γω- πο ee a eee ee ate ate 
 “4.5 νον να, ν i att 
 Hane φρο. 
 
 4 rags 
 =o 
 
 “ - τ κ΄ τὸ {Ὁ ” δ >a δαρνδν, εαγδλ ἡ τον τὸν 
 nag πολι see eet esroae coe wees rept Siete: 
 
 -- ΣΝ 
 
 + 9 πο 
 pe seg υϑενεβοδνρογεν > a 
 or 
 
 Bris 
 
 ϑρεξγούσυσσυσγοσόσονα 424+ » ΚΝ τῴ 
 γα συλ ακά κεφναγός δ " ; - “--- δ μ Aehinhe δεν xies 
 τ ν God wre ᾿ ; emer - 
 be he er 
 
 Pade rres 
 ες 
 
 ΓΝ 
 ithe whe 
 
 
 
1 OF PICA 
 
 Ν᾿ 2 
 2 SEP 12 1960 
 
 4, 
 
 Coenen ene 
 
 
 
 
i 
 ; 
 ‘ 
 
 
 

 

 
aT 
 
 1 ᾿ J 
 nd 
 
 ek 
 
 
 
“oQAR UF ΓΠῚ 
 Co 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wn ae i 
 my JAK “ & I! 
 “ 
 
 S 
 τ OFGICAL «εἴ 
 
 THE EXPOSITOR’S 
 
 ΠΕ, bahar AMENT 
 
 EDITED BY THE REV. 
 W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D. 
 
 BDITOR OP “THE EXPOSITOR,” “THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE,” ETC. 
 
 VOLUME V. 
 
 HODDER AND STOUGHTON LIMITED 
 LONDON NEW YORK TORONTO 
 
SAN iid Seah irate 
 er aT) (47 ᾿ PALS SUNN 
 ee, Tease ᾿ 
 
 08 ἐν νυν ΨΨΑΦῚ ΔΝ 
 
 ? 
 
 ἀν τοῦ 
 
 RO. oo gL hg 1 ἢ 
 ᾿ es ν ἐν i ᾿ : ἐν re } 
 ὧν ART Ἢ hive 
 
 ἘΠῚ: 
 i] a 
 
 
 
Pie, EXPOSITOR’'S 
 ΓΙ Κ TRS PAMEN T 
 
 I 
 
 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF 
 PETER 
 
 BY THE REV. 
 
 J. H. A HART, M.A. 
 II 
 
 THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF 
 PETER 
 
 R. H. STRACHAN, M.A. 
 ΠῚ 
 THE EPISTLES OF JOHN 
 
 DAVID SMITH, M.A., D.D. 
 IV 
 THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE 
 
 BY THE REV. 
 J. B. MAYOR, Lirt.D. 
 Vv 
 
 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 
 
 
 
 OF j Fi ἡ 
 ἊΝ 
 

 
 
 
 
 i πὴ 
 
 ἤν "ΠῚ ἢ ἮΝ 
 
 ihe My Ay? f aly 
 i hy : τὴ he ei ie ἢ sare ¢ 
 | ra pie bi ain Υ 
 
 
 
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 God of 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 * “ 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 
 
 Dive, ΤΊ, ΧΟ, ὅν, 14. Ἔτσ, > Gal. vi. 11-17. 
 
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.1 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, onthe 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 
 
 yk ἜΤ Viv, 12-v. II. 3 Gal. ii. 7-9. 
 4Eus. ἢ. E. iii. 4. 5 Eus. WH. Eo ai. 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—Jews 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 Jsvael 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 
 
 1ii. To, 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 ἔθνη. 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 I 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). 
 Rom. ix. 1 ff. Sii. 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 
 Jesus 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. Irenzeus, 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 PF. 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. Piva 4. 3 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. 
 
ὃ 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. 
 
 To 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. Andi 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, I, 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.1 
 
 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. ili. 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 persona! 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 ?”’ 
 
12 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 1 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 Cidovavod is still in dispute. 
 ‘Professor Zahn? maintains the view that ‘‘Silvanus’ part in the 
 
 ly. 12, 2See Acts xv. 23, 40 f.; xvi. 1-8. 
 5 Introduction to the New Testament (English Translation, 1909), 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.? Clearly they were the bearers of the letter, 
 as it is said that they delivered it at Antioch ; 8 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: “1 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. 
 
 "γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς ἀυτῶν. 
 
 % Acts xv. 30, οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀπολυθέντες κατῆλθον εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν καὶ συν-- 
 ἀγαγόντες τὸ πλῆθος ἐπέδωκαν τὴν ἐπιστολήν. 
 
 4 Acts xv. 32. 
 
 °Ad Romanos, xiv. 1, γράφω δὲ ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἀπὸ Ομύρνης δι᾽ 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 ”’.8 
 
 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 ἦ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν trv 
 ἐπιστολήν" ἣν ἕξομεν aet ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι ὡς καὶ τὴν προτέραν 
 ἡμεῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν (Eusebius, Historiae Ecclesiae, iv. 23. 8). 
 
 2Clement, ad Corinthios, Ixv. 3 Acts xv. 27. 4Gal. i. 
 
 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’.” 
 
 ®So Origen (fragment in Eusebius, Historiae Ecclesiae, iii. 1): Πέτρος δὲ ἐν 
 Πόντῳ καὶ Γαλατίᾳ καὶ Βιθυνίᾳ Καππαδοκίᾳ te 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.”! 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: “Τὸ 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 a.p. 64, of whom Tacitus* spealis 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: 
 
 Ξδιὰ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον οἱ μέγιστοι καὶ δικαιότατοι στύλοι (cf. Gal. ii. 9) 
 ἐδιώχθησαν καὶ ἕως θανάτον 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 
 (1 Clementis ad Corinthios, v. 2-4). 
 
 δ 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 a.p. 64. The question therefore arises, Is this 
 tradition compatible with the traditional ascription of this document 
 to St. Peter ? 
 
 Date, CIRCUMSTANCES, AND PuRPOSE. 
 
 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 γενόμενος ἀνεσκολο- 
 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 a.p. 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 (a.p. 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 Gnosis 
 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- 
 
 1Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu iibersetzt und fur die Gegenwart 
 erkldvt. . . Gottingen, 1908. 
 * The Church in the Roman Empire (sixth edition: London, 1893), p. 282. He 
 assigns it, therefore, to c. 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 a.p. 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 ἈΠ AD 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. Formal 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). 
 3 1014. 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. Ina.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 citys From experience he held that all 
 corporations, whatever name they bore, quickly became political 
 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. 
 
 ?Trajan to Pliny, xxxii. (xli.): ‘‘ Meminerimus idcirco te in istam provinciam 
 missum, quoniam multa in ea emendanda apparuerint; xxxiv. (xliii.) 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.): “Τὰ, 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 [bid. pp. 219 f. 
 ΘΕ. 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, 
 Tursusque ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium; quod ipsum 
 facere desisse post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua hetaerias esse 
 vetueram”’. 
 
 8 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.® 
 
 1Ibid.: ‘‘ 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 Ibid.: ‘* 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 duci iussi. 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 (#bid.): ‘‘ Cognitionibus de 
 Christianis interfui numquam; ideo nescio quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut 
 quaeri”’. 5 See note (1) supra. 
 
 ὁ Ibid. : ‘‘ Nec 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’’.1_ 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 
 
 1Trajan 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”’. 
 
 2Tbid.: ‘‘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 *—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.§ 
 
 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 Aopetiavds: 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" ἡἣ 
 δὲ Δομιτίλλα ὑπερωρίσϑθη μόνον εἰς Πανδατερίαν. 
 
 2 Domitian xv. Denique Flavium Clementem patruelum suum contemptissimae 
 inertiae ... repente ex tenuissima suspicione tantum non ipso eius consulatu 
 interemit: quo maxime facto maturavit 5101 exilium. 
 
 ὃ 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: “ εἰς τοσοῦτον δὲ apa . . . ἡ τῆς ἡμετέρας 
 πίστεως διέλαμπε διδασκαλία, ὡς καὶ τοὺς ἄποθεν τοῦ Kal’ ἡμᾶς λόγου συγγραφεῖς 
 μὴ ἀποκνῆσαι ταῖς αὐτῶν ἹΙστορίαις τόν τε διωγμὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ μαρτύρια παρα- 
 δοῦναι. οἵγε καὶ τὸν καιρὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀκριβὲς ἐπεσημήναντο, ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ 
 Δομετιανοῦ μετὰ πλείστων ἑτέρων καὶ Φλαυίαν Δομετίλλαν ἱστορήσαντες, ἐξ ἀδελφῆς 
 γεγονυῖαν Φλαυίου Κλήμεντος, ἑνὸς τῶν τηνικάδε ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ὑπάτων, τῆς εἰς 
 Χριστὸν μαρτυρίας ἕνεκεν, εἰς νῆσον Ποντίαν κατὰ τιμωρίαν δεδόσθαι." 
 
 5 Historiae ecclesiasticae, iii. 17: ““ Τῆς Νέρωνος θεοεχθρίας τε καὶ θεομαχίας 
 διάδοχον ἑαυτὸν κατεστήσατο. δεύτερος δῆτα τὸν καθ᾽ 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 (? a.D. 155-156) and published his five books of 
 Memoranda or Memoirs (ὑπομνήματα) in Α.Ὁ. 180. See Bardenhewer, Geschichte 
 der altkirchlichen Literatur, i. pp. 483-490. 
 
 Historiae ecclesiasticae, iii. 20: “ἐφ᾽ οἷς μηδὲν αὐτῶν κατεγνωκότα τὸν 
 Δομετιανὸν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς ἐντελῶν καταφρονήσαντα, ἐλευθέρους μὲν αὐτοὺς ἀνεῖναι, 
 καταπᾶυσαι 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 alieged 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 ἔχων τι συνέσεως, Eusebius) facile coeptum repressit, restitutis 
 etiam quos relegaverat. 
 
 8 Tertullian, Apology, v.: ‘‘Consulite commentarios vestros; illic reperietis 
 primum Neronem in hanc sectam cum maxime Romae orientem Caesariano 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... 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 a.p. 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.* 
 
 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’’. 
 
 3So Ramsay, Church in the Roman Emfpire, 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 magicians. 
 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.” 
 
28 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 a.p. 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 
 
 1Chronicon, 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- ἡ 
 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 thatthe 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’’. 
 1i, 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: fora 
 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,. 
 
 Ἐν: 8. 2 iii. g with 11. 21-23. 3 iv. 19 with ii. 23. 41, GF. 
 ΝΣ βὰν αι Set ete. ors. 9 iii. 13 f. iii. 15 ἢ 
 
INTRODUCTION 21 
 
 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 3 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 (v. 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. aye Si ὩΣ 
 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 to condemn 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 Irenzus as early as 
 the third quarter of the second century. Behind Irenzeus 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 latertime. 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 isa 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. 
 
 Irenzeus, the disciple of Polycarp, whose book Against Heresies 
 was written while Eleutherus was Bishop of Rome (a.p, 175-189),1 
 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 credi- 
 distis, gaudebitis gaudio inenarrabili’’.8 In another 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 a.p. 218, 
 he cites 1 Peter as addressed to the natives of Pontus: “ Petrus 
 quidem ad Ponticos, Quanta enim, inquit, gloria si 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, uti 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 etus gau- 
 deatis exultantes: st dedecoramini nomine Christi, beati estis, quo- 
 niam gloria et dei 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 isto.® 
 
 14 viv 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 it. 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 (A.p. 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: ἐγνωκότες οὖἦ TO ἑκάστου ἔργον, ἐν φόβῳ τὸν τῆς 
 παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνον ἀναστράφητε, εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ 
 φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ, ἐλυτρώθημεν ἐκ τῆς μα- 
 ταίας ἡμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατριπαραδότου, ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ 
 αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ. ἀρκε- 
 τὸς οὖν ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος---ὁ Πέτρος φησί---τὸ βούλημα 
 τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι, πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, 
 ἐπιθυμίαις, οἰνοφλυγίαις, κώμοις, πότοις. καὶ ἀθεμίτοις 
 ἐιδωλολατρείαις.3 Andin the Stromateis,* which were intended 
 for more advanced Christians, he has, after quotations from the 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians: διὸ καὶ ὁ θαυμάσιος Πέτρος φησίν" 
 ἀγαπητοί, παρακαλῶ ὡς παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήμους 
 ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, αἵτινες στρατεύον- 
 ται κατὰ τῆς Ψυχῆς, 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 καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ, μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν 
 ἑαυτάς" ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ὡς καὶ 
 εἴ τινες ἀπειθοῖεν τῷ λόγῳ, διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀν- 
 αστροφῆς ἄνευ λόγου κερδηθήσονται, ἐποπτεύσαντες, 
 φησί, τὴν ἐν λόγῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφήν ὑμῶν: ὧν ἔστω 
 οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐν- 
 δύσεως ἱματίων κόσμος, ἀλλ᾽ 6 κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας 
 ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τοῦ πραέος καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύ- 
 ματος, 6 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 ὃ he refers part of the first Epistle to Timothy? to St. Peter: 
 
 1 Potter’s edition, pp. 1006 ἢ, 2TIL, xii. 85. 31 Peter i. 17-19, iv. 3. 
 SEY sy xe 75. 5 Paedagogus, III., xi. 66. Sr Tim. ii. 9. 
 41 Peter iii. 1-4. 8 Paedagogus, II., xii, 127. 9 Tim. ii. g f. 
 
36 INTRODUCTION 
 
 πάνυ γοῦν θαυμασίως ὁ Πέτρος ὁ μακάριος γυναῖκας, φησίν, ὥσαυτως μὴ ἐν’ 
 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 A.D. 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 Irenzus 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 a7 
 
 who died a martyr on 23rd February, a.p. 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 you.”? 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 Ths πίστεως ὑμῶν ῥίζα. . . μεχρὶ 
 νῦν διαμένει καὶ καρποφορεῖ εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν . .. 
 εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες πιστεύετε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ 
 καὶ δεδοξασμέν ῃ εἰς ἣν πολλοὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν εἰσελθεῖν.“ 
 
 Il. διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας ὑμῶνϑ δουλεύσατε τῷ 
 θεῷ. . . πιστεύσαντες εἰς τὸν ἐγείραντα τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν 
 Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόντα αὐτῷ δόξαν καὶ 
 θρόνον ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ... μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντ 
 κακοῦ ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας ἢ γρόνθον ἀντὶ 
 γρόνθου ἢ κατάραν ἀντὶ κατάρας.ὃ 
 
 Ν. καλὸν γὰρ τὸ ἀνακόπτεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, ὅτι 
 πᾶσα ἐπιθυμία κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος στρατεύεται." 
 
 VII. ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα λόγον ἐπιστρέψωμεν νήφοντες 
 πρὸς τὰς ἐυχὰς 19 καὶ προσκαρτεροῦντες νηστείαις. 
 
 1850 Bardenhewer, Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Litteratur, i. p. 140. 
 
 Sythe S"Epbeter 1: 8. 4 Compare 1 Peter i. 12. bin Peter 1. 3: 
 Ore Reteni.) 21. Ty Peter ili. 9. 8 Compare 1 Peter ili. 9. 
 91 Peter ii. τὶ conflated with Galatians v. 17. 10‘Peter iv. 7: 
 
 VOL. V. 3 
 
38 INTRODUCTION 
 
 VIII. προσκαρτερῶμεν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν καὶ τῷ ἀρραβῶνι τῆς δικαιοσύνης 
 ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὃς ἀνήνεγκεν ἡμῶν τὰς 
 ἁμαρτίας τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, ὃς ἀμαρτίαν 
 οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι 
 attod.” ἀλλὰ δι ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ζήσωμεν ἐν αὐτῷ, πάντα ὑπέμεινεν. 
 μιμηταὶ οὖν γενώμεθα τῆς ὑπομονῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐὰν πάσχωμεν 
 διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, δοξάζωμεν αὐτόν.3 τοῦτον γὰρ 
 ἡμῖν τὸν ὑπογραμμὸν ἔθηκε δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς 
 τοῦτο ἐπιστεύσαμεν." 
 
 X. In his ergo state et domini exemplar sequimini firmi im 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. 31 Peter ii. 22. 
 31 Peter iv. 16. 43 Peter ii. 21. 
 5 Compare 1 Peter iii. 8 (ii. 17). δ Compare 1 Peter v. 5. 
 Ρ 7 Ρ 
 
 Τὰ Peter ii. 12: the paraphrase of the latter part οἵ the verse (ἐποπτεύοντες 
 δοξάσωσι τὸν θεόν) is due to the next quotation (Isaiah 111. 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. 
 
“rérpov A. 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΣ ἀπόστολος 
 
 σπορᾶς Πόντου Γαλατίας Καπ 
 
 l@ X01 ἐκλεκτοῖς παρε 
 
 πιδήμοις δια- 1. τ 
 παδοκίας ᾿Ασίας κατὰ 2 
 
 110 Χὥ is the normal contraction of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ : so KY = κυρίου, 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. 
 
 νει. :. ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπι δή p- 
 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 ff.— 
 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. 
 g-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, “1 am astranger and 
 sojourner (πάροικος kal παρεπίδημος = 
 
 SWNT Δ) with you” (Gen. xxiii. 4); 
 Jacob speaks of the days of the years of 
 my pilgrimage (ΛΔ ἃς παροικῶ) ; 
 and the Psalmist anticipates Peter and 
 Heb. in the generalisation I am a 
 stranger and sojourner (πάροικος 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 (Ἀπολλώνιον [παρεπ]ΐδη- 
 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. 
 Xxvill. 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 
 
 “ΟΡ 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 (¢.g., v. 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 OG! πατρὸς 
 
 καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος 
 
 ἐν ἁγιασμῶ πνεύμα 
 
 TIETPOY A 1: 
 
 τος εἰς ὑπακοὴν 
 
 ιῦ Χῦ- χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη 
 
 1 Θῷ 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 mapemt- 
 δήμοις απάδιασπορ ἂς 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 ἐκλὰ ε- 
 xtots—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 
 xili. 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 ’’. 
 
 Πόντου. . . ᾿Ασίας. 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, 
 p. 103). See Introduction. 
 
