VIII.—Ver. 1. The opening
of the seventh seal is followed by half an
hour’s silence in heaven: ‘‘he opened”
looks back to vi. 12, the absence of sub-
ject showing that vii. is a parenthesis

Ὁ 4 Esd. vii. 29 f., Zech. ii. 13 (17), Hab. ii. 20.

foreign to the seal-series in its original
shape. Probably this series, like each of
the others, was originally a separate
oracle upon the latter days. When
woven by the author into his large work,
they suffered a literary treatment which
has interrupted but ‘not altogether ob-
literated their original form and sequence.
The book of destiny is now open; what
follows (viii. 6 f.) is the course of the
future, which naturally corresponds at
some points to the predictions already
sketched proleptically in chap. vi. A
brief interval, not of exhaustion but of
expectation, of breathless suspense (a
pause in the ecstasy, LXX of Dan. iv. 16),
ushers in a preliminary series of judicial
plagues heralded by seven tru npet-blasts
(viii. 2-xi. 19). Half an hour (ἡμ., cf.
Win. § 5, 22 a for form) may have been
an ominous period; Josephus (B. χ. vi. 5,
§ 3) describes a portent at the siege of
Jerusalem which consisted of a bright
light shining at twilight for half an hour,
and the collocation of silence with rever-
ence is illustrated by the LXX version
(εὐλαβείσθω πᾶσα σάρξ) of Zech. xii. 13
and Zeph.i.7f. The following trumpet-
series has been woven into the frame of
the work by the device of making it take
the place of the climax which (after vi.
17, Vii. I, 2) one would naturally expect
to occur at this point. .When the dé-
nouement should take place, nothing
happens; the judgment is adjourned.
Ver. 2. ‘‘ The sevenangels who stand
before God” are introduced as familiar
figures (cf.Lueken 36 f., R.¥. 319 f.); they
belonged to pre-Christian Judaism (Tobit
xii. 15, ‘‘I am Raphael, one of the seven
holy angels, which present the prayers
of the saints, and go in before the glory
of the Holy One”), and are associated
with trumpets (1 Thess. iv. 16). Accord-
ing to the Targ. on 2 Chron. xxxiii. 13

when Manasseh prayed, all the angels who.

superintend the entrance of prayers went
and closed every approach, to prevent
his petition reaching heaven ; in Chag.
13 6 the prayers of the righteous are
offered by Sandalphon (cf. Longfellow’s
Sandalphon, and contrast Heb. vii. 25),

~

402

di Thess.
iv. 16, I
Cor. xv.
52, Matt.
xxiv. 31,
4 Esd. v.
4, Vi. 23:
cf. Josh.
vi. 4, Jer.
iv. 19,
Zephi.
15-16.

e Ας Vii. 2.

f iii. 20, vii.
I, etc. (= é .
“at altar of burnt offering’’) Amos ix. 1.
975. = “in aid of”. iCf. Win. § 20, 11 Ε.
God (ix. 13). πι Aoristic pf., v. 7.

λους οἳ

Σσάλπιγγες.

Para πολλά, ἵνα δώσει] ®

ἀγγέλου ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ.

ΑΠΟΚΛΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

κβ , x A Sale a '9 /
υσιαστηριον το χρυσουν το ενωπιον του povou.

61 Kings vii. 5ο.

VIII.

ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἑστήκασι, καὶ ἐδόθησαν αὐτοῖς ἑπτὰ
3. καὶ "ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἦλθε καὶ ἐστάθη ΄ ἐπὶ τοῦ
θυσιαστηρίου, ἔχων λιβανωτὸν "χρυσοῦν καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ θυµιά-

ταῖς προσευχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων ' πάντων ἐπὶ τὸ

4. καὶ ἀνέβη ὁ

καπνὸς τῶν θυµιαµάτων " ταῖς προσευχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων ἐκ Χειρὸς τοῦ

5. καὶ ' εἴληφεν 6 ἄγγελος τὸν λιβα-

h Dat. commodi? cf. Μου]. i.

k Num. iv. 11, inner altar of incense. 11. ε:

1 The variants δωση and δω are corrections of the original δωσει (SAC, 1, edd.)
—tva with fut. indic. as iii. 9, etc. (Win. § 5, 17, § 13, 7, § 14, 9).

This septet of distinguished angels be-
longs to the circle of ideas behindi. 4, iv.
5, ν. 6; but the author as usual prefers
vividness and variety to homogeneity. He
uses them for minatory purposes, assign-
ing to “ another angel” their character-
istic function (ver. 3) in Jewish tradition.
The alteration of figure at this point is
deliberate. The certainty of divine de-
crees is suggested by the figure of seals;
but now that the prophet is describing
the promulgation of the actual events
presaged in the book of Doom, he, like
the author of 4 Esdras (2 cf. Lat. of v. 4),
employs the figure of angels with trum-
pets of hostile summons and shattering
alarm. The final series (xv.-xvi.) in
which these decrees are executed, is aptly
described under the figure of bowls or
vials drenching the earth with their bitter
contents (cf. Bovon, Nouv. Test. Théol. ii.
503). The trumpet, as a signal for war,
is naturally associated with scenes of judg-
ment (reff.). ‘‘ Power, whether spiritual
or physical, is the meaning of the trumpet,
and so, well used by Handel in his ap-
proaches to the Deity” (E. Fitzgerald’s
Letters, 1.92). Trumpet to lip, the angels
now stand ready. They are set in motion
by a significant interlude (3-5).

Ver. 3. Between royalty and ritual the
scenery of the Apocalypse fluctuates.
It is assumed (as at vi. 9), after vii. 15
perhaps, that heaven is a temple, although
this is not expressly stated till xi. 19;
nor is it homogeneous with the throne-
description in chap. iv. λιβανωτόν
(‘‘ incense,” Gm. λεγ. N.T.) is used by
mistake for the classical ABaverpiv(LXX,
πνρ[ε]ιον or θνυίσκη) = “censer,” as αἷ-
ready in an inscription of the second
century B.c. (Dittenberger’s Sylloge In-
script. Graec. 588 155) λιβανωτίς is em-
ployed by confusion for “ frankincense”.

Golden censers (1 Macc. i. 22) and golden
bowls (Φιάλαι) were among the furniture
of the temple (1 Esd. ii. 13). On prayers
as an offering, see Acts x. 4. The sym-
bolism is borrowed from the temple-
ritual; when the saucer of incense had
been emptied over the burning coals
placed on the altar of incense, the people
bowed in prayer, as the fragrant cloud of
smoke rose up. Wellhausen’s deletion
of 3 b, 4asa gloss is therefore unneces-
sary. John is consoling the church (cf.
on vi. 10) by the assurance that their
prayers for the coming of the kingdom
are not breathed in vain.

Ver. 4. As an agent of God, the angel
is commissioned to ratify with Divine
approval the petitions of the saints for
the end; this involves retribution on the
impenitent and hostile world. The pro-
phet is sure such aspirations are in har-
mony with God’s will.

Ver. 5. The censer, having offered
incense to heaven, is now used to hurl
fire upon the earth (adopted from Ezek.
x. 2-7; cf. Lev. xvi. 12). As at the close
of the trumpets (xi. το) and the bowls
(xvi. 18), physical disturbances here ac-
company the manifestation of God’s
wrath and judgment. In answer to the
prayers and longings of the saints(Renan,
393), God at last visits the impenitent
pagan world with a series of catastrophes
(vili., ix., cf. ix. 4), which herald the end
and also give (though in vain, ix. 20, 21)
an opportunity for repentance.

Note on viii. 3-5. This episode (in
dumb show) of angel and incense, though
apparently isolated, is an overture for the
seri-s of judgments, of which the suc-
cessive trumpet-blasts are precursors.
The prayers of all the saints, which, like
those of the martyrs in vi. 1ο, crave
punishment upon God’s enemies through-

Ἄ---θ.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

403

a Αα , pee \ > A ‘ A / AY ae =
ψωτὸν καὶ ἐγέμισεν αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ έβαλεν π vi. 13.

ο Exod. xix.

els τὴν 3 γῆν καὶ °éyevovto Bpovtai! καὶ φωναὶ καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ 16, Ezek.

σεισμός»

6. Καὶ ot ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι ἔχοντες τὰς 5 ἑπτὰ σάλπιγγας ἡτοίμασαν

χ. 3,

p Seven
trumpets
in Levi-
tical
orchestra,

Neh, xii. 41, etc.

1 Bpovrat και αστραπαι και Φωναι A, 16, 38, Me., Syr. (Lach., WH marg., ΑΙ.,
Ws.), text SQ, min., vg., Arm., S., Andc, Pr., etc. (Ti., Tr., WH, Bj., Sw., Bs.).

out the earth, are supported and rein-
forced by the ministry ot this angel, and
answered at once by the succession of
incidents beginning with ver. 5. This
object of Christian prayers, {.ε., the final
‘crisis, when Christ returns to crush his
enemies and inaugurate his reign, per-
vaded early Christianity as a whole. At
special periods of intolerable persecution,
it assumed under the stress of antagon-
ism as herea more sensuous and plastic
form than the ordinary consciousness of
the church would have been usually dis-
posed to cherish ; yet the common prayer
of the church in any case was for the
speedy end of the world (ἐλθέτω χάρις
καὶ παρελθέτω 6 κόσμος οὗτος, Did. x.).
In Apoc. Μος. (tr. Conybeare, Fewish
Quart. Rev., 1895, 216-235) xxxiil., when
the angels intercede for Adam at his
ascension to heaven, they take golden
censers and offer incense; whereupon
smoke overshadows the very firmament.
The intercession of angels on behalf of
the saints, a result of their function as
guardians, goes back to post-exilic Judaism
with its inarticulated conception of the
angels as helpful to mankind (Job v. τ.
xxxiii. 23; Zech. 1. 12); subsequently
the idea developed into a belief that the
prayers of the pious won special efficacy
as they were presented to God by angels
such as Gabriel, Raphael, Michael, or
the seven archangels (cf. Tobit, loc. cit. ;
Slav. En. vii. 5; En. ix. 2-11, xv. 2, xl. 6,
xlvii. 2, xcix. 3, 16, civ. 1). In Christi-
anity this τὂ]ε was naturally absorbed by
Christ, who alone ratified and inspired
his people’s supplications. But the old
belief evidently lingered in pious circles
of Jewish Christianity (cf. Test. Lev. 3,
5), side by side with a complete accept-
ance of Christ’s heavenly function. The
latter did not immediately or universally
wither up such survivals of the older
faith; popular religion tended then as
now to be wider at several points than
its theoretical principles (as in Origen,
Cels. ν. 4;.and Tertull. de Orat. xii.).
Plato, in Sympos. 202 E., makes the

δαίµονες present men’s prayers and offer-
ings to the gods, and mediate the latter’s
commands and recompence to men (cf.
Philo, de Somniis, i. 22, and on i. 1).
See further xvii. 1, xxi. 9, for a similar
state of matters in primitive Christianity
with regard to the corresponding function
of Jewish angels as intermediaries of
revelation.

Ver. 6 f. The fresh series of disasters
does not advance matters any further
than the previous seal-series. Both lead
up to the final catastrophe, and upon the
edge of it melt into a further develop-
ment which practically goes over the
same ground once more. This reflects
of course literary artifice, not any succes-
sive or continuous scheme of events; it
is iterative not historically chronolo-
gical. It is doubtful if the prophet in-
tended to suggest the idea which occurs
to a modern mind, viz., that such appa-
rent cycles seem to recur in history. At
cettain epochs everything seems to be
working up to some mighty climax for
which men look in dread or hope, and
yet the world rights itself for another
epoch; the dénouement fades for the
time being into the far horizon; the
powers of evil gather themselves afresh
in other forms. Neither here nor in the
previous seven cycles can the astrological
reference (to the colours and character-
istics of the planets, cp. Exp. Tt. xx. 426-
427) be worked out with any plausibility.

Vv. 6-12. The first four trumpets.

Ver. 6. In the scheme of the trumpet-
visions, as of the seal-visions, the first
four are differentiated from the next
three; the fifth and sixth in both cases
stand by themselves and are separated
by a considerable interlude from the clos-
ing seventh. It is remarkable that even
the final trumpet of xi. 15 f. does not cor-
respond to the loud trumpet-blast which
according to Jewish and early Christian
tradition, was to awaken the dead to
resurrection or to rally the saints (Matt.
xxiv. 31) at the close of the world. The
Apocalypse knows nothing of this fea-

~

404

. . ,
4 xi.19,xvi.aitods ἵνα σαλπίσωσι.

21 only, in

AITOKAAY¥IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

Witke

‘ ~
7. Kat 6 πρῶτος ἐσάλπισεν, καὶ.

N.T. See ἐγένετο *ydhala καὶ Ἱπῦὂρ µεμιγµένα ἐν " αἵματι, καὶ ἐβλήθη εἰς

Ovid's

Met. xv. τὴν γῆν ' καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς κατεκάη, καὶ τὸ "τρίτον τῶν ' δέν-

788, Exod.

ix. 24, Isa. Όρων κατεκάη, καὶ Tas χόρτος χλωρὸς κατεκάη.

XXVili. 2,
Ps. xviii.

8. Καὶ ὁ

δεύτερος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν, "καὶ ws ὄρος µέγα πυρὶ καιόµενον

ο Gan. v. ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν ' καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ τρίτον τῆς θαλάσσης

7, LXX

8). e

t 4 Esd. v. 8, Isa. ii. 13.
20-21.
y Irreg. as ix. 12, 18.

ture, nor of the tradition (preserved by R.
Akiba) that the process of the resurrec-
tion would be accompanied by seven
trumpet-peals from God. The first four
trumpets set in motion forces of ruin that
fall on natural objects; in Sap. v. 17-23
(xvi. 17-24) the world of nature is used
directly by God to punish men. The
closing three concern human life, z.e., the
godless inhabitants of the earth. The
general idea is that of the Jewish tradition
(see on xv. 2) which prefaced the second
great redemption by disasters analogous
to those preceding the first: cf. e.g.,
Sohar Exod. 4 6, tempore quo se reuelabit
rex Messias, faciet Deus omnia ista
miracula, prodigia et divinae uirtutis opera
coram Israele, quae fecit olim in Aegypto,
quemadmodum scriptum est Mic. vii. 15 ;
also Jalkut Sim. i. 56 6, Targ. Jon. on
Zech. x. 11, etc. The disasters remind
one now and then of the Egyptian plagues
(cf. Jos. Ant. ii. 14-1; also Amos iv. 4 f.,
Isa. ix. 7 f.). The first four visit earth,
sea, waters, and the sky. Hail-showers
were a traditional scourge and weapon
of the divine armoury; on their associa-
tion with thunderstorms see G. A. Smith’s
Hist. Geog. 64, 65.

Ver. 7. Hail and fire, as in the fourth
Egyptian plague, but with the added
O.T. horror (see reff.) of a shower of
blood instead of rain (see Chag. 12 3,
where the sixth heaven is the storehouse
of hail, storm, and noxious vapours, en-
closed within gates of fire; and specially
Sibyll. v. 377, wip yap ἀπ᾿ οὐρανῶν ...
βρέξει . . . πὂρ καὶ αἷμα). For similar
atmospheric phenomena, see on vi. 8, 12.
Portents of this abnormal nature are re-
corded for the seventh decade of the first
century by Roman historians, but there
is no need to see specific historical allu-
sions in prophecy upon this grand scale.
The sight of atmospheric fire always
signified to the ancients the approach of

_ wuEn. xviii. 13 f., xxi. 3, cviii. 4, from Jer. ii. 25?
w False apposition (ii. 20, etc.) or ptc. used (Weiss) as a relative clause.

Σαἷμα, 9. καὶ ἀπέθανε τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ θαλ-
μ. ᾽ ‘

άσσῃ, τὰ " ἔχοντα ψυχάς, καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν *Thotwy ” διεφθάρησαν.

v Exod. vii-
x Isa. ii. 16.

various disasters, especially when stars
fell. Wetstein cites Bara Mezia, 5ο, 1;
dixit R. Eliezer, percussus est mundus,
tertia mempe pars olearum, tertia pars
tritici, et tertia hordei. The third is a
primitive Semitic (Babylonian: Jastrow,
107 f.) division, which has its roots also
in Iranian religion (Yasht, xiii. 3, Yasna,
xi. 7, etc.), where the tripartite division
of earth, derived originally from the
threefold division of earth, atmosphere,
and universe, is older than the seven-
fold.—8€v8pwv, see Schol. (τὰ δένδρα.
δηλονότι) on Thuc. ii. 19 καθεζόμενοι
ἔτεμνον ... τὸ πεδίον. Pausan. ii. 365
(cf. iv. 166 f.) mentions among the pheno-
mena attending earthquakes heavy rain.
or prolonged drought, the discolour-
ing of the sun’s disc, etc.; ‘springs
mostly dry up. Sudden gusts sometimes.
sweep over the country, blowing the
trees down. At times, too, the sky is
shot with sheets of flame. Stars are
seen of an aspect never known before,
and strike consternation into all be-
holders.”

Vv. 8, 9. A fiery mass, huge as @
mountain, is flung into the sea—a de-
scription which would recall the fiery
volcanic bombs familiar to inhabitants of
the Egean. The catastrophe includes, as
in the first Egyptian plague, the turning
of water into blood and the destruction
of marine animals (4 Esd. v. 7, Verg.
Georg. iii. 541 f.), besides havoc among
the shipping. Volcanic phenomena (cf.
Introd. § 3) in the Egean archipelago (e.g.,
at Thera) are in the background of this.
description, and of others throughout the
book; features such as the disturbance
of islands and the mainland, showers of
stones, earthquakes, the sun obscured by
a black mist of ashes, and the moon
reddened by volcanic dust, were the natural.
consequences of eruption in some sub-
marine volcano, and Thera—adjoinine

7—13. AITOKAAYY

1Ο. Kat 6 τρίτος ἄγγελος

IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 405

*kat ἔπεσεν éxz Cf. Sib.

ἐσάλπισεν, ο) ᾿
Γ.ν. 158:

τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀστὴρ µέγας καιόµενος ds λαμπάς, καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ« μας cf.
Ss. 90ἱ,

, Αα lal ~
τρίτον τῶν ποταμῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς " πηγὰς τῶν ὑδάτων.
” A ο
ὄνομα τοῦ ἀστέρος λέγεται ὁ "Αψινθος᾽ καὶ "ἐγένετο τὸ τρίτον τῶν
ς ~ a
ὑδάτων Seis ἄψινθον, καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπέθανον ἐκ τῶν

ὑδάτων, ὅτι ἐπικράνθησαν.

> ΄ - lol
ἐσάλπισεν, καὶ "ἐπλήγη τὸ τρίτον τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς
, ΔΝ a a lol
σελήνης καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων, ἵνα σκοτισθῇ τὸ τρίτον αὐτῶν,
‘ lal
καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα μὴ *pdvy τὸ τρίτον αὐτῆς, καὶ ἡ νὺξ ὁμοίως.

13. Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ !

12. “Kal 6 τέταρτος ἄγγελος

πετοµένου ἐν ® μεσουρανήµατι

Il. καὶ τὸ xvii. 21,
Test.
Levi. 4.

b Jer. ix. 15,
xxiii. 15.

ς Luke xiii.
19, cf.
Win. § 29,

2 ἅπ. λεγ.

a a πιο» 2 N ΑΗ λ A ‘ N.T.
λέγοντος φωνῇ µεγάλη, ‘Oda, odat, οὐαὶ ‘tods κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ Cf xviii.

τῆς γῆς, "ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν φωνῶν τῆς σάλπιγγος τῶν τριῶν ἀγγέλων

τῶν μελλόντων σαλπίζειν ”.

h Imitated in 4 Esd. xv. 14-15.

23, Win.
§ 13, 12.
g xiv. 6, xix.
17: an.
λεγ. Nol.

1 Xil. 12. k Cf. ver. 11; = ἀπό Matt. xviii. 7.

1 The curious and inferior variant αγγελου (P, 1, etc., Arm., Vict., And., Vitringa;

unus ut aquilam, Pr.) probably arose from a copyist’s recollection of xiv. 6.

Kon-

necke (Emendationen zu Stellen N.T., 34-35) prefers the complete (so 13) reading

αγγελου ws αετου.

Patmos—was in a state of more or less
severe eruption during the first century.
All this suggested the hideous colours
in which the final catastrophe was
painted by the imagination of pious con-
temporaries. In the eruption of 1573,
the sea round Thera was tinted for
twenty miles round, and even when the
submarine volcano is quiescent, ‘‘ the sea
in the immediate vicinity of the cone is
of a brilliant orange colour, from the
action of oxide of iron”. In 1707 a large
rock suddenly appeared in the sea, dur-
ing the eruption, and owing to noxious
vapours ‘‘all fish in the harbour died”’.
Vv. 10, 11. The third part of all
drinking waters is poisoned by a huge,
noxious, torch-like meteor shooting down
from the sky (Vergil’s “‘de coelo lapsa
per umbras stella facem ducens multa
cum luce concurrit,” Aen. ii. 693, 694).
Wormwood, a bitter drug typical of
divine punishment, was apparently sup-
posed to be a mortal poison; thus Pliny
(H. N. ii. 232) ascribes the bitterness of
Lake Sannaus (Anava) in the Lycos
valley to the cirvca nascente apsinthio.
But this feature of the vision is taken
from Iranian or Mandaean eschatology
(Brandt, 584 f.), where among the signs
of the end are famine, wars, a star falling
from heaven and making the sea red [ο].
Apoc. xvi. 3], and a cyclone with a dust-
storm. Cf. 4 Esd. v. 9, et in dulcibus
aquis salae inueniuntur. Rivers and
fountains were associated in the ethnic
VOL. V. 2

<=

mind (cf. Neh. ii. 13) with supernatural
spirits and curative properties; hence
upon them this stern prophet of mono-
theism sees the doom of God falling.
ἐγένετο . . - eis, a Hebraistic constr.,
common in Apocalypse and in quota-
tions from O.T., but ‘‘ decidedly rare else-
where’”’ in N.T. (Simcox). Springs (like
those, ¢.g., near Smyrna) and fountains
naturally appeared to the ancient mind
somewhat mysterious and separate;
their lack of visible connexion with
rivers or lakes suggested the idea that
they sprang from the subterranean abyss
or that they were connected with dae-
mons, Hence their réle in the final con-
vulsions of nature (4 Esd. vi. 24 uenae
fontium stabunt, Ass. Mos. x. 8 et fontes
aquarum deficient). Cf. Rohrbach’s Im
Lande Fahwehs und Fesu (1901), 30 f.;
for their connexion with dragons, R. S.,
157, 161 f., and for their bubbling as
a mark of sacred energy, ibid. 154 f.

Ver. 12. ‘‘Soasto darken a third part of
them, and (i.e.) to prevent a third of the
day from shining (φάνῃ, or φανῇῃ, Win.)
and of the night likewise”. Daylight is
shortened by a third, and the brightness
of an Eastern night correspondingly ’
lessened (cf. the Egyptian plague of
darkness). The writer either forgets or
ignores the fact that he has already
cleared the heaven of stars (vi. 13).

Ver. 13. An ominous introduction to
the last three trumpets. An eagle, here
asin Apoc. Bar. lxxvii. 17-22, Ixxxvii. I (cf.

6

406

ANOKAAY¥IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

IX.

a viii. τοι IX. 1. ΚΑΙ 6 πέµπτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν, καὶ εἶδον " ἀστέρα ἐκ
Riegy isn. gi a ig Hi mn -
xiv. 12, τοῦ οὐρανοῦ " πεπτωκότα εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ κλεῖς τοῦ

uke x i " .
μα. Ὀφρέατος τῆς ἁβύσσου, 2. καὶ ἤνοιξε τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ἁβύσσου, καὶ
xi. 7, xvii.

8, xx. 1,3, ἀνέβη °Kamvds ἐκ τοῦ φρέατος ὡς καπνὸς Kapivou peyddns, καὶ

n. Χ.

Luke viii. ἐσκοτώθη ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ὁ ἀὴρ ἐκ τοῦ καπνοῦ τοῦ φρέατος.

31,cf.Gen.
XXiX. 2.

ς Gen. xix. ,
28, Exod, Tl,
xix.

1Ο.

ἆ xvi. το.
Only here
in N.T.
in literal sense.
in final clause. gi.7. h vii. 4-8.

Rest of Words of Bar. vii.) a messenger
and herald of catastrophe (its associations
are punitive and bodeful, Deut. xxviii.
49, Hos. viii. 1, Hab. i. 8, Eurip. Rhes.
528-536) flies in the zenith, {.ε., swoop-
ing exactly over the heads of men. For
the eagle (Simurgh in Zoroastrianism)
as the servant of Deity in ancient (Sy-
rian) mythology, see E. Bi. ‘‘ Cherub,”
§ 8, and Acts of Thomas (Hymn of Soul,
51).—‘‘Woe . . . for the rest of the
trumpet voices.” The first woe finishes
at ix. 12, the second (after the interlude
of x. I-xi. 13) at xi. 14, the third appar-
rently at xii. 12—though as usual one
series of phenomena melts irregularly
at the close into another.

CHAPTER IX.—Vv. 1-12: The fifth
trumpet.
Ver. 1. Stars (as σώματα ἐπουράνια)

drop from heaven in the form of beasts
(Enoch Ixxxvi. τ f.) and men (ibid.
Ixxxviii.) throughout Jewish apocalyptic
(cf. ibid. xviii. 16, xxi. 1, 6, xc. 21, 24) ;
even earlier (Judges v. 20, Job xxxviii. 7)
they had been personified. On falling
stars, associated as evil portents with
death or divine displeasure, see Frazer’s
Golden Bough (and ed.), ii. 18f. From
what follows, it is possible that this an-
gelic being who had fallen is conceived
as an evil agent (reff.), permitted (ἐδόθη)
to exercise malicious power on earth in
furtherance of divine judgment. ‘The
pit of the abyss ” is the abode of the devil
and daemons (reff. cf. Aen. vii. 583 f.,
viii. 243 f.), a subterranean chasm or
waste underworld, located sometimes in
the middle of the earth (Slav. En. xxviii.
3), and represented here (cf. xx. 1) as
covered by a lid or great stone. To
judge from xiii. 1, this abyss seems to
contain, as in O.T., the flow of waters
formerly upon the earth, and now confined
(according to Jewish folk-lore) by God’s

ὡς ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν ot σκορπίοι τῆς γῆς' 4.

e Cf. Schol. on Arist. Acharn. 150.

3. Καὶ

ἐκ τοῦ καπνοῦ ἐξῆλθον ἀκρίδες eis τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐξου-

καὶ ἐρρέθη

18, > a _¢ ee , 9 , ~ a if οσον ἆ a Q
Joel ii, 2, αὐτοῖς ἵνα μὴ ἀδικήσουσιν τὸν χόρτον τῆς γῆς, ΄ οὐδὲ * πᾶν χλωρὸν,
οὐδὲ πᾶν δένδρον, εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους 5 οἵτινες οὐκ " ἔχουσι τὴν

f Hebraistic Ξοὐδέν; οὐδέ synt. irreg-

decree and the magical potency of His
name (cf. on xx. 4 and ii. 17 also Prayer
of Manasseh, ‘‘O Lord Almighty...
Who hast shut up the deep, τὴν ἄβυσσον
and sealed it by thy terrible and glorious
name”’. A fearsome cavity (‘ditis
spiraculum”) emitting poisonous ex-
halations once existed near Hierapolis
(Pliny, H. N. ii. 05). Such chasms
(throughout Italy, Greece and Asia)
seemed, to the superstitious, local inlets
into Hades and outlets for infernal air in
the shape of mephitic vapours. In
Phrygia itself springs of hot vapour and
smoke are a feature of the Lycos valley
(C. B. P. i. 2, 3), and the volcanic cone
in the harbour of Thera was believed to
be such an aperture of hell. Fire belch-
ing from this subterranean furnace was a
sure portent of the final catastrophe (4
Esd. v. 8); cf. Renan, 330 f., 396, R. S.
127, and Jeremias, 116 f.

Ver. 2. For the following description
of this destructive horde of weird locusts,
see Joel ii. with Driver’s notes and ex-
cursus (C. B.) to which add the famous
description of a locust-plague in New-
man’s Callista (ch. xv.). Naturally the
sketch is far more idealised than that
given by Joel; it often recalls the
monstrous associates created by Tiamat
out of the primeval abyss (Jastrow, pp.
419 f.); {.ε., strong warriors, ‘‘ great ser-
pents, merciless in attack, sharp of tooth.
With poison instead of blood she filled
their bodies. Furious vipers she clothed
with terror, made them high of stature.*

Vv. 3,4. The dense smoke resolves
itself into a swarm of infernal demons in
the form of locusts but rendered more
formidable by their additional power of
stinging like scorpions. Instead of ptey-
ing on their natural food (Exod. x. 15),
already plagued (viii. 7) they are let
loose upon men unmarked by the Divine

I—7.

σφραγίδα τοῦ * Θεοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν µετώπων.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

407

5. καὶ ἐδόθη adtots! tvai Full
season

μὴ ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτούς, GAN ἵνα βασανισθήσονται ‘pivas * πέντε" locusts
καὶ 6 βασανισμὸς αὐτῶν ὡς βασανισμὸς σκορπίου, ὅταν παίσῃ April to
ἄνθρωπον. k ορ
6. καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις " ζητήσουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τὸν ΜΑ

θάνατον, trast Phil

‘kal οὐ μὴ εὕρωσιν 2 αὐτόν’ 1 Job χα

καὶ " ἐπιθυμήσουσιν ἀποθανεῖ», ors
καὶ Φεύγει 6 θάνατος am αὐτῶν. ον

7. Καὶ τὰ ὁμοιώματα τῶν ἀκρίδων ὅμοια ™ ἵπποις ἠτοιμασμένοις Ἐν ως
εἰς " πόλεμον, ο π

Aesch. fr. 314, cf. Sib. Or. viii. 353, Herod. vii. 46, and Eur. Hipp. 1047. πι Joel ii. 4. re all 17

1 Read avrous (NA, 1, Pr.) as in vv. 3 and 4 (80), with Ti., Ws., Bs., Bj. (Lach.
WH marg., Sw., ver. 5).

2 Read ου py (NAPQ, 1, etc., And., Areth.) ευνρωσιν (AP, min., etc.) with Lach.,
Diist., WH marg., Ws., Bs., Bj. [ευρησουσιν QQ, min., vg., Andpal, Areth., Ti., Tr.

Al. Sw., WH].

seal (though the expected blast of winds
is dropped), the idea being similar to that
reproduced in Ps. Sol. xiii. 1-3, 4, 5, xv.
I, 9 (see above, on vii. 3). The nations
under command of Holofernes (Jud. ii.
20) are also likened by the Jewish
romancer to a swarm of innumerable
locusts ; and from the mouth of the beast
in Hermas issue ἀκρίδες πύριναι to per-
secute the virgin church. Josephus, too,
compares the army of Simeon to locusts
(B. ¥. iv. 97). Why are trees (vii. 1)
exempted? For the reason suggested
in Ps. Sol. xi. 6, 7»?

Ver. 5. maton here, like ἐπάταξεν
Jas. iv. 7, represents LXX, tr. of in
sense of reptile’s bite ; the scorpion with
its long-fanged tail stings the prey which
it has already gripped with its claws
(cf. Sen. Hercul. 1218). Scorpions were
a natural symbol for vicious and dan-
gerous opponents (cf. Ezek. ii. 6, Luke
x. 9), whose attacks were always painful
and might be mortal. “The sting is
not perilous. ... The wounded part
throbs with numbness and aching till
the third day, there is not much swell-
ing” (Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 328). But
the effects were not always so mild (Arist.
Η. N. ix. 29).

Ver. 6. The withholding of death,
instead of being an alleviation, is really
a refinement of torture; so infernal is
the pain, that the sufferers crave, but
crave in vain, for death (Sibyll. iii. 208 :
καὶ καλέσουσι καλὸν τὸ θανεῖν καὶ
Φεύξετ᾽ am αὐτῶν). It is singular that

suicide is never contemplated, although
it was widely prevalent at this period in
certain circles of the Empire (see Meri-
vale’s Romans under the Emfire, ch. lxiv;
Lecky’s Europ. Morals, i. 212 f.). For
its un-Jewish character see Jos. Bell. iii.
8. 5.

Ver. 7. Arabian poets compare locusts
in head to the horse, in breast to the lion,
in feet to the camel, in body to the snake,
in antenne to a girl’s long, waving hair.
The resemblance of the head in locusts
and in horses has been often noticed
(Cavalleta, Italian), and their hard scales
resemble plates of equine armour. The
rest of the description is partly fanciful
(‘crowns gleaming like gold,” human
faces; yet cf. Pl. H. N. vi. 28, Arabes
mitrati degunt, aut intonsa crine), partly
(vv. 8-g) true to nature (woman’s hair
[t.e., abundant and flowing, a well-known
trait of the Parthians and Persians],
and lion-like teeth, scaly plates on the
thorax, and rustling or whirring noises),
partly (ver. το) recapitulatory (=ver. 5;
note ὁμοίας σκορπίοις, an abbreviated
comparison like Homer’s κόµαι Χαρί-
τεσσιν ὁμοῖαι), partly (ver. seh icone
tive (cf. Prov. xxx. 27). The leader
of these demons is the angel of the
inferno from which they issue. His
name is Abaddon (cf. Exp. Times, xx.
234 f.), a Heb. equivalent for Nw
personified like death and Hades. The
final syllable of the name is taken to
represent as in Greek, a personal ending.
Hence the LXX rendering ἀπώλεια pro-

408 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΙΧ.

ο ee form, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν ὡς στέφανοι ὅμοιοι χρυσῶ,
ε[. χ.ο, Xi. Ay 2
12. Ab- καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν Os πρόσωπα ἀνθρώπων '
bott (go) . ~
compares 8. καὶ °elxay τρίχας ὡς τρίχας γυναικῶν *
the femi- Sc poge Bray Me hee 3 #
nine garb καὶ οἱ 5 ὀδόντες αὐτῶν ὡς λεόντων ἦσαν
of the ee , ε ϐ , ὃ ο
fanatics Ο. καὶ εἶχον θώρακας ὡς θώρακας σιδηροῦς
in Jeru- a A oe
ara καὶ ἡ φωνὴ τῶν πτερύγων αὐτῶν ὡς φωνὴ ἁρμάτων 1 πολλῶν
(Jos. Bell. t > aN
WV. 9, το) τρεχόντων εἰς πόλεμον.
PJocli-& το, καὶ ἔχουσιν " οὐρὰς " ὁμοίας σκορπίοις καὶ κέντρα, καὶ ἐν
zo. ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἀδικῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους µῆνας
q Jer. xlvii. » ο Mune Spree λε CE) a opens
3 Joel ii, πέντε. 11. ἔχουσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν |βασιλέα τὸν ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσ-
5. eh ae rn 5ς pee Ne = 2 ΜΕ ~ wt na
1 Ver. 19, OU" ὄνομα αὐτῷ ο ο Αβαδδών, καὶ ἐν τῇ " Ἑλληνικῇ
xii. 4: ἅπ. 5 » wee? ΄ ’
hey NLT. ὄνομα EXEL ος A
s Constr. χε sau ἡ ἆ π“ῃ :
ας 12. Ἡ οὐαὶ ἡ sed ἀπῆλθεν
te ἰδοὺ 7 ἔρχεται ἔτι δύο οὐαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα.
ο... 14. Καὶ 6 ἕκτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν ' καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν * µίαν ἐκ
XVi11. .
ματς κεράτων τοῦ "θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ * χρυσοῦ τοῦ ἐνώπιον τοῦ ° Θεοῦ,
, XXViii. a i
22. «14. λέγοντα τῷ Extw ἀγγέλῳ 6 ἔχων τὴν σάλπιγγα, “'Λῦσον τοὺς
Vv απ. ΕΥ. ie au By
NT. τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους τοὺς δεδεµένους "ἐπὶ τῷ ποταμῷ τῷ µεγάλῳ
w Constr.
Blass,§ *Edppdty’’. 15. Kat ἐλύθησαν ot τέσσαρες ἄγγελοι οἱ ° HToua-
33,75
Win. 8 29, ν p . = :
τὸ. x Cf. xi. 14, rare and irreg. Win. § 28, 2d. y Cf. Ezek. vii. 25-26: irreg. due to Heb.

fem.=Gk. neut.? Vit. ii. 98 f.
t Kings ix. 23, Ezek. xli. 22.
d xvi. 12.

z = indef. art. viii. 13, Dan. viii. 13.
b 4.¢., θρόνου (viii. 3).
e Providential sense, xii. 6, cf. Dan. vii. 12.

a Exod. xxx. I-10
c “At,” or “beside,” John iv. 6.

1 After αρµατων om. urmwv (so Sah., Bousset, Baljon, Kénnecke p. 35) as a
gloss introduced by a copyist to smooth out the sense of the O.T. citation.

Άομοιας PQ, min., And., Areth., vg. (edd.) [ομοιοις ΝΑ, 14 (Ττ., WH marg.)]
prim. corrupt. of οµοια as adverb, like οµοιον = οιον i. 13, xiv. τά (WH

bably suggested the synonym ᾽Απολλύων,
containing a (sarcastic?) gibe at Apollo
with whom the locust was associated
(‘‘uelut proprium nomen Caesaribus,”
Suet. Oct. 29); cf. Schol. on Aesch.
Agam. 1085 and Plato’s Cvatylus, 404,
405. Both Caligula and Nero aped the
deity of Apollo, among their other follies
of this kind, as Antiéchus Epiphanes had
already done.

Ver. 12. A parenthetical remark of the
author. ἔρχεται with plur. subj. follow-
ing is not an irregularity due to Greek
neut. as equiv. to Heb. fem. (Viteau, ii.
98-100), but an instance of the so-called
“ Pindaric” anacoluthon (cf. Moult. i. 58).

Vv. 13-21. The sixth trumpet blast.

Ver. 13. The golden altar of incense
stands before God, as in the original
tabernacle and temple; the specially
solemn invocation of the angel shows
that the Parthian-like invasion consti-
tutes the climax of this series of disasters.

φωνήν, as i. Το, x. 4, etc., the “bath ᾳοἱ
(Gfrorer, i. 253 f., Dalman, viii. τ).

Ver. 14. The sixth angel takes part in
the action. The Euphrates had been the
ideal Eastern boundary of Israel’s terri-
tory : it now formed the frontier between
Rome and her dreaded neighbour, the
Parthian Empire (Philo, leg. ad C. § ii;
Verg. Georg. i. 509 ; Tac. Hist. iv. 51).

Ver. 15. This quartette of angels (=
complete ruin, Zech. i. 18 f.) has been
kept in readiness, or reserved for this
occasion, though they are not to be con-
nected (as by Spitta) with the four mo-
ments of time—hour, day, month, and
year. Like the use of δεῖ, μέλλει, and
ἐδόθη, this touch of predestined action
brings out the strong providential belief
running through the Apocalypse. On
the réle of destructive angels in Jewish
eschatology cf. Charles on Slav. En. x. 3
and for the astrological basis (En. Ixxvi.
το f.) of this tradition see Fries in Fahrb

6—17.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

409

Δ a .
σµένοι εἰς τὴν ὥραν καὶ ἡμέραν καὶ µῆνα καὶ ἐνιαυτόν, «ἵνα f Constr. i.

Β , OW he , a ,
ἀποκτείνωσι τὸ "τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
στρατευμάτων τοῦ ‘immKod δισµυριάδες pupiddwv: ἤκουσα τὸν

ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν.

A -
καὶ τοὺς καθηµένους ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἔχοντας θώρακας
᾿"ῥακινθίνους καὶ ᾿θειώδεις᾽ καὶ αἱ κεφαλαὶ τῶν ἵππων ds κεφαλαὶ
a A cal
λεόντων, καὶ ἐκ τῶν στοµάτων αὐτῶν °

9, Sib. Or. iii. 544, v. 103.

17. Καὶ " οὕτως εἶδον τοὺς ἵππους ἐν τῇ | ὁράσει,

i Only here in Ν.Τ.
Diff. sense in iv. 2. Only in Acts ii. 17 (O.T. quot.), elsewhere in N.T.
curious variant spineas (= ἀκανθίνους) Pr. see Nestle’s Einfuhr. 264.

9, V. I2,
xiv. 6,
article
grouping
several
substan-
, . tives.
πυρινους και g With
ἐλυθ.
rather
than ἡτ.
despite
Viii. 6.
Q h Zech. xiii.
ki.e., ‘As is now to be described”.
m Nah. ii. 3: on the
n 1 Chron. xii. 8.

16. καὶ 6 ἀριθμὸς τῶν

i

ἐκπορεύεται πὂρ καὶ καπνὸς

o (Constr. as in 1 Tim. vi. 4, Jas. iii. 10), cf. xi. 5, Job xli. 19-21, Joel ii. 3.

f. d. klass, Alterth. (1902) 705 f. Pro-
bably the author means that the angels
set in motion the hordes of cavalry (two
hundred million) described in the semi-
mythical, semi-historical pageant of the
next passage. But he does not directly
connect the two, and it is evident that here
as at vii. 1 Ε., we have “« dream-like incon-
sequences” (Simcox), or else two frag-
ments of apocalyptic tradition, originally
heterogeneous, which are pieced together
(at νετ. 16). The four angels here do not
correspond in function or locality to the
four unfettered angels of vii. 1; they
rather represent some variation of that
archaic tradition in which four angels
(perhaps angel-princes of the pagan
hordes) were represented as bound (like
winds ?) at the Euphrates—a geographi-
cal touch due to the history of contem-
porary warfare, in which the Parthians
played a réle similar to that of the Huns,
the Vikings, or the Moors in later ages.
Since the first century B.c. a Parthian
invasion of some kind had formed part of
the apocalyptic apparatus so that there
is no particular need to allegorise the
Euphrates into the Tiber or to find the
four angels in Ps. Ixxviii. 49 (LXX).
The bloody and disastrous Parthian cam-
paign of 58-62 (cf. on vi. 2) may account
for the heightened colour of the scene,
whether the fragment was composed at
that period, or (as is most probable)
written with it in retrospect. But the
entire vision is one powerful ‘maginative
development of a tradition preserved in a
Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra (published by
Baethgen) which may be based on old
Jewish materials: ‘‘and a voice was
heard, Let those four kings be loosed,
who are bound at the great river Eu-
phrates, who are to destroy a third part
of men. And they were loosed, and
there was a mighty uproar.” Could this
be reckoned as proof of an independent
tradition it would help to illumine the

application of the idea in John's Apoca-
lypse, especially if one could accept with
Kohler the attractive conjecture of Iselin
that ἀγγέλους represents a confusion (or
variety of reading, cf. 2 Sam. xi. 1, 1

Chron. xx. 1) between oxo
(Ξ-ἄγγ.) and 059557 in a Hebrew
original of Apoc. ix. 15 (Zeits. aus der
Schweis, 1887, 64). The conjecture
(Spitta, de Faye, J. Weiss) ἀγέλαι
(=hosts, as in 2 Macc. iii. 18, etc.) is
less likely, and ἐπὶ cannot be taken with
Adoov (Bruston). Cavalry formed a
standing feature of the final terror for
the Jewish imagination ever since the
Parthians loomed on the political horizon
(Ass. Mos. iii. 1). The whole passage
was one of those denounced by the Alogi
as fantastic and ridiculous (cf. Epiph.
Haer. li. 34). Gaius also criticised it as
inconsistent with Matt. xxiv. 7.

Ver. 16. The second woe is an irrup-
tion of fiendish cavalry.

Ver. 17. Here only the writer refers
to his “vision”. éyovras (horse and
rider regarded as one figure: in the Per-
sian heavy cavalry horses as well as men
were clad in bright plate) κ.τ.λ., ‘they
wore coats of mail, the colour of fire and
jacinth and brimstone,” 1.6., gleaming
red, dark blue, and yellow, unless tax.
(a favourite Oriental military colour) is
meant to denote the colour of dull smoke.
Plutarch, in his life of Sulla, describes
the Medes and Scythians with their
πυροειδῆ καὶ φοβερὰν ὄψιν (cf. Sir.
xviii. ϱ).--πΌρ, κ.τ.λ., like Job’s levia-
than, Ovid’s bulls (Metam. vii. 104), or
Diomede’s horses (Lucret. v. 29, cf. Aen.
vii. 281). They are also as destructive
as Joel’s locusts. The description is a
blend of observation and fantastic popu-
lar beliefs. Brimstone was a traditional
trait of divine wrath among people who
“associated the ozonic smell which often
so perceptibly accompanies lightning

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

IX.

~ ~ ~ ή κ
18. ἀπὸ τῶν τριῶν πληγῶν τούτων ’ ἀπεκτάνθησαν τὸ

κ ΔΝ ο [ο 4 a q 6 [ή
πυρὸς καὶ τοῦ καπνοῦ καὶ τοῦ "θείου
19. ἡ γὰρ ἐξουσία τῶν

~ lA >
20. Καὶ ot λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ot οὐκ ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν

A ‘ 3/, I
‘iva Ἰ μὴ προσκυνήσουσι τὰ δαιμόνια καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα "τὰ

* kal

v Constr. iii. 9, Matt. xxi. 32, etc.; ἵνα μὴ of conceived

410
\ a
p Plur. vb. καὶ θεῖον.
withsing. , a i i a
noun (η TpiTov τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐκ τοῦ 4
collective if Me a
genes) τοῦ ἐκπορευομένου ἐκ τῶν στοµάτων αὐτῶν.
cy. on PS i om a SA We ς x
viii.g. ἵππων ἐν τῷ στόµατι αὐτῶν ἐστιν καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς atT@v* αἱ γὰρ
q xiv. 10 \ HM aNd ΑΜ te
xix. 20, OUpal αὐτῶν " ὅμοιαι ὄφεσιν, ἔχουσαι "κεφαλάς, καὶ ἐν αὐταῖς ἀδι-
xxi. δ. nm
τ Cf. above KOUGL.
onver.I0.__~ = a ” ανα a
s Sir. xxv. Ταῖς πληγαῖς ταύταις, "οὐ 1 * µετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν " έργων τῶν " χειρῶν
σι Sue
t xvi. 11, 21, αυτων,
u Deut. iv. a νο - νι a NUL Ns, SLUR wr κ
28 Mic. Χρυσᾶ καὶ τὰ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ τὰ χαλκᾶ καὶ τὰ λίθινα καὶ τὰ "ξύλινα,
5, μα.
ena ”ἃ οὔτε βλέπειν δύνανται οὔτε ἀκούειν οὔτε " περιπατεῖν ' 21.
“AS,
Isa. ii. 8, ‘
20:= “idols”. Philo. vit. contempl. § 1.
result. w From Dan. v. 4, 23, also from Ps. cxv. 4-7, etc., En. xcix. 7.

Apoc. Pet. 25, Ezek. xliii. 9.

x Cf. xxii. 15,

1 For (before µετεν.) ουτε (AP, 1, 36, etc., Bg., Lach.) read ov C, min., And, pal,
Areth., WH, Bs., Bj. [ουδε SQ, 14, 38, 92, vg., Copt., Pesh., Syr., Cyp., Pr., etc.,

Ti., Al. Sw., Ws.].

discharges with the presence of sulphur”
(E. Bi. 611). The symbolism is coloured
by actual Parthian invasions (67. vi. 1 f.)
and by passages like Sap. xi. 18 where
God punishes men by sending “un-
known, newly-created wild beasts full of
rage, breathing out a fiery blast or snort-
ing out noisome smoke or flashing dread
sparkles from their eyes.” Mr. Bent
recalls the curious superstition of the
modern Therans, who during the erup-
tions of last century saw ‘‘in the pillars
of smoke issuing from their volcano,
giants and horsemen and terrible beasts”’.

Ver. 19. Heads attached to their ser-
pentine tails are an allusion not only to
the well-known tactics of the Parthians
(cf. Parad. Regained, iii. 323 f.) but to
a trait of ancient Greek mythology; on
the altar of Zeus at Pergamos (cf. note
on ii. 12) the giants who war against the
gods are equipped with snakes (instead
of limbs) that brandish open jaws. The
amphisbaena of ancient mythology was
often described as possessing a headed
tail (‘‘tanquam parum esset uno ore fundi
uenena,” Pliny: H. N. viii. 35).

Vv. 20, 21. The impenitence of the
surviving two-thirds of men, who per-
sist in worshipping daemons and idols
(Weinel, 3, 4). Hellenic superstition
(Plut. de defectu ογαο. 14) attributed to
malignant daemons these very plagues
of pestilence, war, and famine. Plutarch
is always protesting against the exces-
sive deference paid to such powers, and
on the other hand against the rationalists
and Christians who abjured them entirely.

Satp., either the gods of paganism

(LXX) or the evil spirits of contemporary
superstition. In Enoch xix. 1, the spirits
of the fallen angels “‘assuming many
forms defile men and shall lead them
astray to offer sacrifices to demons as to
gods”; cf. xlvi. 7 (of the kings and
rulers) ‘‘ their power rests on their riches,
and their faith is in the gods which they
have made with theirhands”. (See Clem.
Strom. vi. 5. 39, 490)---ἀργυρᾶ, contracted
form, as in 2 Tim. ii. 20 (Helbing, pp.
34 f.).—dapp., here in special sense of
magic spells inciting to illicit lust (Arte-
mid. v. 73), a prevalent Asiatic vice (cf.
Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. 31). But in the
imprecatory (ο. 100 B.C.) inscription of
Rheneia (Dittenberger, Syll. Inscript.
Graec.? pp. 676 f.), punishment is in, oked
from τὸν κύριον τῶν πνευμάτων (cf.
Apoc. xxii. 6) upon τοὺς δόλωι φονεύσαγ-
τας ἢ φαρμακεύσαντας the hapless girl.
The three vices of the decalogue occur
here (as in Matt.) in the Hebrew order,
not in that of the LXX (Rom. xiii. 9;
Mark x. 19; Luke xviii. 20). Cf. on xxi. 8,
and, for the connexion of polytheism and
vice, Harnack’s Mission and Exp. of
Christianity, i. (1908), pp. 290 4. Repen-
tance here (as in xvi. 9. 11) is primarily a
change of religion, but the prophet has
evidently little hope of the pagan world.
There is no polemic against the Egyptian
worship of animals, and, in spite of the
Jewish outlook upon the dolores Messiae,
the Apocalypse ignores family disturb-
ances and false messiahs as harbingers
of the end.—Once more (cf. vii. τ f.)
between the sixth (ix. 13-21) and the
seventh (xi. 15-19) members of the series,

18—21. X. 1—3.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

411

3 , > A x , ee 3 3 a ¥; ~ αν Ss
OU µετενόησαν EK τῶν * φόνων αὐτῶν οὔτε ἐκ τῶν Φαρμακειῶν αὐτῶν Υ Ο/. xvii. 1

οὔτε ἐκ τῆς πορνείας αὐτῶν οὔτε ἐκ τῶν * κλεμμάτων αὐτῶν.

Χ. 1. ΚΑΙ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ, "περιβεβλημένον "νεφέλην, καὶ ἡ Ptpus ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν
αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ "πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, καὶ of ἆ πόδες αὐτοῦ ds

with xviii,
2, 23, En.
χον. 4,
also Isa.
xlvii. of.,
Mal. ili. 5
2 Kings
ix. 22.

, αν ig ‘ ~ ol aT. .
στύλοι Trupds* 2. καὶ "ἔχων ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ΄ βιβλαρίδιον ἠνεῳωγ-΄ Noe”
, . \ a a i. 7, Xi
µένον ΄ καὶ * ἔθηκε τὸν πόδα αὐτοῦ τὸν δεξιὸν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, Tov? * 7%

\ Β a a A
δὲ εὐώνυμον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 3. Kal ἔκραξε φωνῇ µεγάλῃ ὥσπερ λέων
"μυκᾶται᾿ καὶ ὅτε ἔκραξεν, ἐλάλησαν αἱ ἑπτὰ βρονταὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν

Augur A pollo). b iv. 3.
e As if ἄλλος ayy. had preceded (ver. 1).
XViii. 16.
1062, Arist. Clouds, 292.

a passage (this time of some length) is
intercalated (x. I-xi. 13), in which the
personality of the seer now re-emerges
(on earth, instead of in heaven). The
object of x. τ-1Ι is to mark at once a
change of literary method and a transi-
tion from one topic to another. The
passage, which certainly comes from the
prophet’s own pen (so Sabatier, Schon,
and others), looks backward and forward.
Now that the preliminaries are over, all
is ready for the introduction of the two
protagonists (xi.-xiii.) whose conflict
forms the closing act of the world’s
history (xv. I-xx. 10). One of these is
Jesus, the divine messiah, who has
hitherto (v.-ix.) been depicted as the
medium of revelation. Since his rdle
is now to be more active, the prophet
expressly alters the literary setting of
his visions. The subsequent oracles are
not represented as the contents of the
book of Doom (which is now open,
with the breaking of its last seal).
Dropping that figure (contrast v. 2 and
x. I) the writer describes himself absorb-
ing another roll of prophecy received
from an angel. Evidently he intends to
mark a new departure, and to introduce
what follows as a fresh start. This new
procedure is accompanied by an explicit
assurance—intended to whet the reader’s
interest—that the Apocalypse has now
reached the verge of the final catas-
trophe; the prophet apparently makes
this eagerness to reach the goal the
reason for omitting a seyen-thunders
vision (or source) which otherwise he
might have been expected to include
either at this point or subsequently. It
is quite in keeping with the wider out-
look and rather more historical atmos-
phere of xi. f., that a freer and less

ci. 16, cf. Matt. xvii. 2.
recede _ f£ Corrupt form of class. dimin. Βιβλιδάριον.
h Am. i. 2, iii. 4, 8, Hos. xi. το, etc.

14, from
Dan. vii.
is
“cloud-
wrapt ”
(like

: Horace’s
di. 15, cf. Exod. xiv. το (LX Χ).
m g Sap.
iam. λεγ. N.T.; of thunder Aesch. Prom.

numerical method pervades these oracles.
In short, x. 1-11 is a digression only in
form. It serves to introduce not simply
the Jewish fragment (xi. 1-13)—whose
strange contents probably required some
express ratification—but the rest of the
oracles (xiii. f.), which are thus awk-
wardly but definitely connected with the
foregoing design (through the closing
trumpet-vision: x. 7=xi. 15 f.).

CHAPTER X.—Ver. 1. ἄλλον, referring
to v. 2, where another strong angel was
mentioned, also in connexion with a book.
The position of the seer is implied (since
viii. 2?) to be no longer in heaven (cf.
verses 4 and 8), but on earth, as the
gigantic angel of light descends to him.
The face and feet are described in stereo-
typed fashion. In Ezekiel’s description
of God (i. 28) the appearance of a rain-
bow surrounds the divine throne, as an
element of the theophany in nature.
Here also it is an esthetic detail. Sue-
tonius describes (Vit. Aug. 95) Augustus
seeing suddenly ‘“‘in a clear and bright
sky a circle, like a rainbow in heaven,
surrounding the sun’s disc’.

Ver. 2. ‘And in his (left? cf. ver. 5)
hand a small booklet open” (in contrast
to the larger closed book of v. 1), after
Ezek. Π. 9. This colossal figure, like an
Arabian jin, bestrides earth and sea. His
message is for the broad world.

Ver. 3. ὥσπερ λέων (of God in O.T.,
reff.; of the messiah 4 Esd. xi. 37, xii.
31) μυκᾶται Theokr, Jd. xxvi. 21, μύκημα
λεαίνης, properly of cattle=“ to bellow”’.
ἐλάλησαν x.7T.A.=‘‘uttered what they
had to say” (i.e., spoke articulately). αἱ
(the well-known or familiar) βρονταί ‘‘of
the apocalyptic machinery ”’ (Alford), or
a popular piece of apocalyptic prophecy
(see below). Cf. the sevenfold voice of

412

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

Des

ki.10f.,19 φωνάς' 4 καὶ ὅτε ἐλάλησαν ai ἑπτὰ βρονταὶ npeAdov! γράφειν *

Xiv. 13,
etc.
1 Dan. viii.

26, xii. 4, σαν at ἑπτὰ βρονταί, καὶ μὴ αὐτὰ γράψης.

cf. Apoc.
Bar. xx.

καὶ ἤκουσα * φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, λέγουσαν ᾿ Σφράγισον & ἐλάλη-

5. Καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος, ὃν

εἶδον ἑστῶτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, “Ape τὴν χεῖρα

8. a ἁ αφ. 3
τι Gen. xiv. αὐτοῦ τὴν δεξιὰν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, 6. καὶ ” ὤμοσεν " ἐν τῷ ζῶντι εἰς

10, 22,
Deut.
XXX1li. 40,

AY 2A lal 3 ο ” Q > x Ν BS 3 5. ΔΝ
τους αιωνας των ALWYWY, OS εκτισε TOV oupavov και τα εν αυτῷ και

A A A ~ 7
Ezek. xx. THY γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῆ, “' Ὅτι

ἐπ ουταῖς) Ρ χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται ' 7. GAN’ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ ἑβδό-

Matt. v.
34, 36, xxiii. 16, 18, 20-22.
lv. 3, 10, cf. Ezek. xii. 23-24.

o Neb. ix. 6, Ps. cxlv. (cxlvi.) 6.

p =respite, ii. 21, Jos. Bell.

1The double augment of ηµελλον (ACQ, min., so Lach., Tr., WH, Ws., Swete)
is better attested here than in iii. 2, cf. Helbing 71-72.

the Lord in thunder, Ps. xxix. The
seven thunders here may be conceived
loosely as the echoes of the angel’s
voice reverberating through the universe
(Spitta, Weiss), thunder, throughout the
ancient world, being especially venerated
as a divine voice or warning.

Ver. 4. To seal or shut up a vision
is to keep it secret from mankind, 2.e.,
in the present case (by a sequence of
thought which is scarcely logical) to
leave it unwritten. Ina similar passage
(Apoc. Bar. xx. 3) ‘‘seal” means to lay
up fast in one’s memory (because the
realisation is not immediate) ; but this
meaning is suggested by the context,
although it might suit the present pas-
sage. The seer describes himself as pro-
hibited by a heavenly voice (which rever-
ence leaves as usual undefined, 4 Esd.
vi. 17: Dalman viii. 1) from obeying
his impulse. Noreason is assigned; but
the plain sense of the passage is that
the author wishes (Weizs., Schon, Bs.,
Holtzm., Pfleid.) to justify his omission
of a seven-thunder source or set of
visions circulating in contemporary
circles of prophecy (x. 7). In view ot the
authoritative character of such fragments
or traditions John justifies his procedure
by the explanation that he felt inspired
to do so, and also to substitute other
oracles. Thus in the middle, as at the
opening and end of his book, he reite-
rates his prophetic authority. The epi-
sode may further indicate that the written
contents of the Apocalypse represents
merely a part of the author’s actual
vision (cf. John xxi. 25), or it may serve
to heighten the effect of what is now to
be introduced, or it may suggest that
while the seer is to write (i. 11), he is to
write only what is revealed through the
medium of angels. In Slay. En. xxiii. 3,
6 the seer spends thirty days in writing

the remarks of his angel-instructor. To
hear ἄρρητα ῥήματα, ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ
λαλῆσαι was not incompatible, however,
with an ἀποκάλυψις κυρίου (2 Cor. xii.
1-4), cf. Weinel, 162 f. There was an
inspiration of restraint as well as an in-
spiration of impulse. Thus Hermas
(Vis. i. 3) listens with wonder to glories
of God which he could not remember,
‘*for all the words were awful, such as
man cannot bear. The last words, how-
ever, | did remember; they were fit for
us and mild”. Possibly the seven-
thunders source was of a severely puni-
tive character (viii. 5), traversing ground
which had been already (vi.-ix.) and was
to be again (xv.-xvi.) covered.

Vv. 5-6. Modelling from Dan. xii. 7,
the writer describes the angel’s oath (by
the living God, as usual in O.T.; cf.
Matt. xxvi. 63), with its native gesture
(cf. Trumbull’s Threshold-Covenant, 78
f.) and contents. In the ancient world
oaths were usually taken in the open-air
(Usener, Gétternamen, 181), before the
all-seeing deities of the upper light. But
here, as at iv. 17 and xiv. 7, the eschato-
logical and the creative acts of God (the
latter an outcome οἱ His living might, as
Sir. xviii. 1, En. v. 1, Acts xiv. 15, etc.)
are deliberately conjoined; God’s activity
in creation and providence would culmi-
nate in judgment. ‘‘ There shall be no
further delay,” or time lost. The interval
of vi. 11 (Dan. xii. 7) is over: all is ripe
now for the end, 7 συντέλεια καιροῦ.
The parallels in Slav. En. xxxiii. 2, Ixv.
7, upon the abolition of seasons and
periods of time are merely verbal. What
engages the writer here is the usual point
of importance in apocalyptic literature,
viz., “Is it long to the end? Is the
future longer than the past” (4 Esd. iv.
44-50) ?