 Ver.2. Thethreeclauses katTa..., 
 éy ..., and eis... qualify ἐκλεκ- 
 tots 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 kal 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. Paul in Rom. viii. 
 29 (g.v.). Cf. Origen, Philocalia, xxv. 
 Oecumenius infers that the Apostle is thus. 
 the equal of the prophets, especially 
 Jeremiah (v. Jer. i. 5).—év 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 ὁ θεὸς ἀπ᾽ 
 ἀρχῆς (κατὰ πρ. θ. π.) . . - ἐν ἅγι- 
 ασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἄλη- 
 θείας (εἰς ὑπ.).--εοἰς 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. 
 19, v. 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 Fesus 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 f.; cf. Heb. ix. 19). But refer- 
 ences to other sprinklings of the O.T.., 
 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 . . . ὃν 
 His bruise we were healed (Isa. liii. 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. 
 πληθυνθείΐη. εὐλογητὸς 6 OF! Kal πα 
 xo 6 κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας 
 
 41 
 
 τὴρ τοῦ KU ἡμῶν It 3 
 ἡμᾶς 2 εἰς 
 
 1 Θὲ is the normal contraction of Θεός: so Xs = Χριστός, KS = κύριος, ἰξ -- Ἰησοῦς. 
 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 ἰησοῦ 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 
 Meath (cf. Heb.. v. 8} Phil, 1... 8). 
 χάρις . .. πληθυνθείη. 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 ἣ ἀγάπη τῶν πολλῶν 
 (Matt. xxiv. 12); cf. Rom. v. 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 δῴη 
 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 
 INV Rom: 1. 25. ἢ δὲ 5. GOK) 1.3) 
 xi. 31; Eph. i. 3; note Mark xiv. 61. 
 ὃ θεὸς . . - 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 Irenzeus) 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. 1. 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). 
 
 tion of the Christian corresponds to the | 
 
 Here the regenera- | 
 
 ᾿ 
 
 resurrection of Christ (Chrysostom on | 
 
 John) and implies a previous mystical | 
 or figurative death to sin—see 11. 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 κτίσις. Hort refers to Philo, 
 de incorruptibilitate mundi (ii. 489 M.) 
 where ἀναγέννησις is used for the 
 more usual mwadvyyeveota—rebirth of the 
 world—of the Stoics. ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν. 
 The omission of the definite article is 
 characteristic of St. Peter. The Hope 
 
42 
 
 4 ἐλπίδα Loca? 
 νομίαν ἄφθαρτον K,” 
 5 οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς τοὺς 
 
 δι᾿ ἀναστάσεως ὃ XT 
 ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάρα' 
 ἐν δυνάμει OF φρου 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑᾺΑ i, 
 
 ἐκ νεκρῶν εἰς κληρο 
 
 τον τετηρημένην ε΄ 
 ρουμένους διὰ 
 
 1fwoo = ζῶσαν: the sign™ for ν 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 FY. ζῶσαν 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, ἢ δὲ ἐλπὶς 
 αὐτῶν ἀθανασίας πλήρης. δι᾽ a. with 
 ἀναγεννήσας rather than ζῶσαν: three 
 prepositional clauses are thus attached to 
 a. as to ἐκλεκτοῖς (and ἀπόστολος) in 
 ver. 2. The resurrection of Jesus is the 
 means and guarantee of the spiritual 
 resurrection of the Christian (1 Cor. xv. 
 14,17) from the death of the sinful and 
 fleshly life. 
 
 Ver. 4. εἰς KAnp.... ἀμάραν- 
 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 (x 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 
 ἀφανίζει), apart from this corruptible 
 world (cf. Isa. xxiv. 3). It is the incor- 
 ruptible crown (x Cor. ix. 25. The 
 second epithet ἀμίαντον is applied to 
 the great High Priest, Heb. vil. 26 (cf. 
 Heb. xiii. 4; Jas. i. 27) and implies again 
 separation from this sinful world of which 
 it is written ἐμιάνατε THY γῆν μον καὶ 
 τὴν κληρονομίαν μου ἔθεσθε εἰς βδέ- 
 λυγμα (Jer. ii. 7). Compare the descrip- 
 tion of virtue in Sap. iv. 2, στεφανηφο- 
 ροῦσα πομπεύει τὸν τῶν ἀμιάντων ἄθλων 
 ἀγῶνα νικήσασα. ἀμάραντον is 
 peculiar to 1 Peter in N.T., cf. ἀμαράντι- 
 vov (v. 4): it is perhaps derived from 
 Sap. vi. 12, ἀμάραντός ἐστιν ἣ 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 
 (iz τὸ, οὐ ες MPeteriwiia Ss 135: ἃ 2): 
 Origen (9) in Cramer’s Catena notes that 
 the words contradict Chiliasm. τετ- 
 ἠρημένην ets ὑμᾶς, reserved (τ) 
 with a view to you, cf. John xii. 7, ἵνα 
 eis THY ἡμέραν . .. τηρήσῃ; 2 Peter ii. 
 4, εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους ; for same use 
 of εἰς 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, eis = = 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 (Iviii. 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, δύναμις 
 θεοῦ εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, 
 combined with Gal. iii. 23 (cf. Phil. iv. 7) 
 where also the distinctive φρουρεῖν oc- 
 curs in similar context. The Power 
 
4—6. 
 
 πίστε ως εἰς σωτηρίαν Erol 
 
 éoxdtw* ἐν ὦ 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 μὴν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι 
 ἀγαλλιᾶσθε ὀλίγον ἄρ 
 
 43 
 
 ἐν καιρῶ 
 τι εἰ δέον ' λυπηθέντες 2 6 
 
 1 Codex Alexandrinus with others adds ἐστι after Séov. 
 
 *humnGévres is probably right, εἰ δέον being parenthetical: the variants λυτη- 
 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. 
 
 (sina) of God is put for ¥ehovah 
 
 in the Targum of Isa. xxxili. 21; and the 
 corresponding use of 4 δύναμις is found in 
 Mark xiv. 62 (see Dalman, 200 f.; and 
 add ἣ μεγαλωσύνη; a more exact render- 
 ing, of Heb. i. 3, viii. 1). In Philo God’s 
 powers are personified self-manifestations. 
 εἰς σωτηρίαν, «.t.r., is probably the 
 third clause qualification of φρουρ. (cf. 
 2, 3). Below, the salvation of souls is 
 described as the goal of faith (9) ina 
 passage where the ἑτοίμην, k.t.d., qualify 
 σωτηρίαν rather than κληρονομίαν which 
 is explained by cat. ... ἐσχάτῳ. Sal- 
 vation is to St. Peter that saivation 
 which is to be revealed in the future (c/. 
 i. Q, 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 “PUY prepared, which 
 St. Paul renders with more attention to 
 current usage than etymology by μέλ- 
 λουσαν (Rom. viii. 13; Gal. iii. 23; so 
 t Peter vy. 1). This weaker sense begins 
 with Deut. xxxii. 35 (LXX, πάρεστιν 
 ἕτοιμα. 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 ΓΝ 
 Aboth, ii. 19). 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, mo- 
 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 metal be discovered 
 when Jesus Christ is revealed. You love 
 Him whom you never saw; though you 
 see Him not you believe on Him. Exult 
 
 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, .g) 
 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) Ὁ. 
 Matt. v.12 = Apoc. xix. 7 from Ps. xxi. 1, 
 cxvili. 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. (τὴ) 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 = 
 I Sam. 1. 1 a—a. with ἐν in 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 5} : used later in bad 
 sense (λοιδορεῖται, Hesych): here bor- 
 rowed irom Matt. v. 11 f. χαίρετε καὶ 
 ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. ὀλίγον, (1) for a little 
 time, or (2) to a small extent (contrast 
 John xvi. 6, ἡ λύπη πεπλήρωκεν ὑμῶν 
 τὴν καρδίαν). εἰ δέον, they cannot 
 but fee] grief at their trials (John xvi. 20, 
 ὑμεῖς 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 Avr. 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 IIETPOY A ἣν 
 
 7 ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς 
 πολύυτει 3 
 
 ἵνα τὸ δοκίμιον Spa 
 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 εἰ in πολυτειμότερον is used in place of the conventional t to show that 
 the syllable is long: so τειμήν, etc. The secondary uncials have πολὺ τιμίωτερον. 
 
 limitation of mw. 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- 
 ὠμένον δοκίμιον (cf. τ Chron. xxxix. 4; 
 Zech. xi. 3, where it occurs as v.l. for 
 δόκιμον). Hence the phrase (here and 
 in Jas. i. 3?) corresponds exactly to St. 
 Paul’s τὸ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀγάπης γν ἤ- 
 ovtov—the genuineness of your faith 
 or “the approvedness”). So Arethas 
 on Apoc. ix. 4, of δὲ τὸ δοκίμιον 
 ἑαυτῶν διὰ πυρὸς παρεχόμενοι. The 
 substantive §.=‘‘ means of trial, testing” 
 which does not suit this context, or a 
 specimen of metal to be tested.— oA v- 
 τιμότερον, to justify the common 
 rendering (A.V., R.V.) according to which 
 a. «.T.A. are taken as in apposition to τὸ 
 Sox., dv 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.— xpvaod «.t.A. St. Peter 
 adapts the tamiliar 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- 
 ἄζεται τὸ χρυσίον; Ps. Ixvi. το; Prov. 
 xvil. 3; Sir. ii. 5, ete—Tod d&aoh- 
 λυμένου, cf. John vi. 27, τὴ v βρῶσιν 
 τὴν ἀπ. (contrasted with imperishable 
 food; here gold generally is contrasted with 
 faith) and φθαρτοῖς ἀργυρίῳ καὶ χροσίῳ 
 Ῥεϊον.---εὑρεθῇ, cf. 2 Peter iii. 14, 
 σπουδάσατε ἄσπιλοι kal ἀμώμητοι αὐτῷ 
 εὑρεθῆναι ἐν εἰρήνῃ ; Ps. xvii. 3, ἐδοκί- 
 paras τὴν καρδίαν pov... καὶ οὐχ 
 εὑρέθη ἐν ἐμοὶ ἀδικία.--- εἰς ἔπαινον 
 + - - must be taken with the whole sen- 
 tence, unless év be supplied. So eis 
 might introduce the predicate (better " 
 
 For the image, ° 
 
 stronger) of evp., cf. Rom. vii. το. εἰς 
 
 taken as = "ἢ expressing transition into 
 a new State or condition (as Rom. vii. το). 
 --ἔπαινον is theverdict. ‘‘ 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 *lovdaios 
 - + + οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ avOpwrev ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, Paul follows the alteration 
 of the original ἐξομολόγησις (Gen. xxix. 
 35, LXX, and Philo) consequent upon the 
 
 transference of the praise (=]fyq) from 
 God to men (cf. Gen. xlix. 8, Ἰούδα 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. 
 11 f.); so St. Peter adds ἐπ. to the usual 
 formula δόξαν καὶ τιμήν, Rom. ii. 7, Τὸ 
 (Ps. viii. 6) δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφάνωσας 
 ἄνθρωπον, cf. σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, Rom. 
 ix. 21, for the less obvious word. 
 Hort compares Marcus Aurelius xii. 
 II, μὴ ποιεῖν ἅλλο ἢ ὅπερ μέλλει 
 ὃ θεὸς ἐπαινεῖν.--ἐν ἀποκαλύψει 
 lu. Χυ., when Fesus Christ is revealed. 
 The expression is derived from the saying 
 κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔσται ἧ 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 δρῶντες 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 
 μὴ ἰδόντες Kal 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—I10. 
 
 "δοκιμαζομένου 
 ἀποκαλύψει ὃ Χῦ ὃν 
 "δρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ dyad 
 δεδοξασμένη 
 ψυχῶν. 
 φῆ 
 
 κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος 
 περὶ ἧς ow 
 ται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 εὑρεθῆ εἰς ἔπαινον k, 
 οὐχ 1 ἰδόντες 3 ἀγαπᾶτε 
 
 λιᾶτε χαρᾶ ἀνεκλαλή 
 
 τηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν κ᾿ 
 
 45 
 
 δόξαν καὶ τειμὴν ev 
 
 εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ 8 
 τω καὶ 
 τῆς πίστεως σωτηρί avg 
 ἐξηραύνησαν προ- 10 
 
 χάριτος mpopyntedca τες 
 
 1 The first hand of Codex Vaticanus is alone in reading οὐχ, which could only 
 
 be justified if followed by an aspirate. 
 
 2For 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 when you 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 
 separateuse. ets ὃν, with πιστεύοντες, 
 μὴ δρῶντες being parenthesis added to 
 explain force of πιστ. (Heb. xi. 1 ; Rom. 
 vill. 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 ὑὕπερ- 
 EVTVYXGVEL 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, in 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 them.—kopvfl6- 
 μενοι implies that already they are 
 receiving what is due to them (¢f. 
 v. 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.—T6 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, Adpv- 
 κλος δ᾽ ἔφερε πυγμᾶς τέλος, suggests 
 as a possible rendering because ye 
 receive the reward. The Septuagint, 
 again (Num. xxxi. 28, etc.), uses τ. 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. 
 --σωτηρίαν Ψυχῶν = σωτηρίαν 
 above. ψυχῶν is added to console the 
 readers for their sufferings in accordance 
 with Mark viii. 35, ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ἀπολέσει τὴν 
 ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
 σώσει αὐτήν = John xii. 25; cf. Luke 
 xxi. 193 Jas. i. 21. The soul 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 of 
 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 eis 
 πνεῦμα } προμαρτυρό 
 
 τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν 
 
 μενον 3 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ ἃ i 
 
 ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς 
 
 τὰ εἰς Χρειστὸ παθήματα καὶ τὰς. 
 
 1 οᾶοχ 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 houseas Enoch hoped. ἀπεκαλύ- 
 φθη. 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 (το) καὶ 
 ἄγγελοι. The mention of the righteous 
 derives support from Heb. xi. 13-16, and 
 
 John viii. 56, and an original OH {p59 
 ‘“‘the righteous” would easily be altered in 
 the course of transmission into 572? 
 
 = princes earthly or heavenly (cf. Dan. 
 x. 21; LXX, Μιχαὴλ 6 ἄγγελος). The 
 motive which prompted the interpretation 
 ἄγγελοι is due to the influence of the 
 Book of Enoch (see note beiow) which 
 explains the writer’s conception of the 
 prophets. 
 
 Ver.1o. 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 εἰς χριστὸν 
 παθ. (II). 
 
 Ver. 11. The construction of εἰς 
 
 τικιπ. καιρόν and of προμαρτ. is doubt- 
 ful. épavv@vres takes up ἐξεζήτησαν 
 K.T.A. (10); the run of the sentence seems 
 to naturaliy connect τὰ . . . δόξας with 
 προμαρτ. and εἰς .. - καιρόν with ἐδή- 
 hov. 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 of this 
 kind, ra... δόξας must be governed 
 by ἐδήλου. It is possible also to dis- 
 sociate τίνα from καιρὸν and to render 
 in reference to whom and what time the 
 Spirit signified ...; cf. Eph. v. 22, 
 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστόν, Acts ii. 25. If 
 τίνα 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€Sy4Aov, cf. Heb, ix. δ, 
 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, 2.¢., either (i.) ποῖον": 
 k. or (ii.) τίνα ἢ w. x. (ets being deleted 
 as dittography of -es) or (iii) τὰ. 
 δϑόξας.--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 O.T. was commonly inter- 
 preted as referring to Our Lord; and 
 XC. is a frequent v.J. for KC. Hence 
 Barnabas (v.q.), ot προφῆται ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
 ἔχον τὴν χάριν εἰς αὐτὸν ἐπροφήτευσαν, 
 π-προμαρτυρόμενον only occurs 
 here. If 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 
 
II—12. 
 pe τὰ ταῦτα δόξας οἷς ἀ 
 ὑμῖν δὲ διηκό νουν' αὐτὰ ἃ νῦν avny 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 πεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑ 
 
 47 
 
 αὐτοῖς 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, “1 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 Tod νῦν γενεὰν διενοούμην ἀλλὰ ἐπὶ πόρρω jvoav ἐγὼ λαλῶ. διανοίας 
 of verse 13 is cited in confirmation of the conjecture. 
 
 evangelica (Acts iii. 18, xvii. 3, xxvi. 23). 
 The phrase corresponds exactly to the 
 
 original abysyy 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. 21 f.).—ofs 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, ο΄. iii. 24). 
 Compare Dan. ix. 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 
 ὃ έ, negative and positive presentation of 
 the past for emphasis is common in this 
 Epistle. — S8tunkdvovv αὐτά, ‘they 
 were supplying, conveying the revelations 
 granted to them—primary the prophecy 
 and the revealed solution of it alike,” 
 cf. iv. το, εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ διακονοῦν- 
 τες. 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 διακονηθεῖσα ὑφ᾽ 
 ἡμῶν, viii. 19, τῇ χάριτι ταύτῃ τῇ δια- 
 κονουμένῃ Ud ἡμῶν, from which it may 
 be inferred that ὃ. connotes what the 
 context here suggests, cf. ἃ viv avny- 
 γέλη, have been at the present dispensa- 
 tion declared; ἃ. is taken from the great 
 proof text relating to the calling of the 
 Gentiles, οἷς 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. tpas, 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 evayy. cf. use of QP] = 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, 18 = 
 Isa. lxi. 1) if the prophecy which Jesus 
 appropriated and which forms the basis 
 of the Christian use of the word.— 
 πνεύματι «tA. The evangelists 
 preached by the Spirit, as Stephen spoke 
 (Acts vi. 10), τῷ πνεῦματι ᾧ ἐλάλει. In 
 Sir. xlviii. 24, if the Greek and Hebrew 
 texts are trustworthy, πνεύματι the 
 simple Dative (πνεύματι μεγάλῳ εἶδεν 
 τὰ ἔσχατα i.e. Isaiah) corresponds 
 to : of. insertion of ἐν here in 
 vl. A ἢ 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 &...mapa- 
 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 οἱ 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 represeits 
 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 
 
48 
 
 αγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς mvedpate! ἁγίω ἀπο 
 
 a 
 
 13 εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ay 
 
 τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας 
 
 14 ἐπὶ τὴ 
 
 γελοι παρακύψαι. 
 
 φερομένην ὑμῖν χάρι 
 
 TIETPOY A I, 
 
 σταλέντι ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ 
 διὸ 
 
 ὑμῶν νέφοντες 3 τε 
 
 dvalwodpevor | 
 λείως ἐλπίσατε 
 
 ἐν ἀποκαλύψει 1G Χῦ. ὡς 
 
 1 Τὸ πνεύματι Codex Sinaiticus, with other manuscripts of less weight, prefixes 
 
 ἐν. 
 Ξνέφοντες for 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., 
 feb. 7, not yet do we see... 
 παρακύψαι has lost its suggestion of 
 peeping through its use in the LXX for 
 
 APw look forth though it is not em- 
 
 ployed by them in the places where God 
 15 Said to look down from heaven (Ps. xiv. 
 2, εἴς). 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”’. 
 Vv. 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. --ἀναζωσάμενοι, K.TA., 
 the reference to the directions for celebra- 
 tion of the Passover (Exod. xii. 11, οὕτως 
 δὲ φάγεσθε αὐτό- ai ὀσφύες ὑμῶν περι- 
 εἵωσμέναι . . . 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. Occ. 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, avaLwoa- 
 μένη ἰσχυρῶς THY 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 4 heart. 
 πτνήφοντες 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. ix. 11, THs... τελειοτέρας 
 σκηνῆς and Jas. i. 25, νόμον τέλειον τὸν 
 τῆς ἐλευθερίας. For νήφοντες cf. iv. 7 
 and ν. 8, νήψατε γρηγορήσατε, τ 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 
 κώμοις and πότοις, in which they were 
 prone to indulge.—rtriv φερομένην 
 ὑμῖν χάριν is an adaption of the 
 common Greek idiom (Homer down- 
 wards) φέρειν x., to confer a favour (cf. 
 Sir. viii. 19, ph 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 hasbegun. Thexdpts 
 is the final deliverance and its use here 
 is another link with the type: ἔδωκεν 6 
 Κύριος τὴν χάριν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ (Exod. 
 xii, 36ὴ).--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. ὡς, inasmuch as you are, cf. 
 
13—I7. 
 
 , ς a , 
 τέκνα ὑπακοῆς" μὴ συσχηματιζόμε 
 τῆ ἀγνοία ὑμῶν ἐπι 
 Ὁ aa Ν > Ν Ὁ 3 , 
 ἅγιο καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πά 
 διότι γέγραπται 
 πατέρα ἐπικαλεῖσθε τὸν ἄπρο 
 
 τὸ ἑκάστου ἔργον ἐν φόβω τὸν 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A 
 
 θυμίαις - ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ 
 on ἀναστροφῆ γενή 
 ὅτι ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐ 
 σωπολήμπτως κρί 
 τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν 
 
 49 
 
 vat ταῖς πρότερον ἐν 
 καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς 15 
 
 Onte - 
 
 γὼ ἅγιος - καὶ εἰ τό, 17 
 
 vovTa κατὰ 
 
 χρόνον 
 
 1 The termination συσχηματιζόμεναι is probably due to the following ταῖς. 
 
 ii. 2, 5, iii. 7, εἴο.--τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, 
 obedient corresponds to St. Paul’s υἱοὶ 
 τῆς ἀπειθείας (Col. iii, 6; Eph. ii. 2, 
 ν. 6). Both phrases reflect the Hebrew 
 use of 1.» ‘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. τὴ.---συσχηματιΐζό- 
 μεναι, from Rom. xii. 2, μὴ 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 i. 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 τῇ 
 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. 29-41 with Isa. ii. 3; Baruch. iv. 4, 
 μακάριοί ἐσμεν ᾿Ισραὴλ ὅτι τὰ ἀρεστὰ 
 τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῖν γνωστά ἐστιν. 
 
 Vv. το. 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. 111. 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. 1.2.) 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 πάσῃ 
 ἀναστροφῇ, cf. i. 18, 11. 12, iil. 1, 
 2, 16; Tobit iv. 19, ἴσθι πεπαιδευμένος ἐν 
 πάσῃ ἀ. σον. The corresponding verb, 
 ἀναστρέφεσθαι is found as rendering of 
 
 son in the same sense (Prov. xx. 7, 
 
 ἀναστρέφεται ἄμωμος) ; both verb and 
 noun are so used in late Greek authors 
 (especially Epictetus).—y ev ἤθη τε be- 
 come as you were not OR show yourselves 
 as you are; the latter sense suits @. which 
 is distinctively outward behaviour. 
 
 Ver. 17, cf. Rom. ii. το, εἰ πατέρα 
 ἐπικαλεῖσθε, if ye invoke as Father :— 
 reminiscence of Jer. iii. 19, εἰ πατέρα 
 ἐπικαλεῖσθέ pe (so Q. perhaps after 
 τ Peter, for εἶπα πατέρα καλέσετέ pe) 
 cf. Ps. Ixxxix. 27, αὐτὸς ἐπικαλέσεται 
 με Πατήρ μου εἶ σύ. There may be a 
 reference to the use of the Lord’s Prayer 
 (surname the Fudge Father); but the 
 context of Jer. 1.6. 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’.” --ἀπροσωπολήμπτως 
 summarises St. Peter’s inference from 
 experience at Caesarea (Acts x. 34) kata- 
 λαμβάνομαι ὅτι οὔκ ἐστιν προσωπολή- 
 μπτης ὁ θεός. Adjective and adverb are 
 formed from λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον of 
 
 LXX = 1D NWO 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 
 
 ΤΕ 
 
 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—xpivovta. If 
 the tense be pressed, compare the saying 
 of Jesus recorded in John xii. 31, νῦν 
 κρίσις ἐστιν τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. Rom. 
 ii. 16 is referred to the last Judgment by 
 διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. But the present 
 participle may be timeless as in ὃ καλῶν, 
 ὁ βαπτίζων, etc.—KaTa τὸ Ex άστον 
 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—1 John iv. 18. The natural 
 and acquired senses exist side by side, as 
 appears in the use of ἄφοβος. Compare 
 ἄφοβος οὐ Sivarar δικαιωθῆναι (Sir. i. 
 (22 with ἐν τούτῳ ἄφοβός εἶμι (Ps. 
 xxvii. 2, Symmachus) = in Him I am con- 
 fident.—rov τῆς παροικίας Xpo- 
 vov, 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, x). St. Paul has his 
 own use of the metaphor (Eph. ii. 19). 
 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. xlv. 13) εἰς 
 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, «tA. The preceding 
 negative relief to positive statement is 
 characteristic of St. Peter, who here 
 found it in his original (Isa.J.c.). φθαρ- 
 τοῖς echoes ἀπολλυμένου and is prob- 
 ably an allusion to the Golden Calf of 
 which it was said These be thy gods O 
 
 εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ φθαρ 
 ματαίας ὑμῶν ἄναστρο 
 
 3 x “ φῳ ε 
 
 ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ .. 
 
 τοῖς ἀργυρίω ἢ χρυσίω 
 
 φῆς πατροπαρα- 
 ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἃ σπίλου 
 Israel, which brought thee up out of the 
 land of Egypt (Exod. xxxii. 14). Accord- 
 ing to Sap. xiv. 8, itis 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 bas (Jer. x. 3, etc.).— 
 πατροπαραδότου, ancestral, here- 
 
 ditary. The adjective indicates the source 
 of the influence, which their old way of 
 life—patrius mos, patrii ritus—still exer- 
 cised over them. The ancient religion 
 had a strength—not merely vis inertiae— 
 which often baffled both Jewish δηφ 
 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 
 ancestral 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 (ἸῺ πρόβατον, but 
 Targum-Onkelos has ΣΝ /amb and 
 
 “Tir? is rendered dpvés in Lev. xii. 8; 
 Num. xv. 11; Deut. xiv. 4) prescribed for 
 the Passover (Exod. xii. 5). But the des- 
 cription perfect (τέλειον pan) is 
 glossed by ἀμώμου (cf. Heb. xii. 14), 
 which is the common translation of 
 DOM in this connection, and ἀσπί- 
 Xov which summarises the description 
 of sacrificial victims generally (v. Lev. 
 xxii. 22, etc.). ἅμωμος would be unintel- 
 ligible to the Gentile, because it has 
 acquired a peculiar meaning from the 
 
r8—2I. 
 
 XG προεγνωσ 
 Ρωθέντος δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχά 
 
 Hebrew OD blemish. ἄσπιλος is used 
 by Symmachus in Job xv. 15, for “Tar 
 Hesychius treats ἄσπιλος. ἅμωμος and 
 καθαρός as synonyms.—ript@ is set 
 over against φθαρτοῖς as πολυτιμ.. against 
 ἀπολλυμένου; cf. Ps. cxvi. 15, τίμιος 
 ἐναντίον Κυρίου ὁ 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... . Ac- 
 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- 
 jiled (Sap. viii. 19 f.); and Philo found 
 Scriptural warrant in the first of the two 
 accounts of Creation (Gen. i. 26 f.). 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 (a.D.) and appropriated by the 
 Christians. There are many hints in the 
 0.T. which Christians exploited without 
 violence and the development of angel- 
 ology offered great assistance. Current 
 
 IIETPOY A 
 
 μένου μὲν πρὸ κατα 
 του τῶν χρόνων Su 
 
 51 
 
 βολῆς κόσμου φανε 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.—q poe- 
 γνωσμένου, 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 κόσμου. The 
 phrase does not occur in LXX but Matt. 
 
 xiii. 35 = Ps. Ixxviii. 2 renders op Ἵ 
 
 by ἀπὸ καταβολῆς (LXX ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς) 
 Philo has καταβολὴ γενέσεως and αἱ 
 καταβολαὶ σπερμάτων and uses ἐκ K. = 
 afresh. In 2 Macc. ii. 29, καταβολή 
 is used of the foundation of a house ; cf. 
 κατασκευάζειν in Heb.—odavepwOév- 
 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 κόσμῳ. The manifestation consists 
 in the resurrection and glorification evi- 
 denced by descent of spirit (21): cf. 
 Peter’s sermon in Acts ii., risen, exalted, 
 Fesus has sent the spirtt: 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 is Christ 
 in you; see especially Col. i. 25-27. 
 Compare John i. 14.—€m 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, 1.6., 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 hope.—8v αὐτοῦ. Compare 
 for form Acts iii. 16, ἡ πίστις ἡ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ 
 and for thought Rom. v. 2; Eph. ii. 13— 
 πιστοὺς ets θεόν. This construc- 
 tion occurs not infrequently in the Bezan 
 text and is simply equivalent to π᾿ with 
 
52 
 
 πιστοὺς 1 εἰς Ov τὸν ἐ 
 
 αὐτῶ 
 22 Θ΄ τὰς ψυχὰς 
 ας 2 εἰς φιλαδελφίαν 
 
 TIETPOY A 
 
 δόντα ὥστε τὴν wi 
 ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες ἐν 
 ἀνυπόκριτον " ἐκ καρ 
 
 [.. 
 
 γείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ ve κρῶν Kal δόξαν 
 
 στιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς. 
 πὸ Ὁ my "ἢ ἔχεν ἣν , 
 
 TH ὑπακοῆ τῆς ἀληθεί 
 
 δίας ἀλληλους. 
 
 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 ' POR: But π΄. 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 move- 
 ὕοντας 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 God.—8éEav αὐτῷ δόντα, 
 so é.g., the prophecy (Isa. lii. 13) ὁ παῖς 
 pov... δοξασθήσεται σφόδρα was ful- 
 filled when the lame man was healed by 
 St. Peter and St. John; ὃ θεὸς ᾿Αβραὰμ. 
 «ον 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 (ἦν τὸ πνεῦμα ὅτι 
 οὕπω ἐδοξάσθη, John).—doare ... 
 θεόν. καὶ ἐλπίδα may be part of the 
 subject of εἶναι eis 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 
 
 (= “ΓΊΏ2), 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. 1). 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), 
 τῇ ὑπακοῇ with τέκνα %. (14), avaye- 
 γεννημένοι with ἀναγεννήσας (3), φθαρτῆς 
 with φθαρτοῖς (18), εὐαγγελισθέν with 
 τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων (12). It should be 
 compared throughout with Eph. iv. 18- 
 24.—Tas.. . ἡγνικότες from Jer. vi. 16, 
 “see what is the good way and walk in 
 it and youshall find purification (ayviopev 
 LXX) to your souls. ἃ. usually of cere- 
 monial purification in LXX. Compare 
 Jas. iv. 8, ἁγνίσατε 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, 
 of. i John iii. 3 and 15 f. above with con- 
 text—év τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθε- 
 tas, in your obedience to the truth, cf. 
 Jer. l.c. 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. 
 
 dyam σατε ἐκτενῶς dvaye 
 φθαρτῆς ἀλλὰ 
 Tos.” 
 ἄνθος 
 
 ἀφθάρτου διὰ λόγου 
 διότι πᾶσα σὰρξ 
 χόρτου ἐξηράνθη 6 
 
 τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα Ku μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶ 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 γεννημένοι οὐκ ἐκ 
 
 ὡς χόρτος καὶ πᾶσα 
 , A a ” 
 χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος 
 
 53 
 
 σπορᾶς 23 
 ζῶντος Θῦ καὶ pévo 
 
 δόξα αὐτῆς ὡς 24 
 ἐξέπεσεν 
 
 να : τοῦτο ὃέ 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 
 
 Ocod καὶ μένοντος. 
 
 2 The addition of εἰς 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 ἐν 
 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- 
 λφίαν, love of the brethren, Vulgate, in 
 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, 1 Thess. iv. 9.--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 ροοι.- -ὠσἹλλήλ- 
 ovs 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. 10).—@€xtTev@s, intentius 
 (Vulg.), in LXX of ‘strong crying to 
 God” (Jonah iii. 8 = ΓΙΡῚ ΤΙΣ violently, 
 cf. Jud. iv.12; Joeli.14; 3 Macc. v.g: 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... 
 πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται ; 
 cf. Eph. iv. 17, v. 2.-πἐκ σπορᾶς 
 ἀφθάρτου, i.e, of God regarded as 
 
 VOL. V. 4 
 
 < 
 
 Father and perhaps also as Sower (cf. 
 ver. 24); the two conceptions are com- 
 binedin σα John iii. 9, was 6 γεγεννημένος 
 ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν ov ποιεῖ ὅτι σπέρμα 
 αὐτοῦ μένει. Compare Philo, Leg. All., 
 Ρ- 123 M. Λείαν . . . ἐξ οὐδενὸς yevvn- 
 τοῦ λαμβάνουσαν τὴν σπορὰν . . . ἀλλ᾽ 
 tr’ 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 dei vivi et perman- 
 entis, is supported by Dan. vi. 26 (αὐτὸς 
 yap ἐστιν θεὸς μένων καὶ ζῶν) and sup- 
 Ῥοτίβ 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 ἄνθρώπου (so Heb., etc.) and 
 Κυρίου for τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν (in accordance 
 with the proper reading οἵ ¥ehovah in 
 the omitted verse). 
 
 Ver.25. τὸ εὐαγγελισ θὲ ν comes 
 from 6 εὐαγγελιζόμενος Σειὼν of Isa. χ] 
 9 which the Targum explains as referring 
 to the prophets. 
 
54 
 
 II. τ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲ" 
 κακίαν καὶ 
 2 καταλαλιὰς ὡς 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 4 
 πάντα δόλον καὶ Ord 
 
 Π. 
 
 εἰς ὑμᾶς. ἀποθέμενοι οὖν πᾶσαν 
 κρισιν καὶ φόνους kK πάσας 
 
 ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον 
 
 1 φόνους is an error (peculiar to Codex Vaticanus) for φθόνους. 
 
 CuapTer II.—Vv. 1-10. Continuation 
 of practical atlmonition with appeal to 
 additional ground-principles illustrating 
 the thesis of i. ro. 
 
 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. 
 τη).--ἀδποθέμενοι, putting off. Again 
 participle with imperative force. St. Peter 
 regards the metaphor of removal as based 
 on the idea of washing off filth, cf. cap- 
 Kos ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου (ili. 21). St. James 
 (1.21, διὸ ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπα- 
 ρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακία ς) which 
 seems to combine these two phrases and 
 to deduce the familiarity of the spiritual 
 sense of filth (cf. Apoc. xxii. 11, ῥυπαρὸς 
 Kaytos). 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 évdvcac@ar).— 
 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). κι. is generally eagerness 
 to hurt one’s neighbour (Suidas)—the 
 feeling which prompts backbitings and 
 may be subdivided into guile, hypocrisy, 
 and envy.—86hov, 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 . . . δόλου, 
 Rom. i. 29) as the Western world has 
 judged from experience (Greek and grec 
 = cardsharper ; compare characters of 
 Odysseus and Hermes). ὃ. is here con- 
 
 trasted with obedience to the truth (i. 22), 
 Vii. 22, ili, το.---πόκρισιν 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. 
 
 xxix. 13). It stands for al profane, 
 
 impure in Symmachus’ version of Ps. 
 XxxV. 16; so ὑποκριτὴς in LXX of Job 
 (xxxiv. 30, xxxvi. 13), and Aquila (Prov. 
 xi. g), etc. In 2 Macc. vi. 25, v is used of 
 (unreal ?—not secret) apostasy perhaps 
 in accordance with the earlier sense of 
 
 fat 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 ¥. 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, 111. 11. For 
 internal calumnies, cf. Jas. iv. 11; 2 Cor. 
 xii. 20 illustrates one special case, for 
 φυσιώσεις κᾳταλαλιαὶ correspond to εἷς 
 ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ 
 ἑτέρου of τ Cor. iv. 6 (cf. i. 12). 
 
 Ver. 2. ὡς, inasmuch as you are new- 
 born babes; cf. avayeyevvnpevor (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)—Bpéon (only 
 here in metaphorical sense) is substituted 
 for παιδία (preserved by St. Paul in τ Cor. 
 xiv. 20) as= babes at the breast. Α 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. xxvili. 9, 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 ts beloved beyond all peoples ? 
 --τὸ ... γάλα. The quotation of 
 ver. 3 suggests that the milk is Christ; 
 
I—5. 
 
 > > 
 
 γά λα ἐπιποθήσατε ἵνα 
 εἰ ἐγεύσἄΣα σθε ὅτι χρηστὸς ὃ KS 
 
 “- 
 
 λίθον ζῶντα ὑπ᾽ a 
 
 5 
 
 O@ ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντει prov 
 
 οἶκος πνευματικὸς 
 
 μεῖσθε 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε 1 εἰς 
 θρώπων μὲν ἀποϑε 
 
 καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι 
 3 ε o 
 εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον 
 
 55 
 
 σωτηρίαν 3, 4 
 πρὸς Ov προσερχόμε νοι 
 δὲ 
 
 ζῶντες οἰκοδο- 5 
 
 δοκιμασμένον παρὰ 
 
 ἀνενέγκαι 
 
 1 The variant ἀξιωθῦτε for avéyOrre 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. μνηδὲ δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον 
 τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor. iv. 2. The interpreta- 
 tion of λογικόν (pertaining to λόγος) is 
 doubtful. But the use of λόγος just 
 above (i. 23) probably indicates the sense 
 which St. Peter put upon the adjective he 
 borrowed (?) from Rom, xii. 1, 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 \. and of the meta- 
 phor of milk (solid food, 1 Cor. iii. x 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) = dulcis (Vulg.) or 
 kind (cf. χρηστότης θεοῦ, Rom. ii. 4, xi. 
 22). Compare Heb. vi. 4 f. yevoapévous 
 τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου... καὶ 
 καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα. 
 
 Vv. 4-το. 
 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. iii. 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. to f.; Cyprian (Test. ii. 16 f.) 
 gives a still richer form. 
 