Ver.’ 7. Vav consec. with the Heb,

4—9.

ATIOKAAYVIZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

413

µου ἀγγέλου, ὅταν µέλλῃη σαλπίζειν, καὶ Ἱἐτελέσθη τὸ µυστήριον α xv. 1,

A ~ A 7
τοῦ Θεοῦ, "ds " εὐηγγέλισεν τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ δούλους τοὺς προφήτας ”.
8. Καὶ 4 φωνὴ ἣν ἤκουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, πάλιν λαλοῦσαν

pet ἐμοῦ καὶ λέγουσαν, '''Ὕπαγε "AdBe τὸ βιβλίον 1 τὸ * ἠνεωγ-
/ > ~ A lol lol c lol μεν ~ / Δ
µένον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ ἑστῶτος ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ

ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς”.

Christianity, Col. i. 26 = Eph. iii. 1-12 1 Pet. i. 10-12= Rom. xvi. 25.
as act. vb. only here and xiv. 6 (ἐπὶ accus.) in N.T.: late Greek usage.
v Double augment, Blass, § 15,7; Win. § 12, 7.

like ἀνάβα (iv. 2) an Attic form.
xi. 12, for form.

ϱ. Καὶ " ἀπῆλθα πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον, λέγων αὐτῷ

John xix.

30.

r Zech. i. 6,
Amos iii.
7, Dan. ix.
6, ro, etc.,
cf. Acts
ili. 21.
Favourite
thought
of sub-
primitive

s Cf. Gal. iil. 8. εὐαγ.

t xvi. 1. uv. 7:
w Cf, ix. 8,

1For βιβλιδαριον (Q, etc., Anda,c, Areth.) or βιβλαριδιον (NYP, 1, etc., Al., Ti.,

Bs., Bj.) read βιβλιον AC, 6, 14 (Lach., Tr., WH, Sw., Ws.).

readings are corrections.

pf. (LXX= καὶ and fut. indic.) here by an
awkward solecism (cf. on iii. 20) =‘* Then
is (z.e., shall be) fnished the secret of
God.” The final consummation (inaug-
urated by the advent of messiah, xii.) is
to take place not later than the period of
the seventh angel’s trumpet-blast, which
ex hypothesi is imminent. The µυστή-
ptov is plainly, as the context implies,
full of solace and relief to God’s people.
—einyy- The total (exc. xiv. 6) omission
of εὐαγγέλιον and the restricted use of
its verb inthe Apocalypse may have been
due to the fact that such terms had been
soiled by ignoble usage in the local
Ionian cult of εὐάγγελος (e.g., at Ephe-
sus), with its oracular revelations and
fellowship of Euangelidae. The Asiatic
calendar of Smyrna contained a month
called evayyéAvos.—The connexion be-
tween pvotypiov=‘‘secret purpose or
-counsel’”’ (as here) and p.=‘‘ symbol, or
symbolic representation’”’ (i. 20, xvii. 7)
is due to the fact that in the primitive
world the former was enigmatically con-
νεγεά by means of symbolic-representa-
tions in word, picture, or deed. As ‘‘every
written word was once a µυστήριον, it
was natural that the word used for the
sign came to be employed for the thing
signified (Hatch, Essays in Bibl. Greek,
61). The near approach of the end had
been for years a matter of confidence
and joy to the Christian prophets—for it
is they and not their predecessors who
are specially in view. The special and
solemn contribution of John’s Apocalypse
is to identify certain events in the imme-
diate future with the throes out of which
the final bliss was to be born. These
throes include the downfall of the dragon
from heaven, the subsequent climax of
the Beast’s influence on earth, and the
assertion of God’s authority over his

The two former

own and against his foe’s adherents
(xii.-xiv. 20). The great and glad revela-
tion is God seen in action, with his
forces deployed for the final campaign
which, with its issues of deliverance and
triumph (xv.-xxii.), forms the climax of
this book. The apotheosis of the Czsars
in their life-time—above all, of Domitian
—marked the pitch of human depravity ;
divine intervention was inevitable.

Up to the end of ch. ix., the Apoca-
lypse is fairly regular and intelligible;
thereafter, criticism enters upon an intri-
cate country, of which hardly any survey
has yet succeeded in rendering a satis-
factory account. The problem begins
with ch. x. Although vv. 1-7 complete
the preceding oracles by introducing
their finale (7=xi. 14 f.), while 8-11 con-
nect more immediately with ch. xi., this
forms no reason for suspecting that the
oracle is composite. Spitta takes τα, 26-
7 (except 4) as the continuation of ix.,
followed by xi. 15, 19, while the rest is
substantially a prelude to xi. 1-13; Briggs
similarly views 1a, 3-7 as the original
transition between ix. and xi. 14, 15 a,
19, while x. 1 b-2, 8-11 (a vision of mes-
siah) introduces the new source of xi.
1-13, xii. 18; and Rauch regards x. x ὃ,
2 α, 5-7, 4, 0-11 as the opening of xi.
I-13, xii. I-17, with x. 1-4 a (substan-
tially) as the preface to xii. 18-xiii., xvi.
13-16. These analyses are unconvincing.
The alleged signs of a Hebrew original
(e.g., ver. 7, also λέγουσί por and λέγει
μοι in vv. 9, II = variant versions of

ak DN) are not decisive.

Ver. 8. ἡ φωνὴ (cf. νετ. 4) left un-
grammatically without a predicate, the
two participles being irregularly attracted
into the case of qv (cf. i. 1, iv. 11).

Vv. g-10. The prophet absorbs the

414

x For basis
of this
passage,
cf. Ezek.
ii. 8—iii.3, ἔσται γλυκὺ ὡς μέλι’.
Pssicxix,

1ο], απὰ χΧειρὸς τοῦ ἀγγέλου, καὶ κατέφαγον αὐτό

4Esd.
Vill. 4
(absorbet
ergo
anima
sensum
et deuoret
quod
Sapit).
Moulton, i. 111, 115).
John xii. 16: = “of,” “concerning”.

μου.

word of God; in our phrase, he makes it
his own or identifies himself with it (Jer.
xv. 16). Το assimilate this revelation of
the divine purpose seems to promise a
delightful experience, but the bliss and
security of the saints, he soon realises,
involve severe trials (cf. xi. 2, xii. 13 f.,
etc.) for them as well as catastrophes for
the world. Hence the feeling of disrelish
with which he views his new vocation as
a seer. The distasteful experience is
put first, in ver. 9, as being the un-
expected element in the situation. (The
omission of bitterness in LXX of Ezek.
iii. 14 renders it unlikely that this addi-
tional trait of unpleasant taste is due, as
Spitta thinks, to an erroneous combina-
tion of Ezek. iii. 2 and 14). The natural
order occurs in ver. το. The only an-
alogous passage in early Christian litera-
ture is in the ‘‘ Martyrdom of Perpetua”
(iv. cf. Weinel, 196,197). Wetstein cites
from Theophrastus the description of an
Indian shrub οὗ 6 καρπὸς . . . ἐσθιόμε-
νος γλυκὺς. οὗτος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ δηγμὸν
ποιεῖ καὶ δυσεντερίαν. Before the happy
consummation (ver. 7), a bitter prelude
is to come, which is the subject of
national and political prophecies. In
order to underline his divine commission
for this task of punitive prediction, he
recalls his inspiration.

Ver. 11. λέγ. pot, an oblique, rever-
ential way of describing the divine im-
pulse, due to Aramaic idiom and common
in later Biblical Hebrew (cf. Dalman, i.,
viii. 11). The series of oracles, thus
elaborately inaugurated, is concerned in-
creasingly (“ again,” in view of iv. 4, 15,
Vil. 4, 9, ΥΠ. 13, ix. 6, 16 f.) with those
international movements (‘‘kings” =
Φυλαί, or those in xvii. 1Ο, 12) which
a prophet related to the course of the
divine kingdom. Strictly speaking, the
revelation assimilated in x. 10, II opens
in xii., but the intervening passage is
linked to both (see below). The first
part of this passage (xi. 1-2, 3-13) evi-

AITOKAAY¥IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

“‘Sodvai pot τὸ βιβλαρίδιον ”

4 A ~
11. Kat *Aéyouciv por, “Aet σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι
Ὀλαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσι καὶ γλώσσαις καὶ ’ βασιλεῦσι πολλοῖς ”.
See Dieterich’s Mithras-Liturgie, p. 1ΟΙ.

z =“I was told” (like xi. 1, xvi. 15 impers. plur.).
b Pleonastic, as v. 9, vii. 9, Dan. iii. 4, vii. 14, cf. xiii. 7.

Χ..

. Kat λέγει por, "'' Λάβε καὶ κατά-

πα Ἡ ‘ a N , > . 3 A / ,
Φαγε auto" καὶ πικρανεῖ σου τὴν κοιλίαν, GAN ἐν τῷ στόµατί σου
t
1Ο. Καὶ ἔλαβον τὸ βιβλαρίδιον ἐκ τῆς

να > a / ,
και ην εν τῷ στοµατι

µου ὡς μέλι, γλυκύ᾽ καὶ ὅτε 7 ἔφαγον αὐτό, ἐπικράνθη ἡ κοιλία

4
* ἐπὶ

y In sense of κατέφαγον which it echoes (cf.
a Cf. xxii. 16,

dently forms part of the βιβλαρίδιον
(cf. Introd. § 2). Its enigmatic contents.
interrupting the trumpet-visions, with
edges which do not fit into the context
or the rest of the Apocalypse, point to
the incorporation of a special and dis-
parate source. Any analysis is more or
less hypothetical, but the writer is evi-
dently not moving with absolute free-
dom. He has his own end in view, but
he reaches it, here as elsewhere (ef. vii.
1 f.) by means of stepping-stones which
originally lay in different surroundings.
This is widely recognised by critics and
editors, who commonly take 1-2 and 3-
I3 as separate oracles. Each indeed
might be the torso o a larger source.
But, in spite of the different descriptions
of Jerusalem, the hypothesis of their
original unity has much in its favour.
How could so tiny a scrap of papyrus as
that required for 1,2 be preserved? Be-
sides ver. 3 goes with ver. 2 (the pro-
phetic mission as a counterpart to the
punishment), the two periods are alike,
the strange 8{8wpt-construction occurs
in both (here only in Apoc.), and the in-
version of object and verb is common {ο
both (2, 5, 6, 9, 10). To discover an
oracle of the Zealots in 1, 2 (Wellhausen,
Bousset, Baljon, J. Weiss) is precarious,
for even if we could suppose that these
passionate citizens took time to write
oracles, they had not a monopoly of be-
lief in the temple’s inviolability. The
latter belief conflicts with Mark xiii. 1, 2
(Ac. vi. 14); but, while this makes it
extremely unlikely that the passage was
adopted, or at least composed, by one of
the Twelve, it does not necessarily dis-
prove a Jewish Christian origin for the
fly-leaf. Patriotism must have often
swayed hope, even in face of authorita-
tive logia. Still, a Jewish origin is more
probable (so from Vischer and Sabatier
to Baljon, Forbes, von Soden, Wellhausen
and J. Weiss), in which case 8 ¢ (ὅπου
. « « ἐσταυρώθη), with possibly 9 a and:

10---11. ΧΙ. 1.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ALS

ΧΙ. 1. Καὶ "ἐδόθη “por "Kddapos ὅμοιος Ὁ ῥάβξῳ, λέγων, a x. 11.

12 6, must be Christianising touches by
the editor. As 8 ¢ is the only place in
the Apocalypse where Jesus is thus de-
signated (contrast 4), and as the un-
exampled at... ἑστῶτες occurs in 4,
the editor may be using a previous
translation of the fly-leaf. Otherwise,
the repeated traces of Hebraistic idiom
suggest that he translated it from an
Aramaic or Hebrew original (so especi-
ally Weyland, Briggs, and Bruston)
which was a Jewish (or Jewish Christian)
oracle, composed towards the end of the
siege in 7ο A.D. between May and
August (cf. Joseph. Bell, v. 12,3) by a
prophet who anticipated (cf. 5. Ο., 219,
220) that the temple and a nucleus of the
God-fearing would be kept inviolate dur-
ing the last times of the Gentiles, at the
end of which anti-Christ or the pseudo-
messiah would blasphemously re-assert
himself in the temple (hence its preserva-
tion, 1, 2), according to one cycle of
tradition (2 Thess... 11, 3, etc., cf) 4. C.
160 f.), after murdering the two heralds
of messiah. The motives and further
career of the beast are omitted, if not in
the source, at least by the editor. He
resumes the subject afterwards (cf. xiii.
6), when the eschatological monster is
specially identified with the imperial
power. Here his main concern is with
the fate of the two witnesses. Probably
it was this feature of the oracle which
primarily led him to adopt and adapt
it, as showing how the beast or anti-
christ was foiled in his attack on mes-
siah’s forerunners, just as (in xii.) the
dragon is foiled in his attack on messiah
himself. The other details are left
standing; in their present setting they
have much the same pictorial and
dramatic interest as the minutiz of the
parables, and it is perhaps doubtful
whether the editor lhnked any sym-
bolic or allegorical meaning to them,
although such can easily be attached in
a variety of ways, e.g., to the language
of 1, 2 in the light of Barn. iv. 11, Ign.
ad Magn. 7, etc. (so Weiss, Simcox,
Swete, and others). Even the two wit-
nesses are not to be identified with any
historical figures of contemporary life,
much less taken as allegorical or as
typifying aspects of the church’s testi-
mony. |‘ The νου... is of ‘the
nature of a superimposed photograph
showing traces of many pasts” (Abbott).
The original Jewish tradition which lay
behind the source expected only Elijah,

xxi. 15-16,

y. Ezek. xl.

3-6, xlii. 16-19, Zech. ii, 1.

who should preach repentance to the
pagan world, but he was occasionally
furnished with a companion in Moses
(on the basis of Deut. xviii. 15 ; cf. Mal.
iv. 4, 5, the transfiguration-story, and
possibly the two radiant saints of Apoc.
Pet. 6f.). The only other serious rival
is Enoch, a grand figure in Jewish and
early Christian eschatological tradition
(for the curious Sir. xliv. 16, cf. E. Bi.
1295). Later tradition, indeed, thinking
mainly of Elijah and Enoch (Gfrorer ii.
261 f.; A. C. 203, 211), whom antichrist
in wrath slays for their witness against
him, and whom God (or Michael and
Gabriel) resuscitates, suggests a fairly
apposite cycle of belief which may re-
produce the earlier Jewish expectation
out of which the materials of this frag-
mentary oracle have been drawn. The
unique character of this expectation is
illustrated, not so much by Anu and
Nudimmut, Marduk’s predecessors in
the fight against Tiamat, as by the
Zoroastrian belief that the temporary
triumph of the evil spirit would be fol-
lowed by the appearance of two reformers
or prophets, Hushédar and Hushédarmah
(S. B. E. xxiii. 195; cf. Hiibschmann,
227), who would act each for a mil-
lenium on earth as the precursors and
heralds of their Lord, the Persian mes-
siah. This belief is much older than the
sources in which it occurs, and like
several other Zoroastrian traits, it may
have fused with the Jewish expecta-
tion in question, though the Zoroastrian
heralds do not appear simultaneously (c/.
Encycl. Relig. and Ethics, i. 207). Here
at any rate the appearance of the two
anonymous and mysterious witnesses
precedes the final outburst of evil (xi. 7,
xii. f.) and the manifestation of messiah
(xi. 15 f., xiv. 14f.)—an idea for which no
exact basis can be found in the strictly
Jewish eschatology of the period. It
may have grown up under the influence
of this kindred trait in the adjoining pro-
vince of Zoroastrian belief, unless the
doubling of the witnesses was simply
due to the side-influence of the Ze-
chariah-trait (in νετ. 4). Wellhausen
argues from the singular πτῶμα (8, ο)
that the two witnesses were a duplication
of the original single witness, i.e., Elijah;
but the singular is collective, and there
is no trace of any conflation with Jonah,

CHAPTER XI.—Vv. 1, 2. ‘*And I wa
given a rod (ADT 773?) like a staff,

416

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ΧΙ.

. 3 Ν A ~
c Ezek, xli. Ἔγειρε καὶ " µέτρησον τὸν *vadv τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, καὶ

1-5.

d John viii. τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας "ἐν αὐτῷ: 2. καὶ τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ

20.
e See on
XVii. 17,

ναοῦ ἔκβαλε έξωθεν, καὶ μὴ αὐτὴν µετρήσῃς, ὅτι ° ἐδόθη τοῖς ἔθνεσι'

f Nes SAN aN ‘ fie # ε , a s ,
prophetic και την πολιν την αγιαν πατησουσι μηνας τεσσερακοντα δύο.

pertect.

fxxi.2,xxii. 3. Kat ᾿ δώσω τοῖς δυσὶ µάρτυσί ‘pou, "καὶ “ προφητεύσουσιν

19, Matt.
XXVIl. 53
(title of
Jer. in
later , a eye) 2 a
Judaism), κυρίου της γῆς " ἑστῶτες.
g Ps. Sol.
Vii. 2,

XVii. 25, Luke xxi. 24; see wail of 4 Esd. vi. 56f.

Xiv. 3, 24. 1 ver.+2, xii. 6.
ο Cf. Win. § 23, 50.

m Isa. xxii. 12, Jer. vi. 26, Jas. iii. 5.
p Grammat. irregularity, to emphasise personality of witnesses.

1 , ,
ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας | ἑξήκοντα, περιβεβλημένοι] ™ σάκκους.
4. " Οὗτοί εἶσιν at δύο ἐλαῖαι καὶ "αἱ δύο λυχνίαι αἱ ἐνώπιον τοῦ

h Cf. on ix. 5. Lil. τῇ. k Ast Cor.

n From Zech. iv. 3, 11-14.

1For περιβεβληµενοι (NCC, 1, S., vg., And., Areth., Vict., Hipp., etc., so Al.,
Ti., Ws., Bs., Bj., Sw.) Lach., Tr., WH read the primitive corruption περιβεβλη-
µενους (8 ΑΩΡ, min.), though WH suggest it may be an early error for περιβεβλη-

μενοις.

with the words” (λέγων by a harsh at-
traction, cf. LXX of 1 Kings xx. 9, Josh.
ii. 2, is left in apposition to the subject
implied in ἐδόθη), “ Up (or come=})9)
and measure the temple of God and the
altar (of burnt-offering, which stood out-
side the inner shrine) and (sc. number)
those who worship there” (i.e., in the
inner courts, xiii. 6; for constr. cf. 2Sam.
viii. 3). The outer court (Ezek. x. 5) is
to be left out of account (é«B.=“‘omit” or
exclude as unworthy of attention), ‘‘ for
it has been abandoned (or, assigned in
the divine counsel) to the heathen, and
(indeed) they shall trample on the holy
city itself (emphatic by position, = Jeru-
salem) for two and forty months.” In
Asc. Isa. iv. 12 antichrist’s sway lasts
for three years, seven months, and
twenty-seven days, but three and a half
years is the conventional period for the
godless persecutor to get the upper hand
(cf. iii. 5, after Daniel’s “time, and
times, and the dividing of time,” {.6.,
three and a half years, vii. 25, xii. 7).
Originally this broken seven as the
period of oppression reflected the Baby-
lonian three and a half winter months
(S. C. 309 f£.; Cheyne’s Bible Problems,
111 f.), preceding the festival of Marduk
in the vernal equinox, a solstice during
which Tiamat reigned supreme. Here
it is the stereotyped period of the καιροὶ
τῶν ἐθνῶν (Luke xxi. 24), extending to
the second advent.—petpyoys. To mea-
sure is here not a prelude to ruin but a
guarantee of preservation and restoration
(Zech. ii. 1 f.). Failure to satisfy God’s
standard or test means calamity for men,
but when he surveys their capacities

and needs in peril, it implies protection.
As the context implies, this is the idea of
the present measuring. It is not to be
identified prosaically with “' orders given
to the Roman soldiers, who were en-
camped in Jerusalem after its destruc-
tion, not to set foot in what had been
the Holy of Holies” (Mommsen).

Ver. 3. σάκκους, the simple, archaic
garb of prophets, especially appropriate
to humiliation (reff.). The faithful pro-
phets who withdraw from the local apos-
tacy to the desert in company with Isaiah
(Asc. Isa. ii. 9 f.) are also clothed in this
black hair-cloth. The voice of the divine
speaker here “melts imperceptibly into
the narrative of the vision”’ (Alford, cf.
ver. 12). Contemporary Jewish belief
(4 Esd. vi. 26) made these ‘‘ witnesses”
(men “who have not tasted death from
their birth,” z.e., Enoch, Elijah) appear
before the final judgment and preach
successfully, but the only trace of any
analogous feature in rabbinical prophecy
seems to be the appearance of Moses
and Messiah during the course of the
Gog and Magog campaign. The repro-
duction of this oracle, long after its ori-
ginal period in 70 Α.Ρ., would be facili-
tated by the fact that the visions of
Ezekiel and Zechariah, upon which it
was modelled, both presupposed the fall
of the city and temple in ancient Jeru-
salem (Abbott, pp. 84-88).

Ver. 4. They are further described in
the terms applied by Zechariah to the
two most prominent religious figures of
his day, except that they are compared
to two lampstands, not to one which is
septiform. The idea is that their autho-

2—8.

5. καὶ el τις αὐτοὺς θέλει ἀδικῆσαι,

lel A ~ A
ἀπῦρ ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ oTduaTos αὐτῶν καὶ

τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτῶν ᾿

καὶ el! τις αὐτοὺς ’ θελήση ἀδικῆσαι,

οὕτω δεῖ αὐτὸν ἀποκτανθῆναι.

6. οὗτοι ἔχουσιν τὴν ἐξουσίαν " κλεῖσαι τὸν " οὐρανόν,
ἵνα μὴ ὑετὸς βρέχη τὰς ἡμέρας αὐτῶν τῆς προφητείας

αὐτῶν,

καὶ ἐξουσίαν ' ἔχουσιν ἐπὶ τῶν * ὑδάτων,

στρέφειν αὐτὰ εἰς αἷμα,

καὶ "πατάξαι τὴν γῆν ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ,

ὁσάκις ἐὰν θελήσωσιν.

7. Καὶ ὅταν τελέσωσι τὴν µαρτυρίαν αὐτῶν, τὸ θηρίον τὸ ἀναβαϊ-

νον ἐκ τῆς " ἁβύσσου " ποιήσει μετ

8.

αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀποκτενεῖ αὐτούς.

uCf. Encycl. Relig. and Ethics, i. 53-55.

cone xiii. 7)?

ΑΠΟΚΛΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

καὶ. τὸ πτῶμα αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῆς

417

σα 1χι 17 2
Kings i.
τοῦ.,
Luke ix.

,
κατεσθίει

54)
(Moses)
Num. xvi
39. ἳ

t For subj.
with εἰ,
cf. 1 Cor
XIV. 5
(Deissm.
118).

81 Kings
XVii., Sir.
xlviii. 3,
Jub.
xxiii. 18.

t See feats
ascribed
to Moses
in Exod.

+ er / A ,
αὐτῶν πόλεμον καὶ νικήσει

Bell. ν.9

v From Dan. vii. 21; divine permission

‘For και ει Bl. conj. καν (from katy $9*C, 1).

rity and influence are derived from God.
As in ver. 7, the function of the two
witnesses (cf. Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15) is
defined as ‘“‘ prophecy,” but no details
are given.

Vv. 5, 6. In this description, borrowed
from traditional features of Moses and
Elijah (whose drought lasted for three
and a half years, according to Luke iv.
25; James v. 17), the metaphorical ex-
_ pressions of passages like Jer. v. 14 and
’ Sir. xlviii. 1 are translated into grim
reality (see reff.), as in Slav. En. i. 5 and
the thaumaturgic practices chronicled by
Athen. iv. 129 D and Lucian (Philopseud.
12). These are no meek apostles of the
Christian faith. To stop rain was equi-
valent to a punishment for iniquity (Ps.
Sol. xvii. 20-22, En. c. 11, etc.)

Ver. 7. The influence of Hebraic
idiom helps to explain (cf. xx. 7-9) the
translator’s ‘“‘transition from futures
through presents to preterites’’ here
(Simcox). τελέσωσι (Burton, 203)
dicates no uncertainty. When their
work is done, they are massacred—not
till then; like their Lord (Luke xiii. 31
f.), they are insured by loyalty to their
task. The best comment upon this and
the following verses, a description col-
oured by the famous passage in Sap. ii.
12-iii, 9, is Bunyan’s description of the
jury in Vanity Fair and their verdict.
This beast ‘from the abyss”’ is intro-

duced as a familiar figure—an editorial
and proleptic reference to the beast
‘‘from the abyss’’ in xvii. 8 or from
“the sea”’ (xiii. 1; the abyss and the sea
in Rom. x. 7 = Deut. xxx. 13) which
was (cf. Encycl. Rel. and Ethics, i. 53 f.)
the haunt and home of daemons (Luke
Viii. 31, etc.), unless he is identified with
the supernatural fiend and foe of ix. 2, 11.
(Bruston heroically gets over the diffi-
culty of the beast’s sudden introduction
by transferring xi. 1-13 to a place after
xix. 1-3). The beast wars with the wit-
nesses (here, as in ix. g and xii. 17,
Field, on Luke xiv. 31, prefers to take
πόλεμονΞ- pay nv,a single combat or battle,
as occasionally in LXX [e.g., 3 Kings
xxxii. 34] and Lucian), and vanquishes
them, yet it is the city (ver. 13) and not
he who is punished. The fragmentary
character of the source is evident from
the fact that we are not told why or how
this conflict took place. John presup-
posed in his readers an acquaintance
with the cycle of antichrist traditions
according to which the witnesses of God
were murdered by the false messiah who,
as the abomination of desolation or man
of sin, was at feud with all who opposed
his worship or disputed his authority.
Ver. 8. God’s servants rejected and
cast aside, as somuchrefuse! See Sam.
Agonistes, 667-704. The ‘great city”’
is Jerusalem, an identification favoured

415

w xiv. 8, xvi: πλατείας τῆς “ πόλεως τῆς
IQ, XVii.-
XViii.

x Ps. cv. 38.

ANOKAAYY¥IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ΧΙ.

"μεγάλης, ἥτις καλεῖται πνευματικῶς
Σόδοµα καὶ ” Αἴγυπτος,! ὅπου καὶ 6 Κύριος αὐτῶν ἐσταυρώθη. 9.
μ Y p p

yCf.onii, καὶ βλέπουσιν ᾿ ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν τὸ

Io (parti- 4
tive).

a Hereasin
8= collec-

tive term (“corpses”), as πρόσωπον Gen. xlviii. 20, κεφαλή Lev. x. 6.

πτῶμα αὐτῶν ἡμέρας τρεῖς καὶ ἥμισυ, καὶ τὰ ’ πτώματα αὐτῶν οὐκ

b Cf. Isa. Ixxviii. (Ixxix.)

3, Ps. Sol. ii. 31, En.xxii. το; 2 Kings ix. το, and Jer. xxiii. το.

‘Pr. om. και Αιγνπτος (an early gloss, Haussleiter 213). Further editorial
Christian additions are suspected in ητις . . . εστανρωθη (so ¢.g., Weyland, S.
Davidson, Wellh.) or οπου . . . εστανρωθη (so e.g., Sabatier, Schén, Vischer,
Pfleid., Rauch, Vélter, Baljon, Bs., de Faye, Kohler, von Soden).

by (a) incidental O.T. comparisons of
the Jews to Sodom (Isa. li. 9; Jer. xxiii.
14; so Asc. Isa. iii. 10), (b) the Christian
editor’s note ὅπον καὶ 6 κύριος αὐτῶν
ἐσταυρώθη, (c) a passage like Luke xiii.
33, (d) the reference in xvi. 1g, and (e) pas-
sages in Appian (ΦΥ. 50 μεγίστη πόλις
‘l.), Pliny (Η. N. xiv. 70), Josephus
(Apion, i. 22), and Sib. Or. (v. 154, 226,
413, written before 80 Α.Ρ.), all of which
confirm this title (cf. the variant addition
peyadny in Apoc. xxi. 10): it isindeed put
beyond doubt by the peculiar antichrist-
tradition upon which the Jewish original
was based (4. C. το f., 134f., E. Bi.i. 179,
180). The obscurity and isolated char-
acter of this eschatology, ‘‘an exotic
growth upon the soil of Judaism’ and
much more in early Christianity, may be
accounted for perhaps by the historical
changes in the later situation, which
concentrated the antichrist in anti-Roman
rather than in anti-Jewish hostility. As
yet, however, the seduction of the Jews
ty a false messiah (cf. John v. 43 and
its patristic interpretation) was quite a
reasonable expectation : see the evidence
gathered in A. C. 166 f. Victorinus, fol-
lowing the Apocalypse literally (xi. 7 =
xvil. 11), makes Nero redivivus beguile
the Jews. The alternative to this theory
has won considerable support (especially
from Spitta and Wellhausen) upon various
grounds; it regards the great city as
Rome, where the two prophets are sup-
posed to preach repentance to the hea-
then world and eventually to be killed.
But although this suits some portions of
the language well (e.g., ver. 13, con-
version to God of heaven), it is not
exegetically necessary; it introduces
Rome abruptly (8 ¢ being of course taken
as a gloss) and irregularly: nor does it
explain the general contour of the oracle
as happily as that advocated above.
Bruston’s ingenious attempt to take τ.
μεγάλης with πλατείας (= Jewish jus-

tice) is quite untenable, and the great
city is not likely to be a translator’s

error (Weyland), κ for re Tp:

—-mvevpatikas (cf. Gal. iv. 24 f.) as
posed to σαρκικῶς (‘‘ literally,” Just.
Mart. Dial. xiv. 231 d) is “allegorically,
or mystically.’’—Kal Αἴγυπτος, not as the
home of magic (cf. Blau’s Alijiid. Zauber-
wesen, 39 f.) but as a classical foe of
God’s people (and Moses of old?). The
connexion with the water-dragon of xii.
15 (cf. Ezek. xxix. 3, xxxii. 2) is obvious.
Philo allegorises E. usually as a type of
the corporeal and ππαϊετία|.-- ὅπου κ.τ.λ.,
no wonder if Christians suffer, after what
their Lord had to suffer (cf. Matt. x. 22-
25, 28 f.) at the hands of impious men.
There is none of the modern’s surprise or
indignation at the thought of “' Christian
blood shed where Christ bled for men ”’.

Ver. ο. Cf. 2 Chron. xxiv. το f., Matt.
xxiii. 34 f., Job. i. 12.--ἀφίουσιν, for
other N.T. assimilations of irreg. to reg.
verb (Win. § 14.16; Blass, § 23. 7), ef.
Mark i. 34, Luke xi. 4. In Ep. Lugd.
the climax of pagan malice is the refusal
to let the bodies of the martyrs be buried
by their friends, ὑπὸ γὰρ aypiov Θηρὸς
ἄγρια καὶ βάρβαρα φΌλα παραχθέντα

υσπαύστως εἶχε The rendering ot
burial honours to the dead was a matter
of great moment in the ancient world;
to be denied pious burial meant ignominy
in the memory of this world and penalties
in the next. The two witnesses are
treated as the murdered high priests,
Ananus and Jesus, were handled by the
Jewish mob in the seventh decade (Jos.
Bell. iv. 5, 2).---βλέπονσιν, the onlookers,
who evidently sympathise with anti-
christ (cf. on xvi. 12), include pagans as
well as Jews (Andr.).— ἡμέρας, κ.τ.λ.,
three and a half as the broken seven (cf.
on ver. 2) here in days. This trait
(cf. on ver. 12) shows that their fate was
not originally modelled on that of Jesus.

jg—15.

, [ο lol
ἀφίουσιν ” τεθῆναι εἰς μνῆμα.

, Cee: 3 ο) \ > 0 .

Χαιρουσιν ἐπ αὐτοῖς καὶ εὐφραίνονται
, 5 a a A

ἀλλήλοις, ὅτι οὗτοι of δύο προφῆται * ἐβασάνισαν τοὺς κατοικοῦντας

ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

2 lel ~ Lal “a ~

ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσῆλθεν ἐν adtois,” καὶ ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτῶν,
\ , a

καὶ Εφόβος µέγας " ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τοὺς " θεωροῦντας αὐτούς,
A 3 ν j ~ ~ lel ”

καὶ ἠκουσαν" ᾿ φωνῆς μεγάλης ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λεγούσης αὐτοῖς, to
κ. 1 a

““AvaBate de", Kat ἀνέβησαν eis τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν τῇ ™ νεφέλῃ»
4 26 , 3 A ce A 7 A

καὶ ἐθεώρησαν αὐτοὺς ot ἐχθροὶ αὐτῶν.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

II. "Καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ ἥμισυ * πνεῦμα ζωῆς

419

1ο. καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ε Ps. cv. 18)

ς αλ Neh. viii.
καὶ °Sapa πέμψουσιν | ο aie
19, 22.

d Sap. ii.12
14-15, 1
Kings
XViil. 17.

e From
Ezek.
XXXVIii. 5,

12.

f xiii. 15,=
Όση
ΑΒ.

13. Καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ dpa

ἐγένετο " σεισμὸς µέγας, καὶ τὸ ΄δέκατον τῆς πόλεως ἔπεσε, καὶ (Gen. vi.

17).

ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν τῷ σεισμῷ Σὀνόματα ἀνθρώπων χιλιάδες ἑπτά ᾿ς Gen. xv.

.Ν
καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο καὶ
οὐρανοῦ.

14. " Ἡ ovat ἡ δευτέρα ἀπῆλθεν ’

ἰδοὺ ἡ οὐαὶ ἡ τρίτη ἔρχεται ταχύ. |
15. Καὶ 6 ἕβδομος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν, καὶ ἐγένοντο φωναὶ peyd-

λαι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῶ, "λέγοντες,

in vi. 16, xvii. 6, and xviii. 19.
© am. Aey. N.T. :
Jer. xiii. 16, Dan. ii. 18, 44, Isa. xxv. 3.

whole favour the futures in 9-10.

12 Kings ii. 11.
p Cf. on iii. 4, Num. 1. 20, 28; Deissm. 196-197, Abbott 91-01.
r Cf. as ix. 12, and xii. 12.

(citation from Dan. ii. 19), in N.T.: =SOW? PJON-
1Ti., Bs., Bj. read πεµπουσιν (18, Arm., Tic., Spec., etc.).

34, an an - 12.
1e8wxav δόξαν Στῷ Θεῷ τοῦ h Only here

in Apoc.
i Par. Lost,
vi. 29-36.
k Win. § 13,
22. Such
unusual
-a forms
of sec.
aor. are
textually
untenable
however
n vi. 12, Matt. xxvii. 51.
q Xvi. 9, 11,
5 Only here and xvi. 11

πι Acts i. 9.

t Constr. ad sensum.

The vss. on the

2 Read ev (om. εν CP, τ, etc., Tr., WH 2) αντοις A, min. (5), Arm., vg., Anda,
Lach., Al. Ti., Ws., Bs. (cf. Luke ix. 46), which has been early improved into ets

(SQ, etc., Bj.) or ew (min. 5) αντους.
3 Ῥοτηκουσαν (

*ACP, vg., Ti., Tr., WH, Ws., Sw., Bj.) ηκουσα (NCQ, etc., Me.,

And., Areth., Tic.) is read by some (e.g., Al., de Wette, Dist., Bs., Lind., Wellh.).

Ver. 10. So far from laying it to heart
that the godly perish, men are hyper-
bolically represented as congratulating
one another on getting rid of these ob-
noxious prophets with their vexatious
words (3) and works (6), which hitherto
had baffled opposition (4, 5). Another
naive Oriental touch is that their victims
exchange presents in order to celebrate
the festive occasion.

Ver. 12. After being resuscitated, they
ascend in a cloud (like Enoch and Jesus)
before the eyes of their enemies (unlike
Jesus).

Ver. 13. On earthquakes as a punish-
ment for sin, cf. Jos. Ant. ix. 1ο, 4=
Zech. xiv. 5, and (for Sodom) Amos iv.
11. The beast, as in 2 Thess. ii. 9-12,
gets off scatheless in the meantime,
though his tools are punished or terrified
into reverence (Jonah iii. 5-10).—évépara
a. Briggs ingeniously conjectures that

this is a clumsy version of FAW) NIN
=men of name or fame (cf. 1 Chron. v.

24, Num. xvi. 2). From this point till
xvi. Ig and xx. g Jerusalem seems to
be ignored among the wider political
oracles, except incidentally at xiv. 20
(see note), where another erratic block
from the same or a similar cycle of
eschatological tradition breaks the sur-
rounding strata of prediction.

The ample and proleptic style of the
next passage shows that the author has
left his source in order to resume matters
with (14-18) the seventh trumpet-blast
or third woe, which ushers in the final
stage (1 Cor. xv. 52) of the divine pur-
pose (x. 7=xii.-xx). But what imme-
diately follows is, by anticipation, a
celestial reflex of the last judgment which
is characteristically deferred till ‘‘ the
various underplots of God’s providence”’
(Alford) are worked out. The announce-
ment of it starts an exultant song of praise
in heaven.

Ver. 15. The rout of Satan (xii. το and
xx. 4-10) means the absolute messianic

420

u Sing. only
heres —
B. ἐπιτ.κ.,
Xvii, 18,
cf. Obad.
21.

v (Possess.
genit.)

"Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ,

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ΣΙ.

{«Ἐγένετο ἡ " βασιλεία τοῦ "κόσμου τοῦ " Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ

μι , > 4 fA ο) ”, 1”.
Καὶ * βασιλεύσει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

16. ΣΚαὶ οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι ot ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ

trom Ps. κάθηνται ! ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους αὐτῶν, "έπεσαν "ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν

li. 2, 6,

ΔΝ / Lol lol /
quot. also και προσεκύνησαν τῷ Θεῷ, λέγοντες,

in Actsiv.

26;c/.Ps 17. ‘** Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, "Κύριε 6 Θεὸς 6 παντοκράτωρ,

and Tea. 6 ὢν καὶ 6 ἦν,

Gate ὅτι ἆ εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν µεγάλη»,

ναὰ in καὶ * ἐβασίλευσας.

ero 18, καὶ τὰ ἔθνη " ὠργίσθησαν,
by io ean καὶ ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου,

οι καὶ ὁ ΄ καιρὸς τῶν νεκρῶν * κριθῆναι,

eee καὶ Soovat Tov μισθὸν Ἡ τοῖς δούλοις σου τοῖς " προφήταις,
, πο, καὶ [τοῖς ᾿ ἁγίοις καὶ τοῖς " φοβουμένοις τὸ * ὄνομά σου, ‘Tots
: Lake ss Lapeer καὶ vane peydors,” cia

ae! καὶ "' διαφθεῖραι τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν.
z iv. 1ο, ν.
a ree b Common at open. of votive inscriptions (Asia Minor).

xix. 6.

as 2 Sam. xvi. 8, €8ac.=“‘is king”’.
ὀργιζέσθωσαν λαοί.

ci. 8, xvi. 7, xviii. 8,

d Inceptive aor. cf. Luke xv. 32, 1 Cor. iv. 8, Burton 54. From Ps. xcii. xciii.) 1 where,

ε xii. 17. From Ps. ii., xcviii. xcix., κύριος ἐβασίλευσε,
f Constr. Rom. ix. 21 (ἐξουσία. .
Esth. ii. 12 οὗτος δὲ ἦν 0 καιρὸς κορασίου εἰσελθεῖν.

:.» ποιῆσαι); = ἵνα κριθῶσι; κ.τ.λ. See
g xxii. 12 (not elsewhere in Apoc.). hx.

7; prophets and saints = Christendom, as i. 1-2, cf. on xviii. 20 and 24. From Dan. ix 6, 10, etc.

i Always in Apoc.=Christians, never angels (cf. xiv. 10).

on xix. 5; also 2 Cor. vii. 1.

Ps. οχν. 13: quot. in xiii. 16, xix. 5, xx. 12.

k Here only, N.T.; cf. xiv. 7, xv. 4, and
M Viii. 9, cf. on

xix. 2. For double sense of word( ‘‘ destroy” and ‘‘ corrupt”) compare Eng. usage of “ruin”.

1 For καθηµενοι (AP, 1, etc., Al. Lach., WH, Sw., Ws., Bs.) Ti., Tr., Bj. rightly
read (οι) καθηνται $9*CQ, etc., Syr., S., Ande, Areth., vg., Pr.
2Lach., Tr., WH, Sw. read τους µικρους και τους µεγαλους (ΑΟ).

(6 Χ. only in these sections = ‘‘ messiah ”
in the eschatological sense) authority of
God, as the destruction or submission of
paganism (cf. ver. 13) means the true
coming of the eschatological βασιλεία
(cf. xix. 1-6, after Rome’s downfall).
The apocalyptic motto is not so much
“The Lord reigns,” as ‘‘ The Lord is to
reign’’. Meanwhile he overrules, and
every preliminary judgment shoots the
pious mind forward to anticipate the final
triumph. Linguistically τοῦ Χριστοῦ
might mean here as in Hab. iii. 13 God’s
chosen people, but the usage of the
Apocalypse puts this out of the question.
There is no need to delete the words here
as a gloss (so, ε.ρ., Baljon, von Soden,
Rauch) or the similar phrase in En. xlviii.
to (with Dalman).

Ver. 17. 6 ἐρχόμενος is naturally omit-
ted from this paean; God has already
come! The variation of order in i. 4
and iv. 8 has no occult significance. The

phrase Lord God is considered by Philo:
(on Gen. vii. 5) specially applicable to:
seasons of judgment; Lord precedes God,
since the former signifies not beneficence
but ‘royal and destructive power’’.

Ver. 18. @py.=defiant rage (cf. xvi.
11), not the mere terror of vi. 17, at the
messianic ὀργή. The prophets are as
usual the most prominent of the ἅγιοι.
If the καὶ after ἁγίοις is retained, it is
epexegetic (as in Gen. iv. 4, Gal. vi. 16),
not a subtle mark of division between
Jewish and Gentile Christians (Volter) or
(ina Jewish source) saints and proselytes.
The same interpretation (for Φοβ. cf.
Introd. § 6) must be chosen, if καὶ is
omitted (as, e.g., by Bousset and Baljon),
but the evidence is far too slight to
justify the ἀε]είοῃ.-- διαφθ. '' When
Nero perished by the justest doom/Which
ever the destroyer yet destroyed” (By-
ron). Contrast the exultant tone of ‘this.
retrospective thanksgiving with the strain.

—Ig.

aD τς) , ς a A aS.) 2 ~ > ~
19. Kat “yvotyn ὅ ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
\ o>» co Q cal , 3 A 32 - - > a
καὶ ὤφθη ἡ " κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ vad αὐτοῦ

of foreboding which is sounded in xii. 12
before the actual conflict.

Ver. το introduces xii. 1-18; all that
the prophet can speak of, from his
own experience [ε/- xiii. I, II, εἶδον),
are the two θηρία on earth, but their
activity in these latter days is not
intelligible except as the result of mys-
terious movements in heaven. The
latter he now outlines (cf. ὤφθη xi. το,
χι. I, 3. By whom ?) in order to com-
fort Christians by the assurance that the
divine conqueror of these θηρία was in
readiness tointervene. The celestial (con-
trast xi. I) ναός, presupposed in the
scenery of iv.-vi., is now mentioned for
the first time; its opening reveals the
long lost κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης, and is
accompanied by the usual storm-theo-
phany, marking a decisive moment.
Jewish tradition had for long cherished
the belief (cf. on ii. 17) that the restora-
tion of the people (gathered by God, cf.
xiv. 1 f.) in the last days would be accom-
panied by the disclosure of the sacred box
or ark (in a cloud; cf. here the lightning
and thunder) which, together with the
tabernacle and the altar of incense, had
been safely concealed in Mount Nebo.
So, ¢.g., Abarbanel (on τ Sam. iv. 4: haec
est arca quam abscondit ante uastationem
templi nostri et haec arca futuro tem-
pore adueniente messia nostro manifesta-
bitur). Epiphanius repeats the same rabbi-
nical tradition (καὶ ἐν ἀναστάσει πρῶτον ἡ
κιβωτὸς ἀναστήσεται). The underlying
idea was that the disappearance of the
ark from the holy of holies (Jer. iii. 16;
4 Esd. x. 22; Jos. Bell. v. 5. 5) was a
temporary drawback which had to be
tighted before the final bliss could be
consummated. This legend explains the
symbolism of the Jewish Christian pro-
phet. The messianic crisis is really at
hand! The dawn may be cold and
stormy, but it is the dawn of the last
day! The spirit and content of the
passage are transcendental ; it is prosaic
to delete ἐν τ. 6. (Spitta, and Cheyne in
E. Bi. i. 309) and refer the vision to the
earthly temple in Jerusalem. Like the
author of Hebrews, this writer views
heaven under the old ritual categories;
besides, the originals of the sacred things
were supposed to exist in the heaven of
God (Heb. viii. 5).

This overture leads up to two sagas

VOL. V.

AILOKAAY¥IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

42.

n On form,
see
Deissm,
189.

ο Heb. ix.

4:elsewh. = Noah's ark in N.T.

(xii. and xiii.) which explain that the
present trouble of Christians was simply
a final phase of the long antagonism
which had begun in heaven and was soon
to be ended on earth. It is the writer’s
task ‘‘not only to announce the future but
also (i. το) to convey aright understanding
of that present on which the future de-
pends” (Weiss). Hence the digression
or retrospect in xii. 1 f. is only apparent.
Hitherto only hints of persecution have
been given; now the course, methods,
and issues of the campaign are unfolded.
The messianic positiog of Jesus is really
the clue to the position of affairs, and it
is of the utmost (µέγα, νετ. 1= weighty
and decisive) moment to have all events
focussed in the light of the new situation
which that position has created. So
much is plain. But that the source (or
tradition) with its goddess-mother, perse-
cuting dragon, celestial conflict, and
menaced child, did not emanate from the
prophet himself is evident alike from its
style and contents ; these show that
while it could be domiciled on Jewish
Christian soil it was not autochthonous
(cf. Vischer, 19 f.; Gunkel, S. C. 173 f.).
The imagery is not native to messianism.
It bears traces of adaptation from mytho-
logy. Thus, where it would have been
apposite to bring in the messiah (ver. 7),
Michael’s τὂ]ε is retained, even by the
Christian editor, while the general ori-
ental features of the mother’s divine
connexion and her flight, the dragon’s
hostility and temporary rout, and the
water-flood, are visible through the Jew-
ish transformation of the myth into a
sort of allegory of messiah, persecuted
by the evil power which he was destined
to conquer. “In reality it is the old
story of the conflict between light and
darkness, order and disorder, transferred
to the latter days, and adapted by spirit-
ualisation . . . to the wants of faithful
Jews” (Cheyne, Bible Problems, 80).
While the vision represents the messianic
adaptation of a sun-myth, it is uncertain
what the particular myth was, and
whether the vision represents a Jewish
source worked over by the prophet. In
the latter case, the Christian redactor’s
hand is visible perhaps in 4 a and 5 (πρὸς
τ. 0. αὐτοῦ, cf. v. 6), certainly in rr
(which, even apart from the Lamb, in-
terrupts the sequence) and 17 ¢, if not

27

422

p iv. 5, Vili.
5 f., xvi.
18-21.

q Indivi-
dual (as
vi. 14, etc.), not generic as Mark xiii. 8.

also in the whole of 10-12. If, in addition
to this, the source was originally written
in Hebrew, traces of the translator
are to be found (so Gunkel, Kohler,
and Wellhausen, after Ewald, Bruston,
Briggs, and Schmidt) in 2 (Bac. τεκεῖν,

cf. 1 Sam. iv. 19 PVF rites
νἱὸν 4. = 55 13) 6 (ὅπου. . . ἐκεῖ--
Ow ο), 8 (κ. οὐκ £= 559 8d)
cf. 14 and on iii. 8), g (the old serpent=
ITT oF PWT win),
possibly το (κατήγωρ-- "1110 and
12 (κατέβη, cf. ἐβλήθη of 10o=">)9)-
But whether the source was written or
not, whether (if written) it was in Greek
or not, and whether it was Jewish or
Jewish-Christian, the clue to the vision
lies in the sphere of comparative religion
rather than of literary criticism. Its
atmosphere has been tinged by the inter-
national myth of a new god challenging
and deposing an older, or rather of a
divine hero or child menaced at birth—a
myth which at once reflected the dangers
tun by the seed sown in the dark earth
and also the victory of light (or the god
of light) over darkness, or of light in the
springtide over the dead winter. The
Babylonian myth of Marduk, which
lacks any analogous tale of Marduk’s
birth, does not correspond so aptly to
this vision (cf. Introd. § 4 b), as does
the well-known crude Egyptian myth
(Bousset); Isis is a closer parallel than
Ishtar, and still closer perhaps at one
point is the κουροτρόφος of Hellenic
mythology, who was often represented
as uirgo coelestis. But, if any local
phase of the myth is to be assumed as
having coloured the messianic tradition
used by John, that of Leto would be
particularly intelligible to Asiatic readers
(cf., e.g-, Pfleiderer, Early Christ. Con-
ception of Christ, 56 f., after Dieterich’s
Abyaxas, 117 f.; Maas, Orpheus, 251 f.).
The dragon Python vainly persecuted her
before the birth of Apollo; but she was
caught away to a place of refuge, and
her divine child, three days later, re-
turned to slay the monster at Parnassus.
This myth of the pregnant and threat-
ened goddess-mother was familiar not
only in Delos but throughout the districts,
e.g., Of Miletus and Magnesia, where

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ΧΙ.

να Ρ 2 ‘ ‘ 8 ‘ 4 λα oY
καὶ ἐγένοντο } ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταὶ καὶ " σεισμὸς
καὶ χάλαζα µεγάλη.

the fugitive goddess was honoured on
the local coinage. Coins of Hadrian’s
reign associate the myth with Ephesus
(EPECIQN AHTQ). At Hierapolis, ‘the
story of the life of these divine person-
ages formed the ritual of the Phrygian
religion’’ (C. B. P. i. gt f.) ; the birth of
a god is associated with Laodicea, one
coin representing an infant god in the
arms of a woman (Persephone) ; while in
the legend of Rhea, as Ramsay points
out (C. B. P. i. 34), Crete and Phrygia
are closely allied (cf. also Sib. Orac. v.
130 f.). All this points decisively to the
Hellenic form of the myth as the imme-
diate source of the symbolic tradition
(so, e.g., J. Weiss, Abbott, 99), though
here as elsewhere in the Apocalypse the
obscurity which surrounds the relations
between Jewish or early Christian escha-
tology and the ethnic environment ren-
ders it difficult to determine the process
of the latter’s undoubted influence on the
former. Fortunately, this is a matter of
subordinate importance. The essential
thing is to ascertain not the soil on
which such messianic conceptions grew,
but the practical religious object to
which the Christian prophet, as editor,
has freely and naively applied them.
His design is to show that the power of
Satan on earth is doomed. Experience
indeed witnesses (12-17) to his malice
and mischief, but the present outburst
of persecution is only the last campaign
of a foe whose efforts have been already
baffled and are soon to be crushed in the
inexorable providence of God. The pro-
phet dramatically uses his source or
tradition to introduce Satan as a baffled
opponent of the messiah (cf. on xi. 7),
who is simply making the most of his
time (νετ. 12). Moviturus mordet. Once
this cardinal aim of the piece is grasped
—and the proofs of it are overflowing—
the accessory details fall into their proper
place, just as in the interpretation of the
parables. In all such products of the
poetical and religious imagination, pic-
turesque items, which were necessary to
the completeness and impressiveness of
the sketch, are not to be invested with
primary significance. Besides, in the
case of an old story or tradition which
had passed through successive phases, it
was inevitable that certain traits should
lose much if not all of their meaning.

Ald. π.

XII.

Βεβλημένη τὸν " ἥλιον-- καὶ ἡ σελήνη ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτῆς,

“These ancient trazts, fragments of an
earlier whole, which lack their proper
connexion in the present account, and
indeed are scarcely intelligible, as they
have been wrested from the thought-
sequence of the original writer, reveal to
the expert the presence of an earlier form
of the story” (S. C. p. 6.)

CHAPTER Xi].—The procedure of the
writer here is very much the same as
inch. xi. (see above). The oracle of xii. is
not an allegorising version of history, ποτ
an exegetical construction of O.T. texts,
nor a free composition of the author, but
the Christianised reproduction of a Jewish
source (possibly from the same period as
the basis of xi. 1-13, or at least from the
same βιβλαρίδιον), or at any rate a
tradition, which described the birth of
messiah in terms borrowed from such
cosmological myths as that of the con-
flict between the sun-god and the dragon
of darkness and the deep. The psycho-
logical origin of such a Jewish adapta-
tion would be explainedif we presupposed
a tradition similar to that of the later
Talmud (Jer. Berach. fol. 5, 1) which
described the messiah as born at Bethle-
hem and swept away from his mother by
a storm-wind, just after the fall of Jeru-
salem. But this messiah is merely re-
moved, not raised to heaven. And as
we have no clear evidence that the stress
of 68-70 A.D. excited such a messianic
hope among the Pharisees, it is hazard-
ous to use this (as ¢.g., Jiilicher and
Wellhausen still do) to prove that the
date of the source is the same as that of
xi. 1f. The structure of the passage is
equally ambiguous. 4 a presupposes
something equivalent to ver. 7-9, while
13-16 is an expansion or variant of 6;
and yet 13 is the natural sequel to 9
(12). These features have led to a
variety of literary reconstructions. Spitta,
¢.g., takes ver. 6 as the Christian edi-
torial anticipation of 13 f., and finds
another Christian touch in ver. 11 (Wey-
landin 1m and 179). J. Weiss puts 1-6
and 13-17 together, regarding 7-12 as
an independent continuation of the third
woe (editorial notes in 3, 11, and 17).
Wellhausen (Analyse, 18 f) bisects the
oracle into two parallel but incomplete
variants (A=1-6, B=7-9, 13, 14), with
15-17 as an editorial conclusion. Others
(e.g., Sch6n and Calmes) find a Christian

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

423

I. Καὶ " σημεῖον µέγα ὤφθη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, γυνὴ "περι- a Matt.

XXiv. 30,
aril.
att. 1.2.
b Ps, civ. 2.

editor only in 10-12 (with 17 ο of course)’
while Weizsacker regards 13-18 as the
expansion of I-12 (a Jewish-Christian
fragment of 64-66 a.p.). Some of the
incoherencies of the description are due,
however, to the alterations necessitated
by messianic belief in the circle of such
ethnic traditions. The latter made the
mother’s flight precede the child’s birth
(as in4,5). But, on the messianic scheme,
it was the child’s birth which roused the
full fury of the enemy and turned it into an
outburst of baffled revenge upon the
mother (6, 13 f.), after the child’s escape.
Furthermore, this activity of the devil on
earth had to be accounted for by his dis-
lodgement from heaven, as a result of
the messianic child’s elevation to heaven
(7 f.). Hence the apparent inconsist-
encies, the shifting standpoint, and the
amount of repetition and confusion are
due to the presence of a messianic con-
ception employing terms of earlier and
inadequate mythology for its own pur-
poses, rather than to any literary re-
arrangement such as the transposition of
part of the trumpet-visions to 7-12 (Sim-
cox, J. Weiss). The interest of the pro-
phet in this source or tradition, as in that
of xi. 1-13, centres in the outburst of the
evil power which shows that the end is
imminent. There the beast’s attack on
messiah’s heralds is ultimately foiled.
Here the dragon’s attack on messiah
himself is not only defeated but turned
into a rout which obliges him to shift
the scene of his campaign to a field
where his deputies are presently to be
annihilated.

Vv. 1-2. ἐν τ. οὐ. almost=‘“‘in the
sky ” (cf. ver. 4.). A Greek touch: c/.
Hom. /liad, ii. 308, ἔνθ᾽ ἐφάνη μέγα σῆμα"
δράκων ἐπὶ vata δαφοινός (i.¢. fiery-red).
Here as elsewhere mythological traits of
the original source are left as impressive
and decorative details. The nearest
analogy is the Babylonian Damkina,
mother of the young god Marduk and
‘“‘ queen of the heavenly tiara” (i.¢., the
stars, cf. Schrader, pp. 360, 361). For
Hebrew applications of the symbolism c/.
Gen. xxxvii. 9, 10 and Test. Naph. 5
(καὶΙούδας ἦν λαμπρὸς ὡς ἠσελήνη
καὶ ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ἦσαν β΄
ἀκτῖνες). The Egyptian Osiris was also
wrapt in a flame-coloured robe—the sun
being the ‘‘ body” of deity (Plut. de Iside.

424

AIIOKAAYVIZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

X1L

c Only here καὶ "ἐπὶ "τῆς "κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς στέφανος ἀστέρων δώδεκα---2. καὶ

in Αρος,
15 επί
with gen. , .
οΓκεφαλή. τεκειν.
d Isa. xxvi.
17, Mic.
iv. 10. 5 < SERS ives
¢ Obj. infin. Tas κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ἑπτὰ
of ‘desire ,
implied in ΤΟ
preced.
ptcc”
(Burton,

389). ;
f Ezek. xxix. 3; only in Apoc. in N.T.
Dan. vii. 7.

g cf. vi. 4.
k Only in Apoc. in N.T., cf. xix. 12, xiii. 1.

ἐν yaotpi éxovuca: καὶ Sxpdfe! ἆὠδίνουσα καὶ βασανιζοµένη
3. Καὶ ὤφθη ἄλλο σημεῖον ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἰδοὺ ΄ δράκων
5 πυρρὸς µέγας, ἔχων " κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ ' κέρατα δέκα" καὶ ἐπὶ
Ἐδιαδήματα : 4. καὶ ἡ οὐὖρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει
τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς eis τὴν γῆν.
A 1c 5 , lg 2.4 a x a λλ , m =
καὶ 6 δράκων | ἕστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς µελλούσης ™ τεκεῖν,

h Ps. Ixxiv. 13-14. i From
1 For form cf. Win. § 14, 14.

ma τεκεῖν incorrectly for τίκτειν; .réxy (cf. xi. 7), on mood see Burton, 303, 305.

1 Read και (NVC, Aeth., Pr., S., etc.) κραζει (NSAP, 1, etc., Hipp.), edd.

51). The original figure was that of Israel
personified as a pregnant goddess-mother,
but it probably represented to the prophet
the true Israel or Zion of God (Wernle,
276-288) in which his Christ had been
born (cf. John xvi. 21, with John xiv. 30,
also En. xc. 37). The idealisation was
favoured by the current conceptions of
Zion as pre-existent in heaven (cf. xix. 8,
xxi. 8, and Apoc. Bar. iv. = widow) and
as a mother (4 Esd. ix. 38-x. 59). The
prophet views the national history of
Israel as a long preparation for the
anguish and woe out of which the mes-
siah was to come. ‘‘ Tantae molis erat
Christianam condere gentem” (Grotius).
The idea is echoed in Ep. Lugd., where
the church is ‘‘the virgin mother”. The
virgin-birth falls into the background here
as in the Fourth Gospel, though for dif-
ferent reasons. The messiah of Apoc.
xii. is not the son of Mary but simply
born in the messianic community, and
the description is no more than a trans-
cendental version of what Paul notes in
Rom. ix. 4,5. The editor’s interest lies
not in the birth of messiah so much as
in the consequences of it in heaven and
earth. At the same time the analogies
discovered between Cerinthus and this
passage (by Vélter and others) are wholly
imaginary (Kohlhofer, 53 f.).

Ver. 3. πυρρός: Vergil’s serpents
which attack Laokoon have blood-red
crests, and Homer‘s dragon has a blood-
red back, but here the trait (cf. above) is
reproduced from the red colour of Typhon,
the Egyptian dragon who persecuted
Osiris (Plut. de Iside, 30-33). The seven
heads are taken from the seven-headed
hydra or muSmahhu of Babylonian my-
thology. The devil’s deputy in xiii. 1
(= the composite muSru8Su of Babylonia)
has the same equipment of horns and
heads, but the diadems adorn his horns.

Here, to John’s mind at any rate (cf. ver.
g), the dragon is not equivalent to any
contemporary pagan power like Pompey
(Ps. Sol. ii. 29) or the king of Babylon.

Ver. 4. The symbolism is a reminis-
cence of an ztiological myth in astrology
(cf. the cauda of the constellation Scorpio)
and of the primitive view which regarded
the dark cloud as a snake enfolding the
luminaries of heaven in its hostile coils
(Job iii. 8, xxvi. 13, with A. B. Davidson’s.
notes). Thus the Iranians (S. B. E. iv.
p- Ixxiii., Darmesteter) described the
fiend as a serpent or dragon not on the
score of craftiness but ‘‘ because the
storm fiend envelops the goddess of light
with the coils of the cloud as with a
snake’s fold’’. The same play of imagi-
nation would interpret eclipses and fall-
ing stars, and, when the pious were
compared to stars (as in Egyptian theo-
logy, Plut. de Iside, 21), it was but a
step to the idea of Dan. viii. (cf. Sib.
Or. v. 512 f., the battle of the stars),
where Antiochus Epiphanes does violence
to some devout Israelites who are char-
acterised as stars flung rudely down to
earth (z.e., martyred, 1 Macc. i.) Ori-
ginally, this description of the dragon
lashing his tail angrily and sweeping
down a third of the stars probably re-
ferred to the seduction of angels from
their heavenly rank (so 8-9} to serve his
will (Weiss). But John, in recasting the
tradition, may have thought of the
Danielic application, {.6., of the devil
succeeding in crushing by martyrdom a
certain number of God’s people. In this
event, they would include at least, if
they are not to be identified with, the
pre-Christian martyrs of Judaism (cf.
Heb. xi. 32 f. Matt. xxiii. 35).---ἔστηκεν,
a conventional posture of the ancient
dragon cf. e.g., Pliny, H. N. viii.3, ‘nec
flexu multiplici ut reliquae serpentes cor-.

2---6.

ἵνα ὅταν ''τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς " καταφάγῃ.
ἄρσενα,! ὃς μέλλει "ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ ° σιδηρᾶ"
καὶ ’ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον

αὐτοῦ.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

425

5. Καὶ ἔτεκεν vidyn Matt. ii.
16-20,
Luke xiii.
30°31,
Acts iv.

25-27.

6. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ Ἱἔφυγεν eis τὴν Epnuov, ὅπου ἔχει ἐκεῖ dar 27, xix.

A A lal 15: 6).
τόπον ἠτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα ἐκεῖ " τρέφωσιν αὐτὴν " ἡμέρας Sib. ο

Χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα.

17,1 Cor. xii. 2, 4.
11, Win. § 5, 20 f., Moult. i. 58-59.
ον. 40)? s Cf. on xi. 2-3.

q Matt. ii. 13, cf. Ps. Sol. xvii. 9.

viii. 196 f.
p Acts viii.
39,0
Thess. iv.
r (= τρέφεται, 14) for constr. see x.

ow? with heavenly food, like ancient Israel (Ps. Ixxviii. 24,

1 Read αρσενα P, 95, Meth., Andbav (Ws., Bs.) for the solecistic αρσεν (AC’
Lach., Ti., Tr., Al. Sw., WH) [appeva (the Attic form, Thumb 77, Helbing 20)

SQ, 1, etc., Areth., Bj.]: a. (Vict.) or v. (Pr.) a redundant gloss 2

Wetstein cites

a verbal parallel from Aristoph., Eccles., 549-550 (ἄρρεν γὰρ ἔτεκε παιδίον . ἥκκλη-

σία ;).

pus impellit, sed celsus et erectus in
medio incedens”; ibid. viii. 14, for ser-
pents devouring children. The mother
of Zoroaster had also a vision of wild
beasts waiting to devour her child at its
birth. This international myth of the
divine child menaced at birth readily lent
itself to moralisation, or afforded terms
for historical applications, e¢.g., the abor-
tive attack on Moses, the prototype of
messiah (Baldensperger, 141, 142) at his
birth (Ac. vii. 20 f.) and the vain efforts
of Herod against the messiah. The
animosity of Pytho for Leto was due to
a prophecy that the latter’s son would
vanquish him.

Ver. 5. In accordance with the rab-
binic notion which withdrew messiah
for a time, the infant, like a second
Moses, is caught up out of harm’s
way. He has no career on earth at all.
This is intelligible enough in a Jewish
tradition; but while no Christian pro-
phet could have spontaneously depicted
his messiah in such terms, even under
the exigencies of apocalyptic fantasy, the
further problem is to understand how he
could have adopted so incongruous and
inadequate an idea except as a pictorial
detail. The clue lies in the popular
messianic interpretation of passages like
Ps. ii. where messiah’s birth is really his
inauguration and enthronement. The
early application of this to Jesus, though
not antagonistic to an interest in his his-
toric personality, tallied with the wide-
spread feeling (cf. note on i. 7) that his
final value lay in his return as messiah.
Natiuitas quaedam eius ascensio: ‘‘ The
heavens must receive him” (Acts iii.
21) till the divine purpose was ripe
enough for his second advent. This

κ

Cf. Cooke’s North Semitic Inscript., 221-222.

tendency of primitive Jewish Christianity
serves to explain how John could refer in
passing to his messiah in terms which
described a messiah, as Sabatier remarks,
sans la crotx et sans la mort, and which
even represented his ascension as an
escape rather than a triumph. The ab-
sence of any allusion to the Father is not
due so much to any reluctance on the pro-
phet’s part to call Jesus by the name of
Son of God (cf. ii. 18), which pagan usage
had profaned not only in such mythical
connexion but in the vocabulary of the
Imperial cultus, as to the fact that the
mythical substratum always gave special
prominence to the mother; the goddess-
mother almost invariably displaced the
father in popular interest, and indeed
bulked more largely than even the child.

Ver. 6. ἀπὸ κ.τ.λ.,-- ὑπό of agent (so
Acts ii. 22, iv. 36, etc., Ps. Sol. xv. 6,
and a contemporary inscription in Ditten-
berger’s Sylloge Inscr. 655° συντετηρ-
npéva ἀπὸ βασιλέων kal Σεβαστῶν) only
here in Apocalypse. On the flight of the
faithful to the wilderness, a stereotyped
feature of the antichrist period, cf. A. C.
211 f. Apocalyptic visions, particularly
in the form of edited sources or adapted
traditions, were not concerned to pre-
serve strict coherency in details or con-
sistency in situation. Thus it is not clear
whether the ἔρημος was conceived to
exist in heaven, or whether heaven is
the background rather than the scene of
what transpires. What follows in 7-12
is the description (from the popular re-
ligious version of the source) of what
John puts from a definitely Christian
standpoint in iii, 21, v. 5, where (as in
Asc. Isa. Gk. ii. 9-11) the downfall of
Satan is ascribed to Jesus himself.

426

t Foll. by
loose in-

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XII.

7. Καὶ éyévero taddepos ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ: 6 "Μιχαὴλ καὶ ot

Ε > a a a ‘ A 5 ΔΝ ς ,
. of ex- κ κων
fin. of εχ- ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ 400 πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τοῦ δράκοντος, καὶ ὅ Spd

planation

A 4
(cf Moult. ἐπολέμησε καὶ "οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ, 8. “Kal οὐκ ἴσχυσεν,ὶ οὐδὲ

1.217-218).ς
u From

να σος

13, 21, xii. ©

1, cf. Judez

9.
v Matt. xxv.
41; evil
beings in
heaven,
Asc. Isa.

vi. of

W εἰς Beer δέον συνέβη τελευτῆσαι THY τάξιν αὐτῶν (Papias, cit. Andr.).
aii. 20, xx. 3, 8, 10.

56 f. y Isa. xxvii. 1. ZXX. 4.

ς Xi. 15, xix. I.

τόπος "εὑρέθη αὐτῶν ἔτι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.

µέγας, 76 ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος,

Σατανᾶς,͵ ὁ "πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην, > ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν,
‘ c Ed > “ > > a > ,

καὶ ot ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ pet αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν.

0. καὶ ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων

*6 καλούμενος “΄ Διάβολος, καὶ “6

1Ο. καὶ ἤκουσα

«Φωνὴν "μεγάλην ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγουσαν

x xx. 11, Par. Lost, vi.
b From Slav. En. xxix. 5.

1Read ισχνσεν (Ps. xii. 5, LXX) A, etc., Me., Aeth., Ande (WH, Ws., Sw., Bs.),
[verb agreeing as in LXX with principal subject, cf. Vit., ii. 114 f.].

Ver. 7. τοῦ π. (=

Ὀπυπὸ ona ποπ any:

the nomin. makes this rare use of the
genit. infin. even more clumsy and irre-
gular than the similar constr. with accus.
in Acts x. 25 (where see note). The sense
is plain, and it is better to put the constr.
down to syntactical laxity than to con-
jecture subtle reasons for the blunder or
to suggest emendations such as the addi-
tion of ἐγένετο to πόλεμος (Vit. i. 168), or
of ἦσαν or ἐγένετο before 6 Μ. κ. of Gy.
αὐτοῦ (Ws., Bousset), the latter being an
irregular nomin., or the alteration of πολ.
to ἐπολέμησαν (Diist.) or the simple
omission of πόλεμος .. . οὐρανῷ. For
πολ. μετὰ cf. Thumb 125 (a Copticism ?).
In the present form of the oracle, the
rapture of messiah seems to have stimu-
lated the devil to fresh efforts, unless we
are meant to understand that the initia-
tive came from Michael and his allies.
The devil, as the opponent of mankind
had access to the Semitic heaven, but
his τό]ε here recalls the primitive mytho-
logical conception of the dragon storming
heaven (A. C. 146-150). Michael had
been for over two centuries the patron-
angel or princely champion of Israel (6
els τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων ὃς ἐπὶ τῶν τοῦ
λαοῦ ἀγαθῶν τέτακται, En. xx. 5; cf. A.
ο. 227 f.; Lueken 15 f.; Volz 195; R. Ὑ.
320 f., and Dieterich’s Abraxas, 122 f.).
As the protector of Israel’s interests he
was assigned a prominent réle by Jewish
and even Christian eschatology in the final
conflict (cf. Ass. Mos. x. 2). For the
theory that he was the prince-angel, like
a son of man (Dan. vii. 13) who subdued
the world-powers, cf. Grill 55 and Cheyne
215 f. More generally, a celestial battle.
as the prelude of messiah’s triumph on

éyéveTo . « .

earth, forms an independent Jewish tradi-
tion which can be traced to the second
century B.c. (ef. Sibyll. 11. 795-807,
2 Mace. v. 2-4; Jos. Bell. vi. 5, 3).--καὶ
ot ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ. The only allusion in
the Apocalypse (cf. even xx. 11 with
Matt. xxv. 41) to the double hierarchy of
angels, which post-exilic Judaism took
over from Persia (Bund, iii. 11). In the
Leto-myth, Pytho returns to Parnassus
after being baffled in his pursuit of the
pregnant Leto.

Ver. 9. Δράκων and ὄφις are in the
LXX interchangeable terms for the levi-
athan or sea-monster of mythology, who
is here defined as the old serpent (a rab-
binical expression, ¢f. Gfrorer, i. 386-389) ;
so Tiamat, the primaeval rebel, as dragon
and serpent (cf. Rohde’s Psyche, 371)
had been identified in JE’s paradise-
story with the malicious and envious
devil (Sap. ii. 24; En. xx. 7; Test. Reub.
5). The opponent of God was th- adver-
sary of man (cf. Oesterley’s Evol. of
Mess. Idea, 176 f.). Two characteristic
traits of Satan are blended here: (a)
cunning exercised on men to lure them
into ruin (πλανῶν, κ.τ.λ., cf. 2 Cor. ii. 11,
xi. 3), and (6) eagerness to thwart and
slander them before God (ver. 10, cf. En.
xl. 7; Zech. iii. x f.). The second is
naive and archaic, of course, in a Chris-
tian apocalypse.

Ver. 10. κατήγωρ (11172) is the
counterpart to the rabbinic (Lueken 22)
title of συνήγορος given to Michael as a
sort of Greatheart or advocate and pro-
tector of men (En. xl. 9). The Aramaic
derivation of the word (Win. § 8. 13) is
not absolutely necessary, as the papyri
show that it might have sprung up on
Greek soil (cf. Thumb, 126; Rademacher,

7-14. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 427
“"Aptt ἐγένετο ἡ ἃ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δύναμις d Cf.on xix.
A. © , “A mile 7 μι | > , Ae - 15 πετε
καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ "Χριστοῦ αἰτ.--
ὃς “victory”
αὐτοῦ - (1 Sam.
20) ς , a ACA Neel en xix. 5, Ps.
οτι ἐβλήθη 6 κατήγωρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν, αχ. 7, and
t A huis hs a ee Ame He ν΄ Lukei.71)
6 “Katnyopav αὐτοὺς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἡμέρας καὶ sy
νυκτός. ε χίζτς, cf.
ba XX. 4,6
11. καὶ αὐτοὶ © ἐνίκησαν αὐτὸν " διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀρνίου, (final
Δ μμ μι] af , 2A editor's
καὶ διὰ τὸν ᾿ λόγον τῆς 'paptupias αὐτῶν, hand).
cy tle ts ae x 4 μας κ f From Jub.
καὶ “00K ἠγάπησαν Thy ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἄχρι * θανάτου. xlviii. 15,
Αα A 18,
12. ᾿ διὰ τοῦτο '' εὐφραίνεσθε " οὐρανοὶ καὶ οἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς "σκη-ε ι johnii.

νοῦντες.

* oval τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν,
ὅτι κατέβη ὁ διάβολος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔχων θυμὸν µέγαν,
εἰδὼς ὅτι Ρ ὀλίγον καιρὸν ἔχει.

13. Καὶ ὅτε εἶδεν ὁ δράκων ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἐδίωξε τὴν

γυναῖκα Ἱῆτις ἔτεκε τὸν ἄρσενα.

N Xvili. 20, Ps. xcvi. 11; only here (Apoc.) in plural.

years (6, 14), ε/. ΧΧ. 3. q 67.6ᾳ 1.7.

14. καὶ " ἐδόθησαν τῇ γυναικὶ
αἱ δύο πτέρυγες τοῦ " ἀετοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ἵνα πέτηται cis τὴν ἔρημον

13-14.
Rom. viii.
33°34) 37°

John xii.
25, Acts

XX. 24.

\ 1 t.¢., over

9-10, not

IX.
m Isa. xlii.
10f., xliv.
23,xlix.13.

0 viii. 13, cf. Sib. Or. iii. 323. p = 34

τ Viil. 2, xi. 1, etc., cf, Arist. Hist. Nat. x. 1, Hor. Od. iv. 4.

1,9, Plut. Timol. xxvi., Jos. Ant. xii. 4, 10, Aesch. Choeph. 239 f., and Dan. vii. 4.

Rhein. Mus. lvii. 148). On the accuser’s
role cf. Sohar Levit. fol. 43 (ille semper
stat tanquam delator coram rege Israelis)
and the prayer of Jub. i. 20: ‘‘ let not the
spirit of Beliar rule over them to accuse
them before thee and to turn them deceit-
fully from all the paths of righteousness ”
(wh re both traits are combined, 7.
above on 9).

Ver. τι. This sentence, like ver. 7,
suggests that earth’s history is the reflex
and outcome of transactions in heaven,
on the common principle of Jalkut Rub.
(on Exod. xiv. 7): ‘‘ there was war above
(in heaven) and war below (on earth),
and sore was the war in heaven”’.
Satan’s dislodgment from heaven is an-
other (cf. on xi. 19) sign of messiah’s
approaching victory (cf. Yasna xxx. 8).
What Jesus had already seen in his own
victory over daemons (Matt. xii. 24 f.;
cf. J. Weiss, Predigt Fesu, 28 f., 8g f.),
John hails from another standpoint, as
inaugurating the messianic age. Vexilla
vegis prodeunt. How readily the mytho-
logical trait could be moralised is evident
from a passage like Rom. viii. 33 f., of
which Apoc. xii. 11 is a realistic variant.
In the background lie conceptions like
that of En. xl. 7 where the fourth angel
of the Presence is heard ‘‘ fending all the
Satans and forbidding them to appear be-

fore the Lord of Spirits to accuse men”:
Ver, 11 chronologically follows ver. 17,
but the author, by a characteristic and
dramatic prolepsis, anticipates the tri-
umph of the martyrs and confessors, who
refute Satan’s calumnies and resist his
wiles. In opposition to the contemporary
Jewish tradition (Ap. Bar. ii. 2, xiv. 12;
4 Esd. vii. 77, etc.), it is not reliance on
works but the consciousness of redemp-
tion which enables them to bear witness
and to bear the consequences of their wit-
ness. This victory on earth depends on
Christ’s previous defeat of evil in the
upper world (Col. ii. 15; cf. above on ii.
10, also xxi. 8) which formed its head-
quarters.

Ver. 12. εὐφραίνεσθε, cf. the Egyptian
hymn in honour of Ra, the sun-god:
‘* Ra hath quelled his impious foes, hea-
ven rejoices, earth is delighted ”.—ovai
κ.τ.λ. This desperate and last effort of
Satan is a common apocalyptic feature
(εἰ. εδ. 4. Εά a. 16°52 Αα. Bar.
XXVili. 3, ΧΙ. 1, lxxv. 5; Mark xiii. 21;
Did. xvi.), which John identifies later
with the Imperial cultus.

The dragon’s pursuit of the woman
(13-17) resumes and expands the hint of
ver. 6,

Ver. 14. ''"ΤΠε two wings of a huge
griffon-vulture’’ (rod either generic ar-

428

AIIOKAAY¥IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XII.

~ ~ 4
s. ver. 6. εἲς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς, "ὅπου τρέφεται * exer καιρὸν καὶ ' καιροὺς

t Dan. vii.
25
(Theod.),
xi.
dual

cw

(Win. § ἵνα αὐτὴν " ποταµοφόρητον ποιήση.

αν ο). ,
u Hebraism γυναικι,

‘ ο a Ἡα δ bY ΄ α 3
και ηµισυ καιρου απο προσωπου του Όφεως.

15. καὶ ἔβαλεν

ὁ ὄφις ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ὀπίσω τῆς γυναικὸς ὕδωρ ὡς ποταµόν,

16. καὶ ἐβοήθησεν ἡ γῆ τῇ

καὶ ἤνοιξεν ἡ γῆ τὸ στόµα αὐτῆς καὶ κατέπιε τὸν ποταμὸν
( 4 Δ » ς ή 3 [ο , > ~
WITIT ὃν ἔβαλεν 6 δράκων ἐκ τοῦ otdpatos αὐτοῦ.

17. καὶ ὠργίσθη ὁ

5 , ase a , ‘ fol x a x / a A
39) δράκων ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικί, καὶ ἀπῆλθε "ποιῆσαι " πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν

rom". λοιπῶν τοῦ ” σπέρματος αὐτῆς, τῶν ΄ τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ
απ. εΥ. -
No kal "ἐχόντων τὴν µαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ.
1
ἐποίησεν : : 5
Ξ-ἀπόερσεν (Hesych. on Iliad, vi. 348). '' To get her swept away by the stream”. w xi. 18
“waxed wroth”. X χι. 7. y Cf. 2 John 1, 4, 13; also 1 Pet. i. 1-2, iv. 12 1. z 1 John ii. 3,

iii. 22, 24, 1 Cor. vii. 19.

ticle, or a Hebraism, or more likely an
allusion to the mythological basis). In
traditional mythology the eagle op-
posed and thwarted the serpent at all
points (cf. reff.). In the Egyptian myth
the vulture is the sacred bird of Isis
(Hathor). Any allusion to Israel’s de-
liverance (as in Exod. xix. 4; Deut. xxxii.
11) is at best secondary.

Ver. 15. Another mythological meta-
phor for persecution or persecutors, like
“torrents of Belial” (Ps. xviii. 4). As the
primaeval dragon was frequently a sea-
monster, from Tiamat onwards, his con-
nexion with water (cf. on viii. 10) was
a natural development in ancient (cf.
Pausan. ν. 43 f.) and even Semitic (e.g.,
Ps. Ixxiv. 4; Ezek. xxix., xxxii.) literature.
The serpent in the river was, for Zoro-
astrians, a creation of the evil spirit
(Vend. i. 3).

Ver. 16. The dragon is unexpectedly
baffled by the earth, as the woman’s
ally, which swallows the persecutors like
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. xvi.
30-32). This enigmatic detail has not
yet been paralleled from Jewish or early
Christian literature, for Protev. Facobi, 22
(cited by Selwyn, 7-9) is even more re-
mote than 4 Esd. xili. 44. Probably it was
retained from the astrological setting of
the original myth: Cetos, the aquatic
dragon of the southern heavens, which
astrologically is a watery region, casts
forth the river of Eridanos, which is
swallowed up in the zodiac as it flows
down the heavens into the underworld.

Ver. 17. The baffled adversary now
widens his sphere of operations.—t.A. an
apocalyptic term = the deyrelicti or re-
lictt of 4 Esdras (cf. Volz, 319). These
represent to the Christian editor the scat-
tered Christians in the Empire; by add-
ing this verse (or at least καὶ ἐχ. . . .
᾿Γησοῦ) to the source, he paves the way

a Vi. ο, xiv. 123, xix. 10, etc.

for the following saga of xiii. which de-
picts the trying situation of Christians
exposed to the attack of the devil’s de-
puties. The devil keeps himself in the
background. He works subtly through
the Roman power. This onset on the
faith and faithfulness of Christians by the
enforcement of the Imperial cultus is
vividly delineated in Ep. Lugd. which
incidentally mentions the experience of
Biblias who, like Cranmer, repented of a
recantation. ‘‘The devil, thinking he
had already swallowed up B., one of
those who had denied Christ, desired to
condemn her further by means of blas-
phemy, and brought her to the torture
[t.e., in order to force false accusations
from her lips]. . . . But she, reminded by
her present anguish of the eternal punish-
ment in Gehenna [cf. Apoc. xiv. 9 f.], con-
tradicted the blasphemous slanderers,
confessed herself a Christian, and was
added to the order of the martyrs.”
Blandina, the heroic slave-girl, survived
several conflicts ἵνα νικήσασα τῷ μὲν
σκολιῷ Sher ἀπαραίτητον ποιήσῃ τὴν
καταδίκην.

The keynote of the situation hinted
in xii. 17 {6 is struck in’ xm ο. The
dragon has given his authority to the
beast ; what God’s people have now to
contend with is no longer the O.T.
Satan merely (xii. 9, 10) but his powerful
and seductive delegate on earth. In the
Imperial cultus the Christian prophet
could see nothing except a supreme and
diabolically subtle manceuvre of Satan
himself (cf. on xiii. 1 and 5). The
Danielic prophecy was at last on he
verge of fulfilment! Mythological and
cosmological elements (S. C. 360 f.)
were already present in the Danielic
tradition, but the prophet (or the source
which he edits) readapted them to the
historical situation created by the ex-

Ί6--«Ιδ---ΙΠΙ. 1—3.

18. Καὶ > ἐστάθην 1 ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον τῆς θαλάσσης, XIII.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

429

π καὶ b On form,
cf. Helb-

«εἶδον ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον, ἔχον κέρατα δέκα καὶ ing, 98-99.

κεφαλὰς ἑπτά, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κεράτων αὐτοῦ δέκα διαδήµατα,
ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ "ὀνόματα βλασφημίας.
6 εἶδον ἦν " ὅμοιον "παρδάλει, καὶ of πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς ἆ ἄρκου, καὶ

τὸ στόµα αὐτοῦ ὡς στόµα λέοντος.

cf. Win. § 5, 31, Helbing, 21-22.

"καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ 6 δράκων
τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξουσί άλ
7 µ Ῥόνον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην.

3. καὶ ‘play ἐκ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐσφαγμένην cis θάνατον.

e Dan. vii. 6, cf. Matt. iii. 8, 9, etc.

, a Cf. xvii. 3.
Kalb From
cee Dan. vii.
2. καὶ τὸ θηρίον 4-6.
«ο Hereonly,
IN) Denies.
Ign. Rom,
ν. Acotrap:
δοις, ὃ
ἐστιν
στρατιω»
τικον
τάγμα.

η d On form,

f xvii. 7-8. Sc. εἶδον.

1 For εσταθην (PQ, Me.,S., etc., Απά., Areth. so Ti., ΑΙ., S. Davidson, Ew., Ramsay,

Briggs, Gunkel, J. Weiss, Bs., Bj., etc.), Lach., Tr., Diist., Hofm., WH, Ws. (p. 5)
Sw., Holtz., Hirscht, read εσταθη (SAC, 87, 92, vg., Arm., Aeth., Spec., Haym.,
Tic.), as if the dragon awaited the rise of the beast.

in the context.

,

But of this there is no hint

A new start is made here, and what follows is (unlike xii.) a per-
senal vision of the seer who is now dealing with present-day actualities.

The

vatiant seems due to an erroneous attempt to deepen the continuity of the two
oracles (which is expressed in xii. 17a and xiii. 2c).

pectation of Nero’s return from the under
~world and the enforcement of the Imperial
cultus. For the hypothesis of a Caligula-
“source in this chapter, cf. Introd § 6.

xii. 18-xiii. 18: the saga of the woman
and the red dragon (a war in heaven) is
followed by the saga of the two monsters
from sea and land (a war on earth), who,
with the dragon, form a triumvirate of
evil. First (xii. 18-xiii. το) the monster
from the sea, {.ε., the Roman Empire.

Ver. 18. The scene is the sea-shore,
ex hypothesi, of the Mediterranean
(Phedo; του 6, Iii a, εἴοι), 7.e., the
West, the whole passage being modelled
on Dan. vii. 2, 3, 7, 8, 19-27, where the
stormy sea from which the monsters
-emerge is the world of nations (cf. 4 Esd.
xi. 1: ecce ascendebat de mari aquila,
also xiii. I).

CuapTER XIII.—Ver. 1. His ten
horns first become visible. The prophet
has shifted the diadems from the heads
to the horns (thereby altering their num-
ber, of necessity), since he wishes to
stamp the heads (i.e., the Roman em-
perors, cf. Sib. Or. iii. 176; Tac. Amn.
xv. 47) with the blasphemous names.
Hence the ten horns (successive mon-
archs in the Danielic oracle) are super-
fluous here, except as απ archaic,
‘pictorial detail in the sketch of this
polycephalous brute. Such grotesque,
composite monsters were familiar figures
an Persian and Babylonian mythology.
The blasphemous title of divus, assumed
by the emperors since Octavian (Augus-
‘tus = σεβαστός) as a semi-sacred title,

implied superhuman claims which
shocked the pious feelings of Jews and
Christians alike. So did θεός and θεοῦ
vids which, as the inscriptions prove,
were freely applied to the emperors, from
Augustus onwards. Theimperial system,
especially with its demand for imperial
worship, appeared the embodiment of ir-
reverence and profane infatuation (ver. 6).
This calm usurpation of divine honours
was inexplicable except on the supposi-
tion (ver. 2) that the empire was a tool or
agent of the devil himself. Much had
happened since Paul wrote Kom. xiii. 1-
6, and even since Asiatic Christians had
received the counsel of 1 Peter ii. 13 f.

Ver. 2. The empire gathered up all the
obnoxious qualities of Israel’s former
oppressors: craft, lust of blood, and
vicious energy. Hence the combination
of traits from Daniel’s four beasts: gene-
ral appearance that of a fierce panther,
feet like a bear’s (i.¢., plantigrade), jaws
like a lion’s (of devouring strength)—a
Palestinian (Hos. xiii. 7, 8) picture of a
perfect beast of prey, raging and raven-
ing, before whom the church, like Dry-
den’s milk-white Hind, “ was often forced
to fly, And doom’d to death, though fated
not to die’’.—xai ἔδωκεν κ.τ.λ., connect-
ing the empire with the dragon of xii.
and stamping it as Satanic (cf. Lueken,
22 f.; Weinel, 11-12), as a weird and wild
messiah of the devil on earth.

Ver. 3. The prophet sees in the em-
pire an extraordinary vitality which adds
to its fascination. Disasters which would
suffice to ruin an ordinary state, leave

430

gic, the ‘kat ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου
person a ον
denoted ὅλη ἡ γῆ ' ὀπίσω τοῦ θηρίου.
by piavor , .

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ΧΙΠ.

Εαὐτοῦ ἐθεραπεύθη, «αἱ " ἐθαυμάσθη.

x , ~
4. καὶ προσεκύνησαν ‘ta δράκοντι

3 [ή nw [ή 1 4 , a ,
the Ῥεασι. ὅτι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῷ Onplw, Kal προσεκύνησαν τῷ Onpiw-

h xvii. 8;
pregn.
constr.
“went
after him

λέγοντες,

Acts viii.
g-11. An-
tithesis
to John
xi. 48-49.
i Apart
from this

δύο:

verse, προσκ. in Apoc. takes the dative only with God or angels (xix. 10).
1Cf. En. v. 4, xcviii. 7-8, ci. 3, cii. 6, 4 Esd. xi. 43, Ps. xil. 4.

11, Jud. vi. 2, Ps. cxiii. 5, etc.

“tis Χὅμοιος τῷ Onplw ;
ες ‘ , , n~ > 3 -”) ae
καὶ τίς δύναται πολεμῆσαι pet αὐτοῦ ;
5. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στόµα Ἰλαλοῦν µεγάλα καὶ βλάσφημα -*
9 sco yee ee! , m a a“ n ,
καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία "' ποιῆσαι µῆνας "τεσσαράκοντα.

6. καὶ ἤνοιξε τὸ στόµα αὐτοῦ cis βλασφημίας πρὸς τὸν θεόν͵

k xviii. 18, Exod. xv.

m From Dan, viii. 12, 24, xi. 28, 30, 32: pregn. Heb. use =‘ exercise” ος “‘ practise” (intrans.), with:

ἐξ. not μήνας (Jas. iv. 13). n Xi. 2.

1 For το θηριον (A 79, Anda, Ws., WH marg., Bs.) read τω θηριω (ΝΕΟ. etc.,
Ande, Areth., edd.). [The acc. is conformed to general usage of προσκ. with

θηριον, see ver. 8, 12, xiv. 9, 11, xx. 4.]
? Read βλασφημα A, 12, 28, 34, 35, 47,

79, 87, And., etc. (Lach. Al. Ws.): the

idiomatic ποιησαι has been early improved by the addition of ο θελει (8) oF πολε-
μον (Q, Andc, Areth.), and Naber conj. σηµεια ποιησαι.

Rome as strong as ever, thanks to her
marvellous recuperative power. The al-
lusion is not to the murder of Czsar (so
e.g., Bruston, Gunkel, Porter), nor to
the illness of Caligula (Spitta), but (so
Diisterdieck, O. Holtzmann, B. Weiss,
etc.) to the terrible convulsions which in
69 A.D. shook the empire to its founda-
tions (Tac. Hist. i. 11). Nero’s death,
with the bloody interregnum after it, was
a wound to the State, from which it only
recovered under Vespasian. It fulfilled
the tradition of the wounded head (Dan.
viii. 8). So 4 Esd. xii. 18 (where the
same crisis 15 noted) ‘‘ post tempus regni
illius [1.ε., Nero’s] nascentur contentiones
non modicae et periclitabitur ut cadat et
non cadet tunc, sed iterum constituetur
in suum initium”; also Suet. Vesp. 1
and Joseph. Bell. iv. 11, 5, vii. 4, 2 (Rome
unexpectedly rescued from ruin by Ves-
pasian’s accession). The vitality of the
pagan empire, shown in this power of
righting itself after the revolution, only
added to its prestige. The infatuation
of loyalty, expressing itself in the worship
of the emperor as the personal embodi-
ment of the empire, grew worse and
worse. A comparison of 3 a with 12 (cf.
18) shows, however, a further allusion,
viz., to the Nero redivivus belief (cf.
Introd. § 5). This is not developed
until xvii., but already the beast is evi-
dently identified in a sense with one of
its heads, who is a travesty (3 a =v. 6)
of the Lamb, ἐ.ε., an antichrist. The
context would certainly read quite natur-

ally without 3 @, but it is implied in 12
(and 18), and none of the numerous at-
tempts to analyse the chapter into source
and revision is of any weight, in view of
the general style and characteristics.
These indicate the author’s own hand.
Even the translation-hypothesis (e.g.,
Bruston, Gunkel) leads to arbitrary hand-
ling. See Introd. § 6.

Ver. 4. All that had transpired—.
Nero’s own death heralding a return,
and the collapse of his dynasty proving
no fatal blow to the empire—had simply
ασσταπάϊςεά the influence of Rome. ‘Ihe
Caesar-cult which characterised it is
dubbed a worship of Satan by the in-
dignant prophet. The hymn to the in-
comparable and invincible beast is a
parody of O.T. hymns to God. In the
following description (vv. 5-8) two traits
are blended: insolent blasphemy towards
God and almost irresistible powers of
seduction over men. Both are adapted
from the classical sketch of Antiochus
Epiphanes (in Dan. vii. 8, 20, 25, xii. 7),
the prototype of that anti-divine force
whose climax had been reached, as the
prophet believed, in the divine preten-
sions of the Caesars.

Ver. 5. “Big and blasphemous (or
abusive; 2 Peter ii. 11) words.” So-
Apoc. Bar. Ixvii. 7: ‘“surget rex Baby-
lonis qui destruxit nunc Sionem et gloria-
bitur super populo et loquetur magna in
corde suo coram Altissimo”.

Ver. 6. The days of Antiochus (Dan.
viii. 10-12) havereturned. On the claims

4-9. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 441
βλασφημῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ [τοὺς ἐν ο C/. John
μ a A ΧΙΧ. 10-11,
τῷ οὐρανῷ σκηνοῦντας]. and below

. ς a on xvii.

Ἰ. Kat °€868y αὐτῷ Σ ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ τ7.

A be pxi.7. Ful-
νικῆσαι αὐτούς : filment of

ι = ra μα Dan. vii.

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ " ἐξουσία ἐπὶ πᾶσαν φυλὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ στ.

α θ 1 q Dan. v.
eUvos. 19, Vii. 23.
8 x , αι ά ε A >. ο YF Constr.ad

. καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν " αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ TIS sensum,

a ‘the

y1S> beast, or

e a“ a - a ~ his Im-

*oU οὐ ' γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίω τῆς ζωῆς [τοῦ τομ Aa

, A lol 4 ta-

ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου] ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. αμ
aos 5, 9 tem." Cf.

9. “el τις έχει ος, ἀκουσάτω. Tiridates

to Nero
i x ? ν (DioCass.
Ixiii.): ‘I come to worship thee, my God, as Mithras” s Referring to each individual of

πάντες. t Dan. xii. 1; cf. Ep. Jer. 6, Addit. Esth. xiii. 14, xiv. 3-10. U 11, 7, etc.

1 The omission of Τα in ACP, 1, 12, 14, 92, Arm. (zoh.), Iren., Andp, Andbav (so

Spitta) is due to homoioteleuton.

of the emperor, see Introd. §6, and Sib.
Or. v. 33, 34 (Nero ἰσάζων θεῷ αὐτόν),
Asc. Isa. iv. 6-8, x. 13, εἴς.- τοὺς ...
σκηνοῦντας, an exegetic gloss defining
σκήνη (cf. xii. 7, 12). The temple in
Jerusaiem is no longer the scene and
object of the beast’s blasphemy.

Ver. 7. In Enoch xlvi. 7 the rulers
and kings ‘‘make themselves masters of
the stars of heaven [.ε., the righteous],
and raise their hands against the Most
High”. The beast’s world-wide autho-
rity goes back to the dragon’s commission
(2) but ultimately to divine permission
(soin 5). There is a providence higher
even than the beast.

Ver. 8. Standing on the verge of this
crisis (note the change to the future
tense), the prophet anticipates the almost
universal success of the Czsar-cult (cf. iii.
1ο). Only the elect will be able to resist
its appeal (cf. Matt. xxiv. 25). As in the
O.T., the consciousness of predestination
is made a moral lever (cf. xvii. 8). The
rest of mankind who succumb to the cult
are plainly not on the celestial burgess-
roll or register. Cf. the instructive
second-century gloss on Acts v. 39. As
a rule the faithless in life are deceived (2
Th. ii. 2-10; Asc. Isa. iv. 7, 8), but here
the Imperial cultus occupies the place of
the false prophet in Mark xiii. 12, etc,—
τοῦ Gd. τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου, which transfers
to Christ the possession of the divine
register of citizens in the heavenly state,
is usually taken as a scribe’s gloss (after
xxi. 27 where the position of ἀρνίου is
less difficult). Elsewhere the book of
life appears by itself. In any case, ἀπὸ

κ. κ. goes with γέγραπται, not ἐσφαγμέ-
νον.

Ver. 9. The prophet’s nota bene
introduces (ver. 10) what is either (a) a
demand for patience and non-resistance,
or (b) an encouragement to it. (a) ‘Be
patient. If captivity is your destiny from
God, accept it. If any one is (destined)
for captivity, to captivity he goes (in
God’s order, ὑπάγει in a future sense).
Show your patient faith in God by ab-
staining from the use of force” (cf. Matt.
xxvi. 52). This interpretation (rejecting
συνάγει OF ἀπάγει in το a) is preferable
to (6) that which reads (or even under-
stands; with B. Weiss) συνάγει, ἀπάγει,
or ὑπάγει (SO some cursives and versions)
in 1ο a, and thus finds in the words a
promise of requital rather than an appeal
for endurance. The fate inflicted on
Christians will recoil on their persecutors
(cf. xiv. 12). Imprisonment or captivity
and death were the normal fates of the
age for criminals who refused to in-
voke the emperor’s genius (cf. Jos.
Bell: wit.) το το το 8 οἱ Bhiles
de Flacc. 11, leg. ad Gaium, 32). A varia-
tion of this meaning would be: use force,
and you (Christians) will suffer for it.
The whole stanza is written for saints
who, like Sigurd, are not born for blench-
ing.—@8e κ.τ.λ. Josephus (Bell. iii. 5.
8, etc.) had just given, from prudential
motives, a similar warning to Jews
against participating in any anti-Roman
movement. It was always hard to dis-
abuse the Oriental mind of the idea that
religious faith must be bound up with
fate and fighting. Cf. Introd. § 6.

ΑΙΙΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XIII.

ΔΝ A 3 ,
12. καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν

9 θϐ, λ A ws (WEA
ενώπιον αυτου ᾽ και ΄ποιει την

οὗ ἐθεραπεύθη ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου "αὐτοῦ: 13.

14. καὶ " πλανᾷ τοὺς

432
ν ος το. ‘el τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν,
er. XV. 2
(LXX). eis αἰχμαλωσίαν bmdyer -
w ionian , a
form ος εἴ τις ἐν ” µαχαίρῃ ἀποκτενεῖ,
( in. § Ἡ έν , a
Li ef. δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν ™ µαχαίρη ἀποκτανθῆναι *
‘-humb, \ a
68 f.)? χῷδέ ἐστιν HY ὑπομονὴ καὶ ” ἡ πίστις τῶν ἁγίων.
x Cf. ver. , a a a
18; Win. ΙΙ. Kat εἶδον ἄλλο θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον ἐκ τῆς γῆς, καὶ εἶχε κέρατα
§ 23, I.
“Here is δύο "ὅμοια ἀρνίῳ, καὶ ᾿ ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων.
room = , , c A ad
for.” τοῦ πρώτου θηρίου "πᾶσαν ποιεῖ
y Seeoni. ο + Nail gil Six = ty , ὸ θ ῃ
9,αἱο γῆν καὶ τοὺς 5 ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας "ἵνα προσκυνήσουσι τὸ θηρίον
Xiv. 2. 3 _
“Etquo TO TPWTOV,
contemp- η ah a aN ° ας ~ 3 A > a
tius abut. καὶ ποιεῖ ' σημεῖα peydda ἵνα καὶ ' πῦρ ποιῇ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατα-
Ῥαήεπία βαίΐνειν εἲς τὴν γῆν ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
ποπ. κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς | διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι
(Suet. m2 os a , / a a 32-8 a a a
Howe 11), ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι
z Sec.
article

usually omitted. Win. § 18, 75. For idea, cf. 4 Macc. xvi. 18-23, etc. For form, ϱ/. Class. Rev. 1904,

108-109, Helbing, 31-32- ἡ ap. i
passage forms an apocalyptic application.
§ 20, 11 f. Ver. 14, xix. 20.
only.
as false Elijah.

e Cf. on iii. 8.
h xvi. 14, xix. 20, so (Beliar) Sib. Or. iii. 63-74, 2 Thess. ii. 9, Mark xiii. 22, etc.
k ii. 20, Deut. xiii. 2-4. En. Ixvil. 7.

a Chap. ix. 10; from Dan. viii. 3; cf. Matt. vii. 15, of which this
b Gen. iii. 15, cf. 1 Macc. i. 30.

c Cf. Win.
g With ἐν, here
τς.
1 Cf. xii. 2 (6ca=dat. instrum.).

f Cf. iii. 9 (xiii. 15).

m By his authority, or at his instigation (cf. Num. iii. 6, etc.).

Vv. 11-18: the Imperial alter ego or
the second beast, a monster from the
land (identified afterwards with the tra-
ditional ‘‘ false prophet,” xvi. 13, xix. 20,
xx. 10). This mythological figure is not
any individual like Simon Magus or
Alexander of Abonoteichos or Apollonius
of Tyana or Balaam redivivus, but a per-
sonification of some order or institution
devoted to the interests of the empire on
its religious side, {.ε., the priests of the
Czesar-cult in the provinces and especi-
ally (cf. Introd. § 6) in Asia Minor, where
the local dignitaries acted through the
Diet of Asia in order to superintend and
popularise the cult (so Holtzm., Pfleid.,
Charles, Bartlet, Porter, Bousset, Forbes,
Swete). The following description brings
out the cunning, suavity, and arrogance
of this sacerdotal power.

Ver. 11. ἐκ τῆς yas—the mythological
trait is applied geographically to Asia
Minor (i.e. the East). Here again the
cosmological antithesis has been trans-
formed into a political application. The
marine monster cannot exercise domi-
nion over the land except through an
intermediary ἐκ τῆς γῆς. Cf. Apoc. Bar.
xxix. 4, where the two beasts, leviathan
and behemoth, rise from the sea and the
land, as in the ancient Semitic and Baby-
lonian mythology the dry land and the
deep were the habitations of the two

primeval monsters (En. Ix. 7 f., 4 Esd. vi.
49 f.), who represented the chaos-oppo-
nent of heaven. The mild appearance of
the beast (6. apy. does not mean that
he deceived men with the name of the
Lamb) is accompanied by a plausible
appeal (cf. Weinel, 21 f.). The allusion
(ver. 12), borrowed from the older dragon-
myth, is to the seductive inducements held
out by the Beast to Christians, such as
considerations of loyalty, patriotism, self-
interest, and the like. These are backed
by (ver. 13) miracles, which together with
magic are also connected with Nero redi-
vivus in Asc. Isa. iv. 9-11 (cf. A. C. 175
f.). The deceptive influence of miracles
was a sure sign of the end, in early Chris-
tian literature (cf. the lines of the πρεσ-
Burns cited by Irenzeus, i. 15, 6). Most
Oriental cults practised such tricks la-
vishly, and constant warnings against
them were heard (cf. Weinel 9; Fried-
lander, iii. 458 f., 521 f.).

Ver. 14. As Beliar sets up “his image
before him in every city” (Asc. Isa. iv.
11, after 1o=‘‘and there will be the
power of his miracles in every city and
region”’), so here the εἰκών or bust of
the emperor as the Neronic antichrist
representing the empire (cf. the hint
repeated from ver. 12 c) is brought for-
ward along with the statues of the gods
to receive offerings of wine and incense

so—18.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ. ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

455

εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ " ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς paxaipys καὶ ἔδησε. 15. nC/.on

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῶ δοῦναι εὖμα TH εἶκό ῦ θηρί
η Ώ oO πνεῦμα TH εἰκόνι τοῦ θηρίου,

Ms «αὐτόν (8).
ινα και ο Acts xvi.
16.

3 4
Ολαλήσῃ ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ θηρίου, καὶ } ποιήσει 1 ἵνα SScor ἂν μὴ Mpoo-pC/. ver. 12.

κυνήσωσι τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ θηρίου 5 ἀποκτανθῶσι.

A ‘ 3.) A Ν ‘ , A
πάντας, τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς preyddous, καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ
τοὺς πτωχούς, καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους, Piva * δῶσιν

αὐτοῖς "χάραγµα ἐπὶ τῆς ' χειρὸς

τὸ "µέτωπον αὐτῶν, 17. [καὶ] "iva py τις δύνηται ” ” ἀγοράσαι ἢ
MR > κι SP x / . 5 ~ 4 x2 BY
πωλῆσαι, εἰ μὴ 6 ἔχων τὸ Χάραγµα, τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θηρίου, *% τὸν

ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ.

322). q Dan. iii. 5-7, 15.

Xvi. 2, Xix. 18-20 (vii. 3, ix. 4), cf. Ps. Sol. xv. 30.

Ant. iii. 7.6. Or neck? Ps. Sol. ii. 6.
w 1 Mace. xiii. 49.
quality; cf. ν. 12, vii. 12.

18. *Gde ἡ 7 σοφία ἐστίν.

τ Indef. plur. as x. 11, xvi. 15 (=" they get”’).

Double
use of
ποιεῖν,
the ἵνα
+++ TOL
(epexeg.
Of μεγάλα)
of ver. 13
(with πυρ
displaced
for em-
phasis) =
ὥστε
ποιεῖν Of
result
(Burton,
5 xiv. 9-11,
u Cf. Jos.

16. καὶ Ρποιεῖ

αὐτῶν τῆς ' δεξιᾶς, ἢ ἐπὶ

ς ”
ο εχων

t Cf. Assuan Papyri (K, 4. 6).

5 _ v=lInfin. epexeg. 1 John v. 20, etc. Burton, 198, 213.
X Xvii. 9, cf. 4 Esd. vi. 10 ζήτει, Ἑόρα.

y only here in Apoc., of human

Ίποιησει SQ (min.), Syr., Tr.marg., WH_marg., Ws.: for την εικονα (A, min.,
Lach. Al. Bs.) Ti., Tr., WH, Ws., Bj., Sw. read τη εικονι (NQPQ, etc., Hipp.,

Areth.).
displaced by αυτη (αυτω).

Little is to be said for WH’s conj. that τη γη has been either lost after or

2 Lach., Ti., Bj. om., Al. WH, Bs.. Sw. bracket, the και of SecAPQ, etc., vg., Arm.,
Aeth., Areth., Haym.: the irreg. δυναται is read by PQ, min. (Ws., WH marg., Bs.).

from the citizens. For the naive identi-
fication of such images with the deities
they represented see Friedlander, iii.
500 f.—A¢ywv= κελεύων (Blass § 72, 5).

Ver. 15. The statue is made to speak,
in order to work on the credulity and
awe of the worshippers. The trick was
well within the reach of contemporary
magic (cf. Valer. Maxim. i. 8. 3-5), and
later tradition attributed it to Simon
Magus (Clem. Recogn. iii. 47, cf. Clem.
Hom. ii. 32), while similar ventriloquism
was practised by Apollonius of Tyana and
Egyptian sorcerers at Caligula’s court.
Cf. Lucian’s αὐτόφωνοι χρησμοὶ (Alex.
26).—amroxtavaorv, cf. the scutcheon of
Captain Pope in Bunyan’s Holy War—
“ the stake, the flame, and the good man
init:

Vv. 16, 17. Detection was inevitable,
for the very coins were stamped (Matt.
xxii. 19) with the head of the Cesar, the
gods, or Rome itself, and the prophet
apparently expected that genuine Chris-
tians would refuse to sanction idolatry
and condone blasphemy by handling
such emblems of profanity ee Ign. ad
Magn. 5, δύο νομίσματα, ὃ μὲν θεοῦ, ὃ δὲ
κόσμου). Only abject, servile devotees of
the cultus will stoop to that! Irenzus
has a similar allusion (iv. 30, 2) to those
who carried money ‘‘cum inscriptione
et imagine Cesaris’”.—pétwrov. This
highly figurative allusion is to the habit
of marking soldiers and slaves with a

conspicuous tattoo or brand (cf. Lucian,
Dea Syra; 3 Macc. ii. 29, where the
Alexandrian Jews are branded with the
mark of Dionysius; also on Gal. vi. 17);
or, better still, to the religious cus-
tom of wearing a god’s name as a
talisman (cf. Deissmann, 349 f.). The
general sense of the prediction is that
the faithful will be shut up to the
alternative of starving or of coming for-
ward to avow their prohibited faith, so
subtly and diabolically does the cultus of
the emperor pervade all social life. An-
other solution is to think of the χάραγµα
or red stamp, which was essential to all
documents of exchange (Deissmann,
240 f.); it consisted of a red seal with
tho emperor’s name or effigy. Ramsay
(Seven Letters, pp. 106 f.) takes the
whole description as a symbolic and
rather sarcastic way of referring to a
boycotting demand that every Asiatic
Christian should somehow “ stamp him-
self overtly and visibly as loyal, or be
disqualified from participation in ordinary
social life and trading”. Probably the
passage is a figurative and unqualified
expression for conspicuous loyalty to the
Imperial cult. In Ep. Lugd. the devil is
said to work against Christ by ‘‘ excluding
us from houses, baths, and markets, and
also by forbidding any one of us to ap-
pear anywhere”.

Ver. 18. ‘‘Now for wisdom ”—skill to
penetrate the secret of the cryptogram

434

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XIII.

νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου: ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστί,
καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι 1 ἑξήκοντα ἕδ.

1χξζ”, i.e., εξακοσιοι (-αι) εξηκοντα εξ (NAPQ, etc., Iren., Vict., Pr.), but χιζ’, {.ε.,
εξακοσιοι δεκα εξ (C, 5, 11, Tic., Spec., ““quidam sequentes idiotismum’’ apud

Iren.).

See on xiv. 20, and Zahn, § 75, n. 5.

“There is no doubt but that 616

given in the Jerusalem codex is the original Armenian reading ” (Conybeare).

which would reveal the features of the
dread opponent. This cryptic method
was a favourite apocalyptic device, due
partly to prudential reasons, partly to the
desire for impressiveness ; Orientals loved
symbolic and enigmatic modes of ex-
pression in religion (cf. Apoc. Bar. xxviii.
I, 2; Sib. Or. i. 141 f.; Barn. ix. 8, bur-
lesqued by Lucian in Alex. 11). The
prophet here drops the réle of seer for
that of hierophant or cabbalist. He in-
vites his readers to count the name or
number of the Beast, #.e., to calculate a
name whose letters, numerically valued
on the fanciful principles of Gematria,
would amount to 666. For John and
his readers the Beast was primarily the
foreign power which opposed the divine
kingdom, {.ε., in this case, the Roman
empire. But the drift of the present
oracle is the further identification of the
empire with the emperor, or rather
(νετ. 3) with one emperor in particular.
Hence the prophet throws out the hint
which will solve his riddle: the number
of τοῦ θηρίου is ἀριθμὸς ἀνθρώπον,
i.¢., of a historic personality. ᾿Ανθρώπου
does not require τινός or ἑνός before it
to bring this out. The only intelligible
sense of the words is ‘“‘a human num-
ber,”’ 1.ε., not a number which is intelli-
gible (for no other kind of number would
be worth mentioning) but one which
answered to an individual. Hence it isa
matter of comparative indifference what
the number of the Beast originally meant
—TEITAN (so recently Abbott 80 f.=
Titus, Teitous), H AATEINH (ITAAH)

_BACILEIA (Clemen), AATEINOC, 95>
JOD (-616), OWI AD (=666),
Nimrod (4775 49, λα, Bruston), or

any other (cf. Cheyne’s Traditions and
Beliefs of Απο. Israel, Ῥ. 248). This
generic number is expressly identified or
equalised by John with the number of an

individual, viz., Nero Cesar (112 10),
the Greek letters of which yield 666.
The defective writing of 0ορ (without

the yod) is not unexampled. Besides, the
abbreviated form would gain, at a very
slight expense, this telling and symet-

trical cipher. Furthermore, when the
last letter of Neron is dropped, this Latin-
ised spelling brings the total value of
the name to 616, the very variant which
puzzled Irenzus. Gunkel’s proposal

MIT DWN (primal chaos = Tia-
mat) suffers from several flaws; it omits
the article, it employs a feminine ending
which is not used in adjectives of this
type, and “' primal” is not a conventional
epithet of mystery (cf. G. F. Moore in
Fourn. Amer. Oriental Society, 1906,
315 f.). Besides, as Gunkel admits, there
are no Babylonian parallels to xiii. 11-17.
Thus, while the application of the term
is obvious, its origin is obscure. The
basis of such contrivances (which became
popular in Gnostic circles) was twofold:
(a) gematria, which, using Greek and
Hebrew letters to denote numbers, could
often turn a name into a suggestive
cipher; (b) tsopsephia, which put two
words together of the same numerical
value (cf. for instances of ἰσόψηφα,
Farrar 468 f. and Corssen). Probably
the number of the Beast belonged to
tradition. John plays upon it in order
to disclose the shuddering climax of his
oracle, that the final foe of the saints
was Nero redivivus. The particular
number 666 was specially apt as a sym-
bol for this anti-divine power, since it
formed a vain parody of the sacred num-
ber seven (Gfrérer notes further the
ominous usage of 1&3 =6+6+6 in Judges
iii. 14, x. 8; Jerem. xxxii. 1, lii. 29; Luke
xiii. I, etc.), always falling short of it.
In Sib. Or. i. 324 f. 888 represents Christ,
and Origen (on E-ek. iv. 9) remarks,
apropos of the present passage, ἐστὶν 6
ἀριθμὸς οὗτος πάθους σύμβολον καὶ κακ-
ώσεως τοῦ σωτῆρος τῇ ἕκτῃ ἡμέρᾳ πεπον-
θότος. Irenzus explains the suitability
of the number as “in recapitulationem
uniuersae apostasiae eius, quae facta est
in sex millibus annorum” (adv. Haer. v.
28, 2). Thus the very number 666 by it-
self, may have been significant of the
anti-divine power. The Neronic applica-
tion would intensify and concentrate its
meaning for John’s readers who were
initiated. And such calculations, as the
Pompeii graffiti prove, were familiar even

“XIV. τ---3.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

435

‘A
XIV. 1. Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ τὸ * ἀρνίον * ἑστὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος Σιών, αν. 6.

‘ > ab
καὶ pet αὐτοῦ °éxaTov τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες ἔχουσαι τὸ

Vii. 4: Cf.
Zech. xiv.

” > A 9 ” a a a 5.
Όνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ "γεγραμµένον ἐπὶ τῶν « iii. 12,

µετώπων αὐτῶν. 2. ἃ

\ oo” 4 > lol > - c ‘
καὶ ηκουσα Φφωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς φωνὴν

Ezek. ix.
Sp :
ἀπ τοι xix.

ὑδάτων πολλῶν καὶ ὡς φωνὴν βροντῆς μεγάλης: καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἣν το

Ίκουσα ὡς “κιθαρωδῶν κιθαριζόντων ἐν ταῖς κιθάραις αὐτῶν. 3.

το Greek-speaking inhabitants of the em-
pire. The Pergamos-inscriptions furnish
analogous instances.

CHAPTER XIV. The prophet again
breaks off to point his readers across the
sombre vista opened up by this oracle of
the θηρίον, not to the church as an oasis
and asylum on earth but to the glad sure
hope of the faithful after death. Howcan
the @npiov be met? Who (ver. 8) can hold
out against such seductions? By way of
answer to such doubts and fears the pro-
phet raises the veil of the future for a
moment to reveal the heavenly (cf. xiii.
I5, xiv. 3) survivors of the conflict (xiv.
1-5) ; whereupon he rapidly sketches the
doom of Rome and the pagan world by
way of contrast (6-20). The latter pas-
Sage, in its present form and site, gives a
proleptic outline of catastrophes described
later on (cf. xiv. 7=xix. 1-6, xiv. 8=xviii.
2, 3, etc.). The two supreme motives for
patient loyalty on the part of the saints
{ver. 12) are, (a) negatively, fear of the
fate reserved for the unbelieving (xiv.8-
11), and, (b) positively, the bliss in store
for the loyal (ver. 13, cf. 1-5).

Vv. 1-5, introduced as a foil to what
precedes and as an anticipation of xxi.-
xxii., is ‘“‘a sort of Te Deum” (Well-
hausen), a vision of the Lamb no longer
as sldin but triumphant (militant on the
mount of Olives, Zech. xiv. 3 f., against
the nations=Apoc. xi. 8, 18), attended
by the élite of the redeemed who had
worshipped him, not the Emperor, dur-
ing their life-time. The Jewish tradition
underlying this oracle seems to have
been cognate to that of En. i. 4 f. (Greek),
teflected already in vii. 1-8; it showed the
rallying of the faithful remnant at mount
Zion (Joel ii. 32; Isa. xi. 9-12) after the
throes of the latter days (cf. on xi. 19).
In terms of this John pictures the Chris-
tians who appear with Jesus their mes-
siah upon earth (cf. v. 10, xx. 4-6).
Verses 1-5 thus hint faintly and frag-
mentarily at the belief that, before the
general judgment and recompense of the
saints (xi. 18, xx. 11 f.), the vanguard
who had borne the brunt of the struggle
would enjoy a special bliss of their own.

ε am. dey.
NT. xviii.
22.

The prophet does not stop to elaborate
this independent anticipation of xx. 4-6,
but hurries on (6 f.) to depict the negative
side, viz., the downfall of the enemy.
When Caligula first attempted to enforce
his worship on the Jews, the pious flung
themselves on the ground, ‘stretching
out their throats” in their readiness to
die sooner than let their God be profaned
(Jos. Bell. ii. το, 4; Ant. xviil. 8, 3).
John desiderates an equally dauntless
temper in Christians, though they could
not hope to avert, as the Jews had done,
the imperial propaganda of the false pro-
phet (xiii. 16 f.; cf. 2 Thess. ii.), Martyr-
dom (xiv. 13, ¢f. κ. 15) was all that
the majority could expect. But loyalty
would bring them ultimate triumph.
The passage is not simply Christian but
from the hand of the prophet himself.
Ver. 1. Instead of the beast, the
Lamb; instead of the beast’s followers
and their mark, the Lamb’s followers
with the divine name; instead of the
pagan earth, mount Zion. The vision
is based on an old Jewish apocalyptic
tradition, copied by the Christian editor
of 4 Esdras (ii. 42) but already present in
the Jewish original (xiii. 35: ipse [?.e.,
Messias] stabit super cacumen montis
Sion, 39 et quoniam uidisti eum colligen-
tem ad se aliam multitudinem pacificam,
hae sunt decem tribus), which apparently
described (cf. Joel ii. 32) a further cycle
of the tradition underlying vii. 1-8. The
appearance of this manlike messiah on
mount Zion was accompanied by the
manifestation of the celestial Zion (post-
poned here till xxi.). Thus, xiv. 1-5 is, in
some respects, a companion panel to vii.
ο 6, though the retinue of messiah are
painted in more definitely Jewish colours.
They are distinguished for their testimony
borne against the Imperial cultus and
the contaminations of the pagan world.
Ver. 3. Who sing the new song?
angels or the redeemed? In v. 9 it is
chanted not before the living creatures and
elders but by them; here it is not origin-
ally sung by the redeemed (as in xv. 3
and 4 Esd. ii. 42) but is intelligible to
them and to them alone. Their experi-

436

Γ1.ε., the

angels.

ΑΠΟΚΛΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XIV..

4 ” - ~
καὶ *aSoucw *eSivi Kawhy ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν

Ε]πὰ, xvi. τεσσάρων ζώων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων: "καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο μαθεῖν

13.

hcf.ii.17, τὴν ᾠδὴν ei ph at ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες, | οἱ
Xix. 12. ue

iconstr.ad ἡγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.
sensum ας
(asv.13, 4+ οὗτο εἶσιν ot μετὰ γυναικῶν οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν' πἈπαρθένοι
Xi. 4, etc.) >

k Triple γάρ εἰσιν.
οὗτοι an ~ A >
apo: Κ οὗτοι of ™ ἀκολουθοῦντες τῷ ἀρνίῳ ὅπου av " ὑπάγει.
formula a a A \
(ef. Jude Κ oro. °hyopdoOnoay ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ’ ἀπαρχὴ τῷ θεῷ [καὶ
12, εἴς.). ών ,

lof. Just. τῷ ἀρνίῳ].
Apol.i.t Αα 2A ral ,
Met ke «5+ καὶ Tév τῷ στόµατι αὐτῶν οὐχ “εὑρέθη ψεῦδος : * ἅμωμοί εἰσιν.
12, Eus.
H.E.v.

24 (Melito τὸν εὐνοῦχον), 2 Clem. xii. 2, C.I.G. 3098 (παρθένοι ἱερατείας, in ethnic sense).
xxi. 19, I Pet. ii. 21-22. Quoted (in Ep. Lugd.) of the martyr Vettius Epagathus.
p cf. Schol. on Eurip. Ovest. 96.