 Ver. 4. πρὸς ὃν προσερχ- from 
 
 Passages of scripture prov-— 
 
 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 
 ascend.—AlOov 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 TaN thy father for jas 
 
 stone. The Targum of Isa. viii. 14, how- 
 ever, has ΓΤ jas a striking stone, for 
 
 FAI 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. ἀποϑεδοκ. 
 comes from Ps. cxviii. 22 (see ver. 7); 
 ἐκλ. ἐντ. from Isa. xxviii. 6 (see ver. 6). 
 ἀνθρώπων is probably due to Rabbinic 
 
 exegesis “read not D9} builders but 
 
 DIN I sonsofmen”. 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 11. 19). Christians 
 live to God through Jesus Christ (Rom. 
 vi. 11). For this development of the 
 figure of ee cf. especially Eph. ii. 
 20 ff.—oikodopetaOe, 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 ...a@ytov, 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, 1.e., 
 
6 πνευματι 
 περιέχει ἐν γραφῆ 
 ἀκρο γωνιαῖον ἔντειμον 
 
 7 καταισχυν 
 στοῦσιν! δὲ λίθος ὃν a 
 ἐ γγενήθη εἷς κεφαλὴν 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 κὰς θυσίας εὐπροσδέ 
 ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σειὼν 
 
 θῆ - ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ τειμὴ 
 πεδοκίμασαν ot οἰκο 
 
 , . ’ 
 γωνίας καὶ λίθος προσ 
 
 Τίς 
 κτους O& διὰ 1d XG de ότι 
 λίθον ἐκλεκτὸν 
 
 Noe , aN - a > x 
 καὶ 6 πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὖ τῶ οὐ μὴ 
 τοῖς πιστεύουσιν - ἄπι 
 δομοῦντες οὗτος 
 
 4A 
 κόμματος καὶ 
 
 1 For ἀπιστοῦσιν Codex Alexandrinus, with others, reads ἀπειθοῦσιν. 
 
 the Temple; "ἰοῦ. (iv. 17; 1 Tim. iii. 5) 
 ναὸς ὅς ἐστε ὑμεῖς, τ 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 Macc. 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. 
 —dvevéyxat... Χριστοῦ. to 
 offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to 
 God through Fesus Christ—8r.a*lynood 
 X. is better taken with av. than εὐπροσδ.; 
 cf. Heb. xiii. 15, δι᾽ 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, it 
 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- 
 4ensiveness.—m epué yeu is intransitive 
 as the simple verb and other compounds 
 often are; cf. περιοχή, contents, Acts viii. 
 32.—y pad ῇ, being a technical term, has 
 no article—iSo0v...kaTatoxvv07q, 
 formal quotation of Isa. xxviii. 16, preced- 
 ing quotation from Psalms, as prophets 
 always precede the writings. The LXX 
 has ἰδοὺ ἐμβάλλω ἐγὼ eis τὰ θεμέλια 
 (unique expansion of normal θεμελιῶ = 
 ID" of Heb., cf. eis τὰ 8. below ; Targum, 
 
 SSD I will appoint) Σειὼν λίθον wodv- 
 τελῆ (a. duplicate of ἔντιμον ; Heb., a 
 stone a stone; Targum, a king a king ; 
 pointing to Jewish Messianic interpreta- 
 tion) ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρ. ἔντ. εἰς τὰ θεμέλια 
 αὐτῆς (a foundation a foundation, Heb.} 
 καὶ ὁ πιστεύων (+ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ SHAQ) οὐ μὴ 
 καταισχυνθῇ (= ἩΔῪ for warp 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 
 eis 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... 
 ‘a 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; ¢g., 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. mp underlying it. The play 
 
 on the peculiar sense thus required does 
 not exclude the ordinary meaning honour 
 (for which cf. i. 7; Rom. ii. το).---λίθος 
 dv... γωνίας = Ps. lc. (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.—A lBo¢ 
 προσκόμματος k. π΄. ox. from Isa. 
 viii. 14 ; LXX paraphrases the original, 
 which St. Peter’s manual preserves,. 
 reading καὶ οὐχ ὡς λίθῳ προσκόμματι 
 συναντήσεσθε οὐδὲ ὡς πετρας πτώμ- 
 ατι (common confusion of construct. with 
 Gen.).— ot... ἀπειθοῦντες, des- 
 
6—9. TIETPOY A 57 
 πέτρα σκανδάλου οὗ προσκό πτουσιν τῶ λόγω ἀπι στοῦντες 8 
 εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐξέ θησαν "1 ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτὸν βασίλειον 9 
 
 ε , » oe - 
 ἱεράτευμα ἔθνος ἅγιο 
 
 ἐξαγ γείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους 
 
 λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν " 
 ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς 
 
 ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς 
 τὸ 
 
 1In 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 mp. or both mp. 
 and a. 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. 60, 
 τοῦτο--ὁ λόγος οὗτος-- ὑμᾶς σκανδα- 
 λίζε). For ἀ. οἴ 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.). 
 
 Vy.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 γένος pov το ἐκλεκτὸν 
 (1) λαόν μου ὃν περιεποιησάμην (4) τὰς 
 ἀρετάς μου διηγεῖσθαι with Exod. xix. 
 65, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθέ μοι βασίλειον ἱερά- 
 τευμα (2) καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον (3) ἔσεσθέ μοι 
 αὸς 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 υἱοῖς τῶν ἄνθ- 
 ρώπων---ἰο which is appended Hos. i. 
 6, 8.—yévos ἐκλεκτόν, Isa. lic, LXX 
 (Heb., my people my chosen); γένος, 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. τ, 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 title—é6vos 
 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 OY in this connexion 
 is wanted below, and St. Peter is content 
 to follow his authority.—Aads εἰς 
 περιποίησιν, a people for possession 
 
 = πἰϑὴὸ 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 eis 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.—8tTos... ἐξαγγε- 
 ἔλη τε, 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 snoan my praise; 
 and this sense reappears in Esther xiv. 
 το. ἀνοῖξαι στόμα ἐθνῶν εἰς ἀρετάς 
 ματαίων, the praises of idols. Else- 
 where it stands for “J\fq» glory (Hab. 
 ili. 3; Zach. vi. 43). In the books of 
 Maccabees (especially the fourth) it has 
 its ordinary sense of virtue, which cannot 
 
10 θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ 
 11 οὐκ ἢ 
 ὡς παροίκους 
 12 ἐπιθυμιῶν αἵτινες 
 
 στροφὴν 2 ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A 
 
 φῶς - οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαὸς 
 λεημένοι νῦν δὲ ἐλε 
 καὶ παρεπιδήμους ἀπέ 
 στρατεύονται κατὰ 
 μι ‘ o 
 ἔθνεσιν καλὴν ἵνα 
 
 Il. 
 viv δὲ λαὸς OD οἱ 
 ἀγαπητοὶ παρακαλῶ 
 χεσθαι : τῶν σαρκικῶ᾽ 
 τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν ἀνα 
 ἐν ὦ καταλαλοῦσιν 
 
 ηθέντες. 
 
 1For ἀπέχεσθαι Codex Alexandrinus and others read ἀπέχεσθε: ε and at 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. τα ἢ). In 2 Peter i. 3, ἃ. corre- 
 sponds to θεία δύναμις, a sense which 
 might be supported by Ps. l.c. (for dis- 
 cussion of other—very uncertain — evi- 
 dence see Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 
 95 ff., 362) and the events of Pentecost 
 (see especially Acts ii, II)—rot... 
 φῶς is derived from Ps. /.c.; the natural 
 antithesis light is readily supplied (cf. 
 Eph. v. 8, 14) ; darkness = heathenism in 
 cf. το. Γ 
 
 Ver. 10, from Hosea i. 6, ii. 1(3); cf. 
 Rom. ix. 25 (has καλέσω κάλεσον of 
 Hos.); the terms are so familiar that 
 μου 15 omitted by Peter as unnecessary 
 (cf. γένος éx. for τὸ y. pov é.). 
 
 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—ayamn τοί, not an empty 
 tormulze 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.—@s 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. τ and παροικίας of 
 i.17. The combination (= 39) Δ) 
 occurs twice in LXX (Gen. xxxiil. 4; Ps. 
 xxxix. 13). Christians are in the world, 
 not of the world.—améxeo@at, cf. 
 Plato, Phaedo, 82 C, true philosophers, 
 ἀπέχονται τῶν κατὰ TO σῶμα ἐπιθυμιῶν 
 ἁπάσων---ποί for fear of poverty, like the 
 vulgar, nor for fear of disgrace, like the 
 ambitious, but because only so can he, 
 departing in perfect purity, come to the 
 company of the gods”.—Tt@v capkt- 
 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. ii. 3), but uses it in his own way 
 in a sense as wide as Tas κοσμικὰς é. 
 (Tit. ii. 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, “1 perceive a different law in my 
 members warring against (ἀντιστρατε- 
 υηόμενον) the law of my mind;” cf. Jas. 
 iv. 1, the pleasures which war in your 
 members, and 4 Macc. ix. 23, ἱερὰν καὶ 
 εὐγενῆ στρατείαν στρατεύσασθε περὶ τῆς 
 εὐσεβείας.-κατὰ τῆς Ψυχῆς. 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 γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντικεῖται 
 (Gal. v. 17). 
 
 Ver. 12. Adaptation of the saying, 
 ὅπως ἴδωσιν 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 
 
Io—I5. 
 
 6 μῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν 
 
 δοξά σωσι τὸν OV ἐν ἡμέρα 
 , " , 
 πάση ἀνθρωπί νη κτίσει 
 ὕπε ρέχοντι εἴτε ἡγεμό 
 ἐκδίκη σιν κακοποιῶν ἔπαι 
 ἐστὶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ OT ἀγαθο 
 
 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. 
 iv. If., παρακαλῶ. .. ὑμᾶς ... ἄνε- 
 χόμενοι.--ἐντοῖς ἔθνεσιν, the people 
 of God (ii. 9) 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 (88. lii. 
 5; LXX, cited Rom. ii. 24)—tva... 
 ἐπισκοπῆς, in order that as a result 
 of your good works they may be inttiated 
 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, 
 z.e., your behaviour generally ; cf. 111. 16, 
 iv. 4, and for δοξ. τὸν θεὸν ἐν, iv. 11, 16. 
 π-καταλαλοῦσιν ὡς x. 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, x. 14, 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 τε- 
 vealed and published)—8o0fdawotv 
 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 KV 
 ς 3 > a 
 ow ὡς Sv αὐτοῦ πεμ 
 νον δὲ ἀγαθοποιῶν - 
 
 59 
 
 ἐποπτεύοντες 
 
 Ὑητε 13 
 βασιλεῖ ὡς 
 
 ὑὕποτά 
 εἴτε 
 πομένοις εἰς 14 
 
 ὅτι οὕτως 15 
 ποιοῦντας φειμοῦ τὴν 
 (Mark xv. 39)—i.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 (Fqpp Di) 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. 
 
 Vy. 13-17. The duty of the Christian 
 towards the State; compare Rom. xiii. 
 1-.--πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει, 
 every human institution, including rulers 
 (14), masters (18), and husbands (ili. 1). 
 κτίζειν is used ordinarily in many senses, 
 é.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 (τ) retrospective— 
 i.e., because Jesus said, Render what is 
 Cesar’s to Cesar or, generally, because 
 God is the source of all duly-constituted 
 authority; or (ii.) prospective for the sake 
 of Fesus (Fehovah); your loyalty re- 
 dounding to the credit of your Master in 
 heaven.—Baogthei, the Roman Em- 
 peror, as in Apoc. xvii. 9, etc.; Josephus 
 Biles νυν πθ; Ὁ: Ἰηγγα.- -ὡπερέχοντι, 
 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 Kal βασιλέων σταθήσεσθε, 
 interpreted in the light ot popular usage 
 
60 
 
 16 τῶν ἀφρόνων 
 ὡς ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχο᾽ 
 17 Θῦ δοῦλοι πάντας τιμή 
 18 τὸν OF φο 
 τασσόμενοι ἐν παντὶ 
 Ig ἀγαθοῖς 
 
 (cf. Luke xxi. 12) or of Jet. xxxix. 3, ἥγε- 
 poves βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος. Contrast 
 vague general term, ἐξουσίαις ὕπερεχ ὡς 
 . » « which St. Paul employed before his 
 visit to Rome.—wepm., 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 ἦν 
 εδομένον σοι avwlev.—eis ἐκδίκησιν, 
 κιτιλ. The ruler executes God’s ven- 
 geance (Rom. xii. 19) and voices God’s 
 approval (Ps. xxii. 25, παρὰ σοῦ 6 ἔπαινός 
 ov). 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 himself—?tpodty, (1) muzzle (τ 
 Cor. ix. 9), (2) sélence as Jesus did (Matt. 
 xxii. 34, ἐφίμωσεν τοὺς Σαδδουκαίους). 
 --τὴν ἀγνωσίαν, ἃ rare word—perhaps 
 borrowed from Job xxxv. 16, ἐν ἀγνωσίᾳ 
 ῥήματα βαρύνει, He multiplieth words 
 without knowledge. In 1 Cor. xv. 34, 
 ἀγνωσίαν yap Gon TLVES ἔχουσιν, it is 
 derived from Sap. xiii. 1, ols 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.—T@v ἀφρόνων = 
 the foolish men who calumniate you (1 2. 
 &. 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 ἀγαθο- 
 
 TIETPOY A 
 
 ἀνθρώπων ἀγνωσία - 
 τες τῆς κακίας τὴν 
 
 βεῖσθε, τὸν βασιλέα τει 
 , La} , 
 $6Bw τοῖς δεσπόταις, 
 
 A 
 καὶ ἐπιεικέσι ἀλλὰ καὶ 
 
 Il. 
 
 ὡς ἐλεύθεροι καὶ μὴ 
 ἐλευθερίαν ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 
 
 σατε: τὴν ἀδελφότη τα 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. qg.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.—Kx at 
 py. - + ἐλευθερίαν, 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 = "55; 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- 
 Sorte, Rom. l.c., and for matter, Rom. xii. 
 το, TH τιμῇ 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)-—0 π᾿ 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 in ail fear (cf. 
 17, etc.) and τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν 
 (cf. Ps. Ixxxvi. 4» σὺ κύριος χρηστὸς καὶ 
 ἐπιεικής).--τοῖς σκολι ots, the per- 
 verse, cf. Phil. ii. 15, ἵνα γένησθε Foss 
 τέκνα θεοῦ ἄμωμα μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς 
 καὶ διεστραμμένης, where the full phrase 
 
 is cited from Deut. xxxii. 5 (ox. = Wy) 
 
 The Vulgate has dyscolis = Oe te 
 Hesychius, σκολιός. ἄδικος ; Prov. xxviii. 
 18, ὃ σκολιαῖς ὁδοῖς πορευόμενος χ. ὁ 
 πορευόμενος δικαίως. 
 
 Vv. 19 f. Summary application of the 
 teaching of Jesus recorded in Luke vi. 27- 
 
16—23. 
 
 yap χάρις εἰ διὰ συνίδη 
 ἀδίκως. ποῖον γὰρ κλέος εἰ ἁ 
 μενοι  ὕπομε 
 
 ὑπομενεῖτε, τοῦ το χάρις παρὰ Θῶ. 
 
 εἰ = 
 OTL καὶ Xs ἔπαθεν 6 
 
 TIETPOY A 
 
 σιν 06 ὑποφέρει τις 
 μαρτάνοντες καὶ κο 
 vette ; ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἀγαθοποι 
 
 εἰς 
 πὲρ ὑμῶν ὑμῖν ὕπο 
 
 61 
 
 λύπας πάσχων 
 
 λαφιζό- 29 
 οῦντες καὶ πάσχον τες 
 τοῦτο γὰρ ἐκλήθητε 21 
 
 λιμπάνων ὕπογραμ, 
 
 Ν - > Xr , a ᾿᾿ > A ΕΣ 
 μὸν ἵνα ἐπακολουβηή σηται τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ - ὃς 22 
 ’ , a 
 ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῶ στόματι 
 αὐτοῦ ὃς λοι δορούμενος οὐκ ἀν 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. 39-48.—x άρις seems to 
 ‘be an abbreviation of the O.T. idiom to 
 
 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. 
 32).— Compare χάριτας = ps 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 (0. objective genitive), cf. o. apap- 
 “τίας, Heb. x. 2. The Jatter construction 
 is preferable: the phrase interprets διὰ 
 τὸν κύριον with the help of the Pauline 
 expression διὰ τὴν o. (Rom. xiii. 5 ; τ 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 («X. neutral as in 
 Thuc. ii. 45) cf. ποία χάρις τίνα μισθόν, 
 Matt. kA. (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, ἤρξαντό 
 τινες ... κολαφίζειν αὐτόν: cf. Matt. 
 ν. 39, ὅστις oe ῥαπίζει. So also St. 
 Paul recalls the parallel between Christ’s 
 and the Christians’ sufferings (1 Cor. iv. 
 II) κολαφιζόμεθα. --- ἀ γαθοποιοῦν- 
 τες, opposed to ἁμαρτάνοντες, explains 
 ἀδίκως (19).—xX 4 pts, see ON x. ver. Ig. 
 Ver. 21. εἰς τοῦτο, sc. to do well 
 and to suffer, if need be, without flinch- 
 
 ing, as Christ did.—_é« An One, sc. by 
 God; cf. διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν θεοῦ.--- 
 ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ 7p Oy, ver. 22 supplies 
 the essential point, which would be readily 
 supplied, but Christ’s suffering was un- 
 deserved (δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, iii. 13).— 
 καί also with reference to the similar 
 experience of Christians; so Phil. ii. 5, 
 τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ Kal ἐν Χριστῷ. 
 --ὁπογραμμόν (τ) 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, 
 Stvom., v. 8, 49, gives three examples of 
 which βεδιζαμψχθωπληκτρον σφιγξ is 
 one). —é€makohov0yHonTeE, remini- 
 scence of Jesus’ word to Peter, ἀκολου- 
 θήσεις ὕστερον, John xiii. 36. 
 
 Ver. 22 = Isa. liii. 9, ap. being put for 
 
 ἀνομίαν (DPT) and εὗρ. δόλος (so 
 SoC? AQ, etc.) for δόλον ( = Heb.) of 
 LXX. The latter variation is due to con- 
 junction of Zeph. iii. 13, οὐ μὴ 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. lili. 7) with 
 the saying ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν και διώξωσιν 
 (Matt. v. rr). For λοιδ. cf. τ Cor. iv. 
 12. λοιδορούμενοι εὐλογοῦμεν (εἴπωσιν 
 πᾶν πονηρόν of Matt. l.c.), John ix. 28, 
 the Jews ἐλοιδόρησαν the once blina 
 man as Jesus’ disciple and, for O.T. type 
 Deut. xxxiii. 8, ἐλοιδόρησαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ 
 ὕδατος ἀντιλογίας (Levi = Christ the 
 Priest, cf. ἀντιλογία, Heb. xii. 3).--οὐ κ 
 ἠπείλει, the prophecy ἀπειλήσει τοῖς 
 ἀπειθοῦσιν (Isa. lxvi. 14) is yet to be ful- 
 filled (Luke xiii. 27). Ocec. 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 & 
 
 25 τῶ μώλωπι ' ἰάθηται. 
 