τ Jude 24; cf. Col. i. 22, 1 Pet. i. 19, Heb. ix. 14

Xvi. 24-25, Joh. xxi. 1¢ 22
nas in Mark vi. 56 (indic.). o 2 Pet. ii. 1.
ΠΠ. 9, Zeph. iii. 13, Ps. xiv. rf, xxx. 2.

(sacrificial).

m Matt.

q 1 Pet. ii. 22, Isa.

1 Ti. (AL), Ws., Bj. rightly om. ws (with ΔΝ ΡΩ, etc., Me., Pesh., Aeth., Arm., Orig.,
Method., Ande, pal, Areth., Pr.) before wdnv, as an echo of ver. 2.

ence enabled them to enter into its mean-
ing. This privilege is due to (vv. 4-5)
their previous character and conduct,
This inner circle are ascetics, παρθένοι.
i.e., not merely unmarried or free from
sexual vice but celibates (cf. Cheyne,
Orig. Psalter, 446; Hoennicke, das
Fudenchristentum, 1908, 130 f. ; Balden-
sperger, 109; von Dobschiitz, 39 f., 228,
261); cf. 1 Cor. vii. 32. The prevailing
Jewish respect for marriage did not check
a tendency to celibacy which was by no
means confined to the Essenes or Thera-
peutae. Even Methodius, who allegorises
the seven heads of xii. 3 into the seven
deadly sins and the stars of xii. 2 into
heretics, takes this phrase literally, in the
sense of virginity not simply of purity (so
Epiph. Her. xxx. 2); and, although the
touch is too incidental to bear pressing,
it is unmistakable (cf. Introd. § 6). In
the popular religion of Phrygia there was
a feeling (expressed in the eunuchism,
é.g., of the priests at Hierapolis) that
one came nearer to the divine life by
annihilating the distinction of sex, while
in the votive inscriptions of Asia Minor
(C. B. P. i. 137) marriage is not recog-
nised as part of the divine or religious
life. This atmosphere of local feeling,
together with the lax moral conscience
of the popular religion, would foster the
religious tendency to regard celibates
as pre-eminently near to God.—axodov-
θοῦντες: either a historic present to secure
vividness (ἀκολουθήσαντες, syr. S), in
which case the allusion is to their earthly
loyalty (reff.), or, more probably (in view

of ὑπάγει, pres.),a description of their
heavenly privilege and position (cf. vii.
17), borrowed from Egyptian religion
where the “ followers of Horus,” the divine
and victorious son of Osiris, were a series
of celestial kings who were supposed to
have reigned during the earlier dynasties.
To be among the ‘followers of Horus”
was an equivalent for immortal life. Cf.
Ε. Β. D. tor: ‘Let me rise up among
those who follow the great God; I am the
son of Maiti, and that which he abomina-
teth is the spirit of falsehood [cf. Apoc.
xiv. 5]. 1am in triumph! ---ἀπό in 3, 4 is
equivalent to the partitive ἐκ (cf. v. 9).—
ἀπαρχή: they form the firstfruits of
mankind for God; others are to follow,
but these are the élite, they have a pres-
tige all their own. The idea of priority
shades into that of superiority, though in
a very different way from that of Rom.
xi. 16. Dr. Rendel Harris (in Present
Day Papers, May, rgor) describes the
interest and excitement at Jerusalem dur-
ing the early days of summer when “the
first ripe figs were in the market. When
one’s soul desires the vintage or the fruit-
age of the summer. . . the trees that are
a fortnight to the fore are the talk and
delight of the town.”—«al τ.ἀ., usually
taken as a scribe’s gloss. Elsewhere the
saints are redeemed by, not for, the Lamb:
ν. 9).

Ver. 5. ἅμωμοι, “unblemished” (a
ritual term), possibly contains a sacrificial
tinge, like ἀπαρχή in some of the inscrip-
tions (= gift to deity), cf. Thieme’s In-
schriften von Magnesia, 26. These

Sia he

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

437

6. Καὶ εἶδον "ἄλλον] ἄγγελον πετόµενον ἐν ' µεσουρανήματι, s here and

TS; ο

”
εχοντα " εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον ᾿ εὐαγγελίσαι ἐπὶ τοὺς " καθηµένους ἐπὶ perhaps
a A ~ a ike the
τῆς γῆς "καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔθνος καὶ φυλὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ λαόν, idiomatic
a use of a.
7. λέγων ἐν φωνῇ µεγάλῃ, in Plato,
4 iB = Tpo-
“* boByOnte τὸν θεὸν καὶ " δότε αὐτῷ δόξαν, σέτι, of.
ϱ AO ε ο ~ , > a use of
OTL | εν η ωρα της KPLOEWS αυτου * έτερος i
Dan. viii.
ess 13, etc.
tviil.13. ua genuine gospel (cf. Gal. i. 8). vi Pet. i. 25; for contr. John xvi. 12, w Cf.
Luke xxi. 35. X X. 11, Xili. 7, and (for καί epexeg,) xi. 18, xiii. 12. y cf. iv. 1, etc. 2 Xi. 18,

Fear God, not the beast, cf. Xen. Mem. iv. 19.

a xi. 13.

1 αλλον is more likely to have been omitted (5ο $9*Q, Orig., etc., Bs.), owing to

the difficulty of reference (x. 1, xi. 15) than to have been inserted.

Weiss conj. αετον.

adherents are redeemed. But in another
aspect their qualities of purity and guile-
lessness form a sweet sacrifice to God.
A Christian not only may be redeemed
but may sacrifice himself in the interests
of the Redeemer.—wWetdSos. In view of
xxi. 8, 27, xxii. I5 it is superfluous to
think of prophets or teachers specially
(Weinel, 146-148) in this connexion, al-
though the gifts of utterance and pro-
phecy were particularly associated with
asceticism (En. Ixxxiii., cviii., etc.) in the
eatly church of the first century; 6.5.,
“the whole yoke of the Lord”’ in Did.
vi. may refer to celibacy (in which case
τέλειος would be equivalent to ἅμωμος
here). Cf. the discussion of reasons, in a
Babylonian incantation (Zimmern, die
Beschwiorungstafeln Shurpu, 5, 6), why
the sufferer was punished. ‘‘ Has he
for ‘no’ said ‘yes’, | For ‘yes’ said‘ no’ ?
. . . Was he frank in speaking | but false
in heart? | Wasit ‘yes’ with his mouth |
but ‘no’ in his heart?’? The Assyrian
idiom for loyalty is ‘‘true speech in the
mouth of the people,” neither rebellious
nor seditious talk.

Vv. 6-20: the fearful doom of the im-
penitent pagans is announced in a triple
vision of angels (ver. 6-13), whereupon a
proleptic summary of the final judgment
on the world follows (ver. 14-20). In
6-13, 12-13 and καὶ ἐν τ. a. (10) are the
only specifically Christian touches; but
the latter need not even be a scribal
gloss, and 6-11 is intelligible as the out-
burst of a vehement Jewish Christian
apocalyptist. The stylistic data do not
justify any hypothesis of an edited source.
The first angel (6-7) announces (evayye-
λίσαι here, and perhaps also in x. 7, in
neutral sense of LXX, 2 Sam. xviii. 19-20;
Dio Cass. Ixi. 13) to the universe the
news that the divine purpose is now to
be consummated, but that there is still

VOL):

For αγγελον J.

(cf. xi. 3) a chance to repent (implicit, ef.
Mark i. 15). The sterner tone of viit. 13-
ix. 21 is due to the fact that men were:
there accounted as strictly responsible for-
their idolatry and immorality. Here the
nations are regarded in the first instance
as having been seduced by Rome into the:
Imperial cultus (8-9); hence they get a.
warning and a last opportunity of trans-
ferring their allegiance to its rightful ob-
ject. The near doom of the empire, of
which the prophet is convinced even in
the hour of her aggrandisement (xiii. 8),
is made a motive for urging her beguiled
adherents to repent in time and her
Christian victims to endure (xiv. 12).
The substance of this proclamation is not
much of a gospel, and the prophet evi-
dently does not look for much result, if
any. Its ‘pure, natural theism” (Sim-
cox) is paralleled by that of Rom. il. 5 f.
Ver. 6. πετόµενον: angels begin to
fly in the Jewish heaven about the be-
ginning of the first century B.c. (En. Ixi.
I).
er. 7. ποιήσαντι κ.τ.λ. Since he who
has created has the right to judge his
creatures, as well as to receive their wor-
ship (cf. iv. 11 f., etc.).—@pa = the fixed
(cf. 15), καιρός the fit, moment for action.
Contrast with this summons Lucan’s
fulsome appeal to Nero (i. 57 f,): ‘‘ lib-
rati pondera cceli Orbe tene medio,”
etc. The second angel of the trio an-
nounces the faults and fall of (ver. 8)
Rome asasecond Babylon. The prophet
quotes from the postexilic oracle ap-
pended to Jeremiah (Jer. li. 7-8).---θυμός
has probably the double sense ee by
the English term “ passion”. As history
proves, the Cesar cult fairly intoxicated
people, especially in the East. In Asia
Minor it became a perfect passion with
many communities. They will find it a
different kind of passion, the prophet

28

435 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ XIV.

ος καὶ προσκυνήσατε τῷ ὃ ποιήσαντι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ
ae τα, Σθάλασσαν καὶ " πηγὰς ὑδάτων.
appre bn 8. καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος δεύτερος ] ἠκολούθησε λέγων,
farther, “Ἔπεσεν ° ἔπεσε ° Βαβυλὼν ἡ ‘ µεγάλη:
6, Deut, | © ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου [τοῦ θυμοῦ] τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς πεπότικε
with Acts πάντα τὰ €Ovy.”
κ η g. καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος τρίτος ἠκολούθησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων ἐν φωνῆ

Vill. το, aN oe ote) Yen 6 , Ν AY ae 2 > οἱ ‘
ΧΝΙ. 4. an Ρεγα η, Ει τις προσκυνει το ηριον και την εικονα αυτου και
2

[ο]

irreg. λ , , ο Να a , SEU mea vis! WA ae a Tile ses
omission αμβάνει χάραγµα ἐπὶ Tod μετώπου αὐτοῦ ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα " αὐτοῦ,
of article, , a A a a a a
see Win, Το. “kat αὐτὸς ᾿πίεται ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ
§ 18, 7d. / mn 3 , > n ’ A > an > A ‘

χο of ©6Kekepacpevou "' ἀκράτου ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ
“what has f 2 ‘ A) ΄ πε, > / ο
Sut. Bip. βασανισθήσεται ἐν πυρὶ καὶ "θείω ἐνώπιον ἀγγέλων ° ἁγίων
pened”

(SO xviii. 2), Moult. i. 135; cf. Isa. xxi. ο. er Ρος ν. τα. f Dan. iv. 27 (30), Jer. li. 58.
6 Seductive influence of idolatry (as in xiii. 2, Jer. 1. 2). h xiii. 12-17. i gen. as Vii. 3, etc.
4 he, as well as Babylon; cf. on iii. 20. 1 Jer. xxv. 17-19, 27-29, xxxii. 1,also Ps. lxxv. 9, Ps. Sol.
viii. 15. See below at xvi. 19, xix, 15. m cf. Jos. Ant. xvii. 6, 1, xviii. 9, 8, etc. n Cf. on
Σχ. 19. ο As Mark viii. 38, Acts x. 22, etc.

1 The tautological δευτερος goes either before (AQ, 1, etc., Areth., Lach., Tr., Al.,
‘WH, Sw., Bj.) or after (ΝΕΟ Ρ, min., Me., Pesh., Arm., etc., Ti., Ws.) αγγελος.
του θυµον (om. fuld. 1, 96, Tic., Pr., Cassiod.) as at xviii. 3 (om. S., Pr.) a gloss [BL.,
ᾧ 35, 6]? ΟΡ. xvii. 2.

24... αντον (om. S.) a gloss?

grimly writes, drawing on α powerful
O.T. figure; the passion of God’s hot in-
dignation will be forced down their throats,
like a bitter draught (ver. 10). θυμός, how-
ever, besides translating a Hebrew equi-
valent for “fury” (Isa. li. 17 f.), is oc-
casionally a LXX rendering for the ana-
logous idea of ‘‘ venom” or ‘‘ poison”’

(nan OF wings, cf. Job xx. 16), and

this would yield a good sense here.

Vv. 9-11. The third angel proclaims
that the deliberate adherents of the Im-
perial cultus are to be held responsible
for their actions, and punished accord-
ingly. The object is that these votaries
may be “scared into faith by warning of
sin’s pains”. The plea of force (xiii. 12)
is no excuse (cf Matt. x. 28).

Ver.10. κεκερασµένου here as in xviii.
6 by oxymoron = ‘“‘poured out,” the
original meaning of ‘‘mixed’’ (with
water) being dropped. The torture (de-
picted from Isa. xxxiv. 9, 10) is inflicted
before the holy angels (who evidently sit
as assessors at the judgment, En. xlviii.
9), ἁγίων being either an efitheton ornans
or an allusion to xii. 8-9. Normally
the prophet refrains from introducing
such spectators of doom (xix. 20, xx.
το-14). ‘‘Fire is the divine cruelty of
the Semitic religions” (Doughty), but

(Bj., cf. xiii. 16).

the torment which Judaism designed for
fallen angels and apostates is assigned
here to the worshippers of the Czsars.
The Apocalypse is silent upon agents
of torture; they are not the angels, much
less the devil (who is himself punished,
xx. ΙΟ). But, like 4 Esd. vii. [ver. 36]
(‘‘the furnace of Gehenna shall be dis-
closed and over against it the paradise of
delight”’), John locates the place of tor-
ment over against the place of rest. For
such grim popular fancies Enoch (xxvii. 2,
3, xiviii. 9, xc. 26, 27) is mainly respon-
sible; there (as in Clem. Hom. xvii.) the
tortures proceed under the eyes of the
righteous, though (especially in the later
fragments, as in John’s Apoc.) the
moralisation of the idea has advanced,
until Gehenna vanishes from the scene
of bliss. ‘It is impossible for us to
understand how such a sight could be
compatible with heavenly happiness ”
(Stanton, ¥ewish and Christian Messiah,
p. 3443; cf. Lecky’s European Morals, ii.
225 f.), but the psychological basis of the
ghastly expectation can be verified in the
cruder types of primitive and modern re-
ligion. Most critics delete καὶ ἐνώπιον
τοῦ Gpviov as another gloss (cf. on ver.
4); the position of Jesus after the
angels is not unexampled (cf. i. 4, 5),
even if before the holy angels were not

6—13.

Ν a
[καὶ ἐνώπιον tod ἀρνίου]: 11. καὶ

τα 3 3” ,
αὐτῶν eis αἰῶνας αἰώνων * dvaBatver -
- / ~
ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς οἱ προσκυνοῦντες τὸ θηρίον καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ,
\ to» , 9 , aes Weer ὃν 4
καὶ “el τις λαμβάνει τὸ χάραγµα τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ.
ἡ "ὑπομονὴ τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν: οἱ " τηροῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς "τοῦ θεοῦ

A A x ιά > An
και την ΄ πίστιν Ιησοῦ.

‘ a lol A
13. καὶ ἤκουσα φωνῆς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ᾿λεγούσης “Tpdrpoy, ;
Μακάριοι οἱ νεκροὶ οἱ ΄ ἐν Κυρίω ἀποθνήσκοντες ἀπάρτι °

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

459

ὁ καπνὸς τοῦ } βασανισμοῦ p by meto-
nymy =
καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν “dvdtavow βασάνον
(cf. xviii.
7, 10, 15).
e XX. 10.
12. Ὥδετ xviii, 9,
xix. 3, Isa.
XXXiv. I0,
s Grim con.
trast to
iv. 8.
= ooTts
(ὃς ἄν),
Win. §
24, 16.

, ~ ef ~ /
Nat, "λέγει τὸ Πνεῦμα, Piva "ἀναπαήσονται ἐκ τῶν κόπων ι xii το,

αὐτῶν"
a

iv. 19).
d, Urchrist. 167 f.

tative (Moult. i. 114).
etc.), XXii. 14.
Ig9QI. d Cf. Sir. xiv, 19.

taken (Bs., Baljon) as a periphrasis for the
divine presence (Luke xii. 8, 9, xv, 1Ο).

Ver. 12. The prospect of this fearful
and imminent retaliation is not only a
warning to weak-minded Christians but a
consolation to the loyal. To be a saint is
to obey God and to believe in Jesus at all
costs. Contemporary Jews took a similar
encouragement: “if ye endure and per-
severe in his fear, and do not forget him,
the times will change over you for good,
and ye will see the consolation of Zion”
(Apoc. Bay. xliv. 7). John’s words typ.
τ. ἐντολὰς T. θ. are an answer to the com-
plaint and claim that God’s command-
ments were being neglected by every one
except the Jews (cf. the plaintive cry of
4 Esd. iii. 33: ‘‘1 have gone hither and
thither through the nations and seen their
abundance, though they remember not thy
commandments”; 32, “15 there any
other nation that knoweth thee save
Israel? yet their reward appeareth not,
and their labour hath no fruit ’’).

Ver. 13. The approaching climax of
retribution upon pagan Rome affects the
dead as well as the living. The latter
are encouraged to hold on in hope; the
former are brought nearer their reward
(cf. vi. τα, xi. 18). ᾿Απάρτι goes with
µακάριοι (note here and in Clem. Rom.
xlvii. the first application of p. to the
dead saints) rather than with ἀποθνήσ-
κοντες, and οἱ ἐν κ. ἀποθ. (which is time-
less, like προσκ. τ. θ. in ver. 11) denotes
all who die in the faith, loyal to their
Lord, 2.6., primarily martyrs and con-
fessors (cf. xiii. 8, 15). They die ‘‘in
His fellowship, as it were in His arms”
{Beyschlag). Like Paul (in τ Thess. iv.

y Contrast x. 4.

‘ 4 ” 7 A A > > A ”
τὰ γὰρ ἔργα αὐτῶν ἀκολουθεῖ pet αὐτῶν.

ali, 7, etc.;\¢f. αχ. 16-17. t
ο (Isa. lvii. 1-2) like sec. fut. pass. of καίω. cf. Jannaris, Hist. Greek Gramm.

VW Xie
nom.
indep., as
i. 5, ete.

w not of
men (Acts

x ii. 13; ef. Rom. iii. 22, 26, Mark xi. 22, etc. (object. gen.), cf. Seeberg’s der Katech.
Ζ1 Th. iv. 16, 1 Cor. xv. 18; cf. Sap. iv. 7-12. Frequen-

b Pract. = ore (cf. John viii. 56, ix. 2,

15), though on different grounds, the
writer is controverting a fear (cf. 4 Esd.
xiii. 24) that at the advent of messiah
those who survived on earth would have
some advantage over those who had al-
ready died. ‘Yea, saith the Spirit’’—
ratifying what has been said—“ happy to
rest from their labours”’ (i.e., their Chris-
tian activities, not the special form of
their death for the faith). So far as
the sense is concerned, it matters little
whether ἵνα κ.τ.λ. depends on µακάριοι
or ἀποθνήσκοντες. Both constructions
are grammatically legitimate, though the
former is perhaps closer. The point of
the passage (note πνεῦμα and γράψον,
as in 1.-ill,, xxii. 6 f.) is that the bliss of
death for a Christian consists not in
mere rest from labour but in a rest whicu
brings the reward of labour. While
death brings the rest, the reward cannot
be given till the final judgment. Conse-
quently the near prospect of the latter is
welcome, among other reasons, because
it means the long-deferred recompense
(xi. 18) for the faithful dead. So far from
being forgotten (ii. 2 f., 10, 23, etc.), their
épya accompany them to judgment and
—it is implied—receive their proper re-
ward there (cf. Milton’s fourteenth son-
net). The bliss of the departed therefore
depends upon two grounds: their ἔργα
are not to be overlooked, and the interval
of waiting is now (ἀπάρτι) brief. The
fourth degree of bliss in 4 Esd. vii. [95]
is that the departed spirits of the just
understand ‘the rest which, gathered in
their chambers [cf. Apoc. vi. 9-11] they
can enjoy now with deep quietness,
guarded by angels, as well as the glory

440

e Cf. Abbott,
206 f. i
fi. 13; cf. καθήµενον
Dalman i.
§ ix. 2.

AIIOKAAYVIZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XIV.

14. καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ νεφέλη "λευκή, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην
΄ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, "ἔχων ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ

g& Cf. on ii. 20, iii. 12, and λέγων (η) or οἱ τηρ. (12) above.

which still awaits them in the latter
days”. John does not share the current
pessimistic belief (cf. Apoc. Bar. xi.-x1i. 4,
Verg. Aen. i. 94 f., with Isa. lvii. τ f.) that
death was preferable to life, in view of the
overwhelming miseries of the age. His
thought is not that death is happier than
fife under the circumstances, but that if
death came in the line of religious duty it
involved no deprivation. The language
reflects Gen. ii. 2 (with κόπων put for
ἔργων), but while it is true enough, it is
hardly apposite, to think of the dead
as resting from works (Heb. iv. 9), no
more being needed. The root of the
passage lies not in the Iranian belief
(Brandt, 423 f., Boklen, 41) that the soul
was escorted by its good deeds to bliss
in another world (cf. Maas, Orpheus,
217 f.), but in the closer soil of Jewish
hope (cf. Bacher’s Agada d. Tannaiten,?
i. 399 f.; Volz 103) as in En. ciii. 2, 3,
Apoc. Bar. xiv. 12, 13, and Pirke Aboth
vi. 9 (hora discessus hominis non comi-
tantur eum argentum aut aurum aut
lapides pretiosi aut margaritae, sed lex
et opera bona). In 4 Esd. vii. 35 (where,
at the resurrection of the dead, ‘the
work shall follow and the reward be dis-
closed”’) opus may be a Hebraism for
“recompense” (Ps. cix. 20 ἔργον, cf.
1 Ti. v. 25). Contemporary Jewish es-
chatology also took a despairing view of
the world (cf. 4 Esd. iv. 26-33). But
while the dead are pronounced “‘ blessed,”
e.g., in Apoc. Bar. xi. 7, it is because
they have not lived to see the ruins of
Jerusalem and the downfall of Israel.
Better death than that experience! Death
is a blessing compared with the life which
falls upon times so out of joint (x. 6 f.).
The living may well envy the dead. In
John’s Apocalypse, on the other hand,
the dead are felicitated because they miss
nothing by their martyrdom. Yet life
is a boon. No plaintive, weary cry of
Weltschmerz rises from the pages of this
Apocalypse.—avamratw in the papyri
means relief from public duties or the
“resting” of land in agriculture (cf. U.
Wilcken’s Archiv f. Papyrusforschung,
1. pp. 157 f.).

Vv. 14-20, in their present position,
are a proleptic and realistic summary
of the final judgment, representing as
a divine catastrophe what xvi.-xvii.
delineate as the outcome of semi-

political movements (cf. xviii. after xvii.).
The strange picture ot messiah (τή f.,
contrast 1. το f., xix. 11 f.), the absence
of any allusion to the Beasts (9-11) or to
the Imperial cultus, the peculiar angel-
ology, and the generally disparate nature
of the scene as compared with the con-
text, point to the isolated character of the
episode. The abrupt mention of the cily
(20) suggests that the tradition belonged
to the cycle underlying xi. 1-13 (the
city, 13), and several critics (e.g., Spitta,
Erbes, Weyland, Volter, Schon, Briggs,
Rauch) regard it variously as a finale to
the oracles of that chapter. But the
connexion is one of tradition rather than
of literary unity. The data of style and
content leave it uncertain even whether
the episode goes back to a source or a
tradition, whether it is Jewish (so especi-
ally Sabatier, Pfleiderer, and Rauch) ar
Jewish Christian (Schon, Erbes, Bru-
ston, J. Weiss, etc.), and, if Jewish
Christian, whether it was written by the
author of the Apocalypse (Weizsacker}
or not. The least obscure feature is the
victory of the messiah over antichrist and
hjé legions (not of an angelic judgment
an Israel, J. Weiss) in the vicinity of
(cf. xi. 13, xiv. I f., and xx. g)

Seana
at the end of the world, an expectation

of which we have another variant appar-
ently in xix. 11 f. Probably the prophet
inserts the episode here in order to re-
peat, in a graphic and archaic, although
somewhat incongruous fashion, the final
doom of which he has just been speak-
ing and to which he is about to lead up
(xv.-xx.) through a fresh series of catas-
trophes. ‘If one might venture to wish.
to discard as an interpolation any part
of the attested text of the Apocalypse, it
would be this passage. Howcan it be
understood of anything but the final
judgment? Yet it comes here as any-
thing but final. . . . The earth goes on
just as before” (Simcox). But here, as
often elsewhere, the clue lies partly
in the vivid inconsequence of dream-
pictures, partly in the preacher’s desire:
to impress his hearers, and partly in the
poetic, imaginative freedom of his own
mind.

Ver. 14. This royal, judicial figure is.
evidently the messiah (drawn from Dan..
vii. 13, which had been already inter
preted thus in En. xxxvii.-lxxi. and «

14—18.

h

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

, A ~ lol
στέφανον χρυσοῦν καὶ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ δρέπανον ὀξύ.

441

15. καὶ h xix. 14.

» ales = i . = a P * 1 χι. 19
ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ' ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ, κράζων ἐν φωνῇ µεγάλῃ τῷ (heavenly

καθηµένῳ " ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης,

“Πέμψον ᾽τὸ δρέπανόν σου καὶ θέρισον,

ὅτι ἦλθε ™ ὥρα ” θερίσαι,

τος ὅτι ἐξηράνθη ὁ θερισμὸς τῆς γῆς.
16. καὶ ἔβαλεν 6 καθήµενος ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης τὸ δρέπανον αὐτοῦ

ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐθερίσθη ἡ yi.

17. καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,

” \ Cu , 36)
ἔχων καὶ αὐτὸς δρέπανον ὀξύ.

τοῦ " θυσιαστηρίου, ὁ ἔχων 1 ἐξουσίαν °
Φωνῇ µεγάλῃ τῷ ἔχοντι τὸ δρέπανον τὸ ὀξὺ λέγων,

18. καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν

temple).
k Cf. Dalm.

6, cf.
Mark xiii
28 ρατ].

> NViii. 3-5:
ΕΚ prayers of

> a martyrs?
ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρός, καὶ ἐφώνησε ο Angels of

1 Before εχων Lach., Al., Tr. (marg.), Ws. [WH], [Sw.] add the ο of AC, vg.,

Syr., S.

Esd. xiii.). The crown (omitted in i. 13
f.) was a familiar appurtenance of deity
in Phrygia (e.g., of Apollo); for the cloud
as the seat of deity, cf. Verg. Aen. ix.
638-640, etc.

Ver. 15. ἄλλος ἄγγελος, as in ver. 6.
The alternatives are (a) to translate

“another, an angel” ον. MN)
which might be the sense of the Greek
(cf. Od. i. 132, Clem. Protrept. ix. 87. 3)
but is harsh, or (ϐ) to take the figure of
ver. 14 aS an angel (Porter) and not as
the messiah at all (which, in the face of
i. 13, is difficult). The subordinate and
colourless character of the messiah is
certainly puzzling, and tells against the
Christian authorship of the passage.
Messiah is summoned to his task by an
angel, and even his task is followed up
by another angel’s more decisive inter-
ference. He seems an angelic figure
(cf. on xix. 17), perhaps primus inter
pares among the angels (so En. xlvi. 1:
“and I saw another being [ζ.ε., the Son
of Man] whose countenance had the ap-
pearance of a man, and his face was full
of graciousness, like one of the holy
angels”). The conception was incon-
sistent with John’s high Christology, but
he may have retained it, like so much
else, for its poetic effect, or as part of
a time-honoured apocalyptic tradition.
That the messiah should receive divine
instructions through one of his comrades
(Heb. i. 6, 9; cf. Zech. ii. 3, 4) was perhaps
not stranger than that he should require
an angel in order to communicate with
men (i. 1). πέµμψον κ.τ.. The double

figure of judgment (harvest and vintage)
is copied from the poetic parallelism of
Joel iii. 13 ; the independent rendering of

ίσον by πέµψον and ἔβαλεν, and the
change of agent from messiah (14-16)
to an angel (17-20, so Mark xiii. 39 f.),
show that the writer is using the Hebrew
of that passage (where God does the
reaping).

Ver. 16. The δρέπανον (only here, xiv.
14-19, in Apocalypse; cf. C. B. P. ii.
652 f. for a Phrygian inscription καὶ τὸ
ἀρᾶς δρέπανον εἰς τὸν tkov αὐτοῦ) is
represented as a living thing, probably
like the δρέπανον πετόµενον of Zech.
v. 1 (Wellhausen). The classical use of
reaping to symbolise death and destruc-
tion is too common to need illustration.
“The harvest of the earth is ripe and
dry,” but this ripeness of paganism for
judgment (Jer. li. 33) is re-stated drama-
tically (17-20) in a parallel O.T. symbol
from the wine-press. The angelic mise-
en-scené recalls that of viii. 3-5. Unlike
the harvest-symbol, the vintage-symbol
is worked out vividly (cf. Gen. xlix. 11;
Isa. Ixiii. τ f.).

Ver. 18. πυρός. The figure of this
angel (=Jehuel in rabbinic tradition,
Gfrérer, i. 369) has an Iranian tinge.
The justice of the punishment is attested
by its origin in the purpose of one who
corresponded to the Persian Amshas-
pand (cf. on i. 4), Ashem Vahishtan, who
presided over fire and at the same time
symbolised the closely allied conceptions
of goodness, truth, and right in Zoroas-
trian mythology (cf. H. $., 1904, 350)-

442

p Lk. vi

44.

q xix. 15, cf.

Ezek,
Χχχν. 6.

απ
oblong
trough or
tub, cf.
Zech. xiv.
1ο.

5 cf. Jos. A ~
tye iv. πόλεως, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ' αἷμα
6, 3, Vi.
2, 1, Vi.
3, etc.

t The red
juice of the vine (Deut. xxxii. 14).
(only here in this sense in Apoc.).

θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν µέγαν.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

“Πέμψον σου τὸ δρέπανον τὸ

, , ’
6 ἵππων, " ἀπὸ σταδίων χιλίων ἑξακοσίων.

XIV. 19—20.

ass

ou,

καὶ Ptpuynoov τοὺς βότρυας τῆς ἀμπέλου τῆς γῆς,

ὅτι ἤκμασαν αἱ σταφυλαἰὶ αὐτῆς.
Ig. καὶ έἔβαλεν ὁ ἄγγελος τὸ δρέπανον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ
ἐτρύγησε τὴν ἄμπελον τῆς γῆς καὶ ἔβαλεν eis Ἱτὴν ”ληνὸν τοῦ
20. καὶ Ἱ ἐπατήθη ἡ ληνὸς " ἔξωθεν τῆς

ἐκ τῆς ληνοῦ ἄχρι τῶν χαλινῶν τῶν
1

u John xi. 18, xxi. 8 (cf. Blass, 95): at most a Latinism

1 And. (comm.), reading (with 79) χιλ. εξακ. εξ. [διακοσιων, Μ, 26, S.], explains the
number symbolically as the perfection of wickedness; 1000 being the most perfect
of numbers, the deluge occurring in the 600th year of Noah, and the creation (now
stained and corrupted) being completed on the 6th day.

A similar representation of an angel
speaking from the fire in connexion with
providence occurs in Chag. 14 b.

Ver. 19. The ungrammatical τὸν µέγαν
may be due to the fact that ληνός is
occasionally masculine (Win. § 8. 10;
Helbing, 46), or—by a rough constr. ad
sensum—to apposition with τὸν θυµόν
(understood).

Ver. 20. The heathen are stamped and
crushed till their blood gushes out of the
wine-press to the height of a horse’s
bridle and to the extent of about two
hundred miles. This ghastly hyper-
bole, borrowed partly from Egyptian
(wine=the blood of those who fought
against the gods) and partly from Jewish
eschatology (En. ο. 3: ‘‘and the horses
will walk up to the breast in the blood
of sinners, and the chariot will be sub-
merged to its height”), happens to be
used later by the Talmud in connexion
with the carnage at Bether (cf. Schlatter’s
Die Tage Trajans, p. 37; also Sib. iii.
633 f.; 4 Esd. xv. 35; Sil. Ital. iii. 704).
The place is to be a veritable Senlac
(sang lac).—aaé κ.τ.λ., probably a round
number (see crit. note) compounded out
4 and its multiples (like 144,000 out of
12), to denote completeness (Vict. =per
omnes mundi quattuor partes). After
the fall of Rome (xiv. 8 f.), the rest of
the world (ex hypfothesi impenitent, xiv.
6-8) is ripe for the traditional (Dan. ix.
26) judgment. The same sequence is
reproduced roughly and on a larger scale
in xvil.-xviii. (fall of Rome) and xix.-xx.
(doom of other nations). This parallelism
and the sense of the Joel passage militate
against the attractive idea that xiv. r4-
16 is the ingathering of the saints (so

Alford, Milligan, Bruston, Briggs, Titius,
Gilbert, and Swete).—é&w6ev κ.τ.λ. This
fearful vengeance is located by Jewish
tradition in some valley (of Jehoshaphat
=Yah judges?) near Jerusalem (Joel),
on the mount of Olives (Zech. xiv. 4), or
in Palestine generally (Dan. xi. 45; of.
below on xvi. 16), 7.e., as a rule in close
proximity to the sacred capital, where
the messiah was to set up his kingdom.

After this partial anticipation of the
final catastrophe, the Apocalypse returns
to a fuller and independent description
of its processes (xv. 2-4=xiv. I-5, xv.
I, 5-xvi.=xiv. 6-11, 14-20). The pano-
rama of the prelude is once more seven-
fold, but this time seven angels (under
the control of God, xvi. g) drench the
earth with plagues from seven bowls
which are brimming with the divine
anger. The vision is a poetical expan-
sion of Lev. xxvi. 21 (προσθήσω ὑμῖν
πληγὰς ἑπτὰ κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν,
cf. 18, 24, 28). The plagues, like Hab-
bakuk’s theophany, recall the Egyptian
plagues (Exod. vii.-x.), but their descrip-
tion is less impressive than the previous
cycles of punishment. Like the seven
trumpets (viii. 2-5), they are introduced
by a scene in heaven (xv. 2-4); ver. 1 is
merely a title or frontispiece to what
follows (5 f.), since the angels do not be-
come visible till 5 (cf. viii. 1-2, 6), and
do not receive their bowls till 7. This
θαυμαστόν (awe-inspiring) σημεῖον is
the sequel (ἄλλο) to that of xii. 1 f., and
the plagues are final (1 ἐσχάτας), in
contrast to the trumpet-plagues (ix. 20),
as they represent the wrath of God which
can no longer be repressed (xvii.-xix. =
the working out of these plagues, cf. xvi

XV. I—3.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

443

XV. 1. Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλο σημεῖον ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ µέγα καὶ α 6/. Exod.

XV. II.

, ec
"θαυμαστόν, ἀγγέλους ἑπτὰ ἔχοντας πληγὰς ἑπτὰ τὰς ἐσχάτας, ὅτι Ὁκ. 7.

ἐν αὐταῖς
θάλασσαν 4

, 1 a > , A - ~ ~
*@nptou καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ " ὀνόματος

Ῥἐτελέσθη ὁ "θυμὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. 2.

ς , , , ~
ῥαλίνην µεμιγµένην πυρί, καὶ τοὺς νικῶντας ἐκ τοῦ

yr ts «. CVi. 17, Xi.
καὶ εἶδον ὡς 18.

. 4 ἶν. 6, same
scene

(cf. ver, 7
substan.
tially.

Ate A f ‘ 9
αὐτοῦ ἑστῶτας ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν © ὑαλίνην, ἔχοντας " κιθάρας « xiii. 17,

τοῦ Θεοῦ.

co) ‘ Ν 298 PS s 2
Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν wdhv τοῦ ἀρνίου, ™ λέγοντες,

τῆς 9.
h v. 8, xiv. 2. i Xiv. 3,
m From Song of Three Child. 4.

T2 xix. το, xvi. τ). Wike ch. xvi., to
which it forms an overture, xv. is not the
revision of a Jewish source (so especi-
ally Spitta, Ménégoz, and Schmidt) but
Christian (Briggs, Erbes) and the work
of the Apocalyptist himself (Sabatier,
Schon, Bousset, etc.)

Vv. 2-4. An interlude like xix. τ f.
The manifestation of divine judgment
(4) evokes reverence (contrast xvi. 11)
and praise from the saints in heaven.

Ver. 2. νικ. ἐκ κ.τ.λ., ‘those who
came off conquerors from ’—another
pregnant use of é« (cf. ii. 21, viii. 11)
combining the ideas of victory over (cf.
on ii. 7) and deliverance from. A pos-
sible Latinism (cf. Livy viii. 8, uictoriam
ferre ex aliquo; xlv. 38, aliquis est Romae
qui triumphari de Macedonis nolit ?) ?
The prophet paints the downfall of the
Roman persecutor in terms of the Jewish
tradition preserved, e.g.,in Targ. Jerus.
(on Exod. xii. 42) which singled out four
memorable nights, that of the creation,
that on which God’s promise of a son
came tu Abram, that of the tenth Egyp-
tian plague, and that on which the world
is ended (when Moses appears in a cloud
from the wilderness and messiah in a
cloud from Rome, led by the Word of
the Lord). Cf. Schemoth Rabba on
Exod. xii. 2: ex quo Deus mundum
suum elegit, determinauit principium
mensis redemptionis, quo liberati sunt
Israelitae ex Aegypto, et quo liberabuntur
futuro saeculo. In time as well as in
method (cf. on viii. 6, and 1 Cor. x. 1-11)
the two redemptions, Mosaic and mes-
sianic, are to correspond.—rvpt, a truly
Red sea, red with the glow of God’s
wrath. Like Pharaoh and his host
(Exod. xv. 5, 10o=Apoc. xviii. 21) the
persecutors of God’s people in these latter
days not only fail to effect their purpose,
but are themselves destroyed by God’s
vengeance (cf. xvi. 2). The faithful get

Xiv. 11.

FPG o A 208 k , fol a
3. καὶ ' ἄδουσι τὴν ᾠδὴν " Μωυσέως τοῦ ᾿ δούλου τοῦ f Elsewhere

in Apoc.

(ν. 13, Vil.
τα. ο, 5,

8) ἐπὶ

6 Cf. use of δρακόντων in Ps. Ixxiv. 14, LXX. (Apoc. xiii, 2, 11, and x Macc. i
k On form, cf. Win. § 5, 20 c, Helbing, 59. να ο.
For sequence of thought, see Jude, 5 {.

1 Cf. Heb. iii. 5-6.

through their sea of troubles, resisting
threats and persuasions, and now stand
safe at (i.e., on the shore of) the hea-
venly sea. ‘‘ Duteous mourning we fulfil |
In God’s name ; but by (iod’s will / Doubt
not the last word is still / victory” (D. G.
Rossetti). Here, as at xii. rz the thrill
of triumph is enhanced by the fearful
odds against which the saints had to
contend. Apparently the world is now
tenanted by pagans only, God’s faith-
ful having been removed. Hence the
plagues are all-embracing (contrast vii.
πρ), σοι {-

Ver. 3. As in Exod. xiv.-xv. Moses
leads Israel in a song of praise to God
over the dead Egyptians, so, after Rome’s
downfall (xiv. 8 f., ver. 2) the faithful are
led by their captain (xii. 11, xiv. 1, 4, cf.
Heb. ii. 12), in a chant of triumph and
gratitude. (Note the lack of any refer-
ence to their own sufferings. Their in-
terest is in the great work of God.) For
messiah as a second Moses in Jewish
tradition, cf. GfrGrer, ii. 328 f. The song
on the Red Sea had already been adapted
to the worship of the Therapeutae (Philo,
de uit. contempl. § xi.)—thv ᾠδὴν τ. a.
There is a continuity in redemption,
which unites the first deliverance to the
final. True to his cardinal idea of the
identity of God’s people (Christians be-
ing the real Israel, cf. on i. 6), the pro-
phet hails Jesus as the Christian Moses
who, at the cost of his life, is commis-
sioned by God to deliver the new Israel
from their bondage to an earthly mon-
archy. The lyric with its Hebrew paral-
lelisms is a Vorspiel of the succeeding
judgments ; it resembles /. E.Bi. 4954)
the benediction after the Shema of Juda-
ism (‘‘a new song did they sing to Thy
name, they that were delivered, by the
seashore; together did all praise and
own Thee as King, saying, ‘ Yahveh shall
reign world without end’”), and is al-

444

"Μεγάλα καὶ " θαυμαστὰ τὰ ἔργα σου,

Κύριε 6 Beds ὁ ° παντοκράτωρ":

Βδίκαιαι Ἱ καὶ ἀληθιναὶ αἱ * ὁδοί σου,

ὁ "βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν.ὶ

4. "τίς οὐ μὴ 'φοβηθῇ, Κύριε, καὶ δοξάσει τὸ ὄνομά cou;

er / ue?
OTL μονος οσιος ᾽

@ v , a ” o ‘ , we , ,
ὅτι " πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἤξουσι καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ™ ἐνώπιόν

σου

χο X 5 , , > 50 ᾿
οτι τα οικαίὠώµατα σου εφανερώ ησαν.

cf. Sam. A gon. 293 f.
of Col. iii. 16.
cf. Lk. xviii. 7).
Ps. cxlv. 17.

v Ps. lxxxvi. 9, Mic. vii. 15 f.
xix. 8 (diff. sense).

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

q Cf. on xvi.

2,

, r Deut.
XXXii. 4,
Isa. XxvVi.
8, LXX,

s From Jer. x. 6-7 (om. LXX), Zech. xiv. 9; cf. on xi. 18. An instance
t aor. due to ““emphat. negative or rhetorical nat. of question” (Burton, 172,
u only here and xvi. 5 (N.T.) of God; cf. Deut. xxxii. 4, Ps. Sol. x.6. From

w iii. 5, XVi. ϱ. x = “ Because;" dex. =

1 The αγιων of the Textus Rec. represents a tr. of sctorum (a corruption of sclorum)
= εθνων of Μ«ΑΑΡΩ, min., Me., Arm., Aeth., And., Areth., Cypr., Amb., Pr. (edd.),
which has been conformed, in a:wvev (9 Ὁ, vg., Syr., S., so Selwyn, WH), to
t Tim. i. 17 (cf. En. ix. 4, Tob. xiii. 6, το, Clem. Rom. lv., 1xi.).

most entirely composed of O.T. phrases.
Adoration is its theme, stirred by the
sense of God’s justice. Similarly the
famous hymn to Shamash, the Assyrian
god of justice, which represents one of
the highest reaches in ancient religious
literature (Jastrow, pp. 300, 301) : “‘ Eter-
nally just in the heavens are thou, / Of
faithful judgment towards all the world art
thou.” Most editors take the phrase καὶ
τὴν @d. τ. ἀ. as a gloss; but if the song
has nothing to do with the Lamb, it is as
silent on Moses. Since the whole section
comes from the pen of the general author,
and since the collocation of the two ᾠδαί
(equivalent of course to a single hymn)
is awkward mainly in appearance, while
the omission of the Lamb’s Song would
leave the section incomplete, it seems
better to regard it as original rather than
as a scribe’s addition like xiv. το, etc.
As in xiv. I, 3, the Lamb is among his
followers, yet not of them.

Ver. 4. God’s holiness is the reason
why his name must be feared and mag-
nified, especially when its effects are
visible in the reverent homage of all
nations to God (a hyperbolical statement
in view of xvi. 9, etc.) at the sight of his
“deeds of judgment” (δικαιώµατα--
judicial sentences, here of condemnation
and penalty) inflicted on the world (cf.
Dan. ix. 14 f.). The absolute and unique
(note the prophet’s insertion of μόνος)
reign of Yahveh was a traditional tenet
of Mosaism; indeed for Orientals gener-
ally the power which formed their ideal

source of righteousness and justice par-
took necessarily of a monarchic charac-
ter (R. S. 74 f.). To the Semites it
appeared that the perfection of their god
as a just king formed a ground for his
ultimate sovereignty over the nations
of the world. The O.T. outlook and
the phraseology warn us not to press
the poetical language too closely here;
otherwise (cf. xiv. 6, 7) it would con-
tradict, ε.ρ., the characteristic idea of
the author that the bowl-plagues, in-
stead of producing penitence and sub-

mission, g#ded in defiant blasphemy.—
ἐνώπιόν Gov, here a reverential periphra-
sis, it beim considered in the later Ο.Τ.

literature, the Targums, and the Ν.Τ.
(occasionally) more respectful to wor-
ship and pray before the royal god than
directly to him (Dalman, i. viii. 5). For
the whole conception of this dual song
see Targ. Jonath. on Isa. xxvi. r and
Targ. Schir Haschirim i. 1; the latter
reckons ten songs altogether, (1) Adam’s
at his forgiveness, (2) that of Moses and
the Israelites at the Red Sea, (3) that of
the Israelites, when the spring of water
was given them, (4) that of Moses at his
death, (5) Joshua’s at Gibeon, (6) that of
Barak and Deborah, (7) Hannah’s, (8)
David’s, (ο) Solomon’s, and (1ο) that
which the children of the captivity are
to sing when the Lord frees them. It
tallies with this expectation that the
new song of the Apocalypse (v. 9, xiv.
3) is always a song of Christ’s redemp-
tion.

4—8. XVI.1—2. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 445

4 A a ~ a A
5. "kat μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, καὶ ” ἠνοίγη 6 ναὸς τῆς "σκηνῆς τοῦ y Fresh
a ; x ye = i stage in
µαρτυρίου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ: 6. καὶ ἐξῆλθον ot ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι οἱ vision,
see on iv.

3 \ A a >

ἔχοντες τὰς ἑπτὰ πληγὰς ” ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ, © evdedupevor Aivov! καθαρὸν 1.

d " . Wale r . s A - “ z already in
αμπρὸν καὶ "περιεζωσμένοι περὶ τὰ στήθη ἵώνας χρυσᾶς. 7.

χι το,
αλ τα 2 a , a a See Acts
καὶ ἓν ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζώων ἔδωκε τοῖς ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλοις ἑπτὰ Vii. 44

4 4 a a a A a a a only).
φιάλας χρυσᾶς ®yepotcas τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ "tod Γῶντος ΡΜ

κ Ν 2A an na 5 A 17.
τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 8. καὶ ' ἐγεμίσθη 6 ναὸς καπνοῦ ἐκ τῆς ο κής. Β, ra

δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῆς δυνάµεως αὐτοῦ: “Kal οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο * Ὁ, πο

εἰσελθεῖν εἷς τὸν ναὸν ἄχρι τελεσθῶσιν αἱ ἑπτὰ Γπληγαὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ τοι, Αὰ

Be as. dt
Μπα, απ. Kat ἤκουσα μεγάλης " φωνῆς ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ λεγούσης © FY. to

Gas ε Ae / ες & + \ b2 A ς Le XXii. 31
τοις επτα Ὃ

ς Orr ο. Υπάγετε oe ἐκχέετε τὰς ἑπτὰ Φιάλας τοῦ * See
‘Qupo τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς τὴν "γῆν. 2. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ὁ πρῶτος καὶ Pa on vil.
27 9 ῃ > Aes Q A St. 2 d¢ \ τα 3 Π
ἐξέχεε τὴν φιάλην αὐτοῦ εἰ ν γῆν: καὶ ἐγένετο ἆ ἕλκος κακὸν καὶ | 154: vi. 4.
ξέχεε τὴν φιάλη ς τὴν γἢ γ ς κακὸν καὶ i Isa. vie 4.

πονηρὸν "ἐπὶ ! τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ἔχοντας τὸ χάραγµα τοῦ θηρίου oh ah ae

ν Kings
viii. ro-11, also 2 Chron. vii. 2. (cf. 2 Chron. vii. 3 with ver. 2 above and iv. 10). ier, I
‘a Of God (Isa. Ixvi. 6), cf. xv. 8. b For form, cf. Win. § 13, 23. ο Vili. 5, Jer. x. 25, Zeph.
iii. 8, Ps. xix. 24. d Exod. ix. 10-11, Deut. xxviii. 35, Job ii. 7, Luke xvi. 21. e Cf. Luke i.

65, iii. 2. f xiii. 15-17, xiv. 9-10.

1 For the λινον (λινους §¥, λινουν min., Lat.) of PQ, Syr., S., And., Arm., Areth.,
etc. (Al., Ws., Ti., Bs., Bj., Sw.), Lach., Tr., Diist., WH, Sp. read the transcrip-
tional (ΛΙΘΟΝ for AINON) error λιθον AC, 38 mg., 48, go, etc. (from LXX of Ezek.
xxviii. 13 2---λινον being commonly used of flax, not of flaxen garments. Cf. Nestle’s

Einj., 263).

XV. 5-Xvil. 1: the introduction to the
seven bowls or plagues.

Ver. 5. The temple in heaven is here
“the tent (or tabernacle) of witness,” as
it represents God’s judicial revelation
and presence ; its contents and the move-
ments of which it forms the source, are
evidence of God’s covenant with his
people.

Ver. 6. These heavenly beings are
magnificent creatures, robed in gold and
light (a Hellenic conception, Dieterich,
38 f.) and linen (to denote their honour-
able and sacred office: so the scribe of
judgment, Ezek. ix. 2, and the angel in
Dan. x. 5, xii. 6). Plutarch (de Iside, 3,
4) explains that the linen surplice was
affected by Egyptian votaries of Isis for
religious reasons ; ¢.g., the bright smiling
colour of flax, its freedom from lice, and
the smooth, cleanly material it yielded.

Vv. 7, 8 The φιάλαι, shallow bowls
-or saucers, do not exhale a smoke (like
the censer of viii. 4) grateful to God; they

_are filled with poisonous, hot, bitter wine,
while the smoke pours from the divine ma-
iesty, whose intense holiness (ver. 4, as
in Ο.Τ. theophanies) is breaking out in

judgments against human sin (δόξα -- (νε

divine δύναµις in action or expression).
Smouldering fires of indignation are now
on the point of bursting into punishment
from the arsenal of anger. Hence, till
the plagues are over, God’s presence is
unendurable (as in Enoch xiv. 18 f.).
This emphasis on the unapproachable,
austere majesty of God is consonant
with the general religious feeling re-
flected in the Apocalypse (cf. on i. 2).
CHAPTER XVI.—Vv. 2-21.—The series
(first three εἰς, last four ἐπὶ) of these
plagues as usual consists of four and
three; the former, as in the seals,
affecting earth (i.e., votaries of the Im-
perial cultus), sea, waters, and the sun.
The special object of the writer in this
passage (i.e., to introduce the doom of
Rome and the worshippers of the Em-
peror) leads him to vary the materials,
drawn from the Egyptian plagues which
had been already used in the correspond-
ing series of the trumpet-visions (viil.-ix.)
by defining precisely the victims of the
first plague as worshippers of the Beast,
by substituting the throne and realm of
the Beast in the fifth plague for mankind
in general, in the sixth by connecting
the Parthian invasion with the Beast

446 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ XVI.
g Exod. vii-kal ‘tods προσκυνοῦντας TH εἰκόνι αὐτοῦ Εκαὶ 6 δεύτερος
17, 41, of. p q an ee p
Bu. Ix, ἐξέχεε τὴν φιάλην αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν: “Kal ἐγένετο αἷμα ws.
h xi. 6. The νεκροῦ, καὶ πᾶσα ‘Wuxi ζωῆς ἀπέθανεν, “τὰ ev τῇ θαλάσση. 4.

whole, i x
aa καὶ 6 τρίτος ἐξέχεε τὴν Φιάλην αὐτοῦ ‘eis τοὺς ποταμοὺς καὶ
thir as = -
inviii, τὰς πηγὰς τῶν ὑδάτων: καὶ "' ἐγένετο αἷμα. 5. καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ.
8-9). =
iGen.i.30 " ἀγγέλου τῶν " ὑδάτων λέγοντος,
(LXX);
cf. Win *©° Λίκαιος et,
§ 22, 185 pe x 1. ες 4 eq¢
k C . Suet 6 ὢν καὶ 6 ἦν, 6 7 datos,
alig. « A
Pee ο. "OTL ταῦτα ἔκρινας : |
ο os. to a
αν 6. ὅτι " αἷμα 1 ' ἁγίων καὶ ' προφητῶν * egéxeav,
‘viii. 10, 1 2. > a ἐδ u aa
Exod: wi. καὶ αἷμα αὐτοῖς ἔδωκας " πεῖν
19-24, Ps.
fee i. * ἄξιοί eiow.”
Verg. a
“Georg.i, 7+ καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λέγοντος,
485. [τὴ , , ς Q κ ῃ
giana 4: Ναί, ͵ Κύριε 6 θεὸς 6 * παντοκράτωρ,
of wind Y2 Ἡ 1 oF Ε ’ ”
Toa ἀληθιναὶ καὶ δίκαιαι at κρίσεις σου.
vii. 1) of

fire (xiv. 18).
cf. xv. 4; of Jesus, Heb. vii. 26.
Viii. 27, etc.

t xi. 18, xviii. 24.

Vili. 4; from Sap. xviii. 4 (of Egyptians), asyndeton = “‘as they deserve”. —
y xix. 1-2, Ps. xix. 9: aAn9. = just, synonym for δικ. as

use of vocative in Apoc. x χν, 3.

ο Ps. cxix. 137 Ε. οχἰν. 17; cf. Job, xxxvii. 23. 7.
t God’s rights, shown in judgments, Ps. Sol. ii. 16 f., 38 f.,
5 xvii. 6, xix. 2. Ps. Ixxix. 2-3, Is. xlix. 26, Sib. Or. iii. 212, Ps. Sol. viii, 23).

u Cf. John iv. 7, 9; for form in papyri, cf. Deissmann, 182-3, Helbing, rr.

p xi. 17. q (vocative),

w Rare (xi. 17, xv. 3)

John viii. 16, Xen. Anab ii.6, 26, So below, xix. 2, and Isa. lix. 4, LX

1 The Hebraistic (= Ὁ ση) αιµατα of ΜΜ, 36, 39 is preferred here and at xviii,

24 by Τι., Bs., Swete.

itself, in the seventh by introducing
Rome’s fall among the physical disasters,
and in the prologue by making the
plagues come from God’s initiative with-
out intercession (as viii. 3 {). How far
these new touches are original or due to
the influence of current traditions no
longer extant, it is impossible to deter-
mine. This series of plagues is simply
a free adaptation, with modifications and
applications, of that in viii.-ix.; the pro-
phet wishes to emphasise, by the genu-
inely Semitic method of recapitulation
(cf. Gen. xli. 32; Ps. Ixii. 11, etc.), the
sure and speedy approach of judgment.

Ver. 2. The sixth Egyptian plague,
ἵνα noisome and painful ulcer” (the pun-
ishment of the impious and rebellious,
according to Philo, de Execr. v. 6) breaks
out on the adherents of the Czsar-cult.

Ver. 3. ‘‘Coagulated blood,” fatal to
animal life (as in first Egyptian plague).
This plague is final, as compared, e.g.,
with that of viii. 8.

Vv. 4-7. No more drinking water.
The justice of this particular plague is
acknowledged by (5-6) the angel of the
element in question and by (7) the altar
(personified here, in line of vi. 9, 10, and
viii. 3, or of xiv. 18), which echoes the
angel’s cry.

Ver. 5. ὅσιος and δίκαιος are used to-
gether of God in hieratic inscriptions of
dedication throughout Asia Minor, pos-
sibly under Jewish influence. Δίκαιος,
often a title of messiah (see on iii. 1 and
Beer’s note on En. xxxviii. 2), is reserved
here for God. Retribution is the out-
cofne of God’s intense holiness or ma-
jesty (cf. vi. το, xv. 4) asserting itself on
béhalf of his people (xv. 3, xix. 2, cf. iii.
7) and in self-vindication.

Ver. 6. The retribution once threatened.
on Jerusalem and the Jews (Matt. xxiii.
35) is now transferred apparently to
Rome, the later antagonist of the faith
(cf. on xviii. 24). Once the Romans
made Christian blood run like water.
Now, by the irony of providence, they
shall find nothing but blood to drink.
This moral vengeance (cf. Hawthorne’s
House of the Seven Gables), with its
grim equivalence between sin and sin’s
punishment (xi. 18, xiii. το, xviii. 7; cf.
2 Tim. ii. 12, etc.) is not pushed, how-
ever, into the grotesque and elaborately
Dantesque details, ¢.g., of the Apocalypse -
of Peter. —éféxeav (the verb runs all
through this chapter, and this chapter
only), cf. Dittenberger’s Sylloge Inscript.
Graec. 816" (1 cent. A.D.) ἐγχέαντας τὸ.-
ἀναίτιον αἷμα ἀδίκως.- -ἁγ. κ. πρ., all

3—14.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

44)

‘ ~ 5
8. καὶ 6 τέταρτος ἐξέχεε τὴν Φιάλην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον : z Constr. vi-

\ σσ, ώρα, ,
καὶ ΄ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ὃ καυµατίσαι "τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐν πυρί:

. 4 εἴς
Ο. και α {.ε. the

>. , chs x sun,
ἐκαυματίσθησαν ot ἄνθρωποι “Kadpa péya, καὶ ° ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸ b Contrast

3” A “ α mW a
ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἔχοντος τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ tas πληγὰς ταύτας,

καὶ οὐ µετενόησαν * δοῦναι αὐτῷ δόξαν.

‘ , > ~

THY Φιάλην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν * θρόνον τοῦ θηρίου: καὶ ἐγένετο ἡ
, ~h a

βασιλεία αὐτοῦ " ἐσκοτωμένη: καὶ |! ἐμασῶντο τὰς γλώσσας αὐτῶν

k 2 θες λ a a
ἐκ τοῦ πόνου 11. καὶ ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸν θεὸν ' τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐκ

τῶν |

τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν.

Ραὐτοῦ, ἵνα ἑτοιμασθῇ ἡ

ἡλίου. 13. καὶ εἶδον : ἐκ

, 4 ~ a a
πόνων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἑλκῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐ " µετενόησαν “ex,

‘ A
13. καὶ 6 ἕκτος ἐξέχεε τὴν Φφιάλην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ

vii. 16
with this
scorch-
ing.

c generic,
or with
ref. to
2, 6.

d vii. 16;

am. Aey.

‘Bt :

1Ο. καὶ 6 πέμπτος ἐξέχεε

ix. 20-21.
f Inf. of

conceived
“τὸν ποταμὸν τὸν µέγαν " Εὐφράτην: "καὶ Ἱἐξηράνθη τὸ ὕδωρ ο πλ
ὀδὸς τῶν βασιλέων τῶν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ος,
2 ευ»
τοῦ στόματος τοῦ δράκοντος καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ae aie
, nw , a 3 - , lol s Ul πι
στόματος τοῦ θηρίου καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόµατος τοῦ "ψευδοπροφήτου with
a t , be κε το i Hf Rice ass The t
πνεύματα *tpia " ἀκάθαρτα, ὡς " βάτραχοι’ 14. εἰσὶ γὰρ πνεύματα ὦ ο ορε
δαιµονίων " ποιοῦντα σημεῖα ἃ ἐκπορεύεται ἐπὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς τῆς ο
is disap-
a pointed.
h viii. 12, Ps. cv. 28, Exod. x. arf, i Sc.

g xiii. 2; = kingdom, Prov. xvi. 12, xx. 28, xxv. 5.
ot τῆς βασ.; cf. Apoc. Pet. 28-29.
13, Dan. ii. 19. n ii. 21-22.
Win. § 15, 50, § 20, gc.

k = ἀπό Mt. xvi. 26.
ο ix. 14; see Gen. xv. 18, Deut. i. 7, etc. On abs. of article, cf.
p Cf. Josh. iii. 17, Zech. x. 11.

1 xxi. 4, Just. A pol. i. 8. m Xi.

q Isa. xi. 15, xliv. 27. τ Posi-

tion of phrase ‘one of several traces of a tendency to attempt the rhetorical order of ordinary

Greek” (Sx.).
trast to three angels of xiv. 6f.?

Dragon here seen by seer for first time (ο/. xii. 1, xiii. 1).
u Marki. 26, etc.

5 xiii. 11. { Con-
ν For frogs as specially odious agents

of Ahriman, cf. Plut. de Iside, 46; source of plagues and death (SBE. iv. 203). For irreg. constr.,

cf. ἔχων in xiv. 14.
ιά

prophets are ἅγιοι, but all ἅγιοι are not
prophets.

Ver. ο. Failure to honour the true
God, a note of the heathen spirit (as in
xi. 13, xiv. 7; Rom. i. 28). See Introd.,
§ 6. For the general idea, cf. 2 Clem.
ix.: ‘‘ while we have opportunity of be-
ing healed, let us give ourselves over to
God the healer, giving him a recom-
pense. And what recompense? Repen-
tance from a sincere heart... . Let us
give him eternal praise.”

Vv. 10-11. The ninth Egyptian plague
of darkness (due to the eclipse, cf. viii.
12?) falls on Rome, aggravating the pre-
vious pains of the Romans (ver. 2) and
driving them into exasperation and fresh
blasphemy instead of repentance. The
repetition of 11 b, after 9, is characteris-
tic of Oriental impressiveness (cf. Jer.
XXX. 2, xxxi. I, etc.), but it sums up the
effect of the first four plagues.

Vv. 12-16. To facilitate the invasion of
the empire (xvii. 12, 16) by the Parthians
(ix. 14 f.) under Nero redivivus (cf. xix.
19), as in 4 Esd. xiii. 43-47 to let the ten
tribes return in safety from captivity, the
Euphrates is to be dried up in the latter
days, like the Jordan before Joshua or

W xiii. 13, xix. 20, Matt. xxiv. 24, 2 Th. ii. 9.

the Euphrates itself when Cyrus cap-
tured Babylon (Herod. i. 191).

Ver. 13. βάτραχοι, perhaps a remini-
scence of the second Egyptian plague,
but probably an Iranian touch; the frog
was a special agent of Ahriman in the
final contest (cf. reff., H. $. 1904, 352,
and Hiibschmann, 230, 231). According
to Artemidorus (ii. 15) frogs represent
γοήτας καὶ βωμολόχους, and they were
naturally associated with serpents (cf.
Plut. Pyth. 12) as amphibious.

Ver. 14. ‘They are (not, these are)
spirits of daemons”. These devilish
imps muster God’s opponents to the final
conflict. The fierce invasion of the
kings of the east seems to give an im-
petus to the kings of the world. Anti-
christ’s power extends to these (cf. xi.
1ο). ‘As the Lord sent his apostles to
all the nations, so shall he (i.e., Anti-
christ) send false apostles” (Hippol. vi.
cf. A. C. 188 f.). The sources of the
tradition lie in Addit. Esther, xi. 6 f.,
where the two dragons cry, and at their
summons all nations gather to do battle
against the righteous nation; also in the
belief that Israel’s foes muster against
her in the latter days (xvii. 14, xix. 17-20,

ΑΠΟΚΔΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ XVI.

448

xxvii.34, οἰκουμένης ὅλης, συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς *els τὸν πόλεμον τῆς ” ἡμέρας
ΧΙΧ. 10-21. | if VIA

y αν here τῆς μεγάλης τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ” παντοκράτορος. [15. ““Ιδοὺ " ἔρχομαι 1
(cf. 1. τοι

vi. 129) {η ὡς Ὁ κλέπτης. µακάριος ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἵμάτια αὐτοῦ,

Very. ἵνα μὴ "γυμνὸς περιπατῇ καὶ βλέπωσι τὴν & ύνην αὐτοῦ.]
pes μη γύόμγνος p n ην ἀσχημοσύνην au :

. 4 .. κ
xxii 7,12, 16. καὶ " συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον ° “EBpaiort
She fe 2 \ / 8 a rata N

b iii. 3, x Ἀρμαγεδών." 17. καὶ 6 ἕβδομος ἐξέχεε τὴν φΦιάλην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν
Vv. 2. a A Aa ~
ciii. 18; cf. *aepa> Kal ἐξῆλθε Φφωνὴ µεγάλη ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου
Κ. xii.
36-37.

d Sc. δαιμόνια. f Cf. SC 263f:= YTD “VPs Megiddo, a classic scene of

rout for Israel's foes (cf. xix. 11, 14 = Judg. v. 20), like the plain of Chaeronea, an”Apews ὀρχήστρα,
g ix. 2 (Encycl. Rel. and Ethics, i. 252f. and Rohde’s Psyche, 415f., 548f., 609f.), haunt and home of
spirits, etc., Philo, de gig. § 2, Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12, Yasht. xiii, 12-13, and Plut., de Iside 26.

6 ix. 11.

1 The variant ερχεται (9, 38, 47,S., Pr.) is an attempt to smooth out the abrupt-
ness of this interjected warning, which echoes the synoptic tradition rather than
the Jewish law that it was a deadly offence for a priest to lack “complete and clean
apparel” (Sanh., 83, 1, cf. Selwyn, 197). The extreme awkwardness of the verse
in its present setting suggests that it is an interpolation or misplaced gloss, which
has crept into the text owing to the above association of ideas (so, e.g., Vischer,

Spitta, Sch6n, Volter, Rauch, Weyland, von Soden, Simcox, Briggs).

Beza trans-

ferred it to precede ΠΠ. 18, K6nnecke (Emendationen zu Stellen N.T., 35-37) to
between iii. 3a and 3b, when it would complete the ἰδού series of ii. 22, iii. 9, 20.

2 Ap Μαγεδων (NA, min., And., Ar.) is preferred by WH (313) and Swete.

xx. 7-10; after Ezek. xxxviii-xxxix.; Zev,
xiv. 2 f.3 En. Ίνι, χο.» Sib. Or. iii. 9
322, 663-674). In Asc. Isa. iv. Beliar, in
the guise of Nero, comes ‘‘and with him
all the powers of this world, and they
will hearken to him in all that he desires”’
(cf. below on xvii. 13, 17). These de-
monic spirits are not crushed till the day
of judgment (En. xvi. I ἕως τῆς κρίσεως
τῆς peyaAns, Jub. x., Matt. viii. 290).
The three locusts which issne from the
mouth of the Beast in Hermas, Vis. iv.
1. 6, belong to the conception of Apoc.
στ

Ver. 16. A double thread of tradition is
woven into this strand of prophecy, (a)
that of a last conflict of the world-powers
with God and the messianic people (cf.
xvii. I4, xix. 19) and (b) that of Rome’s
ruin by the Parthians under Nero redivi-
vus. Thetwo were originally distinct, but
the apocalyptist naturally twists them to-
gether, although he never clears up their
relationship. Here 13-16 is an enigmatic
summary of what is variously depicted
further on. But, though an erratic block
in its present setting, it may have been
placed here by the final editor, in his
characteristically proleptic manner.
Strictly speaking, the sixth plague is
confined to ver. 12.-- Αρμαγεδών, where
the messianic Josiah will triumph, is (a)
either to be located in mythology rather
than in geography, as a mount where

+

the final conflict of the gods is to be
fought out (so fallen angels in En. vi.
5, © at mount Hermon)— in which case
the phrase is a survival of some apoca-
lyptic myth no longer intelligible to John
(Gunkel, Bousset)—or (6) to be taken as
an allusion to the hills near the plain (in
the light of Judges v. 18, το, iv. 6, 12, 14;
Ezek, xxxvili.) 8, 2, σωας. ο τη. by.
gematria the name is equivalent to

ΠΠ cay (Ewald, Hausrath),

but neither this nor the proposal to take

γρ] as a corruption of ην (city, so
Hitzig, Hilgenfeld, Forbes), much less of

NOY (Aram. = yu: Volter), is natural.

Cf. for further etymological and mytho-
logical suggestions, Nestle (Hastings,
D. B. ii. 304, 305), Cheyne (Ε. Bi. i.
310, 311), and Legge and Cheyne in
Proc. Society of Bibl. Arch. 1900, ii. 2.
Bruston’s interpretation (ΕρμαΞ- ἀνάθεμα,
Γεδᾶν, cf. Num. xiv. 45, xxi. 3; Judges
xx. 45) is far-fetched, but there may be
some link between this obscure fragment
of tradition and the cycle of Gog and
Magog (cf. Cheyne in E. Bi. ii. 1747,
1748).

17-21: the seventh bowl and plague as
the climax of all.

Ver. 17. The temple (xi. 19) and the
throne (viii. 3) are again blended in one
scene. In Isa, Ixvi. 6 the divine ven-

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΤΩΑΝΝΟΥ

15---21. 449
’ A . .
λέγουσα, “'' Γέγονε”. 18. καὶ | ἐγένοντο ἀστραπαί καὶ φωναὶ kath xxl. 6, ¢f
ζεκ.
* ο
βρονταὶ καὶ "σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας, ‘olos οὐκ ἐγένετο ἀφ οὗ xxxix. 8,
i iv. 5.

ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τηλικοῦτος σεισμὸς οὕτω μέγας. k viii. 5, xi.
νι ρε ρα. ς , ς , m > , / ‘ ς όλ 13, 19, Jer.
IQ. kal ἐγένετο ἡ πόλις ἡ µεγάλη “eis τρία µέρη, καὶ at πόλεις αν 19,
A an ~ rom
τῶν ἐθνῶν ἔπεσαν' καὶ " Βαβυλὼν ἡ " µεγάλη "ἐμνήσθη ἐνώπιον TOO Ass. Mos.
A a le ῃ , A a ae - - Vili. I,
θεοῦ, δοῦναι αὐτῇ 1d? ποτήριον τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ “Oupod τῆς ὀργῆς Dan. xii
SES arn r \ a a ” νο» > ee I, Cf.
αὐτοῦ. 20. "kal πᾶσα νῆσος ἔφυγε, καὶ "ὄρη οὐχ εὑρέθησαν. 21. Μαι,
t m a XXiv. 21
καὶ “xddala µεγάλη ὡς "ταλαντιαία καταβαίνει ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ ἅρα
. ~ Shak
τοὺς dvOpdirous* καὶ " ἐβλασφήμησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τῆς Ful.c

n Jer. li. 58, Dan. iv. 30.
loose use of infin., cf. ver. 9.
8 Judith, xvi. 15, Sir. xvi. 19, etc.
-T.; figur. = “colossal”,

p Isa. li. 17,

v verr. 0-11.

geance is heralded by φωνὴ ἐκ ναοῦ, φωνή
Κυρίου ἀνταποδιδόντος ἀνταπόδοσιν τοῖς
ἀντικειμένοις.

Ver. 18. The conventional storm-
theophany brings on απ exceptionally
severe earthquake, which (ver. 19) shatters
Jerusalem into three parts and entirely
overthrows the pagan cities. Rome’s
more awful ruin is attributed in xvii. 16
to the invasion of Oriental hordes (cf.
xvi. 12); here the allusion to her down-
fall is proleptic (=xvii. 2, xviii. 6 f.), as
a climax to the foregoing catastrophe.
Probably the great city is Jerusalem (so
¢.g., Andr., Bengel, Simcox, B. Weiss, J.
Weiss), as in xi. 8. She is distinguished
from the Gentile cities as Rome also is
singled out from her allies and adherents.
Being primarily guilty, Rome-Babylon
is reserved for a special fate. The whole
passage is enigmatic and obscure. Did
the earthquake destroy the inhabitants
of Jerusalem? and why? The allusion
must be to some form of the tradition
underlying xi. 1-13 and xiv. 18-20, or to
that of Zech. xiv. 4, 5. Both earth-
quakes and invasions had been combined
already in the Ο.Τ. eschatology (cf. Isa.
xili. 13 f.; Hag. ii. 21 f.) ; both perils were
real, at this period; and, in delineating
both dangers with a free, poetic imagina-
tion, the prophet aims as usual at im-
pressiveness rather than at any
systematic regularity. For earthquakes
in Jerusalem, cf. G. A. Smith’s ¥eru-
salem, i. pp. 61 [.--ἐμνήσθη: neither
magnificence nor age wins oblivion for
an empire’s crimes against the moral
order.

Ver. 20. Here, as at vi. 14, the re-
moval of hills tallies with the Iranian
belief (shared by later Jewish Christian
apocalyptic, cf. Boklen, 131 f.) that

ο Xviii. 5, Acts x.
ioe XXV. 15. q Cf.
t Exod. ix. 18-25, Ezek. xiii. 11, Sib. iii. 6008,

. Xiv. 8, Io. τ Vi. 14, XX. II.

) U am. λεγ.
w µέγας for the fifth time in 17-21.

mountains as the work of Ahriman would
disappear with him (5. Β. E. v. 129),
leaving the earth in its ideal state of a
smooth plane on which mankind could
dwell in unity of speech and intercourse,
free from barriers. The collocation of
mountain and island (so vi. 14) is pos-
sibly a relic of the ancient point of view,
for which (i.e., for dwellers in the West)
these formed the apparent source of the
s rising, where his light first became
visible.

Ver. 21. Even an abnormal Παϊ]-
shower (cf. the fourth Egyptian plague)
fails to bring pagans to their senses.
ὡς ταλ., 7.¢., literally about sixty times
the weight of even the enormous hail-
stones (μνααῖαι) which Diodorus Siculus
(xix. 45) records. In En. Ix. 17 the
‘spirit of the hail is a good angel,” #.e.,
amenable to God’s orders.

The obscurity of chapter xvii. springs
mainly from the differences oftradition and
outlook which are reflected in the canoni-
cal text. The threefold interpretation of
the Beast as the Imperial power (so xiii.),
as Nero redivivus (ver. 8) and as (11) the
eighth king (the two latter being applica-
tions of the same idea) is accompanied
by a twofold explanation of the seven
heads (geographical=9g, historical= το),
and of the woman’s support (1, 3, 15).
The eschatological tradition of Babylon
as the supreme anti-divine world-power
is applied to Rome, and this involves
the re-interpretation of some details (e.g.
15, 18), while the tradition of the Beast as
antichrist is further overlaid by the
special tradition of Nero redivivus in
that capacity. This dual Beast (as Vélter
first recognised; cf. Charles’s Ascensio
Isaia, pp. |x.-lxi.) is not merely the Im-
perial power (as in xiii. 3) but incarnate

ἑπτὰ
in an Imperial personality of infernal
and supernatural character, which
attacks not only the Christian messiah
(14) but Rome itself (16-17). The
latter trait is unmistakably due to the
legend of Nero redivivus, apart from
which the oracle is unintelligible. Such
variations have left traces in the structure
of the passage, which point to some pro-
cess of editorial revision, but it is difficult
to disentangle the original source or
sources, or even to determine their pre-
cise character and period. Ver. 14 is
certainly out of place, for the allies of
the Beast could not destroy Rome after
they themselves had been destroyed by
the messiah and his allies. it is thus
either proleptic or inserted by the Chris-
tian writer in his (Jewish) source (so 6.6.,
Vischer, Charles, Briggs, von Soden).
Other traces of this editor might be
found in 6 6, 8 (ο a?), and 15, and the
Jewish character of the source (so Vis-
cher, Weyland, Schmidt, Sabatier, Méné-
goz, etc.), would be confirmed by the
absence of any polemic against the Im-
perial cultus. It would be a Vespasianic
oracle, inspired by a passion for revenge
on Rome for her cruel, recent treatment
of the Jewish people. When the source
is regarded as Christian (as e.g., by
Erbes, Vélter, and Schén), ver. rr would
be an addition inserted under Domitian
to bring it up to date (so Harnack, Texte
u. Unters. II. iii. 134 f.; Chronologie,
245, 246, followed by Briggs, Gunkel, J.
Weiss, etc. ; cf. Introd. § 7). But even
so, the structure of the passage is in-
volved. Vv. g-II are not vision but
calculation or exposition (cf. xiii. 18).
The waters of ver. 15 are never seen (cf.
I, 3), and the professed explanation (ver.
7) follows a loose order (beast=8, heads
ΞΞΟ-11, horns=12-14, waters=15, horns
again= 16-17, and finally the woman= 18).
The reference to the woman, however,
is thrown late in order to introduce the
following doom-song (cf. kings in 18,
Xvili. 3, 9, and gveat in 18, xviii. 2), and
a similar motive accounts for the ir-
regular position of 16-17 after 14, Rome’s
fall, though viewed from different angles,
being the main object before the writer’s
mind at the moment. The defeat of 14
is taken up, in its true position, after-
wards (xix. 11-21). Ver. 15 (an echo of
xvi. το b) is probably thrown in at this
point, to contrast dramatically the re-

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XVII.

XVII. 1. Καὶ ἦλθεν eis ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς
φιάλας, καὶ " ἐλάλησε μετ’ ἐμοῦ λέγων “ Δεῦρο, δείξω σοι τὸ

volt [16] of Rome’s supporters against
her. Thus, except for g-11, there are
sufficient psychological reasons to ac-
count partially for the order and con-
tents of the oracle; but source-criticism
is required to clear up the passage, in
the more or less extensive theories of
one source (edited in 6, 9 a, 14:15, so
J. Weiss; or variously in 8, 12-14, with
some words in 6, 9, 11, so e.g. Pfleiderer,
Baljon, Bousset and Forbes) or even
two sources (Jewish, A=3-4, 6 6-7, το,
B=11-13, 165-17, Wellhausen’s Analyse,
26 f.), for which the linguistic idiosyncra-
sies (double use of γέμειν, 3-4, preced-
ence of object over verb 13, 16, 18, οἱ
κ.τ. Υγ. 2, and the construction BA. τ. 0.
ὅτι ἦν, 8) afford some basis. The
main problem is to explain how the
various strata of tradition overlap; ¢.g.,
in 8, 12 f., the beast is Nero redivivus,
an infernal power of evil, whereas in II
Domitian seems identified with Nero the
beast. It is hard to believe that one
and the same writer could simultaneously
regard Domitian as a second Nero and
expect Nero redivivus as a semi-super-
natural power. In any case the stress
falls on the Beast rather than on the
woman, and on the eschatological pre-
diction, not on the historical applica-
tion. It is a fairly open question
whether 8 or 11 is the editorial mortar
super-imposed upon the earlier tradition.
Upon the whole, one of the least un-
satisfactory solutions is to take II as a
Domitianic gloss by the Christian editor,
who has also added 6 ὃ (if not all of 6)
and 14 to a Vespasianic oracle (possibly
of Jewish origin) in xvii. 4 f. which anti-
cipated the downfall of persecuting
Rome at the hands of Nero redivivus
and his Eastern allies. No hypothesis
is free from difficulties. But the
general Domitianic reference of the
Apocalypse and the presence of the
Nero redivivus saga must be worked in
somehow, and some hypothesis on the
above lines seems to do most justice to
the literary structure of this chapter as
well as to the data of the book in gene-
ral. It is impossible to determine how
far the Christian editor worked over his
source. That the difficulties of the
oracle arise mainly from the presence of
an earlier source (cf. Introd. § 7), which
John has revised slightly and brought up
to date, is axiomatic, however.

4. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 451

κρίμα τῆς "πόρνης τῆς μεγάλης, "τῆς καθηµένης ἐπὶ

ἆ ὑδάτων b Ο/. on xiv:
πολλῶν : ὃ

ς From Jer,
ie ται
2. μεθ) As ἐπόρνευσαν die”
AIRE Es x peoples
οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς, (ver. 15).
‘ i ‘* - ε Visits of
καὶ ἐμεθύσθησαν * οἱ 6 κατοικοῦντες τὴν γῆν Herod,
- a Bs Tiri-
ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς. dates,

ad gh ed , S12 | 3s a etc.
3. καὶ " ἀπήνεγκέ µε εἰς ἔρημον | ἐν πνεύματι ' καὶ εἶδον γυναῖκα ς Note
/ Εμ / κ , i .
καθηµένην ἐπὶ θηρίον κόκκινον, γέμοντα ὀνόματα βλασφημίας, ο. a

mn ~ ο
€xov κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ κέρατα δέκα. 4. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἦν !περι- λα {δα
πι a x / \ πα / 8.
βεβλημένη ”'ὶ πορφυροῦν καὶ κόκκινον, καὶ ™ κεχρυσωµένη Χρυσίῳ ς xiv. α:
omitting

ue usual ἐπι.
... Kk xviii. 12, 16; cf. Matt. xxvii. 28 (colour of Roman
M Xvili. 16, am. Aey. N.T.

h Cf. on xxi. 10,

D ii. 10, iv. 2, xxi. 1Ο.
soldier’s mantle). ii

1 xii. 1.

Ίγεμον ονοµατων (min., Hipp., S., And., Areth.) and yepov ονοµατα (ΧΩ), min.,
Bj.) seem corrections of the unusual (in this book) and harsh constr. ad sensum
Ύεμογτα ovopata ΑΕ, Lach., Ti., WH, Sw., Bs. [γεμον τα ovopara, as in ver. 4,
Tr., Al., Diist., Ws.]: for the εχον of Q, 1, etc., Syr., And., Areth. (Lach., Al., Bj.,

Ws.), Ti., WH marg., Bs. read εχοντα (QP) and WH εχων (A, min.).

The double object of the oracle is (a),
by a re-editing of the tradition of xiii. to
represent Kome in her Imperial pride,
before describing her downfall, and (6)
to define more precisely the final appear-
ance of the last foe. The chapter could
readily be spared as isolated (Simcox),
but this only proves that the author is
again working upon disparate materials
which he inherited. Theoracle contains
(1-6) a vision of the Harlot (py way of
foil to xii. 1-6 and especially xxi. g f.) and
‘the Beast, with (7-18) an explanation of
the vision.

CuHapTeR XVII.—Ver. 1. Α fresh
vision commences (cf. iv. 1), still puni-
tive (xvi. 1), but with an exchange of
angelic cicerones (as Slav. En. xxi.).
The Beast which has already (in xiii.)
done duty as the empire is now the sup-
port of the capital. Rome, personified
(so Sib. Or. ili. 46-92, before 80 Α.Ρ.) as
a feminine figure, rides on a beast of the
same colour, like a Bacchante on the pan-
ther, or like the Syrian Astarte on a lion.

Ver. 2. Tyre’s commercial intercourse
with the nations (Isa. xxiii. 17) and
Assyria’s political intrigues, by which
her statecraft fascinated and seduced
other states (Nah. iii. 4) are both de-
scribed by the same figure. Local and
national cults, as a rule, were left un-
disturbed by the Romans; and indeed
Oriental superstitions often reacted
powerfully on Rome itself. But fresh
conquests meant the extension of Rome’s
antoxicating and godless suzerainty.

Ver. 3. The wilderness was the tradi-
tional site of visions, but there may be an
allusion here to Isa. xxi. 1 or even to
the Roman Campagna (Erbes). The
woman in xii. is in the desert to be de-
livered from the dragon; the woman
here is in the desert to be destroyed by
the Beast. κόκκινον ‘crimson or scar-
let,”’=luxurious and haughty splendour
(Mart. ii. 39; Juv. Sat. ili. 283 and xiv.
188 for purple). The Beast which in xiii.
1 bore the names of blasphemy upon its
head, now wears them spread over all its
body. Baldensperger (15-16) conjectures
a similar reference to Rome in En. lii.
(seven hills ?) ; here at any rate the author
is sketching the Roman Empire in its
general magnificence and authority under
the Czesars, and the inconsistencies in
his description (waters and wilderness,
seat on waters, seat on the Beast) are
natural to this style of fantastic sym-
bolism. It is curious that no attack is
directed against the polytheism of the
Empire. Cf. Cebes’ Tabula: ‘‘Do you
see a woman sitting there with an invit-
ing look, and in her hand a cup? She
is called Deceit; by her power she be-
guiles all who enter life and makes them
drink. And what is the draught? De-
ceit and ignorance.” The mounting of
divine figures on corresponding beasts is
a Babylonian trait (S. C. 365).

Ver. 4. κεχρυσ. goes by an awk-
ward zeugma with λίθῳ (collective) καὶ
µαργαρίταις; ‘with ornaments of gold
and precious stones and pearls’’ (like

~

452

n xvii τν 12, καὶ " λίθῳ τιµίῳ καὶ
I

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

αργαρίταις, ἔχουσα ° ποτήριον
" µαργαρ x τήρ

XVII.

° xpucouv ev

xxvill- 13° TH χειρὶ αὐτῆς γέµον ” βδελυγµάτων καὶ τὰ ἀκάθαρτα σης 4 πορνείας

ojer.li.7; αὐτῆς, 5. καὶ ἐπὶ

τὸ μέτωπον

αὐτῆς ὄνομα * γεγραµµένον

πέος () Μυστήριον),1 “"Βαβυλὼν ἡ µεγάλη, ἡ ' µήτηρ τῶν πορνῶν καὶ τῶν

Comus,
67 f.

Ρ XXi. 27,
cf. Lev.
Xviii.
26-29,
Sap. xii.
23-24 χὶν.
née (=
customs
of idol-
atry).

q Cf. Sap.
Rae ;

roc. ην.

s2 ΤΗ. ii. 7. a

t Jer. 1.
11-12.

u Cf. Isa.
Xxxiv. 17, xlix. 26. ν αν], 24.

x Diabolic antithesis to divine figure of iv. 8.

b xiii. 8.

βδελυγµάτων τῆς γῆς.’

τοῦ

καὶ τὰ δέκα κέρατα. 8.

καὶ " ἐθαύμασα ἰδὼν αὐτὴν " θαῦμα μέγα.

τὸ ὄνομα ἐπὶ τὸ "βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς " ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου,

6. καὶ εἶδα τὴν γυναῖκα " µεθύουσαν ἐκ
- , A A -
” αἵματος τῶν ἁγίων καὶ ἐκ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν μαρτύρων ᾿Ιησοῦ.

7. καὶ εἶπέ µοι 6 ἄγγελος,

ες ο , αν A . , κ ‘ 9
Διατί ἐθαύμασας; ἐγὼ ἐρῶ σοι τὸ µυστήριον τῆς γυναικος καὶ
τοῦ θηρίου τοῦ βαστάζοντος αὐτὴν τοῦ ἔχοντος τὰς ἑπτὰ κεφαλὰς

τὸ θηρίον *6 εἶδες ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν'

καὶ μέλλει ἀναβαίνειν ἐκ τῆς 7 ἁβύσσου καὶ eis ἀπώλειαν * ὑπάγει.
ὶ "θαυμασθήσονται οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὧν οὐ γέγραπται

"βλε-

w dm. λεγ. N.T. (contrast xiii. 3); for Attic ἐθαυμάσθην.

y ix. I. Ζ xiii. 3 (Blass, § 18, 3). α 1.5.

c Irreg. gen. absol. or appos. to ὧν, as meAA. Acts xxvi. 22.

1µνστηριον = the explanatory gloss of a reader, from ver. 7 (KOnnecke, 37).

Ezekiel’s doomed prince 6f Tyre). The
harlot in Test. Fud. xiii. 5 was also
decked ἐν χρυσίῳ καὶ µαργαρίταις and
poured out wine for her victims. Rome
is pronounced luxurious, licentious and
loathsome. Here, as in the contem-
porary 4 Esd. iii. 2, 29, it is felt to be a
mystery that prosperity and permanence
should belong to a state flaunting its im-
piety and oppression, not merely enjoying
but propagating vice.

Ver. 5. Roman filles de joie wore a
label with their names thus (Juv. vi.
123). µνυστήριον (which hardly belongs
to the title itself) indicates that the name
is to be taken πγευματικῶς (xi. 8), not
literally; ‘‘a name written which is a
symbol,’”? or a mysteriously significant
title—prytyp κ.τ.λ., Rome, the natural
focus of Oriental cults in general, is
charged with fostering all the supersti-
tious and vicious practices of her sub-
jects.—B5eX. (partly justified by a perusal
of Petronius and Apuleius) is an apt
rebuke if it comes from the prophet of a
religion which one Roman_ historian
classed among the αἰγοεία aut pudenda
which disgraced the capital (Tacit. Ann.
Χν. 44).

Ver. 6. Cf. Nahum’s “bloody city”
(of Assyrian cruelty to prisoners, iii. 1),
and for the metaphor Cic. Phil. ii. 24,
29, or Suet. Tiberius, 59, or Pliny, H. N.
xiv. 28, '' quo facile intelligatur ebrius
jam sanguine ciuium, et tanto magis
eum sitiens,’’ also Jos. Bell. v. 8, 2.
When a Jewish source is postulated,

kat... Inoov is bracketed (e.g., by
Vischer, Spitta, S. Davidson, Briggs,
Charles and others) as from the hand of
the later Christian editor, who here, as
in xviii. 24 (Mommsen), is thinking of
the condemnation of provincial prisoners.
to fight with gladiators or wild beastsin the
arena of the capital. The ἅγιοι of the
source would thus be defined as, or sup-
plemented by, Christian martyrs. They
are not contaminated, like the rest of
men, but their purity is won at the ex-
pense of their life. The Jewish martyrs.
would be those killed in the war of 66-
70, primarily. The whole verse, how-
ever, might be (cf. xviii. 24) editorial ;
it is the contaminations, rather than the
cruelties, of Rome which absorb the in-
terest of this oracle.

Vv. 7-18. An explanation of the
vision, cautiously but clearly outlining.
the Nero-saga.

Ver. 8. As the Beast seen by the seer
cannot be described as non-existent, it
must denote here (as in xiii. 3 f., though
differently) not the empire but the em-
peror, or one of its own heads. Such aw
identification was natural in the ancient
world especially, where a king and his
capital or state were interchangeable
terms. The emperor, here Nero redivi-
vus (cf. the saying of Apollonius, cited
in Philostr. Vit. Apol. iv. 38: ‘ Regarding
this wild beast,”’ z.e., Nero, ‘‘I know not
how many heads he Πας’), embodied the
empire. The Beast is a sort of revenant..
To rise from the abyss was the conven-

5—12

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΥΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

453

, -
πόντω, τὸ θηρίον ὅτι ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστι καὶ παρέσται. 9g. “Se ὁ νοῦς ἆ xiii. 18

ς ” , 5

ὁ έχων σοφίαν. ai ἑπτὰ κεφαλαὶ ἑπτὰ "ὄρη εἰσίν, ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ
3 a

KdOntar féw αὐτῶν. 10. καὶ βασιλεῖς ἑπτά εἰσιν : οἱ πέντε ἔπεσαν,

Cf. Sib.
r. ii. 18,
‘Pans
έπτα-
λόφοιο,

6 eis ἔστιν, 6 ἄλλος οὕπω ἦλθε; καὶ ὅταν ἔλθηῃ, © ὀλίγον αὐτὸν ® δεῖ (ο iii. 8

μεῖναι.

ἐστι, καὶ Ε ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστι, καὶ eis ' ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει.
τὰ δέκα "' κέρατα ἃ εἶδες δέκα '"' βασιλεῖς εἰσίν, οἵτινες βασιλείαν

ii. 5.

tional origin of the Beast (cf. xi. 7) even
infthe primitive tradition; the Nero-anti-
christ, however, introduces the fresh
horror of a monster breaking loose even
from death. True, he goes to perdition
eventually, but not before all except the
elect have succumbed to the fascination
of his second advent. The Beast of the
source here is evidently the antichrist
figure of xi. 7 (also a Jewish source)
transformed into Nero redivivus. There
is less reason to suspect the hand of the
Christian editor in 8 (Bousset) than in
g a (J. Weiss).

Ver. 9. Spy, cf. Prop. iii. 11, 57 (‘ Sep-
tem urbs alta iugis, quae praesidet οτΡί ”),
Verg. Georg. ii. 534.

Ver. 11. Bruston takes καὶ ἐκ τῶν

ἑπτὰ ἐστιν as a translation of jy)

NWT νο Τ in the sense that the

eighth was more (or greater) than the
seven, {.ε., realising more fully the ideal
of the Beast. But even were the case
for a Hebrew original clearer than it is,
such an interpretation is forced. The
verse is really a parenthesis added by
John to bring the source up to date.
Domitian, the eighth emperor, under
whom he writes, is identified with the
true Neronic genius of the empire; he is
a revival and an embodiment of the per-
secuting Beast (cf. Eus. H. E. iii. 17,
Tert. Afol. 5: portio Neronis de crude-
litate, de pallio 4:. a sub-Nero) to the
Christian prophet, as he proved a second
Nero to some of his Roman subjects (cf.
Juvenal’s well-known sneer at the ca-
luus Nero). This does not mean that
John rationalises Nero redivivus into
Domitian, which would throw the rest of
the oracle entirely out of focus. Domitian,
the eighth emperor, is not explained as
the Beast which was and is not and is to
come up out of the abyss (ver. 8), but
simply as the Beast which was and is
not; no allusion is made to his term of
power, and the concluding phrase καὶ εἰς
ἀπ. ὑπάγει is; simply the conventional

VOL. V.

9 BP.
II. καὶ τὸ θηρίον ὃ ἦν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι, καὶ αὐτὸς ! ὄγδοός

k In and after them, so Dan. vii. 8, 24.

and xii. 6
also 1
Kings
xiii, 25
(LXX).

g vi. 11.

h xx. 3.

i Cf. 2 Pet.

m Dan. vii. 20, 24.

12. καὶ

] Ver. 8.

prophecy of doom upon persecutors; it
need not be a post-factum reference to
D.’s murder in 96. He belonged to the
seven, as he had been closely associated
with the Imperial power already (Tac.
Hist. iii. 84, iv. 2, 3; cf. Jos. Bell. iv. 11,
4). The enigmatic and curt tone of the
verse shows that either from prudence
(‘some consideration towards the one
who is beseems even a prophet,” Momm-
sen), or more probably from pre-occupa-
tion in the grim, ulterior figure of the
Neronic antichrist, the prophet does not
care to dwell minutely on the emperor's
personality as an incarnate Nero. He
does not even allude to the suspicion,
voiced by his contemporaries (4 Esd. xi.
12) that Domitian had made away with
Titus. His vision is strained, like that
of his source, to the final and super-
natural conflict; the Satanic messiah,
the Beast who is to return from the
abyss, bulks most prominently on the
horizon. The absorbing interest of the
oracle, even in its edited form, is escha-
tological. John simply puts in a few
words, as few as possible, to bring this
Vespasianic source up to date, since the
death of Titus had not been followed by
the appearance of the Nero-antichrist.
The latter is still and soon to come
however! John thoroughly shares,
though he expands and applies, the pre-
diction of his source. The addition he
makes to it in ver. ΤΙ must on no account
be taken as if it meant the substitution
of “' Domitian= Nero redivivus”’ for the
supernatural expectation of the latter.
There is certainly some awkwardness in
the juxtaposition of Domitian as a second
Nero and of Nero redivivus, but this was
inevitable under the circumstances.

Vv. 12-18: the campaign of Nero and
his vassal-kings against Rome, which is
slain by an arrow feathered from her own
wings.

Vv. 12, 13. This political application
of the ten horns probably means either
the Parthian satraps of xvi. 12. reckoned

29

454

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΤΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XVII.

p ae οὕπω 3 ἔλαβον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξουσίαν ὡς °Bacthets µίαν ὥραν λαμβάνουσι
Burton, oe τοῦ θηρίου. 13. 5 οὗτοι µίαν γνώµην ἔχουσι, καὶ τὴν δύναμιν

ο Like καὶ ἐξουσίαν αὐτῶν τῷ θηρίω διδόασιν.
ailies, 14. P οὗτοι μετὰ τοῦ ἀρνίου πολεμήσουσι,
ett καὶ τὸ ἀρνίον νικήσει αὐτούς,

p Cf on xiv. ὅτι 4 Κύριος κυρίων ἐστὶ καὶ βασιλεὺς βασιλέω----

4 See habe καὶ οἱ peT αὐτοῦ ' κλητοὶ καὶ * ἐκλεκτοὶ καὶ πιστοί.᾽'
να, 15. καὶ λέγει por, “Td "ὕδατα ἃ cides, οὗ ἡ πόρνη Κκάθηται,
Ὃ 3, λαοὶ καὶ ὄχλοι εἰσὶν καὶ ἔθνη καὶ γλῶσσαι. 16. καὶ τὰ δέκα
ae κέρατα ἃ εἶδες καὶ τὸ θηρίον οὗτοι µισήσουσι τὴν πόρνην, καὶ
να ἠρημωμένην ποιήσουσιν αὐτὴν καὶ ‘yupyyy, καὶ τὰς "σάρκας
επι α.4) αὐτῆς " φάγονται, καὶ αὐτὴν " κατακαύσουσιν ἐν πυρί. 17. 6 γὰρ

rC/-2 Pet. Beds ἔδωκεν cis τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν ποιῆσαι τὴν Ὑνώμην αὐτοῦ,

tcf Beek. καὶ *Toujoor play γνώμην, καὶ δοῦναι τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτῶν τῷ
ay 37-39,

u Plur. = fleshy parts of body, 2 Kings ix. 36, etc.

(Hellenistic fut. of ἐσθίω) cf. Win. § 13, 6
x Cf. Cic. pro Milone, 33.

in round numbers, who occupied a royal
position in the estimation of the East
(so, e.g., Eichhorn, de Wette, Bleek,
Bousset, Scott, J. Weiss, Baljon, Well-
hausen), or (« chefs d’armée,”” Havet)
the governors of the (ten senatorial) pro-
vinces, holding office for (µίαν ὥραν) one
year (so Ewald, Hilg., Hausrath, Momm-
sen, B. Weiss, Hirscht, Briggs, Selwyn,
B. W. Henderson [‘‘the number may be
derived from Daniel. In any case it is
a round number, and the seer did not go
round counting the number of the Roman
provinces ᾿Ί), unless it is to be left as a
vague description of the allies (Weizs.,
Holtzm., Swete). Philo (de leg. ad
Caium xxxiv.) notes the facilities pos-
sessed by proconsuls for starting revolu-
tions, especially if they commanded
powerful armies such as those stationed
on the Euphrates to protect Syria.

Ver. 14. An abrupt and proleptic allu-
sion to xix. 11-21; the Christian messiah
is the true King of kings (a side reference
to the well-known Parthian title). This
is the first time that John brings the
Lamb on the scene of earthly action. He
now appears at the side, or rather at the
head, of his followers in the final crisis,
not in a struggle preceding the sack of
Rome. He and Satan (as represented
by the empire) are the real protagonists.
Note the share assigned to the faithful
in this victory (after ii. 26, 27). The
war fought on their behalf by the Lamb
is their fight also (cf. on xix. 14); i

v xix, 18, Ps. xxvii. 3, Mic. iii. 2f.; on form
w Xviii. 8, 18, Lev. xxi. 9, Nah. iii. 15

success rests on the divine election and
their corresponding loyalty (cf. xii. 11,
xiii. 8; a Zoroastrian parallel in Yasht
xili. 48 ; the favourite description of the
saints in Enoch as ‘‘chosen [and] right
εοις ”; and Passio Perpetuae, xxi., “‘o
fortissimi martyres! ο were uocati et
electi in gloriam Domini nostri Jesu
Christi”). The redeeming power of
Christ, together with the adoration which
he alone can rightfully claim, make his
cause more than equal to the empires
of the world (cf. the thought of Isa.
liii. 12).

Ver. 15. The woman impiously rivals
God (κύριος ἐπὶ ὑδάτων πολλῶν, Ps. xxix.
3, cf. το).--ὄχλοι is substituted for the
more common Φυλαί, perhaps with an
allusion (after Ezek. xvi. 15, 25, 31) to
Rome’s imperial rapacity.

Ver. 16. Rome perishes at the hands
of Nero and his ruthless allies—a belief
loudly echoed in the Talmud. In Sib.
Or. iv. 145, 350 f. the East then and
thus regains the treasures of which the
Oriental provinces had been despoiled.—
γυμνήν ... πυρί, the doom of a Semitic
harlot (Ezek. xxiii. 45 f., xxviii. 17, 18).
But no details of the disaster are given.

Ver. t7. The remarkable unanimity
and obedience of the usurping vassals,
which welds them into an avenging in-
strument, ¢an only be explained on super-
natural crounds. A divine overruling
controls all political movements (cf. xi.
2, xili 5, 7), according to the determia-

13—18.

Onpiw, ἄχρι 7 τελεσθήσονται οἱ λόγοι τοῦ θεοῦ.
ἣν εἶδες ἔστιν ἡ πόλις ἡ "µεγάλη, ἡ

βασιλέων τῆς γῆς.’

- ism of apocalyptic tradition (Baldens-
perger, 58 f.). The irony of the situa-
tion is that the tools of providence are
destroyed, after they have unconsciously
served their purpose (as in Isa. x. 12 f.).
The Imperial power, hitherto the usual
support of Rome, is to prove her deadly
foe; John’s stern philosophy is that one
partner in this hateful union is employed
to ruin the other. Not long before this
prophecy appeared, Vitellius and Ves-
pasian in the person of their partisans
had ravaged Rome in the near future
Nero’s allies were to fight, like Corio-
lanus, against their ‘“‘cankered country,
with the spleen of all the under-fiends”’.
—ptav κ.τ.λ. The same tradition, on a
simpler scale, appears in 4 Esd. xiii. 33,
34 where, at the revelation of God’s Son,
‘‘every man shall leave his own land
and their battles against one another;
and a countless multitude shall assemble
together, desiring to come and fight
against him”. The dualism of God and
Satan is not absolute; even the latter’s
rianceuvres are made to subserve some
providential design.

Ver. 18. The dramatic climax of the
oracle: the great harlot is—Rome,
domina Roma, the pride and queen of
the world! Cf. Spenser’s Ruines of
Rome, 360 f. (‘*Rome was th’ whole
world, and al the world was Rome ”’).
For the probable position of xix. g b-10
at this point in the original form of the
Apocalypse, see below (ad loc.).

After a prelude on the doom of this
second and western Babylon (xviii. 1-3)
two sublime songs follow: one of
triumph in heaven (4-8) one of wailing
on earth (ο f.). Both are modelled in
semi-strophic style upon the earlier
taunt-songs (cf. Introd. § 4) over Tyre
and Babylon (cf. also Apoc. Bar. Ixxxii.
3-9). But the severe invective against
Rome reveals the shuddering impression
which this marvel and mistress of the
world made upon the conscience of her
provincial subjects, Jewish or Christian.
They were half fascinated, even as they
felt repelled, by the sight of her gran-
deur. This magnificent doom song (9 f.)
like that of Apoc. Bar. xii. (cf. xiii.),
however, celebrates her downfall, partly
on grounds which might be justified
from contemporary pagan authors (cf.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

455

8 ς 9

18. καὶ ἡ γυνη γ κ.7.

Ζ xvi. 19,
XVili. 10,
Verg.
Eclog.

i. 19, 24.

a Ps. ii. 2, lxxxix. 28.

” ’ 3 4 ~
ἔχουσα βασιλείαν ἐπὶ τῶν

Renan’s Apétres, ch. xvii.). Vv. 24 (note
the sudden change from σοί to αὐτῇ) and
20 (in whole or part) are Christian edi-
torial insertions, (a) either by some scribe
or editor after the Apocalypse was com-
pleted, or (b) by John himself in an
earlier source (Jewish or from his own
hand). The presence of a special source
is suggested by e.g., the unexampled use
of ovat (cf. on ver. 16, and Oxyrh. Frag-
ment of Uncan. Gospel, 31), the large
number of ἅπαξ εὑρημένα (στρήν. 3,
διπλόω 6, διπλόος, cf. 1 Tim. ν. 17,
στρην. 7 and g, σιρικοῦ, ἐλεφ.,σιδήρον,
pappdpov and θύϊνον in 12, κινν.,
ἅμωμον, σεµίδ., ῥεδῶν, and σωμάτων,
[in this sense] in 13, ἀπώλετο (14), ἐργά-
ἵονται [in this sense in Apoc.] in 17,
τιµ. 109, Opp. 21, µουσ., σαλπιστῶν,
κιθαρφῳδῶν /οπ]ν in xiv. 2] 22, ὀπώρα and
λιπαρά, 14) andrare terms, for which the
special character of the contents can
hardly account. Differences of outlook
also emerge; ¢.g., xviii. 9 f. is out of line
with xvii. 17 and xvi. 13 f., xviii. 1-3
(Rome long desolate) hardly tallies with
xviii. ο f. (ruins still smouldering, cf. xix.
3), and the kings of xviii. 9, 10 lament,
whereas in xvil. 16 they attack, Rome.
These inconsistencies (Schén, Schmie-
del) might in part be set down to the
free poetic movement of the writer’s
imagination, working in dramatic style
and oblivious of matter-of-fact incon-
gruities like the sauve qui peut of 4;
just as the lack of any allusion to the
Imperial cultus, the Lamb, or the martyrs
(exc. 20 and 24) does not necessarily de-
note a Jewish origin. But the cumula-
tive effect of these features points to 20
and 24 as insertions by John in a Jewish
(cf. e¢.g., the special emphasis on the
trader’s point of view, 11-17) Vespasianic
source which originally formed a pendant
to that underlying xvii. (so variously in
detail but agreeing on a source, probably
Jewish—Sabatier, Rauch, Spitta, Wey-
land, Bousset, J. Weiss, Schmidt, Bal-
jon, Pfleid., Wellhausen, von Soden, de
Faye, Calmes). The original breathed
the indignant spirit of a Jewish apo-
calyptist against the proud empire which
had won a temporary triumph over the
city and people of God. John applies it
to the Rome which was also responsible
for the persecutions. The tone of it

456 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ΧΥΙΙῃΠ.

ος. * XVIII. 1. Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον καταβαίνοντα
ΕςΠ. ix.
a5 ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην ' “Kal ἡ γῆ ἐφωτίσθη "ἐκ
yre), A mn -
ο τῆς Ὑδόξης αὐτοῦ. 2. καὶ ἔκραξεν ἐν ἴσχυρά φωνῇ λέγων,
Ζε]ς. ν
xliii. 2, ΄Ἔπεσεν ° ἔπεσε Βαβυλὼν ἡ µεγάλη,
ς See viii. ees t A 4
13, Xvi. καὶ ἐγένετο κατοικητήριον δαιµονίων,
11, 21. \ N nN , >
d Cf. Acts και φυλακὴ παντος πνευµατος ἀκαθάρτου,
ΧΙ]. 7, and
on Apoc. καὶ φυλακὴ παντὸς " ὀρνέου ἕ ἀκαθάρτου καὶ µεμισηµένου *

1615...

4 = [] > ah» an ig A a , 9 A έ
e xiv. 8, Jer. 3. οτι ἐκ του οινου [τοῦ υμου] της πορνειας αυτης π πωκαν

li. 8.

f From Isa. πάντα τὰ €Ovn,
x . ς tal A a A
aes καὶ ot βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς * ἐπόρνευσαν,
5 Ἱ 5 a a 9 a a
epics Of καὶ ot ἔμποροι τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς ™Suvdpews τοῦ στρήνους.
νο αὐτῆς ἐπλούτησαν.᾽
7 ee. 4. καὶ ἤκουσα ἄλλην φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγουσαν,
λεγ. Ν.Τ. («3 en , faye) ars
See δα. Εξέλθατε, ὁ "λαός µου, ’ ἐξ αὐτῆς,
Chas. οὐ, ἵνα μὴ Ὁ συγκοινωνήσητε ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτῆς,
: η καὶ "ἐκ τῶν πληγῶν αὐτῆς ἵνα μὴ "λάβητε ᾿
A ; a - Lol
. 27, lie 7. . OTe ἐκολλήθησαν αὐτῆς at ἁμαρτίαι ἄχρι τοῦ odpavod
i Cf. on xiv. 7 μαρ ’
8. \ 82 / ς Θ 8 XQ a5 , 2
esi. καὶ ᾿ ἐμνημόνευσεν 6 Θεὸς τὰ ἀδικήματα αὐτῆς.
Isa. xxiii.

17, cf. Sib. Or. iii. 357f.

26; from Isa. xlviii. 20, Jer. 1. 8, li. 45, etc.
sharing her fate. q Cf. 1 Jo. iv. 13.
peruenerunt (Bgl.). 5 Xvi. 19.

has been severely censured, as if it
breathed a malignant orgy of revenge.
‘It does not matter whether Jewish or
Christian materials are the ultimate
source. He who takes delight in such
fancies is no whit better than he who
first invented them” (Wernle, p. 370).
So far as this is true, it applies to xix.
17-21 (or 14-20) rather than to xviii.
But the criticism must be qualified; see
notes on xviii. 7and 20. There is smoke
in the flame, but a profound sense of
moral indignation and retribution over-
powers the mere vindictiveness of an un-
patriotic fanatic who exults to see his
oppressor humiliated.

CHaPTER XVIII.—1-3: an angelic
proclamation of Babylon’s fate (cf. xiv.
8) in terms of Isa. xiii. 10-22, xxxiv. 14
(demons of the desert, the Mazzikin of
Jewish demonology, familiar to Baby-
lonian magic), Jer. ]. 30, li. 37, Zeph. ii.
15, etc. ‘‘Be of good cheer, O Jeru-
salem - . . Miserable are the cities which
thy children served, miserable is she who
received thy sons. For as she rejoiced
at thy fall and was glad at thy ruin, so
shall she grieve at her own desolation.
Yea I will take away her delight in her
great crowds, and her vaunting shall

1 Ezek. xxvii. 9-25.
n Acts xviii. 1ο: collect. subst. hence plur. vb. cf. Jo. vi. 22, etc.

m Jos. Ant. iii. 2, 4, = “money, means”.
_ © Gen. xix. 14-15, Num. xvi.
p By succumbing to her fascinations, and thus

τ Cf. Bar. i. 20. Suggested by Jer. li. 9. Accumulata

turn to mourning. For fire from the

Everlasting shall come upon her for a
length of days, and for long shall she be
inhabited by demons”’ (Bar. iv. 30-35).
ἐκ κ.τ.λ. ‘‘ by (cf. νετ. το) the wealth of
her wantonness”’ traders profited; {.ε.,
by the enormous supplies which the

capital required to satisfy her demands.

(στρῆνος, -ιάω from the New comedy
and colloquial usage).—8dfa in ver. 1
denotes the flashing brilliance which,
according to the primitive collocation of
life and light, accompanied the heavenly
visitants to earth or the manifestation
of a divine presence (xxi. 11, 23, xxii.
5); see the valuable paragraphs in
Grill, pp. 259-271. c

Vv. 4-8. A song of exulting in heaven,
addressed first to the faithful (ver. 4) and
then (ver. 6) to the enemies who execute
God’s vengeance.

Ver. 4. ἐξέλθατε (cf. Apoc. Bar. ii.

1), which in the source referred to the.

Jewish community at Rome, is an artistic
detail, retained like several in ch. xxi.,
although the historical meaning and ap-
plication was lost in the new situation.
Cf. the opening of Newman’s essay on.
The Benedictine Centuries.

Ver. 5. Plutarch (de sera windict.

τ---ο. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 457
t ~
6. ᾿ἀπόδοτε αὐτῇ ὡς καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέδωκεν, t Jer. xvi.
: » a 18, l. x
καὶ διπλώσατε τὰ " διπλᾶ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῆς 29, Ps.”
μι πα ανν exxxvii. 8,
εν TW ποτηριῳ WwW ἐκέρασε, u Aésch.,
“i ye Ag. :
κεράσατε αὐτῇ διπλοῦν. ares
2 ly suffi-
7. ὅσα " ἐδόξασεν αὐτὴν καὶ *éotpyviace, cient,"
rs - Isa. xl. 2,
τοσοῦτον δότε αὐτῇ βασανισμὸν καὶ πένθος. Ixi. κ
σ a a Zech, ix.
” Ότι ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς λέγει ὅτι ΄ Κάθηµαι βασίλισσα, η
καὶ χήρα οὐκ εἰμί καὶ πένθος οὐ μὴ ἴδω, Vests
Q a a2 a ne , ba ε A A of rel.

8. διὰ τοῦτο "ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ " ἤξουσιν αἱ πληγαὶ αὐτῆς, pron.
"θάνατος καὶ πένθος καὶ λιμός * xf pais of
καὶ ἐν πυρὶ “xataKxauOyjcerar. ο pine
ὅτι °icxupds Κύριος 6 Θεὸς 6 κρίνας αὐτήν. NET bl

ϱ. καὶ κλαύσουσιν καὶ κόψονται ἐπ᾽ ‘adthy οἱ © βασιλεῖς τῆς)γῆς, "ιο ο

οἱ pet αὐτῆς πορνεύσαντες καὶ στρηνιάσαντες, ὅταν βλέπωσι τὸν ο.
z From
Zeph. ii.

15, cf. Ovid., Met. vi. 193-195 (Niobe), 4 Esd. xi. 43.
509-510, Hec. 285, Ovid, Fastt, ii. 235; cf. Job i. 13-19, Isa. x. 17.
e J

c Cf. on vi. 8. d xvii. 16, Jer. 1. 31-32.
xviii. 3; of. Isa. xxiii. 5.

15) is strong upon the solidarity of a
city, which is liable to be punished at
any time for past offences.—koAAao@at
(‘‘ Heaped up to the sky are her sins’’)
in the familiar sense of haerere=to
follow close upon, or to cleave, the idea
being that the mass of sins actually
presses on the roof of heaven. The
figure would be different if, as Holtzm.
conjectures, κολλ. referred to the gluing
together of the leaves composing a roll;
the record of Rome’s sins would form so
immense a volume that when unrolled it
would reach the very heavens. “Et
ascendit contumelia tua ad altissimum,
et superbia tua ad fortem”’ (4 Esd. xi.
43)-
Ver. 6. The foes of Rome (unless
ἀπόδοτε κ.τ.λ., is a rhetorical apostro-
phe) are invited to serve her with the
retribution promised to the first Babylon
(see τεβ.).---διπλώσατε, cf. Oxyrh. Pap.
iii, 520°. Ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ, κ.τλ. Cf.
Apoc. Βατ. xiii. 8 (to Romans), ‘‘ Ye who
have drunk the strained wine, drink ye
also of its dregs, the judgment of the
Lofty One who has no respect of per-
sons”.

Ver. 7. It is probably at this point that
the passage drifts over from the concep-
tion of a voice heard (ver. 4) to that of
direct utterance on the part of the pro-
phet ; unless we are to suppose that the
voice speaks till the close of ver. 20 (a
similar instance in ch. xi.). Imperial
Rome is imperious and insolent; haughty

a Lucret. iii. 898-899, Eur. Herc. Fur.
b Isa, xlvii. 9, Ezek. xxviii. 18.

er. 1. 34. f Diff. sense, i. 7. 6 xvii. 2,

self-confidence is the sin of the second
Babylon as of the first (see Isa. xlvii. 5,
7, 8, imitated in this passage). Cf. (bef.
80 a.D.) Sibyll. ν. 173, where the impious
and doomed city is upbraided for vaunt-
ing ‘‘I am by myself, and none shall
overthrow me”. A similar charge of
arrogance was brought by Ezekiel against
the prince of Tyre (xxviii. 2 f., cf. xxvi.,
xxvil. throughout with the present pas-
sage), and by the Jewish author of Apoc.
Bar. xii. 3 against Rome. To the Semi-
tic as to the Hellenic conscience, the fall
of a haughty spirit always afforded moral
relief. Nothing so shocked the ancient
conscience as Overweening presumption
in a state or an individual, which was
certain ultimately to draw down upon it-
se#f the crashing anger of heaven.

Ver. 8. This drastic, ample punish-
ment, though executed by subordinates
in xvii. 16, 17, is here (as in 5, 20) re-
garded on its divine side. God is strong,
as well as guilty, glorious Rome (ver. το,
cf. on vi. 15); and his strength is mani-
fested in the huge shocks of history,
as well as in creation (iv. 11, v. 13).,
Rome’s proud disregard of all that was
mutable in human conditions is visited
with condign retribution. The prophet
sees not a decline and fall but a sudden
collapse (το, 16, το).

9 Vy. g-20: the wailing on earth, by
kings (ο, το), merchants (at length, rr-
16), and seafaring men (17-20), imi-
tated from the finer and more elaborate

458

h xiv. 11.

i proximus
ucalegon
ardet?

,
k Cf. on ver. **Odat, οὖαί,
16.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XVITL,

x a , > A κ. , ς / x x
καπνὸν τῆς πυρώσεως αὐτῆς, 1Ο. ἀπὸ µακρόθεν ἑστηκότες διὰ τὸν
᾿φόβον τοῦ βασανισμοῦ αὐτῆς, λέγοντες,
* a πόλις ἡ | µεγάλη,

1 xvi. 19. Βαβυλὼν ἡ πόλις ἡ ™ ἰσχυρά,

πι Ῥώμῃ @ a σ 3 ε ’ ”
robur ὅτι pid ὥρα ἦλθεν ἡ κρίσις σου.
(Bgl.); A ¢ η 3 ~ lol [ή iY ~ > 3 > /
see II. καὶ ot ” ἔμποροι τῆς γῆς κλαίουσι καὶ πενθοῦσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν,
below, ω πμ Lge rier Sch > , ee / ~
ver.21. ὅτι τὸν ᾿Ὑόμον αὐτῶν οὐδεὶς ἀγοράζει οὐκ ETL” 12. Ὑόμον χρυσοῦ

n Isa. xlvii. κ ats , Nop ce Ῥ ’ ‘ a ‘ , ‘
15: kat ἀργύρου kat ) λίθου Ῥτιμίου καὶ μαργαριτῶν καὶ βυσσίνου καὶ

“*merch-

A , 9 ~ i. ‘
ants,""not ? πορφύρας καὶ ᾿σιρικοῦ καὶ “KoKKivou’ Kal πᾶν ξύλον θύϊνον καὶ

I λ. ~ ~ ~ - .
“pedlars πᾶν 'σκεῦος ἐλεφάντινον καὶ πᾶν σκεῦος ἐκ ξύλου τυµιωτάτου καὶ
= fol 4
os Beck Χαλκοῦ καὶ σιδήρου καὶ " µαρµάρου ᾿ 13. καὶ ” kwvdpwpoy καὶ ἅμω-

(Sir. xxvi. ‘ Swe Le τικ Cee .

ate pov καὶ θυµιάµατα Kat “ μύρον καὶ *AtBavov καὶ οἶνον καὶ ἔλαιον
ο “Ship's 4 /. A A ‘ , ‘ / as 2 a

freight” και σεμίδαλιν και σιτον και κτηνη και πρόβατα και ιππων και

(Ac. xxi. 5 i) ἱ a

3), “‘wares”’. p See xvii. 4; cf. Plin., H. N. xxxvii. 12. q Friedlander, iii. 46 f. Tac,

Ain. ii. 33, Verge, Georg. ii. 121. sxvii.4. _t =‘‘article”. u Fried., iii. 65-66. v Prov.

vii. 17, Lucan, x. 165f., En. xxx. 3. w Jo. Xi. 2; xii. 3,5. x Matt. ii. 11. y Genitive

depend. on youor (sc).

passages in Ezek. xxvi.-xxviii, where
kings (xxvi. 15-18), traders (very briefly
and indirectly, xxvii. 36), and mariners
(xxvii. 29-36) are all introduced in the
lament over Tyre’s downfall. Contrast
the joy of the three classes in ver. 20.
A triple rhythm pervades (cf. 2, 3, 6, 8,
14, 16, 19) but does not dominate this
grim doom-song, somewhat after the well-
known structure of the Semitic elegy.
But the three laments are all character-
istic. The kings are saddened by the
swift overthrow of power (10), and the
reverse of fortune; the merchants (11,
16) by the loss of a profitable market,
the mariners by the sudden blow inflicted
on the shipping trade (ver. το).

Ver. 12. βυσσίνου (sc. ἱματίου) =‘‘ of
fine linen”; from βύσσος the delicate
and expensive linen (or cotton) made out
of Egyptian flax (Luke xvi. 10); σιρικοῦ
=‘‘silk,” muslin, or gauze, chiefly used
for women’s attire (Paus. iv. 110 f.);
πᾶν ξύλον @vivov=‘‘all citron (citrus)-
wood,”’ a fragrant, hard, dark brown, ex-
pensive material for furniture, exported
from N. Africa. Note the extensive
range of Roman commerce to supply the
needs of luxury (interea gustus elementa
per omnia quaerunt, Juv. xi. 14; pearls,
e.g-, from Britain as well as Red Sea),
also the various demands in order : orna-
ments, wearing apparel, furniture, per-
fumes (for personal and religious use),
food, and social requirements. Wetse
cites a rabbinic saying: decem partes
diuitiarum sunt in mundo, nouem Romae
et una in mundo uniuerso.

Ver. 13. ‘‘Cinnamon,’”’ an aromatic
spice (the inner bark of the tree) ex-
ported from E. Asia and S. China;
ἅμωμον, aromatic balsam for the hair,
made from the seeds of some Eastern
shrub (Verg. Ecl. iv. 25, ‘‘assyrium uolgo
nascetur amomum; from Harran, Jos.
Ant. xx. 2, 2)—for the form, ef. Levy’s
die Semit. Fremdworter im Griech. (1895),
Ρ. 37; θυµιάµατα, “incense,” in its in-
gredients of aromatic spices; λίβανον --
‘*frankincense,” a fragrant gum-resin
exported from S. Arabia (Isa. lx. 6, Jer.
vi. 20); enormous quantities of perfume
were employed by the Romans, chiefly in
the care of the body, but also to mix
with wine at their banquets (e.g., Juv.
vi. 303, etc.; E. Bi. 5320); σεµίδαλιν --
‘fine flour,” wheaten meal (LXX for

ὩὨωσος of. Deut. xxxil. τας Ps; προς.
16) of the choicest kind; wine, flour,
and incense were all used in sacrifices.
ῥεδῶν, a Gallic word = four - wheeled
“‘carriages’’ used by the well-to-do
(cf. Jerome on Isa. Ἱχνί.). σωµάτων--
‘“‘slaves”’ (later Greek, dropping the
qualifying adj. δούλων or οἰκετικῶν, cf.
Deissm. 160, Dittenberger’s Sylloge,?
845, etc.). καὶ ψυχὰς (reverting awk-
wardly to accus.) ἀνθρώπων-- “' and souls
of men” (from Ezek. xxvii. 13, ‘they
traded the persons of men for thy mer-
chandise”’: ἐνεπορεύοντό σοι ἐν ψυχαῖς
ἀνθρώπων, LXX, cf. 1 Chron. v. 21).
The double expression is strange. If
καὶ is not to be taken as ‘‘ even,”’ identi-
fying both, we must suppose that some
distinction is intended, and that of the

10---20.