 στράφη 
 
 III. 1 ὑμῶν. 
 
 ε , 
 ομοι 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 δου δὲ τῶ κρείνοντι 
 νεγκεν ἐν τῶ σώμα 
 
 an ya a é 
 τε νῦν ἐπὶ τὸν ToL 
 ὡς γυναῖκες ὕποτασ 
 
 II. 24—25. III. 
 
 , a x ε Pee 
 Sikaiws: ὃς Tas ἁμαρτίας. 
 τι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλο 
 
 πογενόμενοι τῆ δικοσύνη ζήσωμεν - οὗ 
 ὡς πρόβατα πλανώμε 
 
 νοι ἀλλὰ ἐπε- 
 ψυχῶν. 
 , “ 395. " 
 σόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις 
 
 να καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῷ 
 
 ® 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.—apedtSov. It is doubtful what 
 object, if any, is to be supplied. The 
 narrative of the Passion suggests two 
 renderings: (1) He delivered Himself 
 (ἑαυτὸν omitted as in Plato, Phaedrus, 
 250 E). Cf. Luke xxiii. 46 (Ps. xxxi. 5), 
 παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου and Isa. liii. 
 6; κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτόν, 10. 12 παρε- 
 δόθη. (ii.) 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. 19), 
 i.é., permitted God to fulfil His will. But 
 most probably παρ. τῷ . - . represents 
 
 the Hebrew ellipse, “5 by by commit to 
 Fehovah (Ps. xxii. 9) for the normal com- 
 mit, way, works, cause; LXX (Syriac) 
 has ἤλπισεν = Matt. xxvii. 43. Compare 
 Joseph. Ant. vii. 9, 2, David wept πάντων 
 ἐπιτρέψας κριτῇ TO θεῷ.--τῷ Kpt- 
 νοντι δικαίως, οὗ, i. 17; the award 
 was the glory. 
 
 Ver. 24. Christ was not only well-doer 
 but benefactoy.—ras Gp... . ἀνήνε- 
 y «ev comes from Isa. liii. 12, LXX, καὶ 
 αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν (175. 
 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 INDI for sin and sin-offering. 
 —év τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ, a Pauline 
 phrase derived from the saying, This ts 
 my body which is for you (1 Cor. xi. 24), 
 explaining αὐτός of Isa. ἰ.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 
 ξύλων of the original description of the 
 offering of Isaac, Gen. xxii. 9. Christ 
 
 died because He took our sins upon Him- 
 self A. Num. iv. 33, οἱ viol ὑμῶν .. - 
 ἀνοίσουσιν τὴν πορνείαν ὑμῶν). There- 
 fore our sins perished and we have died to 
 them, Col. 11. 14.—tva... ζήσωμεν. 
 Compare Targum of Isa. liii. 10, ‘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 (1...) be free from, as 
 in Thuc. i. 39, τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἀπο- 
 γενόμενοι. The Dative requires (i, ), ὩΣ 
 
 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...id@nre from Isa. lili. 5; 
 μώλωπι, properly the weal or scar pro- 
 duced by scourgeing (Sir. xxviii. 17, πληγὴ 
 μάστιγος ποιεῖ μώλωπας) thus the pro- 
 phecy was fulfilled according to Matt. 
 
 XXVii. 26, φραγελλώσας. The original 
 has id@npev. The paradox is especially 
 pointed in an address to slaves who were 
 frequently scourged. 
 
 Ver. 25 = Isa. liii. 6, πάντες ὡς πρό- 
 Bara 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. 15). 
 --ἐπίσκοπον, of. Ez. xxxiv. II, ἰδοὺ. 
 ἐγὼ ἐκζητήσω. τὰ πρόβατά βου καὶ 
 ἐπισκέψομαι αὐτά. It is to be noted 
 that the command which Jesus laid on 
 Peter, feeding sheep, comes from Ez. l.c. 
 
 CuaPTerR III.— Vv. 1-6. Duty of 
 wives (Eph. v. 21-24; Col. iii. 18; Tit. 
 ii. 4)—Submissiveness and true adorn- 
 
I—4. 
 
 ἀνδράσιν - ἵνα εἴ ties! 
 ἀναστροφῆς ἄνευ λό 
 τὴ ἐν φόβω ἁγνὴν ἀνα 
 ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν κα, 
 ἱματίω κόσμος ᾿ ἀλλ᾽ ὃ κρυπτὸς 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 γου κερδηθήσονται 
 
 στροφὴν ὑμῶν. 
 περιθέσεως χρυσίω 
 
 ἀπειθοῦσιν τῶ λόγω διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶ᾽ 
 
 > , 
 
 ἐποπτεύσαντες 2 
 
 ὧν ἔστω οὐχ 63 
 ἢ ἐνδύσεως 
 
 τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος 4 
 
 1 The variant οἵτινες for εἴ 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. 1... ; 1 Cor. xi. 3) after 
 Gen. iii. 16, αὐτός σου κυριεύσει.--καὶ 
 ae es γῳ, 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. 10 8).--ἄνευ λόγου, 
 without word from their wives. Peter 
 deliberately introduces A. in its ordinary 
 sense immediately after the technical τῷ 
 A.—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 i in 
 1 Cor. ix. 20 ff. =tva ... σώσω, 1b. 22, 
 (cf.vii. 16.). 
 
 Ver. 2. ἐποπτεύσαντε Sy having 
 contemplated ; ΕΒ ΘΗ Tie 12k) TV. 21 
 ὑμῶν. ἐν φόβῳ, cf. i. 17 and Eph. 
 ὙΠ 1: ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ 
 Χριστοῦ " αἱ “γυναῖκες : as no object is 
 expressed, τοῦ θεοῦ must be supplied.— 
 ἁ γνήν, not merely chaste but pure, cf. 
 i. 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- 
 τοϊά.--ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν, braiding 
 
 of hair. i Tim. ii. 19, πλέγμασιν καὶ 
 χρυσίῳ refers to the golden combs and 
 nets used for the purpose; cf. ἐμπλόκια, 
 
 Isa. iii. 18, for OHIO. 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., 111. xi.); and in regard to this 
 particular point says ἀπόχρη μαλάσσειν 
 τὰς τρίχας καὶ ἀναδεῖσθαι τὴν κόμην 
 ἐντελῶς περόνῃ τινι λιτῇ παρὰ τὸν 
 αὐχένα Ἦν καὶ γὰρ αἱ “περιπλοκαὶ τῶν 
 τριχῶν αἱ ἑταιρικαὶ καὶ αἱ 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 Ρ).--περιθέσεως χρυσίων, 
 1.€., tings bracelets, εἴς.» enumerated in 
 Isa. 1...--ἐνδύσεως t ἱματίων. 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 ἱματίων ἀμφιέ- 
 σονται. 
 
 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 OD πολυ 
 γυναῖκες 
 
 6 σόμεναι τοῖς 
 “ABpadp κύριον αὐτὸν 
 
 ἡ θοποιοῦ 
 
 TIETPOY A 
 
 ε , 4 
 ἡσυχίου καὶ πραέως 
 id 
 τελές. 
 αἱ ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς OV 
 ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν - ὡς 
 καλοῦσα. 
 σαι, καὶ μὴ φοβούμε 
 
 ΠῚ. 
 
 πνεύματος ὅ ἐστιν 
 } Ν ε o 
 
 οὕτως γάρ πο τε καὶ al ἅγιαι 
 
 ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτὰς ὑ ποτασ- 
 Σάρρα ὑπήκουεν τῶ 
 
 Φ- 5 ηθ 
 
 ἧς ἐγενήθη 
 
 δεμί snot .t 
 
 ναι μηδεμίαν πτόησί. 
 
 τε τέκνα, ἀγα- 
 ” 
 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 ὁ 
 ἔξωθεν and taking x. 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 xk. = 
 world universe and remember that man 
 is a microcosm and ‘the universe the 
 greatest and most perfect man” (Philo, 
 Ρ. 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), i.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 ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ 
 ᾿Ιουδαῖος and περιτομὴ καρδίας, Rom. 11. 
 29.—év τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ, clothed in the 
 incorruptible thing (or ornament, sc. κό- 
 op) contrasted with corruptible goldens ; 
 cf. Jas. 11. 2, ἀνὴρ . . - ἐν ἐσθῆτι 
 λαμπρᾷ. --τοῦ . .. πνεύματος, 
 namely, the meck and quiet spirit. The 
 adjectives are perhaps derived from the 
 version of Isa. Ixvi. 2, known to Clement 
 of Rome (Ep. i. xiii. 4), ἐπὶ τίνα ἐπιβλέψω 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐπὶ τὸν πρᾳὺν Kal ἡσύχιον καὶ 
 τρέμοντά μου τὰ λόγια. Jesus professed 
 Himself, πρᾳὺς καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ. 
 For πνεύματος compare πνεῦμα ἅγι- 
 ὡσύνης, Rom. i. 4. In Rom. ii. 29, av. is 
 coupled with heart as contrasted with 
 fiesh 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 πρᾳύτητι σοφίας and description of 
 the wisdom from above, ib. 17. 
 
 Ver. 5. ποτε refers vaguely to O.T. 
 history as part of αἷ .. «θεόν. Refer- 
 ences to the holy women of the O.T. are 
 rare in N.T. and this appeal to their ex- 
 ample illustrates the affinity of Peter to 
 Heb. (xi. 11, 35). 
 viously appropriate type (cf. Luke i. with 
 2 Sam. 1 f.); but Peter is thinking of the 
 traditional idealisation of Sarah. 
 
 Hannah is the ob-: 
 
 Ver. δ. ὡςξ.. «καλοῦσα: lhe 
 only evidence that can be adduced from 
 the O.T. 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 Aobr., ii. p. 
 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, Jas.v.17).—hs..- 
 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.—aya8omovrovaat, the 
 present participle emphasises the need 
 for continuance of the behaviour appro- 
 priate to children of Sarah—py... 
 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—I10. 
 
 ’ a - - 
 ὁμοίως συνοι κοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσι 
 
 τῶ γυναικείω ἀπο 
 
 χάριτος ζωῆς εἰς τὸ 
 τὸ δὲ τέλος, πάντες ὁ 
 
 εὔσπλαγ χνοι ταπεινόφρονες " 
 
 ἢ λοιδορί αν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας - Tod 
 
 er > A > 
 OTL ELS τοῦτο € 
 
 woman is the weaker vessel—the pot— 
 which the stronger—the cauldron—may 
 easily smash (Sir. xiii. 2). ὡς, κιτιλ. 
 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 (Ὁ) 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 σκεῦος 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 
 σκεῦος rests—év μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ (τ Peter 
 ii. 5,iv.17)...«.1t.A. The comparative 
 ἀσθενεστέρῳ proves that both husband 
 and wife are vessels and assists to exclude 
 the notion that St. Paul could mean 
 to call a wife the vessel of her husband 
 in 1 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- 
 σευχῇ). Peter teaches that married life 
 need not—if the wife be properly hon- 
 oured—hinder religious duties, as St. 
 Paul feared (ἰδ. 32 ff.). If ὑμῶν = you 
 husbands (as v.1, συγκληρονόμοι requires) 
 cf. Jas. v. 4. 
 
 Vv. 8 f. Sweeping clause addressed to 
 ali, inculcating detailed φιλαδελφία after 
 Rom. xii. 10, 15-17. 
 
 Ver. 8. TO... τέλος, finally. 
 Oecumenius brings out the possible con- 
 notations of the word goal and also the 
 
 TIETPOY A 
 
 νέμοντες τειμὴν ὡς 
 μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι ταῖς 
 μόφρονες συμπαθεῖς 
 μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸ 
 
 κλήθητε, ἵνα εὐλογία 
 
 05 
 
 ὡς ἀσθενεστέρω σκεύ εἰ 
 
 καὶ συγκληρονόμοις 
 προσευχαῖς ὑμῶν. 
 
 φιλάδελφοι 8 
 
 ἀντὶ κακοῦ 9 
 
 ’ Q > oe 
 ναντίον δὲ εὐλογοῦ τες, 
 
 κληρονομήσητε. 
 
 law for all love since love is the end of 
 the law._opddpoves, of one mind, 
 united, an Epic word. St. Paul’s τὸ αὐτὸ 
 φρονεῖν but here wider than parallel ex- 
 pressing Rom. xii. 16, τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς 
 ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες.--συμπαθεῖς 
 summarises χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων 
 κλαίειν μετὰ κλαιόντων of Rom. xii. 
 15; of. Heb. iv. 15 (of Christ), x. 34 
 (particular example of sympathy with 
 “the prisoners”).—d@tAadSeAdou, cf. 
 i. 122; Rom. xii. τὸ, τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ 
 εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλόστοργοι. ---Ἠεὔσπ.λ- 
 αγχνοι, 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 «.7.A. 
 
 derived from different senses of OF]. 
 Here = ἐνδύσασθε. . . τὰ σπλάγχνα 
 τῆς χρηστότητος, (ο].--  ταπεινό- 
 φρονες -- τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόμε- 
 νοι; Rom. xii. 16, cf. Prov. xxix. 23, LXX, 
 insolence humbleth a man but the humble 
 (ταπεινόφρονας) Fehovah stayeth with 
 glory (x. ὕβρις). 
 
 Ver.g. μὴ . - - κακοῦ, from Rom. 
 ἘΠῚ 17} δ᾽. 0 MESSaiVs, πρὶν Prov. .xx., 22) 
 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).—AotSopiav ἀντὶ λοιδο- 
 ρίας refers to pattern left by Christ (ii. 
 23). ---τοὐναντίον, contrariwise.— 
 εὐλογοῦντες with λοιδ., τ Cor. iv. 
 21 ; cf. Rom. xii. 14, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώ- 
 κοντας = Luke vi. 28.--ὅτι. .. 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, ἴστε yap ὅτι 
 καὶ μετέπειτα θέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν 
 εὐλογίαν ἀπεδοκιμάσθη. So St. Paul re- 
 verses the current view which identified 
 the Jews with Isaac and the Gentiles 
 with Ishmael (Gal. iv. 22 ff.). 
 
 Vv. 10-12 = Ps, xxxiv. 12-17a. intro- 
 
 610 
 
66 
 
 γὰρ 
 παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσ 
 11ὃδό λον. 
 12 tyr 
 
 Ν ’ 
 ἐπὶ δικαί 
 
 ἐκκλεινάτω δὲ 
 
 13 δὲ Ku ἐπὶ 
 14 εἰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ Ly 
 
 δικαιοσύνην, μακά ριοι. 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾶ, 
 , 
 σαν ἀπὸ κακοῦ, Kal χεί 
 
 σάτω εἰρήνην, καὶ δι 
 ους, καὶ ὦτα αὐτοῦ 
 
 ποιοῦντας κακά. 
 
 τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐ 
 
 Ill. 
 
 καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας aya θὰς, 
 Ay τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι 
 σάτω ἀγαθόν" 
 φϑαλμοὶ Ku 
 πρόσωπον 
 ὑμᾶς, 
 
 ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποιη 
 wfdtw αὐτήν, ὅτι ὁ 
 3 , > cal 
 εἰς δέησιν aitar- 
 A , 
 καὶ τίς 6 κακώσων 
 
 λωταὶ! γένοισθε3 BX Nel καὶ πάσχοιτεδι 4 
 Vy oX 
 
 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 tis 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 re- 
 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 Ap. ἀγαθάς is the natural 
 sequel of the alteration of the original 
 (days to see good), which is already found 
 in the LXX (Hp. t. ἄγα θά ς).---[ ὦ ήν = 
 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 (g) with 
 Sellow-inheritors of the grace of life ( (7).— 
 παυσάτω, K.T.d., “parallel ἐμὴ τ» 
 λοιδορίαν (9) ; cf. ii. 22 ἔ. 
 
 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. κακ ώσων echoes ποιοῦν- 
 τας κακά (as ζηλ. τοῦ ay. echoes 
 ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν) ; but the phrase comes 
 also from O.T.: Isa. Πτὸν Κύριος. βοη- 
 θήσει μοι" τίς κακώσει με:--τοῦ aya- 
 
 θοῦ 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 (τ 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. 1). τοῦ ay. in emphatic posi- 
 tion. 
 Ver. 14.) ἄλλ᾽ ee Noe pinion 
 
 Nay if ye should actually suffer—if some 
 one, despite the prophet (13), should harm 
 you—for the sake of righteousness, blessed 
 are ye. Peter appeals to the saying, 
 μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαι- 
 οσύνης (Matt. v. το).---πάσχοιτε, εἰ 
 with optative (cf. 17, εἰ θέλοι) is used to 
 represent anything as generally possible 
 without regard to the general or actual 
 situation at the moment (Blass, Grammar, 
 p- 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). ober Fee fe vv perhaps sug- 
 gested ζηλωταί, cf. τ Mace. ii. 27-29, πᾶς 
 6 ζηλῶν τῷ νόμῳ. . . ἐξελθέτω. .. τότε 
 κατέβησαν πολλοὶ ζητοῦντες δικ. 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 
 
41---17. 
 
 Κν δὲ τὸν XV! ἁγιάσα 
 
 Ν ’ ‘ ~ 
 
 πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ 
 
 ἐν ὑμῖν ed πίδος ᾿ 
 συνείδησιν ἔχοντες 
 τ ~ ε > , 
 
 αισχυ θῶσιν οἱ ἐπηρεάζον 
 
 ἀναστροφήν" κρεῖττον γὰρ ἀγαθο 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A 
 
 τε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις O 
 αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λογο 
 ἀλλὰ μετὰ πρα 
 
 3 oa ν 3 οὶ 
 ἀγαθήν " ἵνα ἐν ᾧ 
 τες ὑμῶν τὴν ἀγαθὴ. 
 
 67 
 
 μῶν ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ 15 
 περὶ τῆς 
 
 , Ν , 
 
 ύτητος καὶ φόβου 
 κατα λαλεῖσθε 2 κατ- 16 
 ἐν XO 
 ποιοῦντας εἰ θέλοι 
 
 17 
 
 1 Three secondary uncials read θεόν (ON) for Χριστόν (Xv). 
 
 *For ἐν ᾧ καταλαλεῖσθε Codex Sinaiticus with other authorities reads ἐν ᾧ 
 καταλαλῶσιν ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν---4η 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; $ehovah 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 ἀπο- 
 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 in de- 
 fence, ἃ. is used metaphorically (NB 
 παντί) here as by St. Paul in x Cor. ix. 3, 
 , ἢ 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. το, Aadetv).— 
 παντὶ .. .λόγον, to every one (for 
 dative cf. 1 Cor. ix. 3) that asketh of you 
 an account. The phrase (compare Demos- 
 thenes Against Onetor, p. 868, ἐνεκάλουν 
 καὶ λόγον ἀπήτουν) recalls the Parable 
 of the Steward of Unrighteousness, of 
 
 whom his lord demanded an account 
 (Luke xvi. 1 ff.), as also the metaphor of 
 iv. το, ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι. --- μετὰ 
 πραὕτητος καὶ φόβου, with meek- 
 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 o. θεοῦ 
 and the quasi-personification of o. ἀ. in 
 ver. 21; so St. Paul says οὐδὲν yap 
 ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα (τ 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 here—tva...dadvactpodyy, 
 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.—€mynpeadlovres, 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 in the manger. Ordinarily the verb 
 means fo 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 OF 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 (v. 10), 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 thai 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. 
 