- A
ῥεδῶν καὶ ” σωμάτων καὶ ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

459

15. οἱ ἔμποροι " τούτων z (LXX),

οἱ πλουτήσαντες ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς, ἀπὸ µακρόθεν Ὁ στήσονται διὰ τὸν φόβον ον. 29,
τοῦ βασανισμοῦ αὐτῆς κλαίοντες καὶ πενθοῦντες, 16. λέγοντες, a *
“Oda, odai, °H πόλις ἡ µεγάλη, whee
ἡ περιβεβλημένη "βύσσινον Kal πορφυροῦν καὶ κόκκινον, dit as.
καὶ "κεχρυσωμένη ἐν χρυσίω καὶ ‘Aw τιµίῳ καὶ papyapity’ aie
ς :
ὅτι µιᾷ dpa ἠρημώθη 6 τοσοῦτος πλοῦτος. ος
17. "καὶ πᾶς Ἀ κυβερνήτης καὶ was ὁ ἐπὶ mévtov! πλέων καὶ eee
ναῦται καὶ ὅσοι τὴν θάλασσαν ἐργάζονται, ἀπὸ µακρόθεν dors” ο ον
σαν 18. καὶ ἔκραξαν βλέποντες τὸν καπνὸν τῆς πυρώσεως αὐτῆς, ay jp
λέγοντες, “‘‘tis ὁμοία τῇ πόλει τῇ peyddy;” 19. καὶ LB ohav® κ.
χοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν καὶ ἔκραξαν κλαίοντες καὶ πενθοῦντες, ee
p \CCUS.
το. oa a tal
Οὐαί, οὐαί, ἡ πόλις ἡ µεγάλη, τος

ἐν ᾗ '' ἐπλούτησαν πάντες οἱ ἔχοντες τὰ πλοῖα ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ > προς
- er. 12,
ἐκ τῆς " τιµιότητος αὐτῆς, ο 14,
ου].
J a ο > , ”
ὅτι μιᾷ Spa ἠρημώθη. to Άροο.
ος} i ga) aA pS , σος +).
20. Εὐφραινου em αὐτῇ, ’ οὐρανέ, 6 xvii. 4.
‘ ερο ‘ τε ᾳ 2 , a c A f Ver. 12.
καὶ οἱ ’ ἅγιοι καὶ οἱ Ἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται, g Isa. xxiii.
J 3 ς ο εν. § , ο ο αλ ο 14, Ezek.
ὅτι ἔκρινεν 6 Θεὸς " τὸ κρίµα ὑμῶν * ἐξ αὐτῆς. XXVii.
27, 29.
h Acts

XXVii. 11.
1 From Ezek. xxvii. 30, (Heb.), Jos. vii. 6 (LXX).
“her costly treasures" (see on ver. 3).
p xii. 12, cf. xvi. 8.
cxix. 84.

i Note change to aor. from future (9, 11, 15).

__ _k xiii. 4 (ironical contrast).
m Ezek. xxvii. 33. n Abstr. for concrete,

ο Deut. xxxii. 43, Isa. xliv. 23, Ass. Mos. x. ΙΟ.
q Only here and xxi. 14, in Joh. lit. i :

τ XVil. I, XiX. 2. S vi. 10, Ps.

1For the unexampled TOMON (cf. Ac. xxvii. 2) read ΠΟΤΟΝ (Nestle, Theol.
Ltzg., 18, 97, 274, Einfiéhr., 135, E. Tr. 168; so Baljon and Gwynn) which was

apparently read in some form by Copt., Pr. (omnis super mare nauigans),

A similar

confusion occurs in Judith vi. 21, and conversely κατα Movrov has supplanted κατα

τοπον in Eus., H. E. iv. 15, 2.

two σωμάτων is the more specific. Pro-
stitutes, or female slaves, or gladiators,
or even grooms and drivers (ἵπποι καὶ
ἱππεῖς, Ezek. xxvii. 14) have been more
or less convincingly suggested as its
meaning. Slave-dealing (Friedlander,
iii. 87 f.; Dobschiitz, 266-269) was a
lucrative trade under the empire, with
Delos as its centre, and Asiatic youths
especially were in large demand as
pages, musicians, and court-attendants.
Thousands of captives, after the siege of
Jerusalem, were sent into slavery by the
Roman government; and early Chris-
tians at this period (Clem. Rom. lv.)
voluntarily went into slavery either as
substitutes for others or ‘‘ that with the
price got for themselves they might fur-
nish others with food”’.

Ver. 17. ἐργάζονται κ.τ.λ.--'' whose
business is on the sea’’. The passage

reflects the importance of Rome especi-
ally for the trade of the Levant. Pliny
(H. N. vi. 101, xii. 84) gives the large
figures of Oriental imports and their
cost, adding sarcastically tanti nobis
deliciae et feminae constant (Friedlander,
iii. 48-51). The regret of the mariners
for the grandeur that was Rome passes
rapidly into a sense of commercial loss.
Ver. 20. This verse interrupts the
sequence of 19 and 21 in which the ruin
of Rome is illustrated by the dramatic
action of the angel. The awkward shift
from description to an apostrophe, and
the evidently Christian tone of the cry,
betray an editor’s hand. His object is
to render explicit the moral reasons why
Christians should delight in the downfall
ofthe city. He writesin the same triple
rhythm as the source, and his hand is to
be seen in the whole verse not simply in

460 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΧνΙΠ.
‘v2; see 21. καὶ ἠρεν eis ἄγγελος 'ἰσχυρὸς λίθον ὡς μῦλον µέγαν καὶ
ος ἔβαλεν εἰ θάλ λέ
ας. ἰς τὴν θάλασσαν λέγων,
ih “ OtTws " ὁρμήματι βληθήσεται Βαβυλὼν ἡ µεγάλη πόλις,
acc, lv.
8 (cf. Isa. "kal οὐ μὴ εὑρεθῇ ἔτι,
XXViii. 2): aes bs Z
“with 22. καὶ φωνὴ " κιθαρῳδῶν καὶ μουσικῶν καὶ αὐλητῶν καὶ * σαλ-
sudden A
onset or πιστων
impetus,” a ”
suiting οὗ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι,
action to a
ward καὶ πᾶς τεχνίτης πάσης τέχνης
v Ezek. rs
XXxvi. 21. οὐ μὴ εὑρεθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι,
Ww xiv. 2, Isa. ‘ σολ
xxiv. 8, καὶ φωνη 7 pudou
Ezek. a
xxvi. 133 οὐ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν coi ἔτι,
cf. 1
Macc. iii.
45, Suet. Nero, 40-41, Domtt. 4. x Win. § 13, 4. y Fr. Jer. xxv. 10 (Heb.), cf. Aen. i. 98,
Bar. ii. 22f.
καὶ ot ἀπόστολοι. The voice from tended to a conventional exaggeration
44

heaven is thus made to pass into a clos-
ing apostrophe to heaven and its in-
habitants (cf. xi. 18), imitated from Jer.
li. 48 (Heb.). John seems to assume
that all had a case against Rome as vic-
tims of her cruelty, probably in the
main as martyrs απά confessors.
‘* Apostles,’’ omitted in ver. 24, has here
(as in ii. 2) its wider sense (otherwise
xxi. 14), but it must include Peter and
Paul (Zahn, Einleit. § 39, n. 4).--ὅτι
«.7t.A.=‘' for God has judged her with
your judgment,” i.e., vindicated you
(done you justice, given you your due)
by jexacting vengeance upon her. She
who once doomed you is now doomed
herself (cf. xvi. 6).—evppatvov. Cf. En.
Ixii., where the kings and rulers con-
demned by messiah to eternal torment
are to be “‘a spectacle for the righteous
and his elect; they will rejoice over
them because the wrath of the Lord of
spirits resteth upon them, and his sword
is drunk with their blood’’; also Isa.
xxx. 29, for the call to exult over a fallen
oppressor. A Parisian workman, who
was looking down at the corpse of Robes-
pierre, was overheard to mutter, with
relief, ‘‘ Oui, il y a un Dieu”’.

Vy. 21-24: a rhythmic song of doom,
introduced by a symbolic action partly
imitated from Jer. li. 63, 64.

Ver. 21. Rome’s fall will be irrevoc-
able and sudden and violent, as a power-
ful angel shows dramatically by seizing
a huge boulder and flinging it into the
sea. Cf. the analogous description of
Babylon’s collapse in Sib. Or. v. 158,
163, 174. The reiterated emphasis on
Roman luxury is notable. Later litera-
ture, as Friedlander observes (iii. 9-17),

of the luxurious civilisation under the
Empire; judged by modern standards,
at any rate, it was not particularly ex-
travagant. This denunciation of wealth
and ease, however, is apposite in a
source which reflects the age of Nero,
since it was under Nero, rather than
under Vespasian or Domitian, that
Roman luxury during the first century of
our era reached its zenith. The oracle
breathes the scorn felt by simple provin-
cials for the capital’s wanton splendour,
and indeed for the sins of a pleasure-
loving civilisation. But it is religious
poetry, not a prose transcript of the
contemporary commercial situation.
Cf. Dill’s Roman Society, pp. 32 f., 66 f.

Ver. 22. µμουσικῶν ‘minstrels or
musicians”? (x Macc. ix. 41); the ος-
currence of the generic term among the
specific is certainly awkward and would
favour the rendering ‘‘ singers ’’ (Bengel,
Holtzm.) in almost any other book than
this. On these musical epithets see
Friedlander, iii. 238 f.; the impulses to
instrumental music at Rome during this
period came mainly from Alexandria.
For coins stamped with Nero as harpist
see Suet. Nevo, xxv. φωνὴ µύλον, the
daily accompaniment of Oriental life.
The sound of the mill meant habitation,
but in the desolation of Rome no more
pleasant stir of mirth or business would
be heard (Isa. xlvii. 5). The fanatic
Jesus, son of Ananus, who howled dur-
ing the siege of Jerusalem and for four
years previously (Jos. Bell. vi. 5, 3) ‘“ woe
to Jerusalem,”’ denounced upon her ‘‘a
voice from the east, a voice from the
west, a voice from the four winds, a
voice against Jerusalem and the temple.

2I—24. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 461
23. καὶ φῶς * λύχνου z viii. 12.
οὐ μὴ pdvy ἐν σοὶ ἔτι, ' or 9,
καὶ φωνὴ 7 νυµφίου καὶ "νύμφης b πα
οὐ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν aol ἔτι * «the ripe
14. καὶ ἡ " ὀπώρα σου τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ’ψυχῆς ἐς.
ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ σοῦ, epee
καὶ πάντα τὰ “AtTapd καὶ τὰ *apmpa ae
ΣΙ ἀπώλετο ἀπὸ σοῦ, : re tale
καὶ οὐκέτι 1 οὐ μὴ αὐτὰ εὑρήσουσιν. eae
23. "ὅτι " οἱ ἔµμποροί σου ἦσαν οἱ ! μεγιστᾶνες τῆς γῆς, re
ὅτι ἐν τῇ " Φαρμακίᾳ σου ἐπλανήθησαν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. ο...
34. καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ "' αἷμα προφητῶν καὶ ἁγίων εὑρέθη, ere on
καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐσφαγμένων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. aan
ix. 35. e ‘“ All things rich and radiant,” cf. Jas. ii, 2-3. f Ps. cxli. 6 Did. xvi. 5. Lees
in Apoc. — g From Ezek. xxvii. 21, Isa. xxiii. 8. h Predic. with article, Win. § 18, 8¢.
vi. 15. k ix. 21, Isa. xlvii. 9-12, Nah. iii. 4. 1 xvi. 6; cf. Isa. xxvi. 21, Job xvi. 18. m xvii.

8, Ezek. xxiv.7-9. On sing. here and xvi. 12 (v.1, αιµατα), cf. Win. § 27. 4c.

1« Possibly S. [ουκετι αυτα βλεψεις και αυτα] here preserves the true text, and
‘the rest” [#.¢., αντα ευρησουσι = SACP, vg., Syr., ευρης = Q, min., ευρησεις --
I, 37, 96, etc., αυτα after evp. And.] “have lost the words by homoioteleuton”
(Gwynn).—Here between the last ert and the first ort of 23 is the original piace of
ver. 14 (so Beza, Vitringa, Volkmar, Baljon, Weiss, and Konnecke) which got into
its canonical position between 13 and 15 owing to the error of some early copyist,
~whose eye confused οτι εµποροι σου with οι εµποροι τουτων.

.a voice against bridegrooms and brides,
and a voice against the whole people’”’.

Ver. 23. Contrast the εὑρέθη of 24
-with the εὑρήσουσιν of νετ. 14 which in
its canonical position is an erratic boulder.
φαρµακίᾳ, primarily in the figurative
O.T. sense already noticed (harlotry and
‘magic spells, as in Yasna ix. 32). But
a literal allusion is not to be excluded,
in view of the antipathy felt by pious
Jews and early Christians to magic and
~sorcery. As Kome represented the ex-
isting authorities under whose aegis
these black arts managed to flourish, and
as they were generally bound up with
religion, it would not be unnatural to
-charge the Empire with promoting sor-
.cery (Weinel το).---ἐπλαν. ‘‘ Commerce,
as having regard to purely worldly in-
‘terests, is called harlotry’’ [Cheyne on
Isa. xxiii. 17]. Sorcery, witchcraft,

the verse originally lay after ver. 3. The
triple rhythm corresponds to that of ver.
20. Rome has now succeeded Jerusalem
(Matt. xxiii. 35, etc.) as the arch-enemy
of the faithful. The climax of her ini-
quities is couched in terms of the primi-
tive Semitic idea (Gen. iv. το) that
exposed and discovered blood is a cry
for vengeance [2 Macc. viii. 3 f.]; blood
violently shed wails till it is appeased by
the punishment of the murderers. By a
natural hyperbole, Rome is held respon-
sible for the murders, judicial and other-
wise, of saints and prophets and the
slain of Israel in general—substituted
here for the ‘‘ apostles” of ver. 20, prob-
ably to include the Jews killed in the
recent war as well as _ pre-Christian
martyrs like the Maccabees of whom
Augustine finely says: nondum quidem
erat mortuus Christus, sed martyres eos

“ fornication,” and the persecution of fecit moriturus Christus (Heb. xi.-xii.

the righteous, are all manifestations of
the lawlessness practised by Beliar
working in men and kings (Asc. Isa. ii.
4, 5).

Ver. 24. Again, as at ver. 20, the
change of style (here from an apostrophe
‘to a description) and spirit (xvii. 6) marks
-an insertion by the final editor, unless

1). Rome here is the last and worst ex-
ponent of persecution. Her collapse is
attributed to their blood drawing down
God’s utter retribution. ‘‘ My blood be
on the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall
Jerusalem say ’’ (Jer. li. 35, imprecating
successfully the divine revenge, vv. 36,
49). As Chrysostom called psalm cix. a

XIX.

Meta ταῦτα ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν " μεγάλην ὄχλου πολλοῦ

402 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ
a Ver. 6, De bee
Vu. ο.
b Cf. er.li. ἐν τῷ " οὐρανῷ "λεγόντων,
495. ς ..
c Irreg. ή Αλληλουϊά ϱ
appos. to de , νε / ας ῃ ~e θε ος
collective ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δόξα Kat ἡ δύναμις τοῦ "θεοῦ " ἡμῶν :
oxAov. 4 ° 6» 9 ,f97 οκ ’ > ~
dvil.ro,xi, 2. ὅτι fadnOwat καὶ *Sikarar at ' κρίσεις αὐτοῦ -
15, Xii. 10 ο 5 ν , . ,
(see ὅτι ἔκρινε τὴν πόρνην τὴν peyadny,
note).
e Cf. Joh.

xx. 17 Αρος, iii. 12, below 5-6.

prophecy in the shape of a curse, this
vehement, sensitive oracle against
Rome’s insolence and cruelty may be
termed a curse in the form of a pro-
phecy. A similar idea underlay the
view of certain pious people who, ac-
cording to Josephus (cf. Eus. Η. E. ii.
23. 20-21), considered the fall of Jeru-
salem a retribution for the foul murder
of James the Just nearly ten years before.

The doom-song is followed by an out-
burst of celestial triumph (xix. 1-8) in
answer to xviii. 20. The conclusion as
well as the commencement of the victory
(xii. 12 f.) is hymned in heaven. The
stern, exultant anthem, which is morally
superior to the delight voiced by In.
xlvii. 4, forms an overture to the final
movement of the Apocalypse, as well as
(like vii. ο f., xiv. 1-5) a relief to the
sombre context. 8 6 is a prosaic edi-
torial gloss, probably due to the liturgical
use of the book, and the last clause of το
(ἡ yap . . . προφητείας) might be the
same (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 56), aS many editors
think, were it not for the genuinely
Johannine ring of the words. In any case
it is an after-thought, probably (so
Baljon,. Barth, etc.) added by the author
himself, in order to bring out here
what is brought out in xxii. 9 by the ex-
plicit mention of the prophets, since ἐχ.
τ.µ. Ἰησοῦ alone would mean Christians
in general. The presence of g b-10 here,
however, is not motived as at xxii. 8, 9,
where it comes in naturally at the finalé
of the revelations and after a distinct
allusion (xxii. 1) to the revealing angel.
Here the angel of the second λέγει (at
least) has not been mentioned since xvii.
I, 7, 15, and no reason at all is given
for the superstitious impulse to worship.
The passage is certainly Johannine, but
probably misplaced (like xviii. 14, etc.).
Can it have originally lain at the end
of xvii., where the hierophant angel is
speaking (cf. also xvii. 17, words of God
and xix. g b)? Such technical disloca-
tions and derangements are common
enough in primitive literature (cf. my

f xv. 3; ef. on xvi. 7.

Historical New Testament, pp. xxxix..
676, 690). The passage must have been
shifted to its present site either by acci-
dent or more probably by a scribe who
saw that the similar assurance in xxi. 5,
xxii. 6 related primarily to future bliss
rather than to judgment; perhaps he also
took the first λέγει not asa divine saying
(cf. xxi. 5) but as angelic (xxii. 6, cf. i.
το, II, 19, and note on xxii. ro), and
sought to harmonise the same order as
in xlv. 13 (command to write, beatitude,
asseverance). Otherwise I-10 15 a unity
as it stands. The change of situation in
1-3, 4-10 does not prove any combination
of sources; it is simply another of the
inconsequences and transitions charac-
teristic of the whole book. The mairiage-
idea of 7, 5 is a proleptic hint which
is not developed till later (xxi.), while
the supper (ο) is only mentioned to be
dropped—unless the grim vision of 17-21
(for whichcf. Gressmann’s Ursprung d.
Isv.-jid. Eschatologie, 136 f.) is meant
to be a foil to it (so Sabatier and Sch6n).

Ομαρτεκ XIX.—Ver. 1. Here only
in N.T. (after the ruin of sinners, as Ps.
civ. 35) the liturgical hallelujah of the
psalter and synagogue worship occurs.
In vv. I, 3, and 6 it stands as usual first,
an invocation=‘‘praise Jah”; but in
ver. 4 it is responsive, as in Pss. civ.-v.,
cxv.-cxvii. (the latter being sung at the
passover; cf. Apoc. xix. 7).

Ver. 2. ἔφθειρεν, as the first Babylon
had been denounced for her depraving
influence by Jeremiah (li.) xxviii. 25,
τὸ ὄρος τὸ διεφθαρµένον τὸ διαφθεῖρον
πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. The impatient cry of
vi. 10 has now been answered. God
“has avenged the blood (z.e., the murder)
of his servants at her hand (i.e., on her),”’
the LXX rendering (e.g., in 2 Kings ix. 7,
καὶ ἐκδικήσεις τὰ αἵματα τῶν δούλων
Κυρίου ἐκ χειρὸς ᾿Ιεζάβελ) of the Heb.
idiom JY OF Dj23=to exact punish-.
ment from a murderer. The idea is sub-

stantially that of Ps. Sol. iv. 9, viii. 29-
31. As ἀληθ. καὶ δικ. are a characteris-

82 h» 4 a 9 οι , ο
ἥτις έἔφθειρε τὴν γῆν ἐν τῇ πορνείᾳ αὐτῆς,
1 5 , r - a
καὶ ᾿ ἐξεδίκησε τὸ αἷμα τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτῆς.

3. καὶ δεύτερον * εἴρηκαν,
(6 Αλληλουϊά :

Srl Q ~ , - ~
καὶ ὁ καπνὸς αὐτῆς ἀναβαίνει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

4. καὶ ’

λέγοντες,
ἐξῆλθε λέγουσα,

“4 Aiveite τῷ θεῷ ? ἡμῶν πάντες οἱ ’ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ,
καὶ "ot φοβούμενοι αὐτὸν ‘oi μικροὶ καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι.
6. καὶ ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν " ὄχλου πολλοῦ καὶ ὡς φωνὴν * ὑδάτων
πολλῶν καὶ ὡς φωνὴν ᾿ βροντῶν ἰσχυρῶν, λέγοντες,]

{Ἁλληλουϊά :

ὅτι " ἐβασίλευσε Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν 6 * παντοκράτωρ.

Isa. xxxiv. 9-10. cf. Nah. i. 9.
ο Vii. 12, xxii. 20, From Ps. evi. 48 (Heb.).

1, Ps. Sol. ii. 41.
Ezek. i. 24.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

n> ς , ς ” / ‘ AY
έπεσαν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ot εἴκοσι τέσσαρες, Kal τὰ
, a ‘ a ~ ~ a“

τέσσαρα faa, καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θεῷ τῷ " καθηµένω ἐπὶ TO Opdvw \ a

Αμήν: Αλληλουϊά. 5.

m ν. 8, 14, on form cf. Helbing, 63-64.

p Of Christ (iii. 12, Joh. xx. 17)?

13 (αἰνέσατε αὐτῷ, tr. of ‘ Hallelujah’); aiv. with dat. only here in N.T.
s Ps. xxii. 23, Cxxxv. 20; see above xi. 18.

w xi. 15, 17, Ps. xcili., xcv.-xcix.

463

g ‘‘ For that
she”

(i; 4, xii.
13, etc.).

h xi. 18,
XViii. 23.

i Vi. 10,
XViii. 20,
Deut.
XXXii. 43,
Ps. Ixxix.

1ο.

oristic
pf. (as v.
7, Vil. 14.
xix. 3),
of past
action
with no
thought
of
existing
result
(Burton,
80, Blass,
§ 5ο, 4).

1 xiv. 11,
XViii. 9,
18, Ps.
Civ. 35,

η v. 13, Isa. vi. 1

q Fr. Jer. xx.

r Ps. cxxxiv. 1, Cxxxv

u Ver. x. Vv Xiv. 2,

καὶ Pdwv ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου

t xi. 18.
τις,

Ίλεγοντες (as iv. 1) Q, min., Απάς, Tic. (WH πιατρ., Al., Ws., Bs.) [λεγοντων
AP, min., gig., Anda, Pr., Lach., Ti., Tr., WH, Bj., Sw.].

tically ample expression for ‘‘ equitable,”
it is in the context rather than in the
language of the passage (Ritschl, Recht/.
und Versohn. ii. 118, 119) that we must
find the thought of God being shown to
be the real and righteous Saviour of the
saints by his infliction of punishment on
their persecutors.

Ver. 4. After the long interlude of
judgments on the earth, the πρεσβύτεροι
and {@a (incidentally mentioned in xi.
16, xiv. 3) re-appear upon the scene,
though for the last time, to take part in
the chorus of praise over Rome’s ruin.
The cradle-song of the future is the
dirge of Rome. The drama now centres
mainly round the city of God, and the
earlier temple-scenery of the Apocalypse
(iv.-xi. xv. 5-xvi. I7) passes almost wholly
out of sight.—Apyv: the initial (and
primitive) use of ἁμήν, social {ε.ρ.. I
Kings i. 36) as well as liturgical, which
gravely assents to the preceding words
of another speaker.

Ver. 5. The O.T. expression servants
of God implied (Κ. S. 69 f.) not simply
membership in a community of which
God is king, but special devotion to his
service and worship. It was not associ-

ated with any idea of ‘‘slavery to a-

divine despot,” but was originally con-

fined in the main to royal and priestly
families (cf. i. 5) which had a special in-
terest in primitive religion and which
were near to the god of the tribe or
nation. Hence, in the broader and later
sense of the term, the ‘servants of
God” are all those who live in pious
fear of him, {.ε., yielding him honour
and obedience. John, pre-occupied with
judgment, views the faith of the Lord as
equivalent practically to his fear; unlike
most early Christian writers, who (1
Peter i. 17, 18, etc.) carefully bring for-
ward the complementary element of love.
Lowly confidence rather than warm inti-
macy is this prophet’s ideal of the Chris-
tian life towards God. See Did. iii., iv.;
Barn. iv. 11; Herm. Mand. x. 1, xii. 4, 6.

Ver. 6. S ingeniously but awkwardly
punctuates after ‘‘"4 allelujah,’’ connecting
ὅτι κ.τ.λ., with the subsequent χαίρωμεν.
---ἐβασίλευσε κ.τ.. A sublimated ver-
sion of the old watchword ΚΥΡΙΟΣ AY-
ΤΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΗΜΩΝ which had been
the rallying cry of pious Jews and especi-
ally of the Pharisees (e.g., Ps. Sol. xvii.
I, 2, 38, 51, ii. 34-36, v. 21, 22) during the
conflict with Roman aggression. This
divine epithalamium is the last song of
praise in the Apocalypse. At this point
also the writer reverts for a moment to

464

y Ps. cxviii. 7.
24; cf.
Mt. v. 12.

Ζ Xi. 13.

a Proleptic,

3, and—
for conn.
of light
and right —2 Cor. vi. 14.
XVili. 5.

k Matt. xxii. 2-3; cf. Dalm. i. § 1, ο. 50.
Lk. xxi. 22.

the Lamb, absent since xvii. 14 from his
pages, and absent again till xxi. g.

Ver. 7. A proleptic allusion to the
triumphant bliss as a marriage between
the victorious messiah and his people or
the new Jerusalem (cf. Volz, 331). The
conception is primarily eschatological
(Weinel, p. 137; cf. Mechilta on Exod.
xix. 17) and is so employed here. The
marriage-day of Christ and his church is
the day of his second advent. This is
the more intimate and tender aspect of
the divine βασιλεία. But, as a tradi-
tional feature of the Oriental myth (Jere-
mias, 45 f.) was the postponement of the
deity’s wedding until he returned from
victory (4.6., after vanquishing the dark-
ness and cold of the winter), the religious
application turns first of all to the over-
throw of messiah’s foes (xix. 11 f.).—
ἀγαλλιῶμεν, act. as in 1 Peter i. 8 (cf.
Abbott, Diatessarica, 2,689).

Ver. 8. ‘‘ Yea, she is (has been) per-
mitted to put on” (for διδόναι ἵνα cf.
ix. 5, Mark x. 37), epexegetic of ἥτοιμ.
ἑαυτήν (Isa. lxi. το). “' Uides hic cultum
gravem ut matronae, non pompaticum
qualis meretricis ante (xvii. 4) descriptus,”’
Grot. In the following gloss (see above)
the rare use of δικαιώµατα (= ‘‘ righteous
deeds’’) is paralleled by Bar. ii. το (τὰ δικ.
τῶν πατέρων) and by an incidental em-
ployment of the sing. in this sense by
Paul (see on Rom. v. 18). Moral purity
and activity, which are the conditions of
future and final bliss, are (as in vii. 14,
xiv. 4) defined as the outcome of human
effort, although of course their existence
must be referred to God (ἐδόθη), and their
success to the aid of Christ (loc. cit.) ;
see on i. 4-6. Ignatius similarly (Eph.
x.) describes the saints as ‘‘ robed entirely
in the commandments of Christ”. The
connexion of thought is the same as that
in Matt, xxi. 43, xxii. 2, 11-14. For ὃ ὃ

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΥΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

“ydpou τοῦ ἀρνίου * kexAnpévor.””

f Cf. Matt. xxii. 11-12, vii. 12, = xxii. 37 f.
hi.c., the angel of xvii. 1; implied, as in Zech. i. 7, 9 (LXX)?

XIX,

7 χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν,
καὶ ΄ δώσομεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ '
‘

ὅτι "ἦλθεν 6 -ydpos τοῦ ἀρνίου,

κ Τρ > ~ ait / £ U
καὶ ἡ ᾽γυνὴ αὐτοῦ "ἠτοίμασεν ἑαυτήν.

8. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῇ ἵνα “περιβάληται * βύσσινον "λαμπρὸν
καθαρόν [: τὸ γὰρ βύσσινον τὰ ἕ δικαιώµατα τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν].

9. καὶ "λέγει por, ''; Γράψον, ' Μακάριοι οἱ εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον τοῦ

Καὶ λέγει por, “'! Οὗτοι ot λόγοι

6 Contrast ἀδικ.
i xiv. 13, Lk. xiv. 15.

1 xxi. 5, xxii. 6; cf. Dan. viii. 26, x. 1, xi. 2, xii. 7. Also

see the fontal passage from Sohar (cited
by GfrGrer, ii. 184, 185): traditum est,
quod opera bona ab homine hoc in mundo
peracta, fiant ipsi uestis pretiosa in mundo
illo.

Ver. 9g. The saints are the Bride, but
—by a confusion inevitable when the
the two cognate figures, apocalyptic and
synoptic (Matt. xxii. 2 f.), are combined
—they are also the guests at the wed-
ding. (The bliss of the next world is
termed ‘‘the Banquet ”’ in rabbinic writ-
ings, which interpret Exod. xxiv. 11 as
though the sight of God were meat and
drink to the beholders). Like the Greek
πόλις, the church is composed of mem-
bers who are ideally distinguishable from
her, just as in En. xxxvili, 1 the congrega-
tion of the righteous is equivalent to the
new Jerusalem. With the idea of 7-9,
cf. Pirke Aboth, iv. 23: This world is
like a vestibule before the world to
come; prepare thyself at the vestibule
that thou mayest be admitted into the
τρικλίνιον.--ἀληθ. either ‘real’ as op-
posed to fanciful and delusive revela-
tions, or (if ἀληθ.-- ἀληθής) “ trustworthy
words of God’’ (Dan. ii. 9) emphasis-
ing the previous beatitude (like vat, λέγει
τὸ πνεῦμα xiv. 13). Originally the
words (see above) gravely corroborated
all the preceding threats and promises
(cf. xvii. 17), despite their’ occasionally
strange and doubtful look. It is a com-
mon reiteration in apoce. (cf. reff.), un-
derlining as it were the solemn
statements of a given passage. See, ¢.g.,
Herm. Vis, ΠΠ. 4, ‘‘ that God’s name may
be glorified, hath this been revealed to
thee, for the sake of those who are of
doubtful mind, questioning in their hearts
whether this is so or not. Tell them it
is all true, that there is nothing but
truth in it, that all is sure and valid and
founded’’. In Sanhed. Jerus. Rabbi Joc-

7---ττ,

ἀληθινοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ 1 εἰσίν.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

405

IO. καὶ ἔπεσα ἔμπροσθεν τῶν Today πι (xxii. 9),
> “A ~ er i
αὐτου προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ; καὶ λέγει por, '''" Ὅρα "μή: σύνδουλός

, > ‘ ~ a ~ -
σού εἰμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν " ἐχόντων τὴν µαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ"

SC. ποιη-
ons, cf.
Eur.,
Phen,

293.

0 τιρὶ ~ , , > A = ~
τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον [: ? γὰρ µαρτυρία ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς n ui 17.

προφητείας.

‘ 4.
II. καὶ εἶδον τὸν οὐρανὸν ἠνεωγμένον,

4
καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἱἵππος λευκός,

ο 1 Cor.
xiv. 25.

p 1 Cor.
xii. 3.

q Cf. vi. 2
for
language.

- Bousset and Konnecke om. του Oeov, but if the grammatical harshness of the
text is an insuperable difficulty, the solution is to read (Beng., Lachm., Ws.) οι

before αληθινοι (with A, 4, 48, S.).

hanan declares, with reference to Dan.
x. I, that a true word is one which has
been already revealed by God to the
council of the heavenly host.

Ver, 10. Jewish eschatology at this
point has much to say of the return of
the ten tribes and the general restoration
of Zion’s children from foreign lands
but these speculations were naturally of
no interest to the religious mind of the
Christian prophet. As hitherto the
command to write has come from Christ,
the seer perhaps thinks that this injunc-
tion also proceeds from a divine authority
(Weiss), but his grateful and reverent
attempt to pay divine homage to the
angelus interpres (cf. xxii. 8) is severely
rebuked. The author’s intention is to
check any tendency to the angel-worship
which—(whether a Jewish practice or
not, cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 5, 41;
Lightfoot on Col. ii. 18; and Lueken, 4
f.)—had for some time fascinated the
Asiatic churches here and there. If
even a prophet need not bow to an
angel, how much less an ordinary Chris-
tian? A contemporary note of this
polemic is heard in Asc. Isa. vii. 21
(Christians) : et cecidi in faciem meam,
ut eum (the angelus interpres, who con-
ducts Isaiah through the heavens)
adorarem, nec siuit me angelus, qui me
instruebat, sed dixit mihi ne adores nec
angelum nec thronum. In Asc. Isa.
ii. 11 the angelic cicerone even rebukes
the seer for calling him Lord: οὐκ ἐγὼ
κύριος, ἀλλὰ σύνδουλός σού εἰμι. The
repetition of this scene (xxii. 8 f.), due
to the Oriental love of emphasis by
reduplication, is significant in a book
where angels swarm (cf. Dan. ii. 11).—
ἡ γὰρ κ.τλ., “for the testimony or
witness of (i.e., borne by) Jesus is {1.ε.,
constitutes) the spirit of prophecy”.
This prose marginal comment (see
above) specifically defines the brethren

9

who hold the testimony of Jesus as pos-
sessors of prophetic inspiration. The
testimony of Jesus is practically equiva-
lent to Jesus testifying (xxii. 20). It is the
self-revelation of Jesus (according to i. 1,
due ultimately to God) which moves
the Christian prophets. He forms at
once the impulse and subject of their
utterances (cf. Ignat. Rom. viii. ; Eph. vi.).
The motive and materials for genuine
prophecy consist in a readiness to allow
the spirit of Jesus to bring the truth of
God before the mind and conscience (c/.
ili. 14, 22). The gloss even connects in
a certain way with τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον.
Since angelic and human inspiration
alike spring from the divine witness of
Jesus, therefore God alone, as its ulti-
mate source, deserves the reverence of
those whom that inspiration impresses.
The prestige of the prophets lies in the
fact that any one of them is, as Philo
called Abraham, σύνδουλος τῶν ἀγγέλων.
An angel can do no more than bear
witness to Jesus. Furthermore, there is
an implicit definition of the spirit of
prophecy (xi. 7, etc.) in its final phase as
a revelation of Jesus Christ. Even the
O.T. prophetic books, with which the
Apocalypse claims to rank, were inspired
by the spirit of the pre-existent Christ
(see on 1 Pet. i. 11; Barn. ν. 6). But
now, by an anti-Jewish and even anti-
pagan touch, no oracular or prophetic
inspiration is allowed to be genuine
unless it concerns Jesus who is the
Christ. Such is the triumphant defini-
tion or rather manifesto of the new
Christian prophecy.

Vv. 11-21: a second vision of doom,
on the Beast and his allies (in fulfil-
ment of xii. 5). Their fate (17-21)
follows a procession of the angelic
troops (11-16, contrast ix. 16 f.). The
connexion of this and the foregoing
volume (7-9) is mediated by the idea tha!

466 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΥΨΙ

KA. τὴ.

5 In sense
of Deut.
Vii. 9,
XXXil. 4
(LXX);
tf. Ps.
Sol. xvii.
4-5, and
Isa. xlii. 3 (LX X). vi
function of Semitic king (1 Sam. vili. 20).

καὶ 6 καθήµενος
ἑάληθινός,

the marriage of the warrior-messiah (cf.
En. Ix, 2° 4 Esd. xii. 32, xili. 35: Άρος,
Bar. xxxix., xl., Ixx.) cannot take place till
he returns from victory (so in the mes-
sianic psalm xlv.). Now that the preli-
minary fhovements of the enemy (xvii.
16, 17) are over, the holy war of xvil. 14
begins, which is to end in a ghastly
Armageddon. This passage and the
subsequent oracle of xx. 1-10 reproduce in
part a messianic programme according to
which the dolores Messiae (cf. Klausner :
mess. Vorstellungen d. jiid. Volkes im
Zeitalter der Tannaiten, 1904, 47 f, and
Charles on Apoc. Bar. xxvii. 1) are fol-
lowed by messiah’s royal advent on earth
(here sketched in part from Sap.xviii. 4-25)
to found a kingdom of the just (z,¢., Israel)
who are raised for this purpose. Israel
supplants Rome as the world - power
(Bar. xxxix.). Her period of superiority
opens with the rebuilding of Jerusalem
and the temple, and closes with a crush-
ing defeat of Gog and Magog, who are
led by an incarnate villain (“‘dux ulti-
mus,”’ xl.), but are finally vanquished by
the aid of the ten tribes who return to
take part in this campaign. Death and
Satan then are annihilated, and eternal
bliss ensues. Like Paul in τ Cor. xv.
20 f., John modifies this scheme of tradi-
tion freely for his own Christian ends.
He introduces a realistic expansion of
the messianic age into three periods:
(a) a victory of messiah (mounted, like
Vishnu, on a white horse for the last
battle) and his ἅγιοι (cf. xiv. 20) over
the beast, the false prophet, and the
kings of the world, who—as already
noted—turn their attention to the saints
after crushing Rome (11-21): (6) an un-
disturbed reign of Christ and his martyrs
(xx. 1-6), evidently in Palestine; (c) the
final defeat of Gog and Magog, with
Satan their instigator (xx. 7-10). There
is little or nothing specifically Christian
in all this section (except xx. 4-6, cf.
xix. 13), but the general style betrays the
author’s own hand, and there is no rea-
son to suppose that a Jewish source in
whole or part (so ε.ρ., Vischer, Sabatier,
de Faye, Weyland, Spitta, von Soden)
underlies it. The sequence of the pas-

t Cf. on xvi. 7, Dan. ii. 45,

Σ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ πως

‘
ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν " καλούμενος 'πιστὸς καὶ

Su. , , ‘ a
και εν δικαιοσύνη KPLVEL και πολεμεῖ ζ

12. οἱ δὲ " ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ φλὸξ πυρός,
μ ρ

ili. 71. (1 ΧΧ). u Ps, xevi. 13: twofold
8

νἩ. 1

sage with xvi. 13-16, 18-20 is due to a
common cycle of tradition, rather than
to any literary source (Schon). It is a
homogeneous finalé written by the pro-
phet, in terms of current eschatology, to
round off the predictions at which he has
already hinted. Moralising traits emerge
amidst the realism, but it is impossible to
be sure how far the whole passage (i.e.,
11-21) was intended to be figurative.

Vy. 11-16. messiah and his troops or
retinue: Jesus to the rescue (cf. Samson
Agonistes, 1268 f.). The following de-
scription of a semi-judicial, semi-military
hero is painted from passages like Isa.
xi. 3-5 (where messiah, instead of judg-
ing by appearances, decides equitably:
πατάξει γῆν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόµατος
αὐτοῦ: his breath slays the wicked: his
loins are girt δικαιοσύνῃ and ἀληθείᾳ),
the theophany of Hab. iii., and the san-
guinary picture of Yahveh returning in
triumph from the carnage in Idumea
(cf. νετ. 13 with Isa. xiii. 1-6). On the
connexion of this celestial Rider with
the Rider in 2 Mace. iii., cf. Nestle in
Zeits. f. alt. Wiss. 1905, pp. 2034.

Ver. rr. The military function of the
messiah is known even to the philosophic
Philo, who (de praem. et poen. 15-20)
represents him incidentally as καὶ
στραταρχῶν καὶ πολεμῶν ἔθνη. The
victory of messiah over the earthly foes
of God’s kingdom meant the triumph of
the kingdom, according to Jewish and
Jewish Christian hopes; but owing to
the increased spiritualisation of the latter,
this nationalistic tradition was laid side by
side with the wider hope of an eternal,
universal judgment upon dead and living.
The latter was originally independent of
the earlier view, which made the culmina-
tion of providence for Israel consist in
the earthly subjugation of her foes. The
prophet John, by dividing God’s foes into
the two classes of Rome and Rome’s de-
stroyers, preserves the archaic tradition
and also finds room for the Gog and
Magog tradition later on.

Ver. 12. διαδήµατα πολλά, bec. he is
king of kings (Ptolemy on entering An-
tioch put two diadems on his head, that
of Egypt and that of Αδία (τ Macc. xi. 13);

42---13.

καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ " διαδήµατα " πολλά -

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

467

w Contrast

Xii. 3,
*éxwv 7 ὄνομα γεγραμμµένον ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ αὐτός " xiii. τ.
πες : Aa ὁ ας x Loosely
13. καὶ * περιβεβλημένος ἱἵμάτιον βεβαμμένον ! ΄ αἵματι resuming
4 the con-
καὶ κέκληται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, "'' Ὅ AOTOC ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ.’ struction
of ver.
= . . . ~ 11.
Ὑ Cf. on ii. 17. z Dat. cf, Joh. xxi. 8. a Art. with pred. irreg. after ὄνομα (as vi. 8, viii. 11, etc.)

' BeBappevov (AQ, min., Ar., edd.) is preferable to pepappevov (Hort, Swete)—
the conjectural origin of the variants περιρεραµµενον (9) ερραµενον, ρεραντισ-
pevov, etc.—which is probably a corruption of it or due to dittography with yeypap-

μενογν.

cf. the ten golden diadems of royalty
in ancient Egypt). Once crowned with
thorns, Jesus is now invested with more
than royal rank (cf. Barn. vii. 9, where
Jesus, once accursed, is shown crowned).
Eastern monarchs wore such royal in-
signia when they went into battle (e.g., 2
Sam. i. 1Ο). Jesus has far more than the
four (of a good name, of the law, of the
high priesthood, of the divine kingdom,
Targ. Jeius. on Deut. xxxiv.) 5 or three
(omitting the first) which Jewish tradition
assigned to Moses (see Pirke Aboth, iv.
13, vi. 5; Joseph. Bell. i. 2, 8, prophetic,
priestly, and royal honours). — ὄνομα
κ.τ.λ.» cf. Ep. Lugd., ‘“when Attalus
was placed on the iron seat and the
fumes rose from his burning body, he
was asked, ‘What name has God?’
‘God,’ he answered, ‘has not a name as
man has.” Contrast 6 οὐδεὶς κ.τ.λ.,
with Matt. xi. 27. The earlier words,
πιστ. κ. ἀληθ., are a description of the
messiah’s character and function, rather
than a title. At this debit, which is the
only event in the Apocalypse at all cor-
responding to the second advent (i. 7),
the messiah’s judicial power is practi-
cally restricted to the external work of
crushing the last pagan opposition to
God’s cause on earth ; it becomes therefore
almost military. The divine commandant
of the saints is “ faithful and true,’ as he
loyally executes the divine purpose and
thus exhibits fidelity to the interests of
the faithful. The sense remains un-
changed, whether the two adjectives are
taken as synonyms, or ἀληθ. assigned its
occasional meaning of ‘“‘real’’, Evenin
the latter case, to be real would mean to
be trustworthy.

Ver. 13. ‘‘ Dipped in blood” ({.ε., the
blood of his foes): from the ‘‘crimsoned
garments’’ of Yahveh in Isa. Ixiii.; cf.
also ver. 15 with “I have trodden the
wine-press. . . . Yea, I trod them in
mine anger (κατεπάτησα αὐτοὺς ἐν θυμῷ
Μου), and trampled them in my fury,”’

etc. Add Targ. Palest. on Gen. xlix. 11,
‘* How beauteous is the King Messiah!
Binding his loins and going forth to war
against them that hate him, he will slay
kings with princes, and make the rivers
red with the blood of their slain, and his
hills white with the fat of their mighty
ones, his garments will be dipped in
blood, and he himself like the juice of the
wine-press.”’ The secret name denotes
his superiority to all appeals ; it indicates
that the awful and punitive vigour of his
enterprise made him impervious to the
invocations of men. This is no Logos
who dwells among men to give light
and life; it is a stern, militant, figure
of vengeance attacking the rebellious.
Hence his name is mysterious; for “‘ the
identity, or at least the close connection
between a thing and its name, not only
makes the utterance of a holy name an
invocation which insures the actual pre-
sence of the deity invoked, it also makes
the holy name too sacred for common
use or even for use at all” (Jevons’
Introd. Hist. Relig. 361). The passage
reflects certain phases of later messianic
belief in Judaism, which had been tinged
by the Babylonian myth of Marduk,
Ea’s victorious son, to whom divine
authority was entrusted. Marduk’s tri-
umph was explained by Babylonian theo-
logians as caused by the transference to
him of the divine Name (so Michael,
En. Ixix. 14). 13 6 may be a Johannine
gloss upon the unknown name of ver. 12
(cf. Phil. ii. 9, το), under the influence
of passages like Heb. iv. 15, Sap. xviii.
(‘‘ Thine all-powerful Logos leapt from
heaven out of the royal throne, as a
stern warrior into the midst of the
doomed land, bearing the sharp sword of
Thine unfeigned commandment’’), and
Enoch xc. 38 (cp. however Beer, ad loc.).
---κέκληται, perf. of existing state, '΄ the
past action of which it is the result being
left out of thought ’’ (Burton, 75). Ifthe
above explanation of the mysterious name

405

b xvi. 14-16:
c As in xiv.

4? differ- ἀἵπποις λευκοῖς,

ently xvii.
14 (cf.
Yasht
xiii. 12-
tg for
heavenly
aid of
certain
Fra-
vashis),
cf. Par.
eee vi.
10-884.

d Bia τα, 16.

e Constr. ,
ad γεγραμμενον,
sensum.

f Ver.8.

g From
Dan. ix. 25; see i. 16, ii. 12.
το, 27 f. iii. 27, xii. 5.
= “sword-belt ” (Spitta).

1S.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

Χι».

‘ s b ΄ a 3 ~ 3 a ¢@2 , Φον 7.
14. και τὰ "στρατεύματα τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ " ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐφ

* ἐνδεδυμένοι * βύσσινον λευκὸν καὶ καθαρόν.
Ν 5 ” / 3 aA 39 , g¢ ιά 3 a 9

καὶ ἐκ τοῦ OTOMATOS αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται * ῥομφαία ὀξεῖα, ἵνα
5 > - h . 3 a
ἐν αὐτῇ " πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη

καὶ αὐτὸς ' ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδω σιδηρᾶ :

καὶ αὐτὸς πατεῖ "τὴν ληνὸν Ι τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς
τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος.

καὶ ἔχει ἐπὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ' μηρὸν αὐτοῦ ὄνομα

**® BACIAEYC BACIAEQN ΚΑΙ KYPIOC ΚΥΡΙΩΝ.

h Isa. xi. 4, (quoted Ps. Sol. xvii. 39), En. Ixii. 2, cf. 4 Esd. xiii.
k xiv. 20, Jud. iii. 13. i
n Κυρ. κυρ. a Babylonian title of Marduk.

m am. λεγ. Ν.1.;,

1 xiv. το, xvi. I9.
XVil- τα, TD Vin 15s

1A om. επι To ιµατιον και (S. = “written on garments which were on his.

thigh”). Wellh. conj. επι τον ιππον.
be correct, the author’s idea was evidently
forgotten or ignored by some later editor
or copyist of the Johannine school, who
inserted this gloss in order to clear up
the obscure reference, and at the same
time to bring forward the transcendent
name widely appropriated by that school
for Christ in a pacific and religious sense
(so nearly all critical editors). In any
case the two conceptions of the Apoca-
lypse and the Fourth gospel have little
or nothing in common except the word.
But the introduction of this apparently
illogical sequence between 12 and 13
might be justified in part by E. Β. D.
94, ‘“‘I am he that cometh forth, advanc-
ing, whose name is unknown; I am
Yesterday, and Seer of millions of years
is my name’’. The application of such
titles to Jesus certainly gives the impres-
sion that these high, honourable predi-
cates are ‘‘not yet joined to his person
with any intrinsic and essential unity”
(Baur) ; they are rather due to the feeling
that ‘‘Christ must have a position ade-
quate to the great expectations concern-
ing the last things, of which he is the
chief subject”. But their introduction is
due to the semi-Christianised messianic
conceptions and the divine categories by
which the writer is attempting to inter-
pret his experience of Jesus. Backwards
and forwards, as pre-existent and future,
the redeemer is magnified for the pro-
phet’s consciousness.

Ver. τς. avtés—-The victory of the
messiah is single-handed (‘‘ I have trod-
den the wine-press alone”); cf. on ver. 13,
and Sap. xviii. 22, Ps. Sol. xvii. 24-27,

Cf. E. Bi.) 2517:

where the word of messiah’s mouth is-
the sole weapon of his victory (an
Iranian touch as in S. B. E. iv. p. Ixxvii-
f., the distinguishing excellence of Zoro-
aster is that his chief weapon is spiritual,
{έν the word or prayer). This fine
idea, taken originally from Isaiah, was re-
produced, naturally in a more or less.
realistic shape, by the rabbis who applied
it to Moses at Exod. ii. rr (Clem. Alex.
Stron. i. 23), and by apocalyptists (2
Thess. ii. 8; ΑΡ. Bar. xxxvi. f., lili. f.; 4
Esd. x. 60 f., and here) who assigned an
active rdle to the messiah in the latter
days. Themeaning of the sword-symbol
is that ‘‘ the whole counsel of God is:
accomplished by Jesus as a stern judg-
ment with resistless power’? (Baur).
Thus the final rout of the devil, antici-
pated in xii. 12, is carried out (i.) by the
overthrow of his subordinates (mentioned
in ch. xiii.) here, and then (ii.) by his
own defeat (xx. 10), although in finishing
the torso of ch. xii. (Bousset) the pro-
phet characteristically has recourse to
materials drawn from very different cycles
of current messianic tradition.

Ver. 16. ‘And on his garment and
(ἱ.ε., even) upon his thigh”; on that
part of the robe covering his thigh, he
has a title of honour written. Some
Greek statues appear to have had a
name written thus upon the thigh (Cicero
mentions one of Apollo marked in smal!
silver letters, Verr. iv. 43). Messiah,
like many of the Assyrian monarchs,
bears adouble name. King of kings, a
Persian (A2sch. Pers@, 24; Ezra vii. 12)
and Parthian title of royalty, which im

14—20. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΔΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 409
17. Καὶ εἶδον ἕνα ἄγγελον ἑστῶτα ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ: καὶ ἔκραξε φωνῇ ο ια
µεγάλη λέγων πᾶσι τοῖς P ὀρνέοις τοῖς πετοµένοις ἐν μεσουρανήματι, of the
“Aeite συνάχθητε eis τὸ δεῖπνον τὸ péya τοῦ Θεοῦ, 18. Asc. Is.
ἵνα Ἰφάγητε σάρκας βασιλέων καὶ σάρκας µΧιλιάρχων καὶ p xviii 2.
σάρκας : ἰσχυρῶν καὶ σάρκας ἵππων καὶ τῶν καθηµένων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ Sen ec

η A μμ.
σάρκας πάντων " ἐλευθέρων τὲ καὶ δούλων καὶ μικρῶν καὶ μεγάλων. 5 xiii. 16.

19. καὶ εἶδον τὸ ἵ θηρίον καὶ τοὺς

, lal a A
στρατεύματα αὐτῶν συνηγµένα ποιῆσαι "τὸν πόλεμον μετὰ TOU y

. ~~ ~ A
καθηµένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου, καὶ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος αὐτοῦ.

A
Kot ἐπιάσθη τὸ Onplov, καὶ per

6” ποιήσας τὰ σημεῖα ” ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, ἐν ots ἐπλάνησε τοὺς λαβόντας
τὸ χάραγµα τοῦ θηρίου καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας τῇ εἰκόνι αὐτοῦ»
ζῶντες ἐβλήθησαν ot δύο eis τὴν ”λίμνην τοῦ ” πυρὸς τῆς καιοµένης

the Apocalypse is the prerogative of
messiah as the true Emperor was ap-
plied to Marduk as the conqueror of
chaos and the arbiter of all earthly mon-
archs (cf. Zimmern in Schrader,3 373 f.).

Vv. 17-21: the rout and destruction of
the Beast and his adherents, modelled
upon Isaiah lvi. 9 f. and Ezekiel’s de-
scription of the discomfiture of prince
Gog (xxxix. 17-21), where beasts as well
as birds are bidden glut themselves with
carrion (4). This crude aspect of the
messianic triumph had commended itself
to Jewish speculation on the future (see
En. xc. 2-4); it reflects the intense par-
ticularism of post-exilic Judaism in cer-
tain circles, and also the semi-political
categories which tended to dominate
the eschatology. In Asc. Isa. iv. 14, the
Lord also comes with his angels and
troops to drag into Gehenna Beliar and
his hosts.

Ver. 17. ἐν ἡλίῳ, a commanding and
conspicuous position.

Ver. 18. In the ancient world, this
was the worst misfortune possible for the
dead—to lie unburied, a prey to wild
birds. On the famous ‘‘stele of the
vultures’ (bef. 3000 B.c.) the enemy are
represented lying bare and being devoured
by vultures, while the corpses of the royal
troops are carefully buried.

Ver. 20. This marks the culmination
of many previous oracles: the messiah
meets and defeats (xvi. 13 f.) the beast
(i.e., Nero-antichrist, xi. 7, xiii. 1 f.) and
the false prophet (7.¢c., the Imperial
priesthood=second beast of xiii. 11 1)
and their allies (the kings of the earth,
cf. xi. 9, 18, xiv. 8, xvi. 14, xvii, 12 f.),

νο, V..

>

9]

«κου Te
Gu χν. 15,
Ps, il. 2.
XVi. I4
(the final
struggle
of xvi.
12-16).
w Cant. il.
15, Doric
for
ἐπιέσθη.
σαν. τα,
y Xlii. 11-17.
Z XX. 10, 14,
Isa. xxx. 33, Dan. vii. 11; cf. Par. Lost, i. 62-69.

αβασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς καὶ T

20°
αὐτοῦ *6 Ψψευδοπροφήτης

according to a more specific form of the
tradition reflected in xiv. 14-20. Pos-
sibly the ghastly repast of ver. 21 is a.
dramatic foil to that of ver. g. At any
rate there is aslight confusion in the
sketch, due to the presence of hetero-
geneous conceptions ; whilst one tradition
made messiah at his coming vanquish all
the surviving inhabitants of the earth,
who were ex hypothesi opponents of
God’s people (cf. ii. 26, 27, xi. 9 f., xii.
9, xiv. τή f., xvi. 13-16, xix. 17 f.), the
prophet at the same time used the special
conception of a Nero-antichrist whose
allies were mainly Eastern chiefs (ix. 14
f., xvi. 12, xvii. 12 f.), and also shared
the O.T. belief in a weird independent
outburst from the skirts of the earth (xx.
8). Hence the rout of nations here is
only apparently final. See on xx. 3. The
lake of fire, a place of torment which
burns throughout most of the apo-
calypses (Sibyll. ii. 196-200, 252-243,
286, etc.; Apoc. Pet. 8), was lit first in
Enoch, (sec. cent.) where it is the pun-
ishment reserved for Azazel on the day
of judgment (ix. 6) and for the fallen
angels (xxi. 7-10) with their paramours.
The prophet prefers this to the alter-
native conception of a river of fire [Slav.
En. x.]. The whole passage reflects
traditions such as those preserved (cf.
GfrGrer ii., 232 f.), e.g., in Targ. Jerus.
on Gen. xlix. rz and Sohar on Lev.-
Exodus (miracula, uariaque et horrenda
bella fient mari terraque circa Jerusalem,
cum messias reuelabitur), where the
beasts of the field feed for one year,
and the birds for seven, upon the carcases
of Israel’s foes. The supreme penalty

O

47ο

a From Sib. ἐν @etw.
Or, iii, :

696-7. καθηµένου ἐπὶ τοῦ

αὐτοῦ: 3

inflicted on the opponents of Zoroas-
trianism is that their corpses are given
over to the corpse-eating birds, 2.6.,
Spe (Vend. iii. 20, ix. 49). Cf. Introd.
$4 0.

The messiah who forms “ the central
figure of this bloodthirsty scene,” written
like the preceding out of the presbyter’s
““ savage hatred of Rome ” (Selwyn, 83)
has a semi-political rather than a trans-
cendental role to play. The normal
Christian consciousness (cf. xxii. 12)
viewed the return of Jesus as ushering
απ the final requital of mankind; but in
these special oracles (cf. xvii. 14) where
a semi-historical figure is pitted against
Christ on earth, the latter is brought
down to meet the adversary on his own
ground—a development of eschatology
which is a resumption of primitive mes-
sianic categories in Judaism. The
messiah here is consequently a grim,
silent, implacable conqueror. There
is no tenderness in the Apocalypse
save for the pious core of the elect
people, nothing of that disquiet of heart
with which the sensitiveness of later
ages viewed the innumerable dead. Here
mankind are naively disposed of in huge
masses; their antagonism to the mes-
siah and his people is assumed to have
exposed them to ruthless and inexorable
doom. Nor do the scenic categories of
the tradition leave any room for such a
feeling as dictated Plutarch’s noble de-
scription (De Sera Uind. 555 E. F.) of
the eternal pangs of conscience. Upon
the other hand, there is no gloating over
the torments of the wicked.

Now that the destructive work of mes-
siah is over, the ground seems clear for
his constructive work (cf. Ps. Sol. xvii.
26 f.). But the idiosyncracies of John’s
outlook involve a departure from the
normal tradition of Judaism and early
Christianity at this point. Satan, who
survives, as he had preceded, the Roman
empire, still remains to be dealt with.
The third vision of doom, therefore (xx.
I-10) outlines his final defeat, in two
panels: (a) one exhibiting a period of
enforced restraint, during which (for 2, 3
and 4-7 are synchronous) messiah and
the martyrs enjoy a halcyon time of tem-
poral and temporary bliss, (b) the other
sketching (7-10) a desperate but un-
availing recrudescence of the devil’s

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

5
ἵππου,

XIX.

~ , lo
21. καὶ ot λοιποὶ ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ

τῇ ἐξελθούση ἐκ τοῦ στόματος

‘ , , 3 3 ρ 3 fal cal ρα
καὶ πάντα τὰ ὄρνεα ἐχορτάσθησαν ἐκ τῶν σαρκῶν αὐτῶν.

power. The oracle is brief and un-
coloured. It rounds off the preceding
predictions and at the same time paves
the way for the magnificent finalé of
XXi.-xxil., on which the writer puts forth
all his powers. But it is more than
usually enigmatic and allusive. ‘* Dans
ces derniers chapitres les tableaux qui
passent sous nos yeux n’ont plus la
fraicheur vivante de ceux qui ont précédé.
L’imagination ayant affaire a des con-
ceptions absolument idéales et sans
aucune analogie avec les réalités con-
crétes de la nature, est naturellement
moins sfire d’elle-méme, et ne parvient
plus aussi facilement a satisfaire celle
du lecteur’’ (Reuss). Ingenious attempts
have been made (e.g., by Vischer,
Spitta, and Wellhausen) to disentangle
a Jewish source from the passage, but
real problem is raised and solved on
the soil of the variant traditions which
John moulded at this point for his
own Christian purposes. In the crea-
tion-myth the binding of the chaos-
dragon or his allies took place at the
beginning of the world’s history (cf.
Prayer of Manass. 2-4). As the dragon
came to be moralised into the power
of spiritual evil, this temporary restraint
(cf. on ver. 2) was transferred to the be-
ginning of the end, by a modification of
the primitive view which probably goes
back to Iranian theology (cf. Stave,
175 f., Baljon, Volter, 12ο f., Briggs,
etc.). The conception of messiah’s
reign as preliminary and limited on earth
was not unknown to Judaism (Excycl.
Relig. and Ethics, i. 203 f.) or even to
primitive Christianity (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 2ἵ-
28, where Paul develops it differently).
But the identification of it with the
sabbath of the celestial week (which
was originally non-messianic, cf. Slav.
En. xxxii. xxxiii.) and the association of
it with the martyrs are peculiar to John’s
outlook. A further idiosyncracy is the
connection between the Gog and Magog
attack and the final manceuvre of Satan,
The psychological clue to these con-
ceptions probably lies in the prophet’s
desire to provide a special compensation
for the martyrs, prior to the general
bliss of the saints. This may have de-
termined his adoption or adaptation of
the chiliastic tradition, which also con-
served the archaic hope of an earthly

zi. XX. I—4.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

47λ

Δ -- lol . .
XX. 1. Καὶ εἶδον ἄγγελον καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἔχοντα α i. 18, ix.

τὴν "κλεῖν τῆς " ἁβύσσου καὶ ἅλυσιν μεγάλην ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ.
2. καὶ ἐκράτησε τὸν δράκοντα, 6 ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, 4 ὃς ἐστι διάβολος

ο.
Rom. x.
7,4 Esd.
iv. 8.

b Mk. v. 3f,

A A
καὶ 6 Σατανᾶς, καὶ ἔδησεν αὐτὸν "χίλια ἔτη, 3. καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν ο Mk. vi.i7,

d xii. 9.

> x 38 αν μα 3 δν 3 , > a ο λ
e=a Va
εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον καὶ * έκλεισεν καὶ ἐσφράγισεν ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ Day

πλανήσῃ ἔτι τὰ ἔθνη, ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ Χίλια ETH: μετὰ ταῦτα δεῖ
λυθῆναι αὐτὸν ™ μικρὸν χρόνον. 4. καὶ εἶδον 'θρόνους---καὶ ἐκάθισαν
ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, * kat κρίµα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς-- καὶ τὰς |’ ψυχὰς τῶν ™ πεπελ-

εκισµένων "Sid τὴν µαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ,

Dragon (Theod.) 14.

in Apoc. = “angels”; cf. Matt. xix. 28 = Luke xxii. 30.
m Mt. xiv. 1ο, Acts xii. 2, Rom. viii. 35, Clem. Rom. v.-vi. (am. λεγ.

= “persons,” sc. εἶδον.
eA ni. 9.

reign for the saints without interfering
with the more spiritual and transcendent
outlook of xx. 11 f. His procedure fur-
ther enabled him to preserve the primi-
tive idea of messiah’s reign [4] as distinct
from that of God, by dividing the final
act of the drama into two scenes (4 f.,
tr f.).—With the realistic episode of
1-3, angels pass off the stage (except the
angel of xxi. 9 f. and the angelus inter-
pres of xxii. 6-10), in accordance with
the Jewish feeling that they were inferior
to the glorified saints to whom alone (cf.
Heb. ii. 4) the next world belonged.
There is no evidence to support the
conjecture (Cheyne, Bible Problems,
233) that ἄγγελον in ver. 1 represents
{απ already corrupt text of an older
Hebrew Apocalypse, in which mal’ak
was written instead of mika@’él”’ (cf.
above on xii. 7).

CHAPTER XX.—Vv. 1-3. The dragon is
flung by an angel, not by God or messiah,
into the pit of the abyss which formed his
original haunt (cf. on ix. 1), and there
locked up, like an Arabian jin, so as to
leave the earth undisturbed for the mil-
lenium. The prophet thus welds together
two traditions which were originally in-
dependent. The former echoes Egyptian
(E. B. D. 4, “thine enemy the serpent
hath been given over to the fire, the
serpent-fiend hath fallen down headlong ;
his arms have been bound in chains . .
the children of impotent revolt shall never
more rise up”) and especially Parsee
eschatology (Htibschmann, 227 f.) which
held that one sign of the latter days was
the release of the dragon Dahaka—once
bound fast at mount Demavend—to cor-
rupt the earth and eventually to be
destroyed prior to the advent of the
messiah and the resurrection of the dead.

g xill. 14, xvi. 13, 2 Th. ii. 9-10, cf. Weinel, 21.

of God,
Jub. iv.
29, 2 Pet.
iil. 8;
cf. E. Bt.
ili. 3096-7.
~ £ From
Dan. vi.
17 and
Bel and

i Never

lvi.g

h xvii. το,
k 1 Cor. vi. 2, Sap. iii. 8.

The Iranian view was that Fredun could

not kill the serpent, whose slaughter was

reserved for for Same (Bund. xxix. g).
But John abstains from giving any reason
for the devil’s reappearance. He simply
accepts the tradition and falls back (ver.
3) piously upon the Set of a myste-
rious providence. Some enigmatic hints
in a late post-exilic apocalypse (Isa. xxiv.
21, 22, the hosts on high and the kings on
earth to be shut up in the prison of the
pit but—after many days—to be visited,
{.6., released), upon which John has al-
ready drawn, had been developed by subse-
quent speculation (cf. the fettering of
Azazel, En. x. 4 f., liv. 5 f.) into the
dogma of a divine restraint placed fora
time upon the evil spirit(s); see S. C.
gt f., Charles’ Eschatology, 200 f£.—€6vy.
Strictly speaking, the previous tradition
(xix. 18, 21) left no inhabitants on earth
at all. Such discrepancies were inevit-
able in the dovetailing of disparate con-
ceptions, but the solution of the incon-
gruity here probably lies in the interpre-
tation of ἔθνη as outlying nations on the
fringe of the empire (8) who had not
shared in the campaign of Nero-anti-
christ and consequently had survived the
doom of the latter and his allies (ct
XViii. ϱ).

Vv. 4-6. The millennium.

Ver. 4. θρόνους, tribunal-seats for the
assessors of the divine judge (as in Dan.
vii. 9, 10, 22, of which this is a replica).
The unnamed occupants (saints includ-
ing martyrs? as in Daniel) are allowed
to manage the judicial processes (so
Dan. vii. 22, where the Ancient of days
τὸ κρίµα ἔδωκεν ἁγίοις Ὑψίστον) which
constituted a large part of Oriental gov-
ernment. But no stress is laid on this
incidental remark, and the subjects of

472

ο Defining
Or ex-

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XX,

ο 9 , a
καὶ °oltiwes οὗ προσεκύνησαν τὸ θηρίον οὐδὲ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ

Ἡ ‘ A ~
panding, καὶ οὐκ ἔλαβον τὸ χάραγµα ἐπὶ τὸ µέτωπον καὶ ἐπὶ Thy χεῖρα αὐτῶν "

not speci-

. x ῶ η]
fying ας καὶ ' έζησαν καὶ Ἱ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ "τοῦ Χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη: 5.

i. 7) some
of the
previous
class.

p ‘‘ Came to
life,” as
ii. 8.

9 Con-
stative
aor.
Moult. i. 130.
xiii. 8; cf. Mt. xxiv. 51.

ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

r xi. 15, ΧΙΙ. ΤΟ.
V ii. 11, xxi. 8.

this sway are left undefined; they are
evidently not angels (Jewish belief,
shared by Paul). Such elements of
vagueness suggest that John took over
the trait as a detail of the traditional
scenery. His real interest is in the
martyrs, for whom he reserves (cf. Eus.
H. E. vi. 42) the privilege assigned us-
ually by primitive Christianity either to
the apostles or to Christians in general.
They are allotted the exclusive right of
participating in the messianic interreg-
num.—emeAextopevov, beheaded by the
lictor’s axe, the ancient Roman method
of executing criminals (cf. Introd. § 6).
Under the empire citizens were usually
beheaded by the sword. The archaic
phrase lingered on, like our own “‘ exe-
cution’’. Here it is probably no more
than a periphrasis for ‘‘put to death”.
Even if καὶ οἵτινες meant a second divi-
sion, it must, in the light of xi. 7, xiii. 15,
denote martyrs and confessors (who had
suffered on the specific charge of refusing
to worship the ΕΠΙΡΕΤΟΓ).--- Χίλια ἔτη,
tenfold the normal period of human life
(Plato, Rep. 615), but here=the cosmic
sabbath which apocalyptic and rabbinic
speculation (deriving from Gen. ii. 2 and
Ps. xc. 4) placed at the close of creation
(cf. Drummond’s ¥ewish Messiah, 316 f.;
Bacher’s Agada d. Tann.? i. 133 f.3
E. Bi. iii. 3095-3097 ; Encycl. of Religion
and Ethics, i. 204 f., 2.9). John post-
pones the παλιγγενεσία till this period
is Over (contrast Matt. xix. 28). He says
nothing about those who were living
when the millenium began, and only
precarious inferencescan bedrawn. Does
ver. 6 contain the modest hope that he
and other loyal Christians might partici-
pate in it ? or does the second (καὶ οἵτινες)
class represent (or include) the living
loyalists (so, e.g., Simcox, Weiss, Bous-
set)? The latter interpretation involves
an awkward ambiguity in the meaning of
ἔζησαν (=came to life, and also continued
to live), conflicts with ot λ. τ. νεκρῶν (5)

s Isa. xxvi. 14.

c ~ [ων -
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν " οὐκ ἔζησαν ' ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη
6. Μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων "µέρος ἐν
- 2 , cal , San , ve , , > ”
τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ" ἐπὶ τούτων " ὁ δεύτερος θάνατος οὐκ ἔχει
, A A A A A
ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ᾽ έσονται "ἱερεῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ: καὶ * βασι-

t Cf. Blass, § 65, 10.
x ν. 10, Isa. 1xi. 6.

u xxi. 8, Joh.
wi. 6.

and ψυχὰς (4), and is therefore to be set
aside, as 5-6 plainly refer to both classes
of 4. A third alternative would be to
suppose that all Christians were ex hypo-
thest dead by the time that the period
of xx. 1 f. arrived, the stress of persecu-
tion (cf. on xiii. 8 f.) having proved se
severe that no loyalist could survive (cf.
below, on ver. 11).

Ver. 6. An interpolated explanation of
the preceding vision. "Άγιος, if a con-
tinuation of µακ., must almost be taken
in its archaic sense of “belonging to
ἀοά”’. The ordinary meaning reduces
the phrase to a hysteron proteron, unless
the idea is that the bliss consists in holi-
ness (so Vendidad xix. 22, ‘happy, happy
the man who is holy with perfect holi-
ness”). ‘‘ Blessed and holy,” however,
was a con¥entional Jewish term of praise
and corgratulation (cf. Jub. ii. 23).—é
δεύτ. θάνάτος κ.τ.λ. According to the
Hellenic faith recorded in Plutarch (in his
essay on “the face in the moon’s orb”’),
the second death, which gently severs
the mind from the soul, is a boon, not a
punishment. But John’s view reflects.
the tradition underlying the Iranian be-
lief (Brandt, 586 f., 592) that the right-
eous were exempt from the second death
(defined as in xxi. 8). The clause aA’
- - « Χριστοῦ refers to the permanent
standing (i. 6, v. 10 a) of these risen
martyrs not only during but after the
millennium ; otherwise it would be mean-
ingless, since the danger of the second
death (as the penalty inflicted on all who
are condemned at the final assizes) does
not emerge until the millennium is.
over. The subsequent clause καὶ βασι-
λεύσουσι κ.τ.λ. is independent, refer-
ring back to the special and temporary
privilege of the first resurrection and the
millennium. For this reason it is preca-
rious to infer from ἔσονται tepeis τοῦ
θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (elsewhere τῷ θεῷ)
that the occupation of these saints is
the mediation of divine knowledge to the

5 δ.

, A
λεύσουσι pet αὐτοῦ χίλια ἔτη.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

7. καὶ ὅταν τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ν Ver. 3.
2Ο] τις,

3”. [ή A ~ fol ~
έτη, "AuOyoeTar 6 Σατανᾶς * ἐκ τῆς φυλακῆς αὐτοῦ, 8. καὶ é&eNevoeTata vii. 1, ϱ/.

πλανῆσαι τὰ ἔθνη τὰ "ἐν ταῖς τέσσαρσι γωνίαις τῆς γῆς, τὸν Toy
ΔΝ x a
καὶ τὸν Μαγώγ, συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν πόλεμον, ὧν 6 ἀριθμὸς pb

ἔθνη whom Satan is temporarily pre-
vented from beguiling. The likelihood
is that the phrase simply denotes as else-
where the bliss of undisturbed access to
God and of intimate fellowship. John
ignores the current belief that the loyal
survivors on earth would be rewarded (cf.
Dan. xii. 12; Ps. Sol. xvii. 50, etc.), which
is voiced in Asc. Isa. iv. 14-16, but he re-
produces independently the cognate view
(Asc. Isa. iv. 16 f.) that ‘the saints will
come with the Lord with their garments
which are (now) stored up on high in
the seventh heaven [cf. Apoc. vi. 11]...
they will descend and be present in this
world” (after which the Beloved exe-
cutes judgment at the resurrection).
He, retains, however, not only the
general resurrection (12) but the variant
and earlier idea (cf. 4 Esd. vii. 26 f.) of a
resurrection (ἔζησαν, 4) confined to the
saints. Hecalls this the first resurrec-
tion not because the martyrs and con-
fessors who enjoyed it had to undergo a
second in the process of their final re-
demption but because it preceded the
only kind of resurrection with which
sinners and even ordinary Christians had
anything to do (Titius, 37-40; Baldens-
perger, 74, 79 f.).—Kat βασιλεύσουσι,
apparently on earth. This would be
put beyond doubt were we to take the
view of the risen martyrs’ occupation
which has been set aside above. But,
even apart from this, in the light of all
relevant tradition and of the context, the
earth must be the sphere of the millen-
nium; Christ might of course be con-
ceived to execute his sovereignty from
heaven, but, though ver. 9 denotes a
different cycle of tradition from 4-6, it
is put on the same plane, and the vision
of 4 (cf. 1) is evidently this world. ἐπὶ
τῆς γῆς would be more in keeping with
this context than with that of ν. 1ο,
where again the refrain of xxii. 5 (κ.β.
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων) would be
more αβρτορτίαΐθ.---χίλια ἔτη. This
enigmatic and isolated prediction has
led to more unhappy fantasies of specu-

lation and conduct than almost any other

passage of the N.T. It stands severely
apart from the sensuous expectations of

Isa. xi. 12,
Ezek.

Vil. 2.

Cf.
Winck-

ν ler’s Alt-
Orient. Forsch. ii. 160f., and E. Bi. 4331 f:

current chiliasm (fertility of soil, long-
evity, a religious carnival, etc.), but even
its earliest interpreters, Papias and Jus-
tin, failed to appreciate its reticence, its
special object, and its semi-transcendent
atmosphere. For its relevance, or rather
irrelevance, to the normal Christian
outlook, see Denney’s Studies in Theo-
logy, pp. 231 f., and A. Robertson’s
Regnum Dei, pp. 113 f. When the mil-
lennium or messianic reign was thus ab-
breviated into a temporary phase of
providence in the latter days, the resur-
rection had to be shifted from its original
position prior to the messianic reign; it
now became, as here, the sequel to that
period.

Vv. 7-10: As Baligant, lord of the
pagans, issues from the East to challenge
Charlemagne and be crushed, Satan
emerges from his prison for a short
period (3) after the millennium, musters
an enormous army of pagans to besiege
the holy capital, but is decisively routed
and flung into the lake of fire to share
the tortures of his former agents. The
tenses shift from future (7-8, το 5) to
aorist (9-10 a) the latter (cf. xi. rr) being
possibly due to the influence of Semitic
idiom.

Ver. 8. Satan’s return to encounter
irretrievable defeat upon the scene of
his former successes (ém’ ἐσχάτου ἐτῶν
Ezek. xxxviil. 8), is an obscure and
curious feature, borrowed in part from
earlier beliefs in Judaism (Gog and the
Parthians both from the dreaded N. E.,
Ezek. xxxviii. 4), but directly or indirectly
from a legend common to Persian and
Hellenic eschatology: in the former the
evil spirit has a preliminary and a final
defeat, while in the latter the Titans
emerge from Tartarus only to be con-
clusively worsted (Rohde, Psyche, 410
f.). No explanation is given of how
Satan gets free. Inthe Iranian eschat-
ology (Brandt, 590 f.) the serpent
breaks loose at the call of Angra Mainy6é
(God’s opponent), seduces a part of
mankind and persecutes the rest, till he
is overcome by the messiah, who then
proceeds to raise the dead. But as John
identifies the serpent with Satan, such a

474

ς Pleon-
astic (cf.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΝΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

Σαὐτῶν ὡς 6 ῑἄᾶμμος τῆς θαλάσσης.

XX.

Ο. καὶ ἀνέβησαν ἐπὶ τὸ

iii. 8, etc). πλάτος τῆς γῆς, καὶ ! ἐκύκλευσαν τὴν παρεμβολὴν τῶν ἁγίων καὶ

ἆ Gen. xxii.

17, xxxii. τὴν πόλιν τὴν 5 ἠγαπημένην :

12, Heb.
xi. 12, on
form (omitting initial ψ) cf. Helbing, 22.

g See iii. 9, and on xxi. 7; Ps. Ixxviii. 68, Ixxxvil. 2, Jer. xi. 15.

2 Kings i. 10, Zech. xii. 9, Isa. xxvi. 11.

theory was plainly out of the question.
At any rate, Satan wins adherents for this
fresh attempt from those barbarian hordes
who survived the downfall of the Roman
empire (xix. 17-21). They are called
‘*Gog and Magog,” after the traditional
Opponents who were to be defeated by
the redeemed Israel of the latter days, ac-
cording to the faith of Judaism (Ezek.
XXXVili.-xxxix.). Jerusalem, the navel and
centre of the earth (Ezek. xxxviii. 12) as
messiah’s residence, is besieged; but, like
Gog of old, the invaders are consumed by
the divine fire, whilst Satan is consigned
for ever to the lake of fire, where he lies
writhing among his worshippers, as a
punishment for seducing men. This is at
once a reminiscence of the Iranian es-
chatology (Hiibschmann, 231), where the
serpent is flung into molten metal as his
final doom, in order to rid earth of his pre-
sence, and also a reflection of Enoch liv.
(Ixvii. 7) where the four angels grip the
hosts of Azazel on the last day and
“cast them into a burning furnace, that
the Lord of Spirits may take vengeance
on them for leading astray those who
dwell on earth ”’.

Ver. 9. παρεμβολή, either camp (as
in O.T., e.g., Deut. xxiii. 14) or army
(Heb. xi. 34), the saints being supposed
to lie in a circle or leaguer round the
headquarters of the messiah in Jeru-
salem, which—by an association common
in the ancient world (e.g., Nineveh, “the
beloved city” of her god Ishtar)—is termed
his beloved city. The phrase is an im-
plicit answer (cf. on iii. g) to the claim
of contemporary Judaism which held to
the title of ‘‘God’s beloved” as its
monopoly (Apoc. Bar. v. 1, xxi. 21, cf.
Sir. xxiv. 11). In the Hebrew Elias-apo-
calypse of the 3rd century (cf. Butten-
wieser, E. . i. 681-2), where Gog
and Magog also appear after the mil-
lennium to besiege Jerusalem, their an-
nihilation is followed by the judgment
and the descent of Jerusalem from heaven.
This tradition of xx. 4-10 therefore be-
longs to the cycle from which xi. 1-13
(xiv. 14-2c) was drawn; Jerusalem, freed
from her foes and purified within, forms
the headquarters of messiah’s tem-

e Hab. i. 6, Ezek. xxxviii. 11.

\h , Pe es a > A 9
και κατέβη πυρ εκ του ουρανου και

f 2 Kings vi. 14.
h Ezek. xxxviii. 22. xxxix. 6,

porary reign, tenanted not simply by
devout worshippers but by martyrs (cf.
xiv. I-5, on mount Zion). Yet only a
new and heavenly Jerusalem is finally
adequate (xxi. f.); it descends after
the last punishment and judgment (xi.
15 f.=xx. το f.). Wetstein cites from
the Targ. Jonath. a passage which has
suggested elements in this and in the
preceding (xi. 17-21) vision: a king rises
in the last days from the land of Magog,
et omnes populi obedient illi; after their
rout by fire their corpses lie a prey to
wild beasts and birds. Then ‘all the
dead of Israel shall live. . . and receive
the reward of their works”. In the
highest spirit of the O.T., however,
John rejects the horrible companion
thought (En. Ixxxix. 58, xciv. I0, xcvii. 2)
that God gloats over the doom of the
damned. An onset of foreign nations
upon Jerusalem naturally formed a stereo-
typed feature in all Jewish expectations
of latter-day horrors; here, however, as
the city is ipso facto tenanted by holy
citizens, the siege is ineffective (contrast
xi. 1 f.). Neither here nor in xix. 21 are
the rebellious victims consigned at death
to eternal punishment, as are the beast,
the false prophet, and Satan. The
human tools of the latter die, but they
are raised (xx. 11 f.) for judgment (ver.
15), though the result of their trial is a
foregone conclusion (xiii. 8, xiv. 9-10).
In En. lvi., from which this passage
borrows, Gog and Magog are represented
by the Medes and the Parthians from
whom (between 100 and 46 B.c.) a hostile
league against Palestine might have
been expected by contemporaries. But
the destruction of the troops is there
caused by civil dissensions. In our
Apocalypse the means of destruction is
supernatural fire, as in 2 Thess. i. 8, ii.
8, 4 Esd. xii. 33, xiii. 38-39, Ap. Bar.
xxvii. 10, Asc. Isa. iv. 18 (where fire issues
from the Beloved to consume all the
godless); the Parthians also appear
some time before the end, in the penulti-
mate stage when the Roman empire and
its Nero-antichrist make their last attack.
But the prophet is still left with the
orthodox eschatological tradition of Gog

9—12.

ΑΠΟΚΛΔΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

475

κατέφαγεν αὐτούς: 10. καὶ 6 διάβολος ὁ | πλανῶν αὐτοὺς ἐβλήθη i --ὃς

ἐπλάνα

3 ‘ k , a x Ν , J ‘ x 6 / ρε) ο η --«
εἰς τὴν "λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ θείου, ὅπου καὶ τὸ θηρίον καὶ ὁ (cf. Eph.
. Q iv. 28).
ψευδοπροφήτης: Ka. ᾿βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς k xix. 20,
a nm . En. xc.
αἰῶνας TH Οἰώνων. 20-25;
Ai) ken cf. Mt.
iz. Kat εἶδον ™ θρόνον " µέγαν ° heuKdv xiii. 41-42,
ΔΝ x , αι | Αν XXV. 41
καὶ τὸν καθήµενον ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν, (Νο
ας ο) τὰ a , p2 Ame ie he is , mention
οὗ ἀπὸ τοῦ προσώπου P έφυγεν ἡ γῆ καὶ 6 οὐρανός, of fate of
ΔΝ q , > 5.9 F q > a devil's
καὶ τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη Ἱ αὐτοῖς. Sheets, ia
i Apoc.).
12. Kai εἶδον τοὺς νεκρούς, τοὺς peyddous καὶ τοὺς μικρούς, | ιτ;
ἑστῶτας ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου, sap lege
Αθ ιά 3 κά : 9.
καὶ * βιβλία ἠνοίχθησαν ας
tinct from
ς ο, ~ 8 ty ; those of
iv. 4, 2X. 4. o = unsullied justice? Ρ xvi. 20, xxi. 1, Isa. xiii. 13, xxiv. 19-20. q From
Dan. fi. 35. r Dan. vii. το, Mal. iii. 16, Jer. xvii. 1. Encycl. Relig. and Ethics, ii, 792-795.

and Magog, an episode (consecrated by the
Ezekiel-prophecy and later belief) which
he feels obliged to work in somehow.
Hence his arrangement of Satan’s final
recrudescence in juxtaposition with the
Gog and Magog outburst (cf. on xvi. 16,
and Kiausner’s messian. Vorstellungen d.
11. Volkes im Zeit. d. Tannaiten, pp. 61
f.). The latter, an honoured but by this
time awkward survival of archaic escha-
tology, presented a similar difficulty to
the Talmudic theology which variously
putit before, or after, the messianic reign
(Volz, pp. 175 f.). In his combination of
messianic beliefs, John follows the tradi-
tion, accepted in Sib. Or. iii. 663 f.,
which postponed the irruption till after
messiah’s temporary period of power.

xXx. II-xxii. 5. The connexion of
thought depends upon the. traditional
Jewish scheme outlined, e.g., in Apoc.
Bar. xxix.-xxx. (ef. 4 Esd. vii. 29, 30)
where the messiah returns in glory to
heaven after his reign on earth; the
general resurrection follows, accom-
panied by the judgment. Developing
his oracles along these current lines, the
prophet now proceeds to depict his cul-
minating vision of the End in three
scenes: (i.) the world and its judgment
(xx. ττ-τς), (1.) the new heaven and earth
(xx4 1-8), centring round (iii.) the new
Jerusalem as the final seat of bliss (xxi.
Q-xxii. 5). The last-named phase was as-
sociated in eschatology (Sib. Or. v. 246 f.,
414 f.) with the return of Nero redivivus
and the downfall of Babylon which pre-
ceded the sacred city’s rise. The destruc-
tion of hostile forces, followed by the re-
novation of the universe, is essentially a
Persian dogma (Stave, 180 f.), and is
paralleled in the Babylonian mythology,

where after the defeat and subjugation
of Tiamat in the primeval age creation
commences. From this point until xxi.
g f., Jesus is ignored entirely.

Vy. 11-15. The moral dignity and retic-
ence with which this sublime vision of the
last assize is drawn, show how the primi-
tive Christian conscience could rise above
its inheritance from Jewish eschatology.
The latter spoke more definitely upon
the beginning of the end than upon the
end itself (cf. Harnack’s History of
Dogma, i. 174).

Ver. απ. John hints where Isaiah is
explicit (vi. 1). Nothing is said about
the uselessness of intercession; cf. 4
Esd. vii. [102-115] 33: ‘‘ and the Most
High shall be revealed upon the judg-
ment-seat, and compassion shall pass
away, long-suffering shall be with-
drawn ’’. Enoch xc. 20 sets up the
throne near Jerusalem, and most apo-
calypses are spoiled by similarly puerile
details. Compare with 11 6 the tradition
in Asc. Isa. iv. 18 where the voice of the
Beloved (i.e., messiah) at the close of
the millennium rebukes in wrath heaven
and earth, the hills and cities, the angels
of the sun and moon, “ and all things
wherein Beliar manifested himself and
acted openly in this world”. John’s Apo-
calypse, however, follows (yet cf. xxii.
12) that tradition of Judaism which τε-,
served the judginent for God and not for
the messiah (4 Esd. vi. 1-10, vii. 33 f.
anti-Christian polemic ?) although an-
other conception (En. xlv. 3, lxix. 27
etc.; Ap. Bar. Ixxii. 2-6) assigning it to
the messiah had naturally found greater
favour in certain Christian circles.

Ver. 12. The books opened in God’s
court contain the deeds of men, whose

476 ΑΙΠΙΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ας
sili. 5, xii. καὶ ἄλλο * βιβλίον ἠνοίχθη, ὅ ἐστιν τῆς ζωῆς"
8, xvii. 8, a
En. xivii. καὶ ἐκρίθησαν οἱ νεκροὶ ἐκ τῶν γεγραµµένων ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις,
8, CViii. 3, i
cf. Eurip, “kata τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν.
Fragm. ae] cups N ‘ 9 9.»
488. 13. Καὶ ἔδωκεν ἡ "θάλασσα τοὺς νεκροὺς τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ,
t2Cor.v ee
το, Rom. καὶ 6 "θάνατος καὶ 6 “adns ἔδωκαν τοὺς νεκροὺς τοὺς ἐν
1. 5-11 a
Jo. ν. 28- αὐτοίς :
29. A 3 , ο
u For ane καὶ ἐκρίθησαν ἕκαστος
Gk. idea 4 5 2 A
of sea KaTG τα εργα αὐτωγ.
preven-

ting dead

from passing into Hades, cf. Radermacher’s Das Jenseits im Mythos d. Hellenen (1903) 74 f.
i w vi. 8, cf. Charles on En.

18, Isa. xxvi. 19.

fate is determined by the evidence of
these ‘vouchers for the book of life”’
(Alford) ; the latter volume forms as it
were a register of those predestinated to
eternal life (cf. Gfrorer ii. 121 f., and
below on ver. 15). The figure of books
containing a record of man’s career was
a realistic expression of Jewish belief in
moral retribution, which prevailed es-
pecially in eschatological literature (¢.g.,
Jubil. xxx.; Enoch. lxxxix.-xc.; Dan. vii.
ro, etc.) after the exile. ‘‘ And in these
lays | saw the Head of days, when he
had seated himself upon the throne of
his glory, and the books of the living
were opened before him ’’ (Enoch xlvii.
3; of. Driver’s Daniel, p. 86). It is
obvious, from ver. 15, that the resurrec-
tion is general (as Dan. vii. 20; 4 Esd.
vi. 20, vil. 32; Test. Jud. 25; Test. Benj.
10; Apoc. Bar. 7, etc.; ¢f. Gfrérer, ii.
277 f.; and Charles’s Eschatology, 340
f.), in opposition to the primitive and
still prevalent belief which confined it
to the righteous (E. Bi. 1390). Hence
the books contain not the good deeds
alone of the saints (the prevalent Jewish
idea, cf. Charles on En. li. 1; Mal. iii.
16; Jub. xxx.; Ps. Ἱνι. 8, etc.), ποτ bad
deeds alone (Isa. Ixv. 6; En. Ixxxi. 4; of.
En. xc. 20; Apoc. Bar. xxiv. 1) but good
and bad deeds alike (as Dan. vii. 10;
Asc. Isa. ix. 20 f.). This again tallies
with the Iranian faith (Hibschmann,
229), according to which, at the com-
mand of Ormuzd, the righteous and the
wicked alike were raised for their re-
compense. Here the tribunal is a
throne, before which the king’s subjects
have to answer for their conduct ; rebels
are punished and the loyal get the re-
ward of good service (cf. xxii. 12, etc.).
γεγραμμ., by whom? Jewish specula-
tion conjectured Raphael as the record-
ing angel (En. xx. 3) or a band of
angels (Slav. En. xix. 5); but the Jewish
idea of the heavenly tables (πλάκες τοῦ

vi.
Ixiii. το.
οὐρανοῦ) is omitted in the Apoc., nor is
there the slightest mention of those living
at the era of judgment. Did John mean
that none would survive (cf. ver. 5) ?
Or were any survivors to be taken directly
to heaven at the coming of Christ, as in
Paul’s primitive outlook (see on 1 Th.
iv. 16-17) ?

Ver. αλ. See) Pirke ;Abothisivem sei
‘‘ Let not thine imagination assure thee
that the grave is an asylum ’”’ (for, like
birth and life and death, judgment is ap-
pointed before the King of the kings of
kings). ‘‘And the earth shall restore
those that are asleep in her, and so shall
the dust those that dwell therein in
silence, and the secret chambers shall
deliver up those souls (of the righteous,
iv. 35) that were committed unto them,”
4 Esd. vii. 32—reproducing, as here,
Enoch li. 1, ‘and in those days will the
earth also give back those who are trea-
sured up within it, and Sheol also will
give back that which it has received,
and hell will give back that which it
owes’. Also En. Ἱχι. 5 where the res-
toration includes ‘‘ those who have been
destroyed by the desert, or devoured by
the fish of the sea and by the beasts”’.
Evidently drowned people are supposed
not to be in Hades; they wander about
or drift in the ocean (Achill. Tat. v. 313),
μηδὲ εἰς G8ouv καταβαίνειν ὅλως. Ac-
cording to the prophet’s conception (cf.
xiii. 8, xiv. 9 f.) the fate of pagans must
have been a foregone conclusion, when
the Imperial cultus was made the test of
character; in which case ‘‘ the scene Ῥε-
fore the white throne is rather a final
statement of judgment than a statement
of final judgment ’’ (Gilbert). But the
broader allusion to works here shows
that the prophet is thinking of the
general ethical judgment, which em-
braced issues wider than the particular
historical test of the Emperor-worship.
—dns κ.τ.λ., cf. Plutarch’s (de Iside,

13—I5. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

477

ε σ,

14. Καὶ ὁ *@dvaros καὶ 6 adns ἐβλήθησαν eis τὴν λίμνην τοῦ x 1 Cor. xv.
2 δα

πυρός: xxv. 8,
4 h 4 Esd. vii
[οὗτος ὁ θάνατος 7 δεύτερός ἐστιν, ἡ λίμνη τοῦ πυρός] ! 31,

+ > ε A a μα , y Cf. on
15. καὶ εἴ τις οὐχ εὑρέθη ἐν τῇ βίβλω τῆς ζωῆς yeypappevos, Luke xii.
4-5.

ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός.

1ΟπΠι. ovtos ... πυρος with eight minn., Me., Arm. (Aug.), Andbav, Ῥτ., Haym.
as a marginal gloss [so, 6.5., Kriiger, (Gétt. Gel. Anz., 1897, 34), von Soden, Bous-
set (2), and Wellhausen (with 14a and 15)], perhaps displaced from its original posi-
tion after 15, where it would suit the context (Haussleiter, 212-213), since there is

no question of the second death except for human beings.

The misplacement was

probably due to the attraction of θανατος in 14.

29) derivation of Amenthes, the Egyptian
name for Hades, as ‘“‘ that which receives
and gives”’. Asin Slav. En. lxv. 6 and
the later Iranian Bundehesh (S. B. E.
v. 123 f.), the resurrection of the body is

not mentioned, though it is probably im-~

plied (cf. En. li. 1, Ixii. 14 and Matt.
xxvii. 52 f.).

Ver. 14. Death as Sin’s ally must be
destroyed along with Sin, while Hades,
the grim receptacle of Death’s prey (the
intermediate rendezvous for the dead,
except for martyrs, cf. vi. 10), naturally
ceases to have any function. This was
the cherished hope of early Christianity
as of Judaism (Isa. xxv. 8). John’s idea
of the second death is much more real-
istic and severe than the Hellenic or the
Philonic (cf. de Praem. et Poen. § 12,
etc.)

15. In Enoch (xxxviii. 5, xviii. 9)
the wicked are handed over by God to
‘the saints, before whom they burn like
straw in fire and sink like lead in water.
The milder spirit of the Christian pro-
phet abstains from making the saints
thus punish or witness the punishment
of the doomed (cf. on xiv. ΙΟ). In Apoc.
Pet. 25 the souls of the murdered gaze
on the torture of their former persecutors,
crying 6 θεὸς, δικαία σου ἡ κρίσις.
These features, together with those of
torturing angels (Dieterich, 60 f.) and
Dantesque gradations of punishment
(Dieterich,206 f.), are conspicuous by their
absence from John’s Apocalypse. There
is a stern simplicity about the whole de-
scription, and just enough pictorial detail
is given to make the passage morally
suggestive. As gehenna, like paradise
(4 Esd. iii. 4), was created before the
world, according to rabbinic belief (Gfré-
τετ, ii. 42-46), it naturally survived the
collapse of the latter (ver. 11). Contrast
with this passage the relentless spirit of
4 Esd. vii. 49 f. (“I will not mourn over
‘the multitude of the perishing . . . they

are set on fire and burn hotly and are
quenched’’). 1 John betrays no pity for
the doomed, he exhibits no callous scorn
for their fate. The order of xx. 13-15
and xxi. 1 f. is the same as in the hag-
gadic pseudo-Philonic De Brblic. Anti-
quitatibus (after 70 A.D.) where the judg-
ment (‘“reddet infernus debitum suum
et perditio restituet paratecen suam, ut
reddam unicuique secundum opera sua”)
is followed by the renewal of all things
(‘‘et exstinguetur mors et infernus
claudet os suum... et erit terra alia
et caelum aliud habitaculum sempi-
ternum’”’).

So much for thedoomed. ‘The bliss of
Saints occupies the closing vision (xxi.-
xxii. 5). From the smoke and pain and
heat it is a relief to pass into the clear,
clean atmosphere of the eternal morning
where the breath of heaven is sweet and
the vast city of God sparkles like a dia-
mond in the radiance of his presence.
The dominant idea of the passage is that
surroundings must be in keeping with
character and prospects; consequently,
as the old universe has been hopes
lessly sullied by sin, a new order of
things must be formed, once the old
scene of trial and failure is swept aside.
This hope of the post-exilic Judaism (cf.
Isa. Ixv. 17, Ixvi. 22) was originally de
rived from the Persian religion, in which
the renovation of the universe was a
cardinal tenet; it is strongly developed
in Enoch (xci. 16, civ. 2, new heaven
only) and 4 Esd. iv. 27 f. (‘*if the place
where the evil is sown pass not away,
there cannot come the field where the
good is sown”). The expectation (cf.
on Rom. viii. 28 f.) that the loss sus-
tained at the fat! of Adam would now be
made good, is haidly the same as thi
eschatological transformation; the lattes
prevailed whenever the stern exigencies
of the age seemed to demand a clean
sweep of the universe, and the area

478

a Cf. xx. 11,
En. xlv.

4ο.
xxii. I.

lyptic attitude towards nature seldom
had anything of the tenderness and
pathos, e.g., of 4 Esd. viii. 42-48 (cf. vil.
31). The sequence of xx. 11 f. and xxi.
1 f. therefore follows the general escha-
tological programme, as e.g. in Apoc.
Bar. xxi. 23 f., where, after death is
ended (very mildly), the new world pro-
mised by God appears as the dwel-
ling-place of the saints (cf. also xxxil.
I f.). The earthly Jerusalem is good
enough for the millennium but not for
the final bliss; the new order (xxi. 5) of
latter (cf. above) coincides, as in Oriental
religion (Jeremias, 45 f.), with the new
year (i.e., spring) festival of the god’s
final victory.—Lhe literary problem is
more intricate. With xxi. 1-8, which is
evidently the prophet’s own composition,
the Apocalypse really closes. ‘The rest
of the vision, down to xxii. 5, is little
more than a poetical repetition and ela-
boration of xxi. 1-8, to which xxii. 6 f.
forms the appropriate conclusion, just
as the doublet xix. 9 6, 1ο (in its present
position) does to xix. 1-8. When xix.
9 b, το is transferred to the end of xvii.
(see above), the parallelism becomes
even closer. Both xvii. (the vision of
the harlot-Babylon, with her evil influ-
ence on the world, and her transient
empire) and xxi. g-xxii. 5 (the vision of
the Lamb’s pure bride, with her endless
empire) are introduced alike (cf. xvii. 1,
xxi. 9) and ended alike, though xxii. 6-8
has been slightly expanded 1n view of its
special position as a climax to the entire
Apocalypse. As xvii. represents John’s
revision of an earlier source, this sug-
gests, but does not prove, a similar
origin for xxi. g-xxii. 5. He might have
sketched the latter as an antithesis to the
former; certainly the '' editorial”’ brush-
work in xxi. Q-xxii. 5 is not nearly 5ο ob-
vious and abrupt as, ¢.g., in xvili. Upon
the other hand there are touches and traits
which have been held to imply the revi-
sion of a source or sources, especially of
a Jewish character (so variously Vischer,
Weyland, Ménégoz, Spitta, Sabatier,
Briggs, Schmidt, S. Davidson, von Soden,
de Faye, Kohler, Baljon, J. Weiss, and
Forbes), delineating the new Jerusalem
(cf. xxi. I-2). In this event the Chris-
tian editor’s hand would be visible,
not necessarily in xxi. 22 (see note), but
in the apviov-allusions, in xxi. 14 ὁ, 23

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ΧΙ.

\ (95 > x x Niet aw (he iF
XXI. 1. Καὶ εἶδον οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν
ς ‘ a = > AQ am - , ae | aO
6 γὰρ " πρῶτος οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ πρώτη yh ἀπῆλθαν,
νε 3 » ”
καὶ ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι.

(cf. xxii. 5), 25 ὃ (=xxii. 5 a), and 27
(=xx. 15, xxi. 8, xxl. 3 a). Another set
of features (xxi. 12, 16, 24-27 α, xxii. 2 ¢,
3 a, 5) is explicable apart from the
hypothesis of a Jewish source, or indeed
of any source at all. Literally taken,
they are incongruous. But since xxi. g-
Xxli. 5 may be equivalent not so much to
a Jewish ideal conceived sub specie Chris-
tiana as to a Christian ideal expressed in
the imaginative terms of a Jewish tradi-
tion which originally depicted an earthly
Jerusalem surrounded by the respectful
nations of the world, a number of traits
in the latter sketch would obviously be
inapplicable in the new setting to which
they were transferred. These are re-
tained, however, not only for the sake of
their archaic associations but in order to
lend pictorial completeness to the descrip-
tion of the eternal city. The author, in
short, is a religious poet, not a theolo-
gian or a historian. But while these
archaic details need not involve the use
of a Jewish source (so rightly Sch6n and
Wellhausen), much less a reference of
the whole vision to the millennial Jerusa-
lem (Zahn), or the ascription of it to
Cerinthus (V6lter) or a chiliastic Jewish
Christian editor (Bruston), may not the
repetftions and parallelisms, especially
in view of xxii. 6 f., indicate a composite
Christian origin, as is suggested, 6.5., by
Erbes: (A=xxi. 1-4, αχ. 3-17) σο στ.
B=xxi. 5-27, xxii. I, 2, 18, 19) and Sel-
wyn (xxii. 16-21, the conclusion of A=
AXi: ο, XKil. 3-5, κι. ο αν κα σα
6 6-8, or of B=xxi. ο-κχί. 2, xxi. 6,
8-15)? Some dislocation of the original
autograph or scribal additions may be
conjectured with reason in xxii. 6-21 (see
below), at least. But the reiterations
are intelligible enough as the work of a
single writer, whose aim is to impress an
audience rather than to produce a piece
of literature. The likelihood is that John
composed xxi. g f. as an antithesis to the
description of the evil city which he had
reproduced from a source in xvii., and
that he repeated the incident of xxii. 8, 9:
(as Xix. g, Io at the end of xvii.), adapt-
ing it to its position at the close of the
whole book as well as of the immediately
preceding oracle.

CHapTER XXI.—Vvy. 1-8: the prelude
to the last vision.

Vv. 1-2, the title:

t α σσ The.

τ---3.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

4/9

‘ .
2. καὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν " ἁγίαν ερουσαλὴμ, "καινὴν εἶδον κατα- b xi. 2, Isa.

he A aA a fel
βαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, 3 ἡτοιμασμένην ὡς νύµφην
"κεκοσμημένην τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς. 3. καὶ ἤκουσα φωνῆς ΄ μεγάλης * ἐκ
c

τοῦ θρόνου λεγούσης,
> A A
"1800 ἡ " σκηνὶ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ
‘ a
καὶ σκηνώσει peT αὐτῶν "

“full of people” (Isa. xlix. 18).
EXXvil. 27, Zech. ii. 10, viii. 8, cf. Isa. lvii. 15.

1 c=xx. 13 a. The absence of the sea
from John’s ideal universe is due not to
any Semitic horror of the ocean, nor to
its association with Rome (xiii. 1), nor
to the ancient idea of its dividing effect
(‘mare dissociabile,” ‘‘the unplumbed,
salt, estranging sea,”’), but to its mytho-
logical connexion with the primitive
dragon-opponent of God, the last trace
of whom is now obliterated. Cf. Sib. v.
159, 160, 447 (ἔσται 8 ὑστατίῳ καιρῷ
ξηρὸς πότε πόντος), Ass. Mos. x. 6, 4 Esd.
vi. 24, Test. Levi 4, etc., for this religious
antipathy to the treacherous, turbulent
element of water. ‘ La mer est une an-
nulation, une stérilization d’une partie
de la terre, un reste du chaos primitif,
souvent un chatiment de Dieu” (Re-
‘nan, 449). Plutarch (de Iside,7 f., 32)
preserves the Egyptian sacred tradition
that the sea was no part of nature
(παρωρισµένην) but an alien element
(ἀλλοῖον wepitTwpa), full of destruction
and disease. The priests of Isis (32)
shunned it as impure and unsocial for
swallowing up the sacred Nile. One
favourite tradition made the sea disappear
in the final conflagration of the world
(R. $. 289), but John ignores this view.
The world is to end as it began, with
creation ; only it is a new creation, with
a perfect paradise, and no thwarting
evil (Barn. vi. 13). His omission of the
ocean is simply due to the bad associa-
tions of the abyss as the abode of Tehom
or Tiamat (cf. Oesterley’s “vol. of Mes-
sianic Idea, 79 f., G. A. Smith’s Feru-
salem, i. 71 f., and Hastings’ D. B. iv.
194, 195).

Ver. 2. ék=origin, aw6=originator.
This conception of the new Jerusalem as
messiah’s bride in the latter days is an
original touch, added by the prophet to
the traditional Jewish material (cf. Volz,
336 f.). In 4 Esd. vi. 26 (Lat. Syr.)
“the bride shall appear, even the city
coming forth, and she shall be seen who
is now hidden from the earth’; but
this precedes the 40ο years of bliss, at

lii. 1,

Heb. xi.
16, Xii
22.
ill. 12,
Gal. iv
A > , 26.
τῶν ἀνθρώπων, d xix. 7-8,
Isa. 11. 1,
Ixi. το,
e Ezek. xvi.
Ii=
f xi. 12, Xvi. 1. 6 xix. 5; cf. xx. 11. h xiii. 6, Ezek.
the close of which messiah dies. In En.

xc. 28 f. a new and better house is sub-
stituted for the old, while in 4 Esd. ix.-
xi. the mourning mother rather suddenly
becomes ‘‘a city builded”? with large
foundations (i.e., Zion). These partial
anticipations lend some colour to Dal-
man’s plea that the conception of a
pre-existent heavenly Jerusalem was
extremely limited in Judaism, and that
John’s vision is to be isolated from the
other N.T. hints (see reff.). For a fine
application of the whole passage, see
Ecce Homo, ch. xxiv. The vision con-
veys Christian hope and comfort in
terms of a current and ancient religious
tradition upon the new Jerusalem (cf.
Charles on Apoc. Bar. iv. 3). The
primitive form of this conception, which
lasted in various phases down to the
opening of the second century, was that
the earthly Jerusalem simply needed to
be purified in order to become the fit
and final centre of the messianic realm
with its perfect communion between God
and man (cf. Isa. Ix., liv. ττ-- Tobit xiii.
16-17, Ezek. xl.-xlviii., En. x. 16-19, xxv.
Ey Ps, Sol. αν, 25, 33, Ap. Βατ. xxix
χχχἰχ.-χΙ., Ixxii., Ixxiv., 4 Esd. vii. 27-39,
xii. 32-34, etc.). But alongside of this, es-
pecially after the religious revival under
the Maccabees, ran the feeling that the
earthly Jerusalem was too stained and
secular to be a sacred city; its heavenly
counterpart, pure and pre-existent, must
descend (so here, after En. xc. 28, 29, Ap.
Bar. xxxii. 3, 4, Test. Dan 5, etc.). In
rabbinic theology, the vision of the
heavenly Jerusalem was taken from Adam
after his lapse, but shown as a special
favour to Abraham, Jacob and Moses (cf.
Ap. Bar. iv.). The Christian prophet
John not only sees it but sees it realised
among Christian people—a brave and
significant word of prophecy, in view of
his age and surroundings.

Vv. 3, 4. σκην. (chosen on account of
its ‘‘ assonance with the Hebrew to ex-
press the Shekinah,”’ Dr. Taylor on Pirke

ΧΧΙ.

43ο ΑΠΟΚΑΔΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

i Gen. xvii. καὶ | αὐτοὶ “aol αὐτοῦ ἔσονται,
8, Jer. \ 2 8 ε θ 9 > a) La Le OF,
τα. καὶ αὐτὸς 6 Beds pet αὐτῶν έσται.
2 Cor. vi. i 5 a A mn
16. From 4. καὶ | ἐξαλείψει wav δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν,
Lev.
XXVi. II- καὶ ™ 6 θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι:
12. nD ” / 38 4 ο / > ” 3

k On plur. οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε ° πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι:
see Acts A a ”
iv. 27. Pot. τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθον.

1 vii. 17, xx. Ces > a
‘sec 5. καὶ “εἶπεν 6 καθήµενος ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνω, ''᾿Ιδοὺ, " καινὰ ποιῶ
xxv. 8,
xxxy. 10. πάντα. "καὶ λέγει “‘Fpdpov: ὅτι οὗτοι ot λόγοι * πιστοὶ καὶ

mi ο ας ss
heh a ἀληθινοί εἶσι. 6. καὶ εἶπέ por, "''Γέγοναν.! "ἐγὼ τὸ ἄλφα
πο ος, καὶ τὸ ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ ἐκ τῆς
belie” πηγῆς "τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς Ἰ δωρεάν. 7. ὁ Σ νικῶν κληρονομήσει
(Hiibsch-
mann, ἡ ; ;

232). n Isa. Ixv. το, Jer. xxxi. 16, Ass.-Mos. x. 1. ο = pain, only in Apoc. in N.T. p Isa,

Ixv. 17. q By itself, only here in Apoc. r Isa. xliii. το, 2 Cor. v. 17, vi. 16-18, Barn. vi. 13.

5 Similar asseverations in Dan. ii. 45, viii. 26, etc. a feature of the apoc. style. t In sense
of Ps. xix. 7, cxi. 7, etc. u xvi. 7: On form Deissm. (192). __ v (Emphatic, ἐγώ), cf. 1. 8, xxii,
13, Isa. ΧΙ. 4, xliv. 6, xlviii. 12. w Cf. John vii. 37f., Just. Dial. lxix. etc. X xxii. 17, Joha
iv. 10-14. y ii. 7; emphatic (αὐτῷ, αὐτός).

1The unusual aoristic (cf. Helbing, 67) termination of γεγοναν (sgcA, S., Iren.,
edd.) has started the variants γεγονασιν (38), yeyove (41, 94: “no doubt a conj. of
Erasmus based on vg., his MS. 1 reading yeyova,’’ Gwynn), and yeyova (ΡΩ,
Syr., Arm., And., Areth., etc.; = ειµι, so Buresch in Rhein. Museum, 1891, 206).

Aboth iii. 3) is the real tabernacle (Heb.
vill. 2, ix. 11). The whole meaning and
value of the new Jerusalem lies in the
presence of God (En. xlv. 6, Ixii. 14,
Test. Jud., 25, etc.) with men which it
guarantees. The O.T. promises are
realised (see reff.); God is accessible,
and men are consoled with eternal com-
fort (cf. Enoch x. 22, καὶ καθαρισθήσεται
πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ἀπὸ παντὸς µιάµµατος καὶ
ἀπὸ πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας καὶ ὀργῆς καὶ
µάστιγος). If we were to read the pas-
sage in the light of Isa. lxi. 3-10, the
tears wiped away would signify that the
penitents were newly espoused to the
Lord; but the context here implies tears
of grief and pain, not of repentance.
“There shall be no more labour, nor
sickness, nor sorrow, nor anxiety, nor
need, nor night, nor darkness, but a great
light” (Slav. En. Ixv. ο).

Ver. 5. The first and only time that
God addresses the seer, or indeed (apart
from i. 8) speaks at all. The almost un-
broken silence assigned to God in the
Apocalypse corresponds to the Egyptian
idea of the divine Reason needing no
tongue but noiselessly directing mortal
things by righteousness (Plut. de Iside,
75; hence the deity is symbolised by the
crocodile, which was believed to be the
only animal without a tongue).

Ver. 6. “Tis done, all is over” (sc.
οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι or πάντα). The perfect-
ing of God’s work is followed, as in Isa.

liv.-lvi., by a liberal promise of satisfac-
tion to all spiritual desire, and the
three ideas of consolation, eternal re-
freshment, and Divine fellowship are
thus conjoined asin vii. 14-17. Compar¢
the fontal passage in Philo, de migrat
Abr. § 6 πηγὴ δὲ, ad’ Fs ὀμβρεῖ τὲ
ἀγαθά, 7 τοῦ φιλοδώρου Θεοῦ σύνοδός
ἐστιν. οὗ χάριν ἐπισφραγιζόμενος τὰ
τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν φησιν, Έσομαι μετὰ σοῦ.
The promise implies (like Isa. xliv. 3, not
lv. τ) that thirst is accompanied by readi-
ness and eagerness to accept the boon,
which is free (6) and full (πάντα) and
filial (ver. 7). The thirst for God is op-
posed to the unbelief and vice which
quench it, just as the victorious life is
contrasted with the craven spirit which
shrinks from the hardships and demands
of faith. Similarly the life of strenuous
obedience now enters on its majority;
it comes into an estate of filial confidence
to the great God, bestowed on all who
acquit themselves nobly in their proba-
tion. By a rare touch (since iii. 22) in
the Apocalypse, the individual Christian
is singled out. Usually the writer is
interested in the general body of Ch:!s-
tians. Here, however, as in ii.-iii.,
religious individualism aptly follows the
idea of personal promise and encourage-
ment (cf. xxii. 17), as afterwards of judg-
ment (xxii. 11-12).

Ver. 7. These boons (3-7), however,
are reserved for the loyal; the third (son

4—8. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 481
ταῦτα, καὶ ΄ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ Beds, ” καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται µοι vids. 8. τοῖς z2Sam. vii
ο A ή 145,25
δὲ "δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἐβδελυγμένοις καὶ ” φονεῦσι καὶ πόρνοις — Ixxxix
Ν a Nien gee ‘ A a b , 9 26-27,
καὶ Φαρμακαῖς καὶ "εἰδωλολάτραις καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς "ψευδέσι, τὸ Zech.
μα ae 2 a / awd , \ . , sates vill. 8, 2
µέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνη TH “καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ Oeiw, °O ἐστιν Cor. vi.
ς 18.
ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος. a Heb. x
38-39
b 1x. 21

xxii. 15, 1 Pet. iv. 15, Jas. v. 6. Rom.i. 29, Mk. vii. 21 = Mt. xv. 19.

d Gen. xix. 24, Isa. xxx. 33, Ezek. xxxviii. 22.

of God) was a title applied to Augustus
and the emperors generally throughout
the Greek and Roman world. «Anpo-
νοµήσει (here only in Apoc.) in general
sense = ‘‘ enter into possession of,”’ 6 par-
takevor 7. (* (his place” of Ῥπαα ες
prepared for the righteous who endure
every kind of attack in their lives from
those who afflict their souls... for
them this place is prepared as an eternal
inheritance,” Slav. En. ix.). This is the
sole allusion, and a purely incidental
one, to that central conception of the
messianic bliss as a κληρονομία, which
bulks so prominently in apocalypses like
Fourth Esdras andis employedin acosmic
sense by Paul as lordship over the whole
creation (see Bacon, Biblical and
Semitic Studies, Yale Univ. 1902, pp.
240 f.). The solitary allusion to son-
ship expresses the close relation to God
for which this writer elsewhere pre-
fers to use the metaphor of priesthood.
Partly owing to the bent of his mind,
partly owing to the stern circumstances
of his age, he (like Clem. Rom.) allows
the majesty and mystery of God to over-
shadow that simple and close confidence
which Jesus inculcated towards the
Father (Titius, 13, 14), as also the direct
love of God for his people (only in ili. 9,
το, Xx. 9).

Ver. 8. The reverse side of the pic-
ture (cf. xx. 12-15 and below on ver. 27):
a black list of those who have not con-
quered. δειλοῖς--'' cowards”’ or apos-
tates, who deny Christ in the persecution
and worship Caesar (Introd. § 6) through
fear of suffering; “' δειλία does not of
course itself allow that it is timorous, but
would shelter its timidity under the more
honourable title of evAdBera’”’ (Trench,
Synonyms, §x.). It embraces further all
those who draw back under the general
strain of ridicule and social pressure
(Heb. vi. 4-8; 2 Ti. iv. 16, etc.), like
Bunyan’s Pliable, but unlike his Mr.
Fearing (cf. 1 Macc. iii. 16).—amlorous
not =incredulous (so ε.σ., Dittenberger’s
Sylloge, 802°", 3 cent. B.c.) but, as in
Luke xii. 46 (cf. Sir. ii. 12 f.), =‘ faith-

e xx. 14; constr. Win, § 24. 80.

less,’”’ untrustworthy, those who are not
πιστός (i. 5, ii. 1ο, 13, 2 Ti. ii. 13). All
δειλοί are ἄπιστοι (cf. Introd. § 6), but
not all ἄπιστοι are δειλοί. There are
more reasons for disloyalty to Christ
than cowardice, and some of these are
hinted at in the following words, which
suggest that ἄπιστοι includes the further
idea of immorality (as in Tit. i. 15, 16,
where it is grouped with βδελυκτοί).
Lack of faith is denounced also in Apoc.
Bar. liv. 21, 4 Esd. ix. 7, etc. ἐβδελυγμέ-
vous for βδελυκτοῖς (45 εὐλογημένος for
εὐλογητός, etc., cf. Field on Gal. ii. 11;
Simcox, Lang. N.T. 128, 129), ‘‘de-
testable ’’ because ‘‘defiled and fouled’”’ by
the impurities of the pagan cults (xvii. 4,
XVili. 3, etc.; cf. Hos. ix. 10; Slav. En.
x. 4) including unnatural vice. Murder
(and fornication, Jas. ii. 11) in the popu-
lar religions of the ancient world caused
ritual impurity and disqualified for access
to God, unless atoned for.—dappaxots
= ‘* poisoners”’ or ‘‘ sorcerers ”’ (xxii. 15),
cf. Dan. ii. 27 LXX, and above on ix. 21,
where (as here and in Gal. ν. 21) witch-
craft or magic is bracketed with idolatry.
Idolaters, in Apoc. Pet. 18, have a
special place πλείστου πυρὸς γέμων.
Wevdéo.v=“‘ liars,” primarily recreant
Christians who deny their faith and
Lord, or worship false gods (Rom. i. 25);
but also untruthful Christians who cheat
(Acts v. 3) and lie to one another (Col.
iii. g, cf. Apoc. xiv. 5); further perhaps
to be taken in its general ethical sense
(Slav. En. xlii. 13; cf. Did. ν. 2) = Oriental
duplicity.—rots δὲ: as in LXX, the sub-
ject of the principal clause is thrown for-
ward into the dative (Viteau, ii. 41, 42).
The special standpoint of the Apoc.
renders the terms of exclusion rather
narrower than elsewhere (cf. Volz, 313).
Thus there is no allusion to sins of omis-
sion, especially asregards justice and kind-
ness between man and man (as Slav. En.
x., xlii. 8-9, Matt. xxv. 41 f.—the former
apocalypse finely excluding from heaven
all guilty of ‘‘ evil thoughts ” and magic,
all harsh or callous men, and finally all
idolaters).

The parallels with the rest of

~

452

ανα,
xvii. I.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

SAL

Q. καὶ ἦλθεν ‘eis ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς ἑπτὰ

iv. 1, xvii. Φιάλας, τῶν Ὑγεμόντων τῶν ἑπτὰ πληγῶν τῶν ἐσχάτων, καὶ ἐλάλησε

1.

XXxi. 2. πας ον
Xvii. 3; cf, του ἄρνιου.
Weinel,
202.
Nota
wilder-

Το. καὶ

pet ἐμοῦ λέγων “'Δεῦρο, δείξω σοι τὴν " νύµφην τὴν γυναῖκα
Ιἀπήνεγκέ µε ἐν πνεύµατι ἐπ᾽ Ἔ ὄρος µέγα

1

΄
καὶ ὑψηλόν, καὶ ἔδειξε por τὴν πόλιν, τὴν | ἁγίαν Ἱερουσαλὴμ,
A A A A ‘
καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ '' ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, 11. ἔχουσαν THY

ness (xvii. ~ ~ ο
ποπ. δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ: ὁ φωστὴρ αὐτῆς "ὅμοιος λίθῳ τιµιωτάτῳ, os

3). From
Ezek, xl.

2
Contrast xi. 8. Mm XX. 9, xxi. 2.

n xv. 8, ver. 23.