 IIETPOY A 
 
 σχειν ἢ κακοποιοῦν 
 Q c ~ 5 
 
 ρὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν 
 θανατωθεὶς μὲν cap 
 
 11. 
 
 J 4 pat 
 Tas: ὅτι και XS 
 
 δίκαιος ὑπὲρ adikw ἵνα. 
 
 kt 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 
 subjected to 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.—tTots ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμ- 
 ασιν, the spirits in prison, ἴ.6., the 
 angels of Gen. 1.6. 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, /.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. lxi. 1 (which 
 Jesus claimed, Luke iv. 8f.), κηρῦξαι 
 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).--ἐκήρυ ξεν = 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. ὕποτάσ- 
 σεσθαι, throughout the Epistle.—é π e- 
 ιθήσασίν wore, their historic dis- 
 obedience or rebellion is latent in the nar- 
 tative of Gen. vi. and expounded by 
 Enoch > cf. ii. 7 £., ii. 1, iv. 57. In’ LX 
 ἀπ. commonly = rebel (47). G π ε- 
 ξεδέχετο . . - μακροθυμία, 
 God’s long-suffering was waiting. The 
 treading 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. 
 
 
 
ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A 69 
 
 18---21. 
 
 σιν πορευθεὶς 19 
 ἡ τοῦ Θῦ 20 
 
 , 5 2 7 1 -. > lol , 
 πνεύματι - ἐν w Kat! τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμα 
 ἐκήρυ 
 
 ’ 
 μακροθυμία 
 
 ξεν ἀπειθήσασίν πο ε ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο 2 
 
 ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατα σκευαζομένης κειβώ 
 
 του εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι του τέστι ὀκτὼ ψυχαὶ διεσώθησαν δι᾽ ὕδα- 
 
 ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπο᾽ νῦν σώζει βάπτισμα οὐ σαρ- 21 
 
 που ἀλλὰ συνειδήσε 
 
 τος" 
 Kos ἀπόθεσις ῥύ ὡς ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτη 
 
 1 Dr. Rendel Harris would restore ἑνώχ after ἐν ᾧ καὶ (%), 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 ot 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 f.— 
 εἰς ἣν, sc. entered and.—érAlyou, 
 κτλ. 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).-τ-ὀκτὼ ψυχαί, so 
 Gen. vii. 7; Ψ. = persons (of both sexes), 
 cf. Acts ii. 41, etc. The usage occurs in 
 
 Greek of all periods; so YH in He- 
 brew and soul in English.—é8veo ὦθ η- 
 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 
 é.g., 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 ἢ). 
 
 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 
 (6 = τὸ ὕδωρ > δί᾽ ὕδατος) being οὐ 
 σαρκὸς, κιτιλ,; cf. Tit. iii. 5.--ββᾷ πτι- 
 σμα, 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 lustrations and 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 ovvet- 
 δήσεως stand before their belongings for 
 emphasis and not merely in accordance 
 with prevalent custom. For ἀπόθεσις 
 ῥύπον 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). ἐπε- 
 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 2 
 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 ph ἐπερωτῶσι = (1) a seeking, 
 quest after God or (2) request addressed to 
 God (supported by eis; cf. the formula 
 ἔντευξις εἰς TO 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 συνειδ. 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, renounces them and the 
 
70 
 
 22 μα εἰς OV δί ἀναστάσε 
 θεὶς εἰς 
 
 IV. τσιῶν καὶ δυνάμε 
 αὐ τὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσα 
 
 2 ἁμαρτίαις 4 
 θελήματι OF τὸν ἐπί 
 3 ἀρκετὸς 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ ἃ 
 
 ws 10 XE ὅς ἐστιν ἐν Se 
 οὐρανὸν ὑποταγέν 
 ων Χῦ οὖν παθόντος 2 
 
 εἰς τὸ μηκέτι ἀνθρώ 
 λοιπὸν ἐν σαρκὶ Pro 
 γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς 
 
 111. 22. ὅν. 
 
 ξιᾷ ©01 πορευ- 
 δ᾽. δὰ > y > 
 των αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξου- 
 σαρκὶ ὃ καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν 
 θ . ἮΝ ς bY ‘ ’ 
 σθε - ὅτι ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται 
 πων ἐπιθυμίαις ἀλλὰ 
 σαι χρόνον" 
 
 χρόνος ὁ τὸ βούλημα τῶ 
 
 1 After θεοῦ the Vulgate adds degluttiens mortem ut vitae aeternae heredes efficia- 
 
 mur. 
 
 2The 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- 
 
 μα. 
 
 spirits which prompted them and appeals 
 to God for strength to carry out this re- 
 nunciation in his daily life—é6? a@vagr. 
 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. viii. 7; 
 of. Heb. ii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff.). For 
 the orders of angels see also Rom. viil. 
 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 (?) the giants. 
 
 CHAPTER IV.—Ver. 1. Christ having 
 died to flesh, arm yourselves with the 
 same thought that (or because) he thai 
 died hath ceased to 51:5.--παθόντος- 
 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 οἱά.---τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν. 
 é. 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, ἔννοια 
 ὁσία (ἸΟ discernment) shall keep 
 thee. Here it is the noun-equivalent of 
 φρονεῖτε ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ (Phil. ii. τὴ. 
 Christ’s thought (or purpose) which He 
 had in dying is shared by the Christian : 
 and it is defined by ὅτι, κιτ.λ.--δσπλί- 
 σασθε, sc. for the fight with sin and 
 
 
 
 sinners whom you have deserted.—é7t 
 + + + ἁμαρτίαις. This axiom is 
 better taken as explaining the same 
 thought than as motive for ὅπλ. St. 
 Paul states it in other words, 6 yap ἄπο- 
 θανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας; 
 compare the death-bed confession of the 
 Jew, “Ο may my death be an atonement 
 ior 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 of 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). Te arive 
 Gp. is analogous to that following ζῆν 
 ἀποθανεῖν (παθεῖν) ; the v./. ἁμαρτίας 
 is due to the common construction of 
 TAU. 
 
 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 
 Slesh nor of man but of God (John i. 13). 
 Their duty is to their new Father.—eis 
 76... gives the result of ὅτι x.7.A. 
 which must be achieved by, and is there- 
 fore also the object of, the required orna- 
 ment. 
 
 Ver. 3. The use of the rare apkerds 
 indicates the saying which St. Peter here 
 
I—5. 
 
 ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι - 
 ais οἰνοφλυγίαις κώ 
 2 , 
 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, etc.—Trd... 
 πεπορευμένους, from 2 Kings xvii. 
 8,1 ἐπορεύθησαν τοῖς δικαιώμασιν τῶν 
 ἐθνῶν. The construction is broken (for 
 the will . .. to have been accomplished 
 . .. for you walking) unless kat. be taken 
 as if middle to wemop. as subject.— 
 ageXyetats, acts of licentiousness 
 (as in Polybius) ; so Sap. xiv. 26. Earlier 
 of wanton violence arising out of drunk- 
 enness (Demosthenes).—otvo@gAv γί- 
 aus, wine-bibbings, Deut. xxi. 20, otvod- 
 
 Avyet = ΚΦ: Noun occurs in Philo 
 coupled with ἀπλήρωτοι 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. οὔ. Actsx. 28, tis 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-. .. . or (ii.) on 
 which ground, because you lived as they 
 did.—EevilLovrau, are surprised, as in 
 ver. 12, where this use of £. (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. Soin 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).—ovvtpex dv- 
 tv, from Ps. 1. 18, LXX, if thou sawest 
 a thief, συνέτρεχες αὐτῷ, and with adul- 
 terers thou didst set thy portion; where 
 
 TETPOY A 
 
 πεπορευμένους ἐν 
 pots πότοις καὶ ἀθε 
 μὴ συντρεχόντων 
 βλασφημῦνταις οἱ 
 
 71 
 
 ἀσελγείαις ἐπίθυμι 
 μίτοις εἰδωλολατρεί 
 ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν 4 
 ἀποδώσουσι λόγον 5 
 
 ΓΛ 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 εἰς ἀκολασίαν δαπανηρούς. 
 Prodigality is in fact a destruction of one- 
 self as well as one’s property (Eth. Nic., 
 iv. 13).--ἀσελγείαις . . -. πότοις. 
 Violence and lust are classed with 
 drunkenness, which breeds and fosters 
 them. 4. 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 ἄσώτως.--- 
 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 
 prodigality—BAaocdynpovvres, 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.—r@ ἑτοίμως κρίνο- 
 vv, 4¢., 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. 10). 
 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 “JIP\37 (see i. 5) 7.¢., 
 the future judge; Greek readers would 
 
 understand the imminent judge (cf. 
 use of ἑτοίμως = ready, sure to come, 
 Homer, Il., xviii. 96, etc.). The v./. 
 
72 
 
 6 τῷ ἑτοίμως κρείνοντι 1 
 καὶ νε 
 
 7 πους σαρκὶ ζῶ 
 ἤγγικεν > σωφρονήσα 
 
 8 πρὸ πάντω 
 9 ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆ 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ A 
 κροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη ἵ 
 σι δὲ κατὰ OV πνεύματι. 
 
 τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπη. 
 Bos ἁμαρτιῶν - φιλόξε 
 
 IV. 
 - Ν a > A 
 ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ 
 να κριθῶσι μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώ- 
 πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος 
 > Ν , > , 
 
 τε οὖν καὶ νήψατε εἰς προσευχάς " 
 ἐκτενῇ ἔχοντες ὅτι 
 
 νοι εἰς 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, x.t.\..—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.g., Augus- 
 tine (Ep., 164, 88 1-18).—etdnyye- 
 λίσθη, 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. 
 645f. 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. 19). Even Christians, 
 who have died spiritually and ethically 
 (Rom. viii. 10), 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 ἄσελγ. ἐπιθυμίαις (ver. 3) cf. 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 σω-φρονεῖν, 
 cf. eis σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν above.—v ή ψ- 
 a τε, corresponds to οἰνοφλυγίαις κώμοις. 
 πότοις (ver. 3); cf. i. 13, ν. 8. St. Paul 
 also depends on parable of Luke xii. 42- 
 46 in τ Thess. v. 6 ἢ.--εἰς προσευ- 
 χάς, the paramount duty of Christians 
 is prayer especially for the coming of the 
 Lord (Apoc. xxii. 20; Luke xi. 2; cf. 
 lll. 7)- 
 
 We 8. πρὸ πάντων, St. Peter em- 
 phasises the pre-eminent importance of 
 love of man as much as St. John; ¢f.i. 22. 
 —éavtovs 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. 9. 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—I2. 
 
 λους ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ - ἕκαστος 
 
 εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ δια 
 
 χάριτος Θῦ- εἴ τις λαλεῖ 
 νεῖ ὡς ἐξ ἴσχυος ἧς χο 
 ὁ O§ διὰ ld 
 
 ὥνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν. 
 opt” πυρώσει πρὸς πειρα 
 will not work he is a Χριστέμπορος, 
 makes his Christian profession his mer- 
 chandise.”»—a AA Aovs, used despite 
 ἑαυτούς above and below, perhaps because 
 the recipients of hospitality belong neces- 
 sarily to other Churches.—avev yoy- 
 yvopov, 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. to 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.—8takovovvrTes, in the 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 . . - τῇ ϑιακον- 
 ουμένῃ ὑφ᾽ Hpav.oikovdpor 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 
 san. 41 £.). 
 
 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.— 
 λαλεῖ covers all the speaking described 
 in 1 Cor. xii. 8, 10, to one by means of the 
 spirit hath been given a word of wisdom, 
 etc. ... xiv. 6,26.—a@s5 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 
 
 TIETPOY A 
 
 κονοῦντες ὡς καλοὶ 
 ὡς λόγια OG" 
 ρηγεῖ 6 OS: ἵνα ἐν πᾶσιν 
 X@ ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ 
 ἀγαπητοί, μὴ 
 
 σμὸν ὑμῖν τεινομέ 
 
 73 
 
 καθὼς ἔλαβεν χάρισμα 10 
 οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης 
 εἴ τις διακο IT 
 
 δοξάζηται 
 τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἱ 
 ξενίζεσθε τῇ ἐν 12 
 vn 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. 
 —éymaotv 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 ὁ πατήρ pov iva καρπὸν πολὺν 
 φέρητε καὶ γενήσεσθε 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.---ὸ ... 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. Al- 
 ready He possesses the glory and the 
 victory ; realising this His followers en- 
 dure joyfully their present suffering and 
 defeat. 
 
 Ver. 12. ἀγαπητοί marks the be- 
 ginning of the third division of the 
 Epistle in which Peter having cleared 
 the ground faces at last the pressing 
 problem.—fEevileo Oe, be surprised, as 
 in ver. 4.-τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει, 
 the ordeal which is in your midst or 
 rather in your hearts.—év ὑμῖν, cf. 
 τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον (v. τὴ but the test 
 is internal—in what frame of mind will 
 they meet it? Willthey regard it as a 
 strange thing or as a share in Christ’s 
 sufferings, part of the pattern ?— v p- 
 ώσει. This conception of suffering as 
 a trial not vindictive is stated in Jud. 
 viii. 25, 27, ἐκείνους ἐπύρωσεν els éra- 
 opov 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 συμ 
 παθήμασιν χαίρε 
 14 αὐτοῦ 
 Xd μακάριοι ὅτι 
 ἀναπαύεται "2 μὴ γάρ 
 
 15 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 Baivovtos* ἀλλὰ καθὸ 
 τε ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀποκα 
 χαρῆτε ἀγαλλιώμενοι " 
 τὸ τῆς δόξης ' καὶ τὸ τοῦ 
 τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω 
 
 IV, 
 
 κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς TOU xt 
 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. 
 
 4 At the end of the verse the secondary uncials add κατὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖ- 
 
 ται κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάζεται. 
 
 Ver. 13. καϑό, 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. 1. This idea is ex- 
 pressed even more Strongly by St. Paul 
 ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλί- 
 Ψψεων 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.—tva«.7.X., from Matt. v. 12, 
 χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. But St. Peter 
 postpones the exultation. St. James (v. 
 10) follows Jesus in appealing to the 
 pattern of the prophets. ἀποκαλύ- 
 Wet, the final revelation represents an 
 
 original wordplay ate on the quoted 
 
 ἀγαλλιώμενοι = 3". 
 
 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 pataphrased for sake of clear- 
 ness. For év 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 veproaches 
 (ὀνειδισμῶν LXX) of thy servants.—6 Tt 
 ++-G@vamwavetat, quoted from a 
 current Targum of Isa. xi. 1 f., a branch 
 
 (x5: LXX, ἄνθος : Targ. Messiah) 
 from his roots shall grow aud there shall 
 rest upon him the spirit of Fehovan. An 
 elaborate description of this spirit 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 ‘SF NWP" 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. γάρ. 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 saying —aAAoTprewiaxko- 
 aos 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 cones 
 good and evil (Arrian, iii. 22, 23) . 
 a spy of what is helpful and harmful to 
 men ... he approaches all men, cares 
 for all. (ib. 81)... neither meddler— 
 aweptepyos—nor busybody is such an one; 
 for he is not busy about alien things— 
 τὰ ἀλλότρια TokvTpaypovet—when he 
 inspects the actions and relations of 
 mankind—érayv 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 
 
I13—19. V.1. 
 
 ἢ κακοποιὸς ἢ ὡς GN : λοτριεπίσκοπος " εἶ δὲ 
 
 αἰσχυνέσϑω δοξαζέ 
 
 ‘ 
 μὴ 
 ὅτι ὃ και ρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ 
 Θῦ εἰ δὲ πρῶτον ἁ 
 τῷ τοῦ Θῦ εὐαγγελίῳ - 
 3 ‘ 
 ἀσεβὴς 
 χοντες κατὰ τὸ 
 
 A c A ~ 
 καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ 
 
 σαν τὰς ψυχὰς ἐν a 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 τω δὲ τὸν OV ἐν τῷ dvd 
 
 κρίμα ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου 
 
 πὸ ἡμῶν τί τὸ τέλος 
 » Ὁ: , , 
 
 καὶ εἰ ὁ δίκαιος μόλις 
 
 φανεῖται - ὥστε καὶ οἱ 
 θέλημα τοῦ OF πιστῷ 
 t 
 
 γαθοποιΐᾳ. πρεσβυ 
 
 75 
 
 ὡς Χρειστιανὸς τό 
 
 pate! τούτῳ 
 τοῦ 17 
 - > , 
 
 τῶν ἀπειθούντων 
 
 σώΐεται ὃ δὲ 18 
 
 πάσ- 19 
 
 κτιστῇ παρατιθέσθω 
 τέρους οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν. 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. rr). Women gener- 
 ally if unattached were prone to be not 
 merely idle but meddlers speaking what 
 they should not (τ 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 ὡς χριστιανὸς, 
 if one suffers as a follower of Christ, in 
 the name of Christ (14). See on Acts ix. 
 26 and Introduction—p} aio yvvé- 
 σ᾿ 8 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).---ὃ ο  α- 
 ζέτω τὸν θεόν, by martyrdom if 
 necessary, for this sense the phrase has 
 ᾿ acquired already in John xxi. 19.—év τῷ 
 ὀνόματι τούτῳ = Mark ix, 41. 
 
 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 or- 
 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., Tots... ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ 
 «ον ὀργὴ ἐπὶ . . . ψυχὴν . . . Ἰουδαίου 
 τε πρῶτον.--τῷ. . -.εὐαγγελίῳ, cf. 
 Mark i. 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. /.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, whiéh provoked the question, Who 
 then can be saved (Mark x. 24-26). 
 
 Ver. 19. 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 (ΩΝ bys, Sry 7.6) 15 
 the faithful Creator to whom the soul 
 He gave and redeemed (Ps. /.c.) may 
 confidently return. 
 