ο Sc. ἦν. Ρ xvii. 4

1 την yuvaika a gloss from xix. 7? (Bousset, Kénnecke, 39-40).

the Apocalypse, as well as the general
style, indicate that xxi. 1-8 comes from
the pen of the prophet himself; there is
no evide.ce sufficient to support the
conjecture that 55-8 is a Christian
editor's gloss ina Jewish original (Vis-
cher, von Soden, S. Davidson, Rauch =
6 b-8, Spitta). The catalogue of vices,
not unparalleled in ethnic literature (cf.
Dieterich, pp. 163 f., 174 f., Heinrici on
2 Cor. vi. 4 f.), diverges from those of ix.
20-21 and xxii. 15. The second agrees
with Sap. xiv. 22-28 in making idolatry
the fontal vice, and with Did. ν. in put-
ting theft after πορνεία (cf. Heb. xiil.
4-5, Eph. v. 5, etc.). Paul, again, in-
variably starts with the blighting touch
of πορνεία or ἀκαθαρσία (cf. Seeberg’s
Catechismus d. Urc. 9-20, and von
Dobschutz, pp. 406f.) as in xxii. 15. No
special significance attaches to the lists
of the Apocalypse beyond the obviously
appropriate selection of idolatry (ix. 20)
as the outstanding vice of paganism, with
cowardice (xxi. 8) as the foil to victorious
confession (xxi. 7, ii. 13, 17, xv. 2); note
the division of xxii. 15 into the re-
pulsive or filthy (first three) and the
wicked (second three), corresponding to
xxii. 11. The κύνες of xxii. 15 roughly
answer to the ‘‘abominable ” of xxi. 8.
xxi. 1-6 are a summary of what fol-
lows =) xxi) (1, 29-21, σοι. 35/74 — xx.
22-xxii. 5, ΧχΧΙ. 5-8=xxli. 16-21.

xxi. Q-xxii. 5: the new Jerusalem (re-
suming the thought of ver. 2, cf. xix.
7), corresponding to the new universe
(ver. 1). The fall of Jerusalem accen-
tuated the tendency to rise from the
expectation of a new or renovated city
on earth to the hope of a heavenly, tran-
scendent city (cf. Apoc. Bar. iv. 2-6, etc.),
though the passionate desire for a resto-
ration of city and temple in the messianic
age was still strong (cf. R. $. 226 f.,
Volz, 334 f.). John introduces the defi-
nitely Christian identification of the hea-

venly Jerusalem with the bride of the mes-
siah, and combines the various features
of a renovated, a heavenly, and a pre-
existent city—features which occasion-
ally reflect the mythological background
of such earlier ideas in Judaism. The
whole conception, if not the passage itself,
is satirised by Lucian (Vera Hist. ii.) in
his account of the golden city with its
emerald wall, its river, and the absence
of night, to say nothing of vines δωδεκα-
φόροι καὶ κατὰ µῆνα ἕκαστον Καρποφο-
ροῦσιν. Vv. 11-21 describe the exterior,
vy. 22-27 the interior.

Ver. 10: a fresh vision, marked by a
new transport of ecstasy (cf. Ezek. ili. 14,
xi. 1, etc.).—épos, the vantage-ground of
elevation from which the seer views the
site and buildings. If the hill is the site
of the city, it is a truncated cone like
Cirta, or a terraced zikkurat. Ezra
sees the vision of the descent of the
new Jerusalem in a field of flowers
(cf. 4 Esd. ix, 26 f., κα. αν ο) ος
John follows either the older tradition
of Enoch (En, xxiv., xxv.) who visited a
high mountain which, as his cicerone
Michael explained, was the throne of
God ‘‘ where the great and holy One, the
Lord of glory, the King of eternity, will
sit when he shall descend to visit the
earth with goodness,” or more probably
the primitive association of paradise with
a mountain (cf. Oesterley’s Evol. of Mess.
Idea, 129 f., Volz, 375). 4

Ver. 11. ‘‘ With the dazzling splen-
dour of God,”’ cf. on ver. 3, Ezek. xliii. 5,
Isa. lx, 1,2. Uxor splendet radiis mariti ;
δόξα, here, as usually in a apocalyptic
literature, denotes the manifestation and
realisation of the divine presence. A
realistic turn is given to the expression
by the ‘‘shimmering radiance” of 6
φωστήρ κ.τ.λ. (asyndeton); ‘her bril-
liance is like a very precious stone, a
jasper, crystal-clear” (1.ε., transparent
and gleaming as rock-crystal), The

Q—I17.

‘ ATIOKAAY¥VIZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

483

λίθῳ Tidomsds κρυσταλλίζοντι": 12. ἔχουσα τεῖχος µέγα καὶ ὑψηλόν, α ἴν. 3.

ret. 2

έχουσα πυλῶνας δώδεκα, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν " ἀγγέλους δώδεκα, Chron.

καὶ ὀνόματα ἐπιγεγραμμένα &
᾿Ισραήλ.

λῶ A ‘ > A I la A ‘ > ‘ fa
πυλωγνες τρεις και ATO νοτου, πυλῶνες τρεις ' καν απο δυσμῶν,

πυλῶνες τρεῖς.

δώδεκα, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὑώδεκα ὀνόματα ᾿ τῶν δώδεκα ” ἀποστόλων

n~ ,
τοῦ Gpviou.

A lal lol ‘
χρυσοῦν, ἵνα µετρήση τὴν πόλιν καὶ τοὺς πυλῶνας αὐτῆς καὶ τὸ

τεῖχος αὐτῆς.

t Wo) a κ ΄
αὐτῆς ὅσον τὸ πλάτος.

, a
σταδίους δώδεκα χιλιάδων: τὸ µῆκος καὶ τὸ πλάτος καὶ τὸ pos
αὐτῆς ἴσα ἐστί: 17. καὶ ἐμέτρησε τὸ τεῖχος αὐτῆς ἑκατὸν τεσσερά-
κοντα τεσσάρων * πηχῶν, ” µέτρον ἀνθρώπου, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγγέλου.

XXViii. 16.
absol. Vit. ii. 226, 332-3.

modern jasper is an opaque tinted quartz,
only partially translucent at the edges,
Perhaps, in reproducing Isa. liv. 11-12
(καὶ θήσω τὰς ἐπάλξεις σον ἴασπιν καὶ
τὰς πύλας σου λίθους κρυστάλλου), the
writer regarded both clauses as comple-
mentary (Cheyne); hence ὡς A. i. κ.
Otherwise ἴασπις might represent an
opal, a diamond, or a topaz, any one of
which answers better to the description
of ‘‘transparent and valuable”. Flinders
Petrie, however, suggests some variety
of the dark green jasper.

Ver. 12. ἔχουσα. The constr. becomes
still more irregular, the participles agree-
ing with an imaginary nominative, q
πόλις, sugg. by 6 φωστήρ. The in-
scribed names denote the catholicity of
the church and its continuity with the
ancient people of God. A writer who
could compose, or incorporate, or retain
(as we choose to put it), passages like
v. 9 and xiv. 4, is not to be suspected of
particularism here. Even on the score
of poetic congruity, the new Jerusalem
implied such an archaic and traditional
allusion to the twelve tribes. The angelic
guardians of the gates are an Isaianic
trait added to the Ezekiel picture.

Ver. 13. In one first century inscription
(cf. Dittenberger’s Orientis Graect In-
script. Selectae, 199%") ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς and
ἀπὸ δύσεως are East and West respec-
tively.

Ver. 14. ἔχων, another rough asyndeton.
—Oepedlovs κ.τ.λ., a symbolical and cor-

ἐστι "τῶν δώδεκα Φφυλῶν

14. καὶ τὸ τεῖχος τῆς πόλεως ἔχων "θεμελίους
15. καὶ 6 λαλῶν μετ ἐμοῦ εἶχε µέτρον κάλαμον

α -α , w ΄ A 9 9
16. καὶ ἡ πόλις “τετράγωνος κεῖται, καὶ τὸ µῆκος

v Asin Asc. Isa. iii. 17, ix. 17, Xi. 21.
figurative Hellen. term = ‘ perfect " (Plato, Protag. 3444, Arist., Eth. Nik. I. x. 11). x
tracted, Hellenistic genit. for πήχεων (Win. § 9, 6, Deissm. 153, Helbing, 44-45).

Vill. 14
From Isa,
Ixii. 6.

ta
UL@Y

3 ~ ~ - ‘ ~
13. dm ἀνατολῆς, πυλῶνες τρεῖς' καὶ ἀπὸ * βορρᾶ, s vii. 4-5.

From
Ezek.

xl viii. 31f.
(cf. En.
χχχῖν.-
XXXV.).

t For form
cf. Hel-
bing, 33,
Win. §8,
2; more
common

καὶ ἐμέτρησε τὴν πόλιν τῷ καλάμω ἐπὶ |) PaPyt

Bopeas
(Thumb,
65, 67, 56}o
u Eph. il.
20, Heb.
xi. 10;
cf. Isa.
w Like orig. Babylon, Herod. i. 178;
Cor
y Nom.

porate expression for the historical origin
of the church in the primitive circle of
the disciples who adhered to Jesus (cf. on
xxii. 19). It is not their names but their
historical and apostolic position which
is in the writer’s mind. The absence of
Paul’s name is no more significant than
the failure to emphasise that of Peter.
For the objective and retrospective tone
of the allusion, with its bearing on the
question of the authorship, see Introd.
§ 8. Foundation-stones in an ancient
building were invested with high, sacred
significance. Here the twelve apostles
correspond roughly to the twelve φύλαρ-
χοι of the Mosaic period (Matt. xix, 28,
Clem. Rom. xlii.-xliii.).

Vv. 15-17. The measures of the city
are now taken, as in Ezek. xl. 3, 48, xlii.
16 f., to elucidate the vision (otherwise
in xi. I, 2). It turns out to be an enor-
mous quadrilateral cube, like Ezekiel’s
ideal sanctuary, a cube being symbolical
of perfection to a Jew, as a circle is to
ourselves. Whether 1500 miles represent
the total circumference or the length of
each side, the hyperbole is obvious, but
John is following the patriotic rabbinic
traditions which asserted that Jerusalem
would extend as far as Damascus in the
latter days (Zech. ix. 1) if not to the
high throne of God. In Sib. Or. v. 250 f.
the heaven-born Jews who inhabit Jeru-
salem are to run a wall as far as Joppa.
Further measurements in Baba-Bathra
{. 75, 2 (cf. Gfrorer, ii. 245 f.; Bacher,

454

z Poetical tf σὲ

form, (cf.
Jos. Ant.
XV. 9, 6)
= “ fab-
Tic” or
“mat-
erial’’,

a Ver. 11.

b Cf. on
iv. 6, v.
like
diadn, a
genuine
form of
the coun
(Thumb,
18, 75).

c From Isa.
liv. 11-12.

d iv. 3.

e Here only
(Ν.Τ.),

f iv. 3, cf.
fragm. in Epiph., Haer. xxxi. 9.

Ae

και η

ς

το. aL

διαυγής.

i Pale sea-green felspar, sometimes aquamarine in colour,
lix. 17; jacinth or sapphire.

cf. Job xxviii. 1ο.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΝΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

ὁ τρίτος “χαλκηδών: 6 τέταρτος
Σσαρδόνυξ: 6 ἕκτος " σάρδιον" 6 ἕβδομος Χρυσόλιθος: ὁ ὄγδοος

g Red and white onyx (1 ΧΧ = obr),

ΧΧΙ.

18. καὶ ἡ ” ἐνδώμησις τοῦ τείχους αὐτῆς "ἴασπις :

πόλις χρυσίον καθαρὸν ὅμοιον ’ ὑάλῳ καθαρῷ.
θεµέλιοι τοῦ τείχους τῆς πόλεως παντὶ λίθῳ τιµίῳ
κεκοσμημένοι ' 6 θεμέλιος 6 πρῶτος ἆἴασπις " ὁ δεύτερος σάπφειρος *

ft

σµάραγδος: 20. 6 πέμπτος

᾿βήρυλλος: 6 ἔνατος * τοπάζιον: 6 δέκατος χρυσόπρασος: ὁ évdé-
κατος ᾿ ὑάκινθος: 6 δωθέκατος, ™ ἀμέθυστος.
21. καὶ ot δώδεκα πυλῶνες δώδεκα μαργαρῖται :
n> NT 4 ασ ~ , 2. 3 eR ,
ἀνὰ ” εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν πυλώνων ἦν ἐξ ἑνὸς µαργαρίτου :
καὶ ἡ Οπλατεῖα τῆς πόλεως χρυσίον καθαρὸν, ὡς ὕαλος

h iv. 3.
Greenish-yellow gem (periodot ?)
m Violet or purple. n Late and

irregular idiom = καθ᾽ els (Blass, § 39, 2, § 45, 3); cf Win., § 26, 9, ava adverbial, like ἕως

(Deissm. 139). ο Xxii. 2.

Agada d. Tann. i. 194f., 392). Asin the
case of the tabernacle in Jerusalem of
the Hexateuch, so here: the symmetry
and harmony of the divine life are naively
represented by Oriental fantasy in terms
of mathematics and architecture. A wall
of about 72 yards high seems oddly un-
symmetrical in view of the gigantic pro-
portions of the city, though it might refer
to the breadth (Simcox) or to the height
of the city above the plain. But the
whole description is built on multiples of
twelve, a sacred number of completeness.
The wall is a purely poetical detail, re-
quired to fill out the picture of the ancient
city; like the similar touches in 24, 26,
xxli, 2, it has no allegorical significance
whatever. Cf. Slav. En. Ixv. το: ‘‘and
there shall be to them”? (i.e., to the just
in eternity) ‘‘a great wall which cannot
be broken down”’.—pérpov κ.τ.λ., an-
other naive reminder (ο σας. ο, τοι
xxii. 8, ϱ) that angels were not above
men.

Vv. 18-21: the materials of the city.
ἐνδώμησις, So an undated but pre-Chris-
tian inscription, τ. ἐνδώμησιν τοῦ τεμένους
(Dittenberger’s Sylloge inscript. Graec.?
55351), where the orthography is pro-
nounced ‘‘ nova”? (see τεβ.).

While the city itself (or its streets,
ver. 21) is supposed to be constructed of
transparent gold like the house of Zeus
πολύχρυσον (Hippfol. 69), the wall ap-
pearing above the monoliths or founda-
tion-stones is made entirely of jasper,
which again is the special ornament
assigned to the first toundation-stone
(19, see on ver. 11). The Babylonian

zikkurats were picked out with coloured
bricks; but the exterior of this second
city is to be what only the interior of a
Babylonian sanctuary had been—brilliant
as the sun—flashing with precious stones
and gold and silver. In Yasht xiii. 3 the
heavenly Zoroastrian palace of the sky
also ‘shines in its body of ruby.”? The
general sketch is suggested by Isa. liv.
II, 12, and even more directly by Tobit
ΧΙ. 16, 17 (‘‘For Jerusalem shall be
builded with sapphire and emerald, thy
walls with precious stones, the towers
and battlements with pure gold; and
the streets of Jerusalem shall be paved
with beryl and carbuncle and stones of
Ophir’). The Egyptian mansion of Life
is also composed of jasper, with four
walls, facing the south, the north, the
east, and the west (cf. Records of Past,
vi. 113). The twelve gems correspond
upon the whole to those set in gold (cf.
Ezek. xxviii. 13) upon the high priest’s
breastplate in P (Exod, xxviii. 17-20,
Xxxix. 10-13), which the writer loosely
reproduces from memory. What the old
covenant confined to the high priest is
now a privilege extended to the whole
people of God (cf. ver. 22) ; for the astro-
logical basis and the relation of the two
O.T. and the present lists, cf. Flinders
Petrie in Hastings’ D. B. iv. 619-621;
Myres in E. Bi. 4800 f.; St. Clair in
Fourn. Theol. Studies, viii. 213 f.; and
Jeremias, 68, 88 f. No occult or mystical
significance attaches to these stones.
The writer is simply trying to convey
the impression of a radiant and superb
structure,—odmderpos=lapis lazuli (sap-

18—23. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 485
22. Kal Pvadv οὐκ εἶδον ἐν αὐτῇ : Ρο
x . 2,
ὁ γὰρ " Κύριος 6 θεὸς 6 Ἱ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς ἐστί, καὶ John, iv.
21; als
τὸ ἀρνίον. Jer iii.
101.
23. "kat ἡ πόλις οὐ χρείαν ἔχει τοῦ ἡλίου οὐδὲ τῆς σελήνης ἵνα ᾳ From |
mos lV.
φαίνωσιν αὐτῆ " 13.
A ales τ xxii. 5,
ἡ γὰρ ' δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐφώτισεν αὐτήν, from Isa
Cys Oey aA 9 , XXiv. 23,
καὶ 6 λύχνος αὐτῆς τὸ ἀρνίον. Ix. 2,
Zech. xiv.

2.
5 Ver. 11; cf. 4 Esd. vii. 42. From Zech. ii. 5 (LXX), Ps. Sol. iii. 16.

phirus et aureis punctis collucet, Caeru-
leae et sapphiri, raroque cum purpura,
Pliny, H. N. xxxvii. 39), a blue stone
prized in Egypt and in Assyria, where it
was often ‘‘used to overlay the highest
parts of buildings” (EZ. Bi. 2710).—
xarxydov=either a variety of dioptase
or emerald gathered on a mountain in
Chalcedon (Pliny), or more probably an

agate (karkedra Pesh. rendering of \AW
=LXX ἀχάτης Ex. xxviii. 19), {.6., a
variegated stone, whose base is chalce-
dony. The modern chalcedony is merely
a translucent (grey) quartz, with a
milky tinge. χρυσόλιθος-- α gem of
some (sparkling?) golden hue (LXX=

wow), perhaps some variety of our
topaz or beryl, which ranges from
emerald-green to pale blue and yellow.
The modern chrysolite is merely a hard
greenish mineral, of no particular value.
χρυσόλιθος and χρυσόπρασος (a leek-
coloured gem) are probably varieties of
the ancient beryl, unless the latter is
the green chalcedony, and the former the
modern topaz. µμαργαρῖται κ.τ.λ. (on
their value in the ancient world, see
Usener’s study in Theol. Abhand. 203-
213): the conception is simplified from an
old Jewish fancy of R. Jochanan preserved
in Baba-Bathra, f. 75, 1, ‘‘ Deus adducet
gemmas et margaritas, triginta cubitos
longas totidemque latas, easque excauabit
in altitudinem xx cubitorum, et latitudi-
nem x cubitorum, collocabitque in portis
Hierosolymorum”. ἡ πλατεῖα, generic
=‘‘the streets’’ (like ξύλον, xxii. 2),
unless it has the sense of ‘‘ forum” or
‘‘market-place’’ (as 2 Chron. xxxii. 6,
Job xxix.7 LXX). But the singular may
allude to the fact that ‘the typical
Eastern city had... one street which
led from the void place at the entering
in of the gate to the court of the king’s
palace” (Simcox). Philo (quis haer.
§ xliv., leg. alleg. § xx.) had already
made gold emblematic of the divine

νου. ν.

31

nature diffused through all the world,
owing to the metal’s fusible qualities.

Ver. 22-xxii. 5: the life of the city.
Ver. 22. The daily prayer of Jews at this
time was ‘restore thou the sacrificial
service to the Holy of Holies of thy
house’’. But while this may have re-
presented the popular religion of Judaism
(Schiirer, Hist. ii. 2, 174) which tenaci-
ously clung to a restored temple as the
religious centre of all future bliss, there
were finer spirits who shared the Iranian
repugnance to temples, possibly under
a semi-Essene influence, and who seem
to have partially anticipated the more
spiritual outlook of the Apocalypse (c/.
Baldensperger, 53 f.) ; the second temple,
owing to the debasing strifes of the first
century B.c. and the growing reverence
for the law, never quite absorbed the
religious consciousness as the first had
done. The holy City is to be unlike
many Chaldean cities where the temple
was a dominating and distinctive feature,
often indeed the original nucleus of the
town. To the seer, earth suggests hea-
ven not only by anticipation but by
contrast.

Ver. 23. Another fulfilment of the Ο.Τ,
ideal (Isa. Ix. το, 20). It is a Jewish-
Christian symbol for Paul’s thought—
God shall be all and in all. So in
4 Esd. vii. [42] at the last judgment there
is neither sun nor moon nor any natural
light, ‘‘but only the splendour of the
glory of the Most High”. ‘As the sux
of righteousness Christ has been able to
vanquish the sol inuictus of the Roman,
Cesar-cultus ’’ (Usener, Gdtternamen,
p. 184). A cruder form of the idea’
occurs in the pseudo-Philonic Biblic.
Antiquit. where ‘“‘non erat necessarium
lumen (for the night-march), ita exsplen-
debat genuinum lapidum lumen”? (i.e., of
the jewels on the Amorite idols), jewels
which were replaced by twelve precious
stones each engraved with the name of
one of the twelve tribes.

496

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ XXI. 24—27. XXII

; ig 24. καὶ περιπατήσουσι ‘ τὰ έθνη διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτῆς,
lat Αη καὶ οἱ " βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς φέρουσι τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν eis αὐτήν---
αλα, 25. "καὶ ot πυλῶνες αὐτῆς οὗ μὴ κλεισθῶσιν ἡμέρας"
a pcan : "νὺξ γὰρ οὐκ ἔσται ἐκεῖ---
μμ 26. "καὶ οἴσουσι τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰς αὐτήν.
ης τν. 27. "καὶ οὗ ph εἰσέλθῃ cis αὐτὴν wav κοινὸν καὶ 6 ποιῶν
Jos. BJ. 2βδέλυγµα καὶ * ψεῦδος -
w Zech, xiv εἰ μὴ of “ yeypappevor ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου.
viii. 3f, XXIL. τ. καὶ "ἔδειξέν por ποταμὸν ’ ὕδατος ζωῆς, λαμπρὸν ὡς
τα Σκρύσταλλον, ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ “kat τοῦ ἁρνίου
r .
Tob. ain 11, Sib. iii. 772f. y Isa. lii. 1, Ezek. xliv. ο. z xxi. 8, xxii. 15; cf. Hom. Iliad
iii, 278. a Cf. xiii. 8. a ΧΧΙ. 1Ο. b vii. 17. civ. 6, am. λεγ. Ν.Τ. d iii. 21, ν.,

6, 13; cf. En. Ixii. 14.

Vv. 24-26 further traits borrowed from
Isa. lx. (see reff.).

Ver. 25. νὺξ κ.τ.λ. “for no night
(when even in peace they would be shut,
Neh. xiii. το) shall be there’’.

Ver. 26. From the tradition of En.
ΠΠ, r and Ps. Sol. xvii. 34-35 (where the
Gentile nations seek Jerusalem φέροντες
Sapa... καὶ ἰδεῖν τὴν δόξαν κυρίου, ἣν
ἐδόξασεν αὐτὴν 6 θεός): cf. Apoc. Bar.
Ixvili. 5. The idea of 24 and 26 is of
course literally inconsistent with those of
xix. 17 f. and xx. 12 f., since on the new
earth there were no residents except the
risen saints. Both ideas were current in
rabbinic eschatology (Gfrorer, ii. 238 f.),
but the Apocalypse is entirely free from
any such complacent estimate of Gentile
outsiders (cf. En. xc. 30). The dis-
crepancy here, as in xxii. 5, is imaginary.
These details are simply poetical and
imaginative, inserted from the older
symbolism, in which they were quite
appropriate, in order by their archaic
and pictorial fulness to fill out the
sketch of the future city. They have no
allegorical significance.

Ver. 27. R. Jochanan (Baba-Bathra
f. 76, 2,) said the coming Jerusalem
would not be like the present one: in
hanc ingreditur quicunque uult, in illam
uero non nisi qui ad eam ordinati sunt.
Citizenship similarly in John’s new city
is a matter of moral character and of
divine election, not of nationality. The
Lord’s city is like the Lord’s table, as the
Ep. to Diognetus finely puts it (5) κοινή
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κοινή, communis but not pro-
fanus, ‘common and open to all, yet in
another sense no common thing.”’ The
trait is adapted from Slav. En. ix., where
the garden-paradise of the third heaven
is only for those loyal to their faith,

humble, just, charitable and benevolent,
blameless and whole hearted, while the
hell of torture (x. 4-6) is reserved for all
addicted to sodomy, witchcraft, theft,
lying, murder, and fornication, besides
oppression and callousness to human
suffering. But βδ. and ψ. may be simply
“idolatry ’’ (as in LXX); the keynote of
the book being struck once more (as in
En. xcix. 9). In the Egyptian litany of
the nine gods (E. B. D. 35) every petition
ends with the words, ‘‘I have not spoken

lies wittingly, nor have I done aught ©

with deceit,”’ and in Apoc. Bar. xxxix. 6
the seer accuses the Roman Empire thus :
‘by it the truth will be hidden, and all
those who are polluted with iniquity will
flee to it, as evil beasts flee and creep
into the forest ’’.

CHAPTER XXII.—Ver. 1. The river
is suggested partly by Ezekiel’s repre-
sentation of the healing stream which
was to issue from the new temple and
flow through the dreary Ghor of the
Jordan valley (xlvii. 1-12), partly by the
reference (in a later apocalypse, Zech.
xiv. 8) to perennial waters issuing from
Jerusalem as the dwelling-place of God
in the new age. John has no use for
Ezekiel’s idea that the stream would
assist in the messianic transformation of
nature. He changes the numerous trees
on either side of the wady into the
(generic) single tree of life, reverting as
before (ii. 7) to the ideal of the Semitic
paradise. Also, he drops the notion of
the river sweetening the bitter waters of
the Dead Sea. Cf. Pirke Eliezer, 51,
aquae putei ascensurae sunt e limine
templi atque scaturient prodibuntque.
The Babylonian origin of the idea is
outlined by Zimmern in Archiv fur
Relig. Wiss. 1899, 170 f. Unlike the

I—4.

2. ἐν µέσῳ τῆς πλατείας αὐτῆς

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

487

καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ε From

Ezek.
~ ~*~ A ~ oa 2,
ἐκεῖθεν "ξύλον ζωῆς, ποιοῦν καρποὺς ! δώδεκα, κατὰ µῆνα *exacrov xlvii. 12,
a ο, mh > h and Slav
Ἀ ἀποδιδοὺς 1 τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ: καὶ τὰ φύλλα τοῦ ξύλου εἰς "θερα- En. viii.
, 5 x I-4.
πείαν τῶν ἐθνῶν. f = δωδε-
ΜΜ κάκις (cf.
3. καὶ wav κατάθεµα οὐκ έσται ἔτι" Matt.
k Qi xe 6 / A A ‘ ae) , ale 3 ‘Vili. 22).
καὶ 6 θρόνος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου ἐν αὐτῇ έσται ες Win., §20
A ς δ TN 9 A 1, , η 120. ε
καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ ᾿λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ πεσοςν
\ ” a Win.
4. καὶ '' ὄψονται τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, εαν
\ nm a a . Sim-
καὶ "Td ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν µετώπων αὐτῶν. et
,
_ Lang.
Ν.Τ. 40. i From Zech. xiv. 21; on futures, see iv. 8-11. | k“‘ Hence”: cf. Josh. vi. 18, vii. 12.
1 vii. 15. m Job xlii. 5, Ps. xvii. 15, 1 John iii. 2, Heb. xii. 14, cf. Baldensperger, 63. n iii,

12, XIV. I, Vii. 3-4.

1 Ti., Tr., WH (marg.), Bs. rightly read αποδιδους (with XQ, min., Areth.).

earthly Jerusalem with its inferior stream,
the new city is to be richly equipped
with conduits and all that makes a city
prosperous and secure (Isa. xxxiii. 21).
Ver. 2. πλατείας (‘‘street,’’ or ‘‘ boule-
vard”’) collective and generic (cf. Jas. v. 6)
like ξύλον. Take ἐν . . . αὐτῆς with
what precedes, and begin a fresh sentence
with καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ (W. H.), ξύλον
being governed by ἔδειξεν (from ver. 1).
The river, which is the all-pervading
feature, is lined with the trees of life.
The writer retains the traditional sin-
gular of Gen. ii. g, combining it with
the representation of Ezekiel (yet note
sing. in xlvii. 12); he thus gains symbolic
impressiveness at the expense of pictorial
coherence. Ramsay (C. B. P. ii. 453)
observes, however, that the waters of the
Marsyas were ‘probably drawn off to
flow through the streets of Apameia ;
this practice is still a favourite one in
Asia Minor, e.g., at Denizli”.—«. µῆνα,
the poetic imagination soars over the
prosaic objection that months are im-
possible without a moon (xxi. 22).—
καρπὸν, κ.τ.λ. To eat of the tree of
life was, in the popular religious phrase-
ology of the age, to possess immortality.
In En. xxiv., xxv., where the prophet sees
a wonderful, fragrant tree, Michael ex-
plains that it must stand untouched till
the day of Judgment (καὶ οὐδεμία capt
ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ἄψασθαι αὐτοῦ). ‘ Then
the righteous and the holy shall have it
given them; it shall be as food for the
elect unto 119.’ So in contemporary
Judaism; e.g., 4 Esd. vii. 53 and viii. 52
(‘‘ For unto you is paradise set open, the
tree of life is planted, the time to come
is prepared, a city is builded and rest is
established,”’) as already in Test. Levi,
18, where the messianic high-priest is to

‘open the gates of paradise and remove
the sword drawn against Adam, and per-
mit the saints to eat of the tree of life ’’.
For the association of God’s city and
God’s garden, cf. Apoc. Bar, iv. : for the
notion of healing, Apoc. Mos. vi., Jub. x.
12 f., and the Iranian idea that (Brandt,
434 f.) the tree of many seeds had cura-
tive properties. John is therefore using
the realistic and archaic language of
Jewish piety to delineate the bliss of
Christians in a future state where all the
original glories and privileges of God’s
life with man are to be restored. The
Christian heaven is to possess everything
which Judaism claimed and craved for
itself. Cf. the Christian addition to 4
Esd. ii. 12, 34, 35, 38f.; also the famous
hymn to Osiris (1. B. D., ch. clxxxiii. :
“‘T have come into the city of God—
the region which existed in primaeval
time—with my soul, to dwell in this
land. . . . The God thereof is most holy.
His land draweth unto itself every other
land. And doth he not say, the happi-
ness thereof is a care to me ? ”’).

Ver. 3. κατάθεµα, a corrupt and rare
form of katavaeya=anything accursed
(lit. a curse itself, Did. xvi. 8), i.e., ab-
stract for concrete, here=‘‘ a cursed per-
son,’’so Ps. Sol. xvii. 20 f.i—Aatpevoovor,
unfettered and unspoiled devotion. The
interruption of the daily service and
sacrifice in Jerusalem on 17th July, 7ο
A.D., had sent a painful thrill to the
heart of all who cherished the ideal of
Acts xxvi. 7. No fear of that in the new
Jerusalem !

Ver. 4. The ancient ideal of intimate
confidence is also to be realised (cf. on
Matt. v. 8 and Iren. Adv. Her. v. 7).
With this phrase and that of xxi. 22
compare Browning’s lines: ‘ Why,

488

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

XXII.

ο xxi. 25. 5. καὶ Ὁνὺξ οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι,
P xxi. 23; :
with καὶ οὐχ ἔξουσι | ” χρείαν φωτὸς λύχνου καὶ pas ἡλίου,
accus.
iii 17. ὅτι Κύριος 6 θεὸς φωτίσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς :
q Dan. vii. \ Ned χ 5 ν >A ALLL ον
27, ο]. καὶ _ βασιλεύσουσιν * eis τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
Sap. vi 2

art
nearness to God).

r Not merely for 1000 years (xx. 4).

ΓΙ εξουσι (A, vg., Syr., S., gig., Tic.) Bentley, Lach., Al., Bj., is preferable to
εχουσι (38, And.), and the context, with its futures and personal pronouns, tells
against the ov xpeta κ.τ.λ. of Q, min., S., Pr. (Ti., Diist., Bs.).

where’s the need of temple when the
walls | O’ the world are that. . . This
one Face, far from vanish, rather grows |
Becomes my universe that feels and
knows.” The idea here is that repro-
duced in the seventh and supreme degree
of bliss in 4 Esd. vii. [78] where the
saints ‘‘shall rejoice with confidence,
have boldness undismayed, and gladness
unafraid, for they shall hasten to behold
the face of him whom they served in
life’. By Oriental usage, no condemned
or criminal person was allowed to look
on the king’s face (Esther vii. 8), In
the ancient ch. lxiv. of E. B. D. (papyrus
of Nu) the ‘triumphant Nu saith, ‘I
have come to see him that dwelleth in
his divine uraeus, face to face, and eye
to eye... . Thou art in me, and 1 am in
thee,’”? The Apocalypse, however,
shuns almost any approach to the inner
union of the individual Christian and
Christ which distinguished both Paul
and the fourth gospel; it also eschews
the identification of God and man which
was often crudely affected by Egyptian
eschatology. No allusion occurs to the
supremacy of the saints over angels (Ap.
Bar. li. 12, etc.), though John is careful
elsewhere to keep the latter in their
place (see on xxi. 17, xxii. 9). He also
ignores the problem of different degrees
in bliss,—éWowrar, In Chag.5 b there
is a story of a blind rabbi who blessed
some departing visitors with the words,
«γε have visited a face that is seen and
sees not: may ye be counted worthy to
visit the Face which sees and is not seen”’.
The Christian prophet has a better hope
and promise. Compare, however, Plut-
arch’s touching faith (Istde, 79) that the
souls of men after death will ‘‘ migrate
to the unseen, the good,” when God
becomes their king and leader and where
“ they, as it were, hang upon him and gaze
without ever wearying, and yearn for
that unspeakable, indescribable Beauty ’”’.
Ver. 5. Philo (de ¥os. 24) had already
described heaven as ἡμέραν αἰώνιον,

VUKTOS καὶ πάσης σκιᾶς ἀμέτοχον. Cf.
En. vi. 6.—Such teaching on heaven,
though in a less religious form, seems
to have been current among the Asiatic
πρεσβύτεροι. Irenzeus (v. 36, 1-2)
quotes them as holding (cf. above on
ii. 7) that some of the blessed τῆς τοῦ
παραδείσου τρυφῆς ἀπολαύσουσιν, οἱ
δὲ τὴν λαμπρότητα τῆς πόλεως καθέξ-
ουσιν' πανταχοῦ γὰρ 6 Σωτὴρ ὁρασθή-
σεται, καθὼς ἄξιοι ἔσονται οἱδρῶντες
αὐτόν, κ.τ.λ.

The epilogue (6-21) is a series of loose
ejaculations, which it is not easy to
assign to the various speakers. It is
moulded on the lines of the epilogue
to the astronomical section of Enoch
(Ixxxi. f.), where Enoch is left for one year
with his children—‘“‘that thou mayest
testify to them all... . Let thy heart
be strong, for the good will announce
tighteousness to the good, but the sin-
ners will die with the sinners, and the
apostates go down with the apostates’’.
Two characteristic motifs, however, do-
minate the entire passage: (a) the vital
importance of this book as a valid and
authentic revelation, and (b) the near-
ness of the end. The former is heard in
the definite claim of inspiration (6 f., 16)
and prophetic origin (8, 9) which guar-
antees its contents, in the beatitude of
7 ὃ (cf. 17), and (cf. 21) in the claim of
canonical dignity (18, 19). The latter is
voiced thrice in a personal (7, 12, 20)
and twice in an impersonal (6, το) form.
Both are bound up together (cf. 20 and
i. 3). It is as a crucial revelation of
the near future and a testimony to the
authority and advent of the messiah (cf.
20) that this apocalypse claims to be
read, and honoured in the churches.
This general standpoint is clear enough,
but the details are rather intricate. It is
characteristic of the Apocalyse, as of ep.
Barnabas, that the writer often leaves it
indefinite whether God or Christ or an
angel is speaking. Sometimes the divine
voice is recognised to be that of Christ

5—9-

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

459

3 a εἰ Ἡ i
8. "κἀγὼ Ἰωάννης 6 ' βλέπων καὶ ἀκούων ταῦτα : καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσα § ASini.9

‘ lol ~ - col
καὶ έβλεψα, ἔπεσα προσκυνῆσαι ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν τοῦ ἀγγέλου |

τοῦ " δεικνύοντός por ταῦτα.

~ - ~ ?
τηρούντων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου" τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον. τ:
‘
6. καὶ εἶπέν por, “Odror οἱ λόγοι ᾿ πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί: καὶ

ς

ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι τοῖς ” δούλοις αὐτοῦ & δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει.

7. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ.
᾽μακάριος 6 τηρῶν τοὺς
βιβλίου τούτου.

for they are faithful and true”).

(cf. i. το f., iv. 1), or may be inferred
from the context to be that of an angel
(e.g., Xvii. 15, cf. I and xix. g), perhaps
as the divine spokesman (xxi. 5, 6, cf. 5
and 7). But frequently, even when the
seer is addressed (x. 4, xiv. 13), the voice
or Bath-Qol is anonymous (¢.g., xi. 12,
καν το, Xiy, 2, Xvi. τ cf. 17)» Επ τπε
epilogue, as it stands, it is impossible
_and irrelevant to determine whether
Jesus (16) begins to speak at ver. Το (so
Spitta, Holtzm, Porter, Forbes) and re-
sumes in 18-20 a. But, while 6-7, and
8-g are both intended in a sense to round
off the entire Apocalypse, and not merely
the immediately preceding vision, 8-9 (a
replica of xix. 9-10) stands closer to xxi.
g-xxii. 5 than does 6-7. No λόγοι in
the last vision justify the reference in 6,
whereas the specific δεικν. pot ταῦτα in
8 echoes the cicerone-function of the
angel in xxi. 9-10, xxii. I. Vv. 6, 7 very
probably lay originally between 9 and 10
(for the juxtaposition of εἶπεν and λέγει
cf. xvii. 7, 15), where they definitely mark
the beginning of the epilogue already
anticipated in 8 (cf. i. 4, 9) and in the
broadened close of 9 (contrast xix. 1Ο
above). It is not necessary (though per-
haps a later scribe may have thought so)
to account for John’s action in 8-9 by
supposing that he mistook the angelus
interpres for Christ. The λόγοι of 6,
when this order is adopted, acquire their
natural sense (cf. 10), and the three suc-
cessive angel-utterances (8-9, 6-7, 10-11)
have a proper sequence, It is needless,
in view of xvi. 15 (cf. iii. 11) to omit Τα
as an interpolation (K6nnecke). But τ2-
13 probably have been displaced from
their original order (13, 12) and position
after 16 (Kénnecke), where 17 echoes 12

g. καὶ λέγει po, “dpa µή: 2
u
σύνδουλός σού εἶἰμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν 18.

ὁ κύριος 6 θεὸς τῶν “ πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν ἀπέστειλε "τὸν

λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ

(cf. Dan,
X1i. 5).
2 Cor. xii.

<
>
ty
a
a
”
3

the ears
of my
people
the words
of pro-
phecy,
and cause
thou
them to
be written
on paper,

w Cf. for phrase, partial analogies in Num. xxvii. 16 (LXX),
Jub. x. 3, Dan. ii. 28, 2 Macc. iii. 24, Heb. xii. 9, 1
Christian prophets (i. 1), cf. Dan. ix. 10, 4 Esd. viii. 62.

Cor. xiv. 32. x Cf. 1. 1-0. ν1.6., the
z Cf. Luke xi. 28, En. c. 6, civ. 12-13.

@, and 14, 15 carries on the thought of 11.
Vv. 18, 19 are plainly editorial, inter-
rupting the connexion of 17 and 20. In
ΙΙ Resch (Agrapha, § 113) attempts
to prove that some logion of Jesus is
quoted. On the “‘inconsistent optimism”
of xxii. 13 and 15, cf. Abbott, p. 107.

Ver. 8. There is no trace of any reluc-
tance on the prophet’s part to return to
earth, as in Asc. Isa. (Gk.), ii. 33-35.

Ver. ο. The warning against any
Christian θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων is not,
as in the parallel passage, an indirect
exaltation of the prophetic order as
equivalent to the angelic in religious
function, but an assertion that even or-
dinary Christians who accept the Apoca-
lypse are equal to the hierophant angel.
Unlike Nebo, the angelic interpreter of
Marduk’s will in Babylonian religion, he
is not to be worshipped, for all his im-
portance. Precautions against angel-
worship could hardly be more stringent.
“The repetition of the scene is enough
to show that it does not represent a
natural ebullition of feeling and its cor-
retction, but that the narrative has a pur-
pose ... and that those who observed the
practice made use of’’ John’s name, or
at any rate believed they could appeal
to him as sanctioning their superstition
(Weizacker, ii. 203-204).

Ver. 6. As in En. cviii. 6 (only men-
tion of prophets in Enoch), ‘‘ what God
announces through the mouth of the pro-
phets” relates to the future.—vevp.
the plurality of spirits is an archaic
detail (cf. i. 4) adapted also from the
Enochic formula (xxxvii. 2, etc.), ‘God
of the spirits ”’.

Ver. 7. Here as elsewhere it is irrele-
vant toask, whoisthespeaker? Angels

490 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ XXII.

isa

3 Το. καὶ λέγει pou, “Mi σφραγίσῃς τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας
“rom

a
b ,
Ezek. iii. τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου: 6 * καιρὸς γὰρ ἐγγύς ἐστιν.

27, Dan. Need eee : ον

xii. 10 11. 96 ἀδικῶν ἀδικησάτω et:

(LXX) :

cf. Par. καὶ 6 "ῥυπαρὸς ῥυπανθήτω ἔτι"

Lost, iii.

198 f. καὶ 6 δίκαιος δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω ἔτι"

ce“ Filthy” »

(ος - καὶ 6 ἅγιος ἁγιασθήτω ἔτι.!

May on a ” ε

η 14. Μακάριοι οἱ " πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν, "ἵνα ἔσται ἢ

moral > , νι gh x , a A 4 a_ hb a αν ή

mens Τἐξουσία αὐτῶν {ἐπὶ © τὸ ® ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τοῖς > πυλῶσιν εἰσέλ-
i > ο ¢ A Δ

τοι θωσιν eis τὴν πόλιν. 15. | ἔξω ot " κύνες καὶ οἱ | φαρμακοὶ καὶ

mere

ceremonial impurity (ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι, in votive inscriptions). _d iii. 4, Vil, 14. ο. 58 Mixed
construction (cf. xiv. 13). f Accus. here and vi. 8, xiii. 7, xvi. 9; genit. Π. 26, xi. 6, xiv. 18,

g Cf. ver. 2. h Loose extension of dat. instrum. i‘ Out with the (or, out ye)": so Dust.,
Benson, J. Weiss, Wellh., cf. xxi. 8, 27, 1 Cor. vi. 9-10, Introd. § 6. __ k Matt. vii. 6, Phil. ili. 2:
="*praua concupiscentia " (Gfrorer, i. le ix. 21, cf. Deut. xxiii. 18. On their punishment
in the Hellenic world, cf. Rohde’s Psyche, 366 Ε.

1 The ample style of the Apoc. tells against the conjecture (Zahn, Nestle’s Einf.
264-265; Bebb, Studia Biblica, ii. 209-210) that the orig. reading is preserved in Ep.
Lugd. ο avopos avopnoatw kato δικαιος δικαιωθητω ett, the rest being glossematic.
The v. 1. δικαιωθητω (38, 79, vg.) has been mechanically conformed to αγιασθητω.

2Instead of the well-supported OIMOIOYNTECTACETOAACAYTOY (Q, min.,
Syr., S., Arm., Me., Areth., And., Tert., Tic., Cyp., cf. 1 Jo. v. 21; so de Wette,
Diist., Bs.) OIMAYNONTECTACCTOAACAYTON (ΝΑ, 7, 38, vg., Aeth., Pr.,
Haym., etc., edd.) is to be read, the variant being possibly due to the feeling that

some moral characteristic was needful after 11 (Ws.).

are the envoys and mouthpieces of God
here as in the O.T., and therefore en-
titled to speak in his name or in that of
Christ. ‘‘ The Oriental mind hardly dis-
tinguishes between an ancient personage
and one who appears in his power and
spirit’? (A. B. Davidson on Ezek. xxxiv.
23). In 4 Esd. ν. 31-40 the angel is also
addressed as if he were the Lord—the
angelic personality evidently fading into
the divine, as here, and the writer being
equally unconscious of any incongruity
in the representation (cf. Zech. iii. 1-4).
As the ‘‘showing”’ of the ἅ 8. γ. ἐν τ. is
(i. I) an ἀποκ. of Jesus, he (or a word of
his) naturally breaks in (7 α).--τηρῶν
κ.τελ., an apocalyptic form of emphasis.
Cf. e.g., Slav. En. xlvii. 1-3 and xxxvi
(‘‘tell thou thy sons and all thy house-
hold before Me, that they may listen to
what is spoken to them by thee...
and let them always keep my command-
ments, and begin to read and understand
the books written out by thee’’). All
apocalypses were meant to be trans-
mitted to mankind, but the usual method
of delivery is complicated (cf. En. Ixxxii.
I, 2; Slav. En. xxxiii. 9, xIvii. 2, 3, etc.).

Ver. το. The book of Daniel, the
great classic of apocalyptic literature,
is represented (cf. Slav. En. xxxiii.
απ Xxx.) BoE nL κο πο ον. το
etc.) as having Ῥεεπ providentially
kept secret at the time of its com-

position, since it referred to a future
period (viii. 26, xii. 4, 9). This was
a literary device, to explain why it had
not been divulged before. As John’s
apocalypse is for an immediate crisis, it
is not to be reserved for days to come.
It is not merely valid (7) but intended
for the prophet’s contemporaries (unlike
Isa. xxx. 8, cf. Cheyne’s note), though
reserved, like most of its class, as eso-
teric literature for the “' wise”’ (contrast
4 Esd. xiv. 38-48). Some interval, how-
ever, is presupposed between the vision
and its fulfilment, otherwise it would be
futile to write the visions down, and to
arrange for their circulation throughout
the churches. A certain career (7, 9,
18-19) is anticipated for the Apocalypse.
But (ver. 11.) persistence in good and evil
is about all the writer expects—a stereo-
typed feature of the apocalyptic outlook
on the obduracy of the wicked and the
perseverance of the saints. Apocalyptic
never encouraged propaganda, and no
radical or widespread change is antici-
pated during the brief interval before
the end. Asin Dan. xii. το, 11, so here,
the crisis simply accentuates and ac-
celerates human character along pre-
vious lines. No anxiety is shown, how-
ever, as in 4 Esd. iv. 50 f., whether
the prophet himself is to see the
end.

Ver. 15. κύνες, an archaic metaphor,

ro—16.

- Ν cal
οἱ πόρνοι καὶ οἱ Φφονεῖς καὶ οἱ εἰδωλολάτραι καὶ Tas

ποιῶν Weddos.”

16. “«᾿Εγὼ ᾿Ιησοῦς " ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν µου μαρτυρῆσαι »ὑμιν

- lal ,
ταῦτα Péml ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις *

ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ Σῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος Δαυείδ,
er ‘ ς x κ oo ϱ
ὁ * ἀστὴρ ὅ λαμπρὸς καὶ 6 πρωϊνός.

prophets,” as in ver. 6. p= ‘Stor! στ].

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

491

™ φιλῶν καὶ m xxi. 27,
cf. Asc.

Isa. (Gk.),
iii. 3,
Dan. viii.
a5. See
Win. § 20.
IIc.

n Cf, xxii.
6 (God).

o (Dat. =
Heb. x.
15) “the

v. 5: (the scion). r ii. 28, Sir. 1, 6, Test.

q = Nec On
Levi 18, En, xxxviii. 2, Isa. xiv. 12, and Ign. Eph. xix, with Luke i. 78 (Dalman, i. viii. 10).

coloured by the nomad’s hatred of hounds;
cf. Arabia Deserta, i. 337, 339 (“only
the dog has no citizenship in the nomad
life’. "Τε is the only life mishandled
by the gentle Arab, who with spurns
and blows cast out these profane crea-
tures from the tent.”) Here κύνες are
not merely impure pagans, but the im-
pudently impure, possibly in the special
and darker sense of ‘‘sodomites” (cf.
τ Tim. i. το; Deut. xxiii. 19, 20, collated
with πόρνη and βδέλυγµα). Cf. on xxi. 8
and Cooke’s North Sem. Inscriptions, p.
68. Such loathsome practices were not
uncommon in the Oriental cults.

Ver. 16. Jesus in person now speaks
in the colloquy (16, 13, 12) to ratify
what has just been said. This apoca-
lypse is not an individual fantasy (2
Peter i. 21). For the contemporary need
of such accrediting, cf. Herm. Sim. ix. 22
and Asc. Isa. iii. 30, 31 (where in the
last days ‘‘everyone will say what is
pleasing in his own eyes. And they will
make of none εβεοί the prophecy of the
prophets which were before me, and
these my visions also will they make of
none effect, in order to speak after the
impulse of their own hearts.”)—ayyedov,
not John (Weiss, Wellh.) but the angelus
interpres (cf. oni. 2 and 20).—tpiv, the
plural here and in ver. 6 (cf. i. 1) might
suggest that John’s apocalypse incorpo-
rated some visions of other members be-
longing to the prophets in the Asiatic
circle or school (cf. the tradition about
the co-operative origin of the Fourth
gospel, in the Muratorian canon). But
while any Jewish Christian sources may
have been drawn from this’ quarter, the
final authorship and authority is claimed
by (or, for) John himself (cf. ver. 8).—
Δανείδ. Like most early Christians,
John attached more weight to the Da-
vidic descent of Jesus as messiah (Bal-
densperger, 82 f.), than Jesus himself
allowed. Here Christ’s authority in re-
velation is bound up with his legitimate
claim to be messiah, and thus to inaugu-

rate the new and eternal day of God.
As ἀνατολή (the dawn = ΓΙΟΣ) was

already a messianic symbol, and em-
ployed in LXX (Jer. xxiii. 5, Zech. iii. 8,
vi. 12) to denote the messianic branch
or stem, this double usage explains the
imagery here (so Justin, Apol. i. 32).
Jesus has not only the historic prepara-
tion of Israel behind him but the infinite
future before him. In one sense he was
the climax of Hebrew expectation; in
another, he is of world-wide significance.
In connexion with the heavenly Jerusa-
lem it was natural that Jesus should be
hailed as the scion of the David who
had founded the first Jerusalem. The
star-metaphor reflects the significance
of the morning-star which meant the be-
ginning of a new day for toilers in the
Levant; but its eschatological outlook
was taken ultimately from Babylonian
astro- theology, where Nebo- Mercury
(nebi= prophet), the morning-star, an-
nounced the new era, or from Egyptian
theology where (cf. E. B. D. p. cxliii.)
Pepi the dead king “ goeth forth into
heaven among the stars which never
perish, and his guide the Morning-Star
leadeth him to Sekhet-Hetep [the fields
of peace]’’. The phraselogy brings out
the conviction of the early church that
the present trial was only the cold, dark
hour before the dawn. Their faith in
Jesus assured them that an eternal pro-
spect of bliss awaited them, and that
this vista of hope was bound up with the
person of the risen Jesus (cf. ver. 13).
The watchword was, sunrise and morn-
ing-star (cf. Expos. Dec. 1902, 424-441).
Christianity was not some ephemeral
Oriental cult, which had had its day;
the cosmic overthrow meant a new era
for its adherents. The Apocalypse thus
closes, as it began (i. 5, 6) with a note
of ringing emphasis upon the eternal
significance of Christ in the divine plan
and purpose.

492 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ XXII.
5 oo ne δι "ἐγὼ τὸ ' δω va τὸ ὦ,

ah . ὁ πρῶτος κα 6 έσχατος,
t Cf. Jos. ἡ ιἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος.

να. 12. ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ,

Philo de καὶ ὁ " μισθός µου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ne

620 (of 7 ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ.

Pee I7. καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν, ‘*”Epxou ”” +

est AS καὶ *6 ἀκούων εἰπάτω, '' Έρχου”..

Ὃ ος καὶ ὁ 7 διψῶν ἐρχέσθω,

ο. ὁ θέλων λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν.

πα ' [ᾳπ8. Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφη-

xi. 15, ἴρα. ο A , , :
xl.ro, TELAS TOU Βιβλίου τούτου

Sap. v.15,
2 Pet. ii.
18, cf.
Clem.
Rom.
XxXxiv.

v Rom. ii.
5-6.

w Cf. i. 7
(πας ὀφθ.).

31.23, etc. ;

x The individual Christian (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 22).

a Prov. xxx. 6, Jos. Ap. i. 8. b xv. 6-xvi. 21.
xix. 11, Did. iv. 13.

1Ο. καὶ ἐάν

Ver. 13 gathers up the double thought
of 16 and of 12. As the Christian ἔργα
(ii. 2, 5, το. etc.) are done within the
sphere of faith, their recompense is a re-
ligious as well as a thoroughly moral
conception (cf. Hastings’ D. B. iii. 82,
and Montefiore’s Hibbert Lectures, p.
538). To the day’s work, the day’s wage.
For the origin of this feeling on Syrian
or Semitic soil, where the fellahin’s work
“was scrutinised before the wages were
paid’? by one who was ‘‘at once the
paymaster of his dependents and their
judge,” cf. Hatch’s Hibb. Lectures, pp.
224 f.and Dalman, i. § viii. 3. The re-
ward, like the new Jerusalem, was safely
stored in heaven. No fear of inadequate
moral appreciation in the next world, at
any rate!

Ver. 17. The promise of 12 α is caught
up and answered by a deep ‘‘come”’
from the prophets in ecstasy (πνεῦμα
personified, cf. ii. 7, etc.) and the Chris-
tian congregation.—vipoyn. Hitherto
(xxi. 2, etc.) this term has been reserved
for the church triumphant in the world
to come. Now, with the memory of
these oracles fresh in his mind, the pro-
phet applies it to the church on earth,
as Paul had already done.—kat 6 ἀκούων
κ.τ.λ., a liturgical note, like Mark xiii. 14
(cf. Weinel, 84, 85).—Kal 6 διψῶν κ.τ.λ.,

ἐάν τις " ἐπιτιθῇ ἐπ᾽ αὐτά,
ἐπιθήσει 6 θεὸς ew αὐτὸν τὰς ὃ πληγὰς τὰς yeypap-

> Αα , ,
µένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ

ἀέελῃη ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου

τῆς προφητείας ταύτης,

y xxi. 6 (Isa. lv. 1). z John iv. 14,'vii. 37.
c Jer. xxvi. 2, cf. Deut. iv. 2, xiii. 1, Barn.

addressed to strangers who sometimes
attended the Christian worship (cf. 1
Cor. xiv. 23, 24). For this fine turn of
expression (the double use of come), cf.
Did. x. 6, ‘‘may grace come and may
this world pass away. Hosanna to the
God of David! If anyone is holy let
him come [i.e., to the Lord’s table]; if
anyone is not, let him repent. Marana
tha” (cf. below, ver. 20). The less likely
alternative is to take ἔρχου here as ad-
dressed not to Jesus but to the outside
world.

Vv. 18-19. Luther strongly objected
to the extravagant threat of this edi-
torial note. The curse is certainly not
only an anti-climax like the editorial
postscript in John xxi. 24, 25 (both indica-
ting that either when published or when
admitted to the canon, these two scrip-
tures needed special authentication) but
‘‘an unfortunate ending to a book whose
value consists in the spirit that breathes
in it, the bold faith and confident hope
which it inspires, rather than in the
literalness and finality of its disclosures ”’
(Porter). But the words are really a
stereotyped and vehement form of claim-
ing a canonicity equal to that of the Ο.Τ.
(cf. Jos. Ant. xx. 11. 2, τοσούτου yap
αἰῶνος ἤδη TapwxynKdTos οὔτε προσθεῖ-
ναί τις οὔτε ἀφελεῖν am’ αὐτῶν οὔτε µετα-

13—21

ἀφελεῖ 6 θεὸς τὸ µέρος αὐτοῦ “dard τοῦ ξύλου
τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως
τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμ-
ένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίω τούτῳ.]
20. Λέγει 6 μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα °“‘ Nat: ἔρχομαι ταχύ”.

ἁμήν: ἔρχου, κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

21. ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ μετὰ πάντων.

third time (7, 12): ‘‘ Most assuredly, I am coming speedily”.

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΜΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

493

d In Apoc.
Mos. xvi.
by over-
powering
Adam
and Eve
in temp-
tation,
the devil
robs them
“of the
garden of
delight
and of
eternal
life”.

e For the

f Cf. on xix. 4.

1

10m. Pr.—Of the variants for παντων υΌμων (vg., Aeth.), either παντων των αγιων
(Q, min., Me., Syr., S., Arm., And., Areth., Bs.) or preferably παντων (A, am.,
Lach., Ti., Dust., Ws.) seems more original than των αγιων (9, gig., Tr., ΑΙ., Sim-
cox, WH, Bj., J. Weiss, Sw.): for a textual discussion see Nestle’s Einfihrung,
125f. (E. Tr., 157 f.) and Hastings’ D. B., iv. 733.—After Invov, Χριστον is added
by Q, min., vg., gig., Syr., Arm., Aeth., Andr.

θεῖναι τετόλµηκεν). They are adapted
from Enoch civ. to f. where the author
expects his book to be a comfort and joy
to the righteous, but exposed to perver-
sion and alteration: ‘‘ Many sinners will
pervert and alter the words of upright-
ness” instead of refusing to ‘change or
minish aught from my words’’. Similar
threats to careless or wilful copyists es-
pecially in lreneus (Eus. Η. E. ν. 20),
and Rufin. pref. to Origen’s περὶ ἀρχῶν
(cf. Nestle’s Einfihrung, 161 f.). This
nervous eagerness to safeguard Christian
teaching was part and parcel of the
contemporary tendency to regard apos-
tolic tradition (cf. xviii. 20, xxi. 14, etc.)
as a body of authoritative doctrine, which
must not be tampered with. An almost
equally severe threat occurs in Slav.
En. xlviii. 7-9, liv. (also iii. 3), so that
the writer, in this jealousy for the letter
rather than for the spirit, was following
a recognised precedent (R. $. 125 f.),
which was'bound up with a conservative
view of tradition and a juristic concep-
tion of scripture (Titius, pp. 206 f.,
Deissm, 113 f.). Rabbinic librarii got
a similar warning in that age (cf.
Bacher’s Agada d. Tann, i. 254), and
Christian copyists, if not editors, required
it in the case of the Apocalypse, although
apparently they paid little heed to it,
for as early as the time of Irenzus there
were serious discrepancies in the copies
circulated throughout the churches.
John had himself omitted a contemporary
piece of prophecy (cf. on x. 4). But
he explains that he was inspired to do
so; this verse refuses to let others deal
similarly with his book.

VOL. V.

The prayer of ver. 17 is answered in
ver. 20, which repeats the assurance of
the messiah’s speedy advent. This pap-
τυρία ᾿Ιησοῦ, in the prophetic conscious-
ness (xix. 10), is specifically eschato-
logical. The close and sudden aspect
of the end loomed out before Judaism
(cf. 4 Esd. iv. 26, 44 50, Apoc. Bar.
xxiii. 7, Ixxxiii. 1) as before the Chris-
tian church at this period, bait it was
held together with calculations which
anticipated a certain process and pro-
gress of history. The juxtaposition of
this ardent hope and an apocalyptic pro-
gramme, here as in Mark xiii. 5-37 and
4 Esd. xiv. 11, 12, is one of the anti-
nomies of the religious consciousness,
which is illogical only on paper. In San-
hed. 97 a, a rabbinic cycle of seven years
culminating in messiah’s advent is laid
down; whereupon '' Rab. Yoseph saith,
There have been many septennial cycles
of this kind, and he has not come. .
Rabbi Zera saith, Three things come
unexpectedly : the messiah, the finding
of treasure-trove, and a _ scorpion ’”’
(cf. Drummond’s Fewish Messiah, 220).
--Κύριε The Lordship of Jesus is de-
fined as his right to come and to judge
(xxii. 12), which is also the point of
Rom. xiv. 9-12 (cf. Kattenbusch, ii. 609,
658 f.). Ἔρχον, κύριε is the Greek ren-
dering of the Aramaic watchword of the
primitive church (cf. on ver. 17), which
possibly echoed a phrase in the Jewish
liturgy (cf. on 1 Cor. xvi. 22, and E. Bi.
2935, 2036).

Ver. 21. A benediction at the close
of the reading (i. 3, xxii. 7) before the
congregation, rather than an epistolary

32

494

epilogue to the Apocalypse. The epis-
tolary form in which apocalypses, like
historical and homiletical writings of
the age, were occasionally cast, was
connected with their use in Christian
worship. Such open letters of pastoral
counsel were circulated by means of

AITIOKAAY¥IZ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ

public reading, and were indeed designed
for that end. They were not to be τε-
jected as merely local (cf. ii. 7, 23, xxii.
7-21; Mark xiii. 14 and 37), any more
than their contents were to be arbitrarily
treated by individuals (xxii. 18, 19) in
accordance with their own predilections,

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY

THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS

‘ : (a ; i '
. q η] | by Ly i i
ο Ρα τα
y oh! [ feat
j J \ ἁ m3 | ἤ
i 7, ͵ | I 4
|
’

fa)

ne!

ΑΝ

Paneth)
Na eed
ο η

ul Pi

‘a
i tn
Cin rae

<
v7)
9
Ζ
Ω
ω
=
z
α
ce

DATE DUE

ο... pe A er we A He Rte Hh th MA He the ee ee Ab bet owe 4, αλλ Α.Α ναι Ἁ Se ee δα «ν ν Ἡ Ἡ μμ αι
hse i eet crea ο ke a a ol hoch ed ie Be bak Un bad rt tess BAL ο λαο ο ο OPIN, tN TEM Mae eN NN enter rte

ee ee

me,
του