 CuHaPreR 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 ὁ συμπρε 
 παθημά των ὃ 
 2 δόξης κοινωνὸς ποι 
 ἀναγκαστῶς ἀλλὰ ἑ 
 
 . 
 but elders, such as had been appointed by 
 Paul and Barnabas in the Churches of 
 Southern Asia (Acts xiv. 23). The col- 
 lective τῶν κλήρων (ver. 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. 17) 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).—é@v ὑμῖν. Peter does 
 not address them as mere officials, your 
 elders, but prefers a vaguer form of ex- 
 
 pression, elders who are among you (Ze 
 
 τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον, which also evades 
 any impairing of the principle, ye are 
 Christ's—o 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—padptrus 
 ..-«. 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 
 
 WETPOY A 
 
 καὶ τῆς μελλού 
 μάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν 
 κουσίως μὴ δὲ αἴσχρο 
 
 Υ. 
 
 σβύτερος καὶ μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χῦ 
 
 σης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι 
 ποίμνιον τοῦ Θῦ μὴ 
 κερδῶς ἀλλὰ 
 
 of the sufferings of the Messiah. He had 
 witnessed but at the last test refused to 
 share them.—o...kouiv@vos. 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 iva 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 (¢.g., 
 1 Cor. ix. 7) who must copy the good 
 Shepherd who obeyed where His prede- 
 cessors fell short (Ez. χχχὶν.).- --τ ὸ ἐν 
 ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ θεοῦ. Chris- 
 tendom is God’s flock among you—not 
 yours but God’s.—_avaykaoT@s. As 
 a matter of constraint contrasted with 
 ἑκουσίως, 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 desiveth a noble work (τ 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 μοι ἐπικεῖται (1 Cor. ix. 16) had 
 been wrested.—atoyxponxepSas. If 
 the work be voluntarily undertaken, the 
 worker has a reward according to St. 
 Paul (τ Cor. ix. 16 ἢ). 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 freewill offerings. 
 
 Ver 3. Application of the saying, the 
 veputed rulers of the nations lord it (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 [ἡ.--τκτῶν κλήρων, the lots, ΐ.6., 
 the portions of the new Israel who fall to 
 
2—6, 
 
 pos! Kal φανερωθέν 
 τινον τῆς δόξης στέ 
 
 προθύ 
 
 τὸν Gpapa 
 
 ὑποτάγητε πρε 
 νοφροσύνην ἐγκομ 
 
 - A 
 τάσ σεται ταπεινοῖς δὲ 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥΑ 
 
 σβυτέροις - πάντες δὲ 
 βώσασθε 2 ὅτι OF Ste 
 δίδωσιν χάριν: ταπει 
 
 77 
 
 τος τοῦ ἀρχιποίμενος κομιεῖσθε 4 
 
 φανον - ὁμοίως ved 
 ἀλλήλοις τὴν τάπει 
 
 τεροι 5 
 
 ρηφάνοις ἀντι- 
 νώθητε 6 
 
 1Codex Vaticanus is alone in omitting verse 3, μηδ᾽ ὡς κατακυριεύοντες τῶν 
 κλήρων ἀλλὰ τύποι γινόμενοι τοῦ ποιμνίου. 
 ΞΈΟΙ 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 
 weve made an additional portion in Acts 
 xvii. 4. So itis said of God’s servant that 
 He κληρονομήσει πολλούς (Isa. 1111. 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, 2.¢., 
 the inferior clergy.— Tumour. yervop- 
 €VOl, ἴ.6., aS servants according to Mark 
 5. 61. & hess.i. 7; 1, Tim. iv. 12. 
 
 Ver. 4. φανερωθέντος τοῦ 
 ἀρχιποίμενος, at the manifestation 
 of the chief Shepherd, i.e., Christ. ἀρχι- 
 ποίμην is the equivalent of ὃ ποίμην ὃ 
 μέγας of Heb. xiii. 20, being formed on the 
 
 analogy of ἀρχιερεύς = 54979 73 5 
 else it occurs only as Symmachus’ render- 
 ing of 72 (LXX, νωκηδ) in 2 Kings 
 iii. 4 and in a papyrus. Cf. appeal to 
 Jehovah, ὁ ποιμαίνων τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ . - - 
 ἐμφάνηθι of Ps. ΙΧχχ. 1.—rév... 
 στέφανον = 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. ἀμαράντινον) ; 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. 
 il. 8, στεψώμεθα ῥόδων κάλυξιν πρὶν ἢ 
 βαρανθῆναι). 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 52... 
 Elders must serve ; youngers  sub- 
 mit. May all be lowly-minded towards 
 one another—there is no need to add 
 detailed commands. —éyrxopBPaca- 
 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. iii. 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.- 
 Bopa as synonyms. Pollux explains 
 ἐγκομβ. as the apron worn by slaves to 
 protect their tunic; so Longus, Pasto- 
 valia, ii. 35 f., 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 ἀνεκομ.- 
 Boodpny.” 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. —@e6s...xadptv= 
 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 τὴ 
 ἢ καιρῷ - πᾶσαν τὴν μέ 
 ὃ ὅτι 
 δικος Spa 
 9 ζητῶν καταπιεῖν ᾧ 
 αὐτὰ τῶν παθηματω᾽ 
 
 IO ἐπιτε 
 
 scripture in ver. 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). So too St. James, 
 subject yourselves therefore to God (iv. 7). 
 --τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα. God's 
 mighty hand is a common O.T. expres- 
 sion; see Exod. iii. 19, etc. for con- 
 nexion with deliverance and especially 
 Ez. xx. 33 f., ἐν χειρὶ κραταιᾷ kal... 
 ἐν θυμῷ κεχυμένῳ βασιλεύσω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς. 
 
 Ver. 7. τὴν μέριμναν - -.- αὖ- 
 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 ff.).—6Te... 
 ὑμῶν substituted for καὶ αὐτός σε δια- 
 θρέψει of Ps. lic. 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 
 x. 13). 
 
 Ver. 8. νήψατε γρηγορήσατε, 
 cf. i. 13, iv. 7. So St. Paul, γρηγορῶμεν 
 καὶ νήφωμεν . . - ἡμέρας ὄντες νήφωμεν 
 (x 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—a. (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 ὁ ἁρπάζων καὶ ὠρυόμενος ; walketh 
 from Jobi. 7, where Satan (6 διάβολος 
 LXX, Zarav, Aq.) περιελθὼν τὴν γῆν καὶ 
 ἐμπεριπατήσας τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν πάρ- 
 εἰμι; 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 Gdns 
 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. @ ἀντίστητε. St. James 
 adds the same exhortation to his quota- 
 tion of Prov. The connexion is not 
 
 DETPOY A 
 
 κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ OG 
 ριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρεί 
 5 ~ . Se a 
 αὐτῷ μέλει πέρὶ ὑμῶ 
 διάβολος ὡς λέων ὦ 
 ἀντιστῆτε στερεοὶ 
 
 λεῖσθε- ὁ δὲ Θὲ πάσης 
 
 3 
 εν 
 
 ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ 
 >> Cee 
 ψαντες em auToV 
 , , ὩΣ , 
 νήψατε γρηγορησα τε ὃ ἄντι- 
 ρυόμενος περιπατεῖ 
 - , > , a 
 TH πίστει εἰδότες τὰ 
 
 ἀδελφότητι 
 
 ~ 5» ~ , ε a 
 TH ἐν TO κόσμῳ ὑμῶ 
 , id , ες - 
 χάριτος 6 καλέσας U 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.—_oTepeot 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, GL. « - ἐκκλησίαι ἐστερεοῦντο TH 
 πιστει. The metaphorical use of ot. in 
 a good sense is not common. Peter 
 perhaps thinks of the στερεὰ πέτρα 
 (9x) of Isa. li. r and warns them against 
 his own failing —eitSéres... 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 are 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 ém- 
 τελεῖσθαι) and to see and hear worse 
 .. .” Apol, 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. τ Cor, xi. 
 5, ἕν kal TO αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ- 
 
 Ver. το. Your adversary assails you, 
 
η-- 12. 
 
 εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον 
 , 
 τὸς καταρτίσει στηρί 
 
 τοὺς αἱ ὥνας ἀμήν. 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 ὁ ἀντίδικος (ver. 
 8) as δέ shows.—6 καλέσας, for the 
 promise of sustenance implied in the call- 
 ing; cf. x 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 ἑαυτῷ.-.--- 
 ὀλίγον 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 55) is opposed to 
 
 the lightness of tribulation.—atrés has 
 the force of πιστὸς ὁ καλῶν (1 Thess. 
 v. 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—kataprifovras— 
 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.—oTtyptéer, 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—oripicov—the brethren (Luke xxii. 
 32).--σθενώσει is only apparently 
 unique, being equivalent to ἐνισχύσει or 
 δυναμώσει (Hesychius) cf. Col. i. τι, ἐν 
 πάσῃ 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 
 
 TIETPOY A 
 
 αὐτοῦ δόξαν ἐν τῷ XG 
 fer σθενώσει atta 
 
 μαι δί ὀλίγων ἔγραψα 
 εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ 
 
 79 
 
 ὀλίγον παθόντας ad 
 τὸ κράτος εἰς II 
 
 βανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ 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 
 (ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα 
 τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί); 2 Thess. iii, 17 f. (6 
 ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου).--διὰ 
 Σιλουανοῦ, by the hand of my scribe 
 S.; so Ignatius writes διὰ Buppov to the 
 Philadelphians (xi. 2) and the Smyrnaeans 
 (xii. 1), but wishes to keep him with himself 
 (Eph. 11. τ). 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. 19).— Tot πιστοῦ ἀδελ- 
 pov ὡς 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. 1, οὕτως 
 ἡμᾶς λογιζέσθω ἄνθρωπος; 2 Cor. xi. 5, 
 λογίζομαι yap μηδὲν 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 ὉΠ) is not directly 
 contemplated. The Epistle is a λόγος 
 παρακλήσεως in the sense of ὁ wapa- 
 καλῶν ἐν τῇ παρακλήσει, Rom, xii. 8.— 
 ἐπιμαρτυρῶν, testifying to... not 
 ... in addition. The verb does not 
 
80 
 
 13 στῆτε" 
 14 Μᾶρκος 6 υἱός μου" 
 
 γάπης - εἰρήνη ὑμῖν 
 
 occur elsewhere in O.T. (LXX has ἐπι- 
 μαρτύρομαι) or N.T.; but Heb. ii. 4 has 
 the compound συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ 
 θεοῦ.--ταύτην .- - - θεοῦ, that this is 
 true grace of God, i.e., 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 
 στῆ τε, paraenetic summary of τὴν προ- 
 σαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην 
 ἐν ἦ ἑστήκαμεν (Rom. v. 2), from which 
 the easier reading ἐστήκατε is derived.— 
 ἣ -«-«-συνεκλεκτή. As the co-elder 
 exhorts the elders so the co-elect (woman) 
 greets the elect sojourners (i. τὴ. 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 4 ἐκλογή in Rom. xi. 7. In 
 ν. I 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 
 Μᾶρκος). Compare the woman of 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, xvili.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 
 
 IIETPOY A 
 
 ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἢ ἔ 
 ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλή 
 
 Vv. I3—I4. 
 
 Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλε κτὴ καὶ 
 
 λους ἐν φιλήματι a 
 πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν Χῷ. 
 
 old) Israel, not that it was the centre 
 of the world (Oec.). Literal interpreta- 
 tions (i.) Babylon, (ii.) Babylon in Egypt 
 are modern.—_MG@pkKos ὁ υἱός 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 
 Jjilit 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 ἀγάπης. 
 So St. Paul concludes 1 Thess. with 
 greet all the brethren with an holy kiss 
 (v. 26; cf. τ Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 
 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. 1.6.) 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., 
 ili. 301 Ρ.). Therefore it was regulated 
 (Apost. Const., ii. 57, 12, men kiss men 
 only) and gradually dwindled.—eip7v 7. 
 The simple Hebrew salutation is proper 
 to Peter’s autograph postscript and links 
 it with the beginning.—troits ἐν 
 Χριστῷ, cf. iii. 16, v. το, 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). 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL 
 
 PETER 
 
i 
 
 
 
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 JERomE, 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 ΟΕ ΜΊΑΝ (de Fide, iii. 12). In an African list, Canon 
 Mommsenianus, 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 Tvinitate, a later treatise, Didymus 
 quotes repeatedly from 2 Peter? Chase suggests that the phrase 
 represents the Greek words ὡς νοθεύεται αὕτη ἦ ἐπιστολή, which would 
 
 Cf. Souter, Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 196 f., Pseudo-Augustine Quaestiones, 
 εἰς, (Vindob. 1908), p. 499. 
 
84 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. Eusgsius (H. E., iii. 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 ἢ. E., iti. 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. 1). B., iii. 806 a). 
 
 Another indication of fourth century opinion is the inclusion of 
 2 Peter in the catalogues of Grecory ΝΑΖΙΑΝΖΕΝ (d. 391), Cyrit oF 
 JERUSALEM (ἃ. 386), and ArHanasius (d. 373). One catalogue which 
 is contained in the CopEx 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 AmpHiLocnius, 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 THEoporE oF 
 Mopsugst14 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., 1. 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. Ὁ). A further pre- 
 sumption in favour of the use by Methodius of 2 Peter is found in 
 the DiaLocuge oF 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. Firmiian, bishop of Czsarea 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 OriGEN. 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, ¢.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” (in 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. V. 6 
 
86 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 (of. cit., p. 8036). 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 Hypoty- 
 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. fude 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 Hrppotytus 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 Saniic 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 Perri 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 i. 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 δ). 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 (¢.g., 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 
 iii. 9, τοὐναντίον μακροθυμεῖ, εἰς 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 (0. czt., p. 488) in the writ- 
 ing of THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH are inconclusive, although the words 
 in 11. 9, ot δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι πνευματόφοροι πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ προφῆται 
 γενόμενοι recall 2 Peter i. 21. In ii. 18, 6 λόγος αὐτοῦ, φαίνων ὥσπερ 
 λύχνος ἐν οἰκήματι συνεχομένῳ, May be compared with 2 Peter i. 19. 
 Similarly, in Tatian, 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 AristipEs (129- 
 130) a passage occurs that naturally suggests 2 Peter i. 11 and ii. 2. 
 ἡ 6805 τῆς ἀληθείας ἥτις τοὺς ὁδεύοντας αὐτὴν εἰς Thy αἰώνιον xetpaywyet 
 βασιλείαν (A polog., xvi.). IREN#US 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 yap ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς χίλια ἔτη. In both pas- 
 sages, however, the words are connected with Chiliasm, which is 
 absent from the thought of 2 Peter. In THe EpisTLe oF THE 
 CHURCHES OF Lyons AND VIENNE, With which Irenzeus was closely 
 connected (date 177-179) we find the words ὁ 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 89 
 
 century arises in connexion with the ApPocALypsE oF 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 ὁ θεός. .. καὶ κρινεῖ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀνομίας 
 (Apoc. 81; cf. 2 Peter ii. 1, ili. 7,12.) (2) 6 Κύριος ἔφη, “Aywper eis 
 τὸ ὄρος. . . ἀπερχόμενοι δὲ pet αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταί (Apoc. 
 ἃ 2; cf. 2 Ῥείεγ i. 18). The passage goes on to say that the Apostles 
 desired “that He would show them one of our righteous brethren 
 who have departed,” iva ἴδωμεν ποταποί (2 Peter iii. 11) εἰσι τὴν μορφήν, 
 καὶ θαρσήσαντες παραθαρσύνωμεν Kat τοὺς ἀκούοντας ἡμῶν ἀνθρώπους (cf. 
 ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν, 2 Peter i. 16) ; ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον (i. 19). (9) τόπον 
 
 . αὐχμηρὸν πάνυ ;. .. σκοτεινὸν εἶχον αὐτῶν τὸ ἔνδυμα κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα 
 τοῦ τόπου (§ 6; οὔ. 1. 19). (4) A frequent use of κολάζειν, or the noun 
 (cf. §§ 6, 7, 10, 11, 2 Peter ii. 9). (5) οἱ βλασφημοῦντες τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς 
 δικαιοσύνης (§ 6; cf. § 13 and 2 Peter ii. 2,21). (6) (a) λίμνη tis . . 
 πεπληρωμένη βορβόρου (8 8. βόρβορος occurs in § 9 twice, and in 
 § 16); (δ) ἐκυλίοντο (8 15; cf. 11. 22). (7) ἀμελήσαντες τῆς ἐντολῆς 
 τοῦ θεοῦ (8 15; cf. ii. 21, iii, 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, A pocritica iv. 6). (6) τακήσεται 
 πᾶσα ϑύναμις οὐρανοῦ, Kal 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. ff.). 
 
 All scholars are agreed that these and other coincidences are 
 more than accidental (cf. Salmon, of. czt., 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 (ef. (1), (2), (8) above). Bigg (op. czt., p. 207) also con- 
 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 
 
90 INTRODUCTION 
 
 mythology. The word, however, is found in Jewish writings, which 
 2 Peter may have read (see note on il. 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 (of. cit., p. 815 δ) 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, ὃ 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 ot 
 δώδεκα μαθηταί to simple ἡμεῖς in 2 Peter 1. 18; and expression τὸ 
 ὄρος for τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει). Such a phrase as ἐν τόπῳ σκοτεινῷ, might 
 well be a paraphrase of ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, 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 SEconp EpisTLE 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 γῆ ὡς μόλυβδος ἐπὶ πυρὶ τηκόμενος καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ κρύφια 
 
INTRODUCTION ΟἹ 
 
 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 O.T. is to purify, and not to destroy (Isa. xxxiv. 4, li. 6, Ixvi. 
 15, 16, 22; Mal. iv. 1). Inthe 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. . . ἔργα, which may be an attempt to 
 make sense of the very doubtful reading in 2 Peter iti. 10 (ἔργα 
 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 n.) 
 
 In the Epistts oF Barnagas (130-31, Harnack), in a Chiliastic 
 passage, the words occur, 7 γὰρ ἡμέρα παρ᾽ αὐτῷ χίλια ἔτη. αὐτὸς δέ 
 por μαρτυρεῖ λέγων, ἰδοὺ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ἔσται ὡς χίλια ἔτη (χν. 4)η. It has 
 been pointed out that παρ᾽ αὐτῷ is very close to 2 Peter’s παρὰ κυρίῳ, 
 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 THe SHEPHERD oF Hermas (110-140, Harnack) there 
 are certain words and phrases that are found only in 2 Peter, 
 μιασμός (Sim. v. 1, 2); βλέμμα (in different sense appearance ; Sim. 
 vi. 2,5); ϑυσνόητος (Sim. ix. 14, 4); αὐθάδεις, applied to false teachers 
 (Sim. ix. 22, 1.)!| In CLement or Rome (93-95, Harnack) we find 
 several phrases which, in N.T., are peculiar to 2 Peter: rots δὲ 
 ἑτεροκλινεῖς ὑπάρχοντας εἰς κόλασιν Kal αἰκισμὸν τίθησιν (xi. 1); ἐπόπτης 
 (used, however, of God) (lix. 3); αὐθάδη (i. 1); μῶμος (Ixiii. 1) ; 
 μεγαλοπρεπεῖ δόξῃ 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: εἰς τὸ μετόχους ἡμᾶς 
 γενέσθαι τῶν μεγάλων K. 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 milieu 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 
 
 10Of 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 ἀπάτης ὁ 
 χρόνος ὥρα ἐστὶ μία. τῆς δὲ βασάνον ἣ ὥρα τριάκοντα ἡμέρων δύναμιν ἔχει. ἐαν 
 οὖν μίαν ἡμέραν τρυφήσῃ τις καὶ ἀπατηθῇ K.7.A. (cf. 2 Peter ii. 13). 
 
 2Spitta, p. 534 n., points out a passage in the Didache (ili. 6-8) having a remark- 
 able affinity with Jude and 2 Peter. γόγγυσος, a rare word (Jude 16) is used. 
 βλασφημία, αὐθάδης and τρέμων are twice repeated (cf. 2 Peter ii. ro). 
 
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 ll. 
 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 Ἰησοῦ 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 ὑμῖν), 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 (of. czt., 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 Kal 
 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 ὁ 
 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), 
 (β) ἐγώ is inserted, and (y) ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ is omitted. Again, σκηνώματι 
 (11. 12) σκηνώματος (ii. 14) and ἔξοδον (v. 15) occurring together, seem 
 to indicate that the vocabulary of the Synoptic account was lingering 
 in the mind of the writer. σκήνωμα, 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. 
 ἔξοδος 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, of. cit. iii. 809 ὃ, but cf. Zahn, Introd. Il., pp. 217 f.). 
 Moreover, ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει indicates a later stage of thought than 
 the simple eis ὄρος ὑψηλὸν (Mark, ix. 2; Matt. 1. 7), or eis 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 ἁγίῳ ὄρει 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 Kal 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. Peter.—taywy ἐστιν ἡ 
 ἀπόθεσις... καθὼς Kal 6 κύριος ἡμῶν I. X. 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 need 
 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 (γέγονεν 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 σεσοφισμένοι μῦθοι (i. 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. 
 
 (a) 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 Ἰησοῦ 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. 
 
 (ὁ) 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. [ 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. E., τ. 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).! 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 of δώδεκα μαθηταὶ ἐδεήθημεν ὅπως δείξη ἡμῖν ἕνα τῶν ἀδελφῶν 
 . τῶν ἐξελθόντων ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου, ἵνα ἴδωμεν ποταποί εἰσι 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 
 1If 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 a.p. 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. ili. 15.—6 ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀϑελφὸς 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 ὁ 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. 
 
 VOL. V. 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 
 c. 64 a.p. (see pp. 97 f.). The context shows that if the words pera 
 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, 
 x.t.A., 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. £., iii. 39) as saying, καὶ τοῦτο 
 ὃ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε, Μᾶρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος ὅσα 
 ἐμνημόνευσεν ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ 
 λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. Papias himself is reporting the testimony 
 which he had received orally from the Presbyter. rom 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 yap οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, 
 πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως. Here οἱ 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. ἀφ᾽ ἧς 
 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,” 1.6., 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 iii. 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.—rav 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. 
 iii.’ 68. 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 O.T. Scriptures. (δ) 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 (b) 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 a.p. 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 natrower 
 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 a.p. 100. The external 
 evidence, as we have seen, would render possible a date not later 
 han the first decade of the second century. Perhaps 4.p. 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, iii. 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. 
 
 It 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. 11., 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 Peteri.2; use of καλεῖν, 
 2 Peter i. 8 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, ii. 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 ἄμωμος καὶ ἄσπιλος, 
 1 Peter i. 19; ἀκαταπαύστους 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. r Peter. Rest of N.T. 
 ἀναστροφή. . 2 5 5 
 ἀπόθεσις 1 1 0 
 ἀρετή eae 3 1 (pl.) 1 
 ἀσεβής. . 1 1 6 (3 in Jude.) 
 ἀσέλγεια 3 1 6 (1 in Jude.) 
 ἄσπιλος. 1 1 2 
 προγινώσκω Ι 1 3 
 
 (Ὁ) 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., iii. 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 iva, 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᾽ ἧς. 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 ii. 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. 11.; 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 O.T. 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—1 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, 
 r Peter, p. 5). 2 Peter, on the other hand, is extremely non-Pauline 
 in thought. The idea of the μακροθυμία of God in chap. ili. 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 dyopdcavta αὐτοὺς δεσπότην (ii. 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 
 (cf. 1 Peter i. 2, 3, 11, 19-21, ii. 24, iii. 18, 21, 22). 
 
 There is also a striking difference between the two writers in 
 
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 
 (cf. i. 8, 18, ii, 9, 21, iv. 12 Ὁ, v. 16) than the second epistle. 
 ‘The flame of love,” so bright in the first epistle, burns but dimly 
 dn 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 (iii. 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 i. 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, iii. 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 
 in the N.T. The full list may be given: aOeopos,! ἀκατάπαυστος, ἅλω- 
 123 ἀστήρικτος,2 αὐχμηρός." 
 2 
 
 ats,) 2 ἀμαθής,;Σ ἀμώμητος,23 ἀποφεύγειν,1 3 ἀργεῖν, 
 βλέμμα," βόρβορος,᾽ “3 βραδύτης,2 διαυγάζειν, δυσνόητος, ἐγκατοικεῖν," ἑκάσ- 
 τοτε,2 8 ἔκπαλαι, ἔλεγξις,. ἐμπαιγμονή, evtpuday,! ἐξακολουθεῖν,} ὃ ἐξέραμα, 
 ἐπάγγελμα,2 ἐπόπτης," 25 ἰσότιμος, κατακλύξζειν," ὃ καυσοῦσθαι, κύλισμα, λήθη, 
 μεγαλοπρεπής, μέγιστος, 5 μίασμα,1 2 pracpds,! μνήμη, ὃ μυωπάζειν, μῶμος, 
 ὀλίγως, ὀμίχλη,: 2 παραφρονία, παρεισάγειν, παρεισφέρειν," ὃ πλαστός," ῥοι- 
 ζηδόν, σειρός, στηριγμός,2 8 στοιχεῖον! (in sense of physical elements), 
 στρεβλοῦν," 2 ταρταροῦν, ταχινός,3 τεφροῦν, τήκεσθαι, τοιόσδε, τολμητής, Us, ® 
 φωσφόρος, 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 ὃ 
 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 1 are found in LXX, ? in classical writers, 2 in Papyri (for reff. 
 see Comm.). 
 ** Fg, Moulton, Proleg., pp. 97-8. But cf. note on II. 5 in Comm. 
 
INTRODUCTION II! 
 
 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 ἀμώμητος, 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 ii. 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 (1. 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 
 
112 INTRODUCTION 
 
 (i. 10, 19); ὑπομιμνήσκειν, ἐν ὑπομνήσει, μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι (i. 12, 13, 15; 
 ili, 1); ἐνεχθείσης, ἐνεχθεῖσαν (i. 17, 18); ἀπώλεια (11. 13, iii. 7-16); 
 ἐφείσατο (ii. 4, 5); τηρεῖν (ii. 4, 9, 17; iii. 7); στοιχεῖα καυσούμενα (iii. 
 10, 12). 
 
 Chase asserts that “the extraordinary list of repetitions ” stamps 
 the vocabulary as “ poor and inadequate ” (of. 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 ili. 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 ili. 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 (rijs . . . ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος) 
 (cf. 1 Peter i. 15, 16, ii. 13-17, 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 Introd., 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. cxxxvil. 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 ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν Παῦλος 
 ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, holding that καθώς must be explained by the 
 immediately preceding admonition, tod κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν 
 σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, which is more distinctly stated in Romans ii. 
 4, ili. 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 (i. 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 fiir 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 O.T. 
 (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 ; (iii. 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, 11. 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 a 
 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., iii, 811). In the former, not so much 
 \eaching as practice, was in question, while, in 2 Peter, they are called 
 ψευδοδιϑάσκαλοι, 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 βλασφημοῦσιν, ver. 8). There is also implied a certain doctrinal ᾿ 
 process in the words, χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον 
 δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν 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. F. 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. 13). 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, ὡς 
 πάντα ἡμῖν τῆς θείας δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν δεδωρημένης 
 διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς (i. 8). The true γνῶσις must 
 contain ethical qualities (1. 6). The Christian must take pains “to 
 
INTRODUCTION 117 
 
 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 
 yvaois, 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. 3). 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 (i. 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 émémra: . . . τῆς ἐκείνου 
 μεγαλειότητος. The Voice proclaims Him to be actually 6 υἱός pou ὃ 
 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. κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας (ii. 10), 
 δόξας οὐ 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 teachers 
 questioned the truth of the Parousia expectation (iii. 4) on the ground 
 (1) of the uniformity of nature (πάντα οὕτως διαμένει an’ 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 (11. 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. iii., but there is really no difficulty in identifying the two.1 
 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). No 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 as a 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 ff., 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. clxxviil. 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 Greco-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 Grzeco-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., ibid.). 
 
 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.). Jiilicher 
 (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 $udas. 1885. 
 
 H. v. Soden. Hand-Commentar Zum N.T.., 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. 
 
 J. B. Mayor. The Epistle of St. ude 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 ff., 382 ff. 
 
 E. A. Abbott. Expositor, Jan.-March, 1882. ‘ From Letter to Spirit,” §§ 1τ2τ- 
 1135. 
 
 Karl Henkel. Der zweite Brief des Apostelfirsten Petrus, gepriift auf seine 
 Echtheit. (From R. C, Standpoint), 1904. 
 
 ABBREVIATIONS OF REFERENCES TO PAPYRI AND INSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 P. Amh. The Amherst Papyri, edd. B. P. Grenfell and Α. 5. Hunt. (Lon- 
 don, 1900-01.) 
 
 P. Fay. Fayiim Towns and their Papyri, edd. B. P. Grenfell, A. 5. Hunt 
 and Ὁ. G. Hogarth (Egyptian Exploration Fund. London, 1900.) 
 
 P. Fior. Pafiri Fiorentini, ed. G. Vitelli. (Milan, 1905-06.) 
 
 P. Gen. Les Papyrus de Genéve,1. Papyrus Grecs, ed. J. Nicole. (Genéve, 
 1896-1900.) 
 
 P. Grenf. I. An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek Papyri, chiefly 
 Ptolemaic, ed. B. P. Grenfell. (Oxford, 1896.) II. New Classical Fragments and 
 other Greek and Latin Papyri, edd. B. P. Grenfell and A. 5. Hunt. (Oxford, 1897.) 
 
 P. Hib. The Hibeh Papyri 1., 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.) 
 
 P. 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 editien, by W. F. Moulton. 
 
 H.D.B. Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.). 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f δὴ 
 
 ἀνα: ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 Υ ἘΔ ων 
 AUR i Bowie 
 f \ ᾿ . i * Vay ὺ 
 Διο MA Ἢ ! ᾿ Vom PALA ὯΝ ὦ TO Wag 
 uh 
 
 ΠῚ ΠΟΎΣ ἢ tf ΤΥ 
 Ϊ Ἰ MC ee AME Mk po 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hus w Ἢ Δ 
 
 a yu Ὁ Rs ES aa ' πα 
 
 ΠΙΩ͂! ' ; 
 "a ) 
 
 ' τ he } 1 
 ny i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ἐν } 
 t 4 ἌΠΟ : 
 ἢ ἡ ἌΝ Git, ALIA ἢ Mi π | 
 ΠΝ ae δ Ae nh A) 13 | | 
 ᾿ At πε τυ ΜΝ ; 
 ik ; , 
 site} Ἵ if AME NK nt 
 ? 
 j \ - } 
 : TT 
 
 Ce We SA a nT ee 
 
 | τ ι w ‘ ys ᾿ A 
 
 
 
 1 ΓΕ " ( 
 ‘ ΚΔ Pe rile 
 τ ΓΑ 
 na. 
 ay teh si BN) Ἶ - 
 ἀν : 
 i Oy 7 
 ΤῊΣ τῇ 
 ἊΝ ‘Ad 
 Ay : 
 { ite ale 
 4 if 
 ἡ i ἘΠ ΚΑΛῊ ᾿ 
 ἔὺ ᾿ ᾿ Ὶ 
 iat ir 
 Ϊ Ἷ 
 \ ᾿ J Ἢ ΑΝ 
 ἮΝ! ; i 
 } . ἡ u } 
 ᾿ Ἰ 
 Ἵ , } 
 hy i ᾿ ji 
 MM Ae ease 
 
 
 
ΠΕΤΡΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ B. 
 
 I. τ. ΣΥΜΕΩΝ: Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς 
 
 > ld ε - ~ , > , A “ ε A 4 
 ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν Kat 
 
 σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν 
 
 1 Συμεων ΑΚΕΡ syrr., Treg., Τί. WH™; Σιμων B, vulg., sah., boh., WH. 
 
 CuHaPTERI. 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 k.t.A. 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 (c/. 
 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. τ 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 8x. 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. A.D. 
 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 Sux. can hardly be taken to- 
 gether (cf. Eph. 1. 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. 
 ii. pp. 218-9). 
 
 Ver. 2. χάρις - - - πληθυνθείη. : the 
 same form οἱ salutation as in 1 Pet. 
 i. 2. ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. 
 (For history οἵ 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, p. 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. τ Cor. xiii. 12, Col. 
 ig. “ 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. 
 p- 117; note ν. 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 δ ἐγ.» vi., p. 759, where κατ᾽ 
 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 
 
 > ’ lel , ε ~ 1 
 a1 Cor. iv. ἐπιγνώσει TOU κυρίου ἡμῶν, 
 
 18, Xen 
 
 4. M 
 Eee 
 
 lov θεου και Inoov tov κυριου ἡμων MSS. generally, Ti., Treg., WH; 
 του Beov kat Inoov P, vulg., Minusc., 69, 137, 163, Spitta, Zahn., 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B Ι. 
 
 3. "ὡς πάντα ἡμῖν τῆς θείας Suvd- 
 
 Cyr. δ, 3 pews αὐτοῦ τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν kal εὐσέβειαν δεδωρημένης διὰ τῆς ἐπι- 
 
 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 yvwots. 
 
 Additional 
 
 confirmation is the use of avrov (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 (ver. 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. 
 17; 1 Cor. v. 4; 2 Cor. xii. 9; and v. 16, 
 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 forrmhule 
 οἵ religious emotion’ (Deissmann, Bible 
 Studies, p. 367). αὐτοῦ is taken as re- 
 ferring to Κυρίου in ver. 2, which 
 would confirm the reading adopted. 
 πάντα. .. τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέ- 
 βειαν. ζωή 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, 
 ΒΡ. 047): δεδωρημένης: (=“‘ gifted” or 
 ‘‘sranted”’). 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. 10; Jamesi.17. The 
 same sense is found in Gen. xxx. 20, 
 Prov. iv. 2, Isa, lxii. 3; and O:GES: 
 5177 (iii. A.D.) with reference to the gift 
 by Marcus Aurelius of a new law-court, 
 ὁπότε ἐδω[ρ]ήσατο τῆι 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- 
 yvwots 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 
 pat urget proprie”’ _(Bengel). Cf. 
 
 Clem. ix. 5. χριστὸς «νὸν ἐγένετο 
 ὟΝ καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν. ἰδίᾳ 
 δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ. Has ἰδίᾳ an intensive 
 force here, or has it an exhausted sense 
 
3-4 
 
 IIETPOY B 
 
 125 
 
 γνώσεως τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ} 4. δι ὧν τὰ 
 
 τίμια ἡμῖν καὶ μέγιστα 2 ἐπαγγέλματα δεδώρηται, ἵνα διὰ τούτων 
 
 ένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐν 
 3 Ἵ t 
 
 1 δια δοξης και αρετης BKL, 31, WH. 
 
 Recurrence of δια in vv. 3, 4 would lead 
 
 to dittography, and correction to genitive easily follows. The versions are unani- 
 
 mous in favour of the reading adopted. 
 
 2 rusia και μεγιστα nui B, syrP, spec., WH, Mayor; μεγιστα kat τιμια ἡμῖν 
 
 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 ἢ. Plut. Mor.535). Deissmann, fol- 
 lowing the Stratonicean inscription al- 
 ready mentioned, renders “ manifestation 
 of power,” i.e., in miracle (op. cit. pp. 
 95-97). In 1 Pet. ii. g it is used in 
 plural, in LXX_ sense = “praises” 
 (aon). (Cf. Thuc. 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, “in a timely display 
 of their prowess” (G. and H.). In later 
 papyri ἀρετή is used as title of courtesy, 
 .g., P. Oxy. 71, ii. 18 (iv. A.D.). εἴ σου 
 δόξειεν τῇ ἀρετῇ =“ if it please your 
 Excellency’’. Foucart defines ἀρετή as 
 ‘vim divinam quae mirabilem in modum 
 hominibus laborantibus salutem afferret ”’ 
 (cf. Hort’s note, τ Peter, p. 129 and 
 MME, Sept. 1908). 
 
 The phrase τοῦ καλέσαντος... . . ἀρετῇ 
 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 
 1. 42, 47-51; Luke v. 4). Their sense of 
 His moral greatness overcame all resist- 
 ance on their part (Luke v. 8; John i. 40). 
 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 
 is 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᾽ dv. Reference is to δόξῃ 
 καὶ ἀρετῇ (so Kiihl, Dietlein, Wiesinger, 
 Briickner, Mayor) émayyéApata= “ 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 111. 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 δι᾽ 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 formen”’. δεδώ- 
 pytat. 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 his alliances 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. 
 
 > Vd b A 
 ἐπιθυμίᾳ "ἢ φθορᾶς. 
 after pte $ ahs 
 
 TIETPOY B I. 
 
 Ν A 
 5. Kal αὐτὸ “ τοῦτο δὲ σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρει- 
 
 ἀποφυγ. σενέγκαντες ἐπιχορηγήσατε ἐν τῇ πίστει ὑμῶν τὴν ἀρετήν, ἐν δὲ τῇ 
 
 found 
 
 hereonly. ἀρετῇ τὴν γνῶσιν, 6. ἐν δὲ TH γνώσει τὴν ἐγκράτειαν, ἐν δὲ TH 
 
 ς 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. i. 6, Philo (ed. Mangey), ii. pp. 51, 
 647; ii. 22, 143, 320, 343.  Qetos 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 θεία 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, Ta τίμια ἡμῖν Kal pe- 
 γιστα ἐπαγγέλματα, the other of despair, 
 τῆς ἐν TO 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. 
 5464, 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 1 Cor. xv. 42, 50, Col. ii. 22, Gal. vi. 
 8, ii. Pet. ii. 12; moral here, as in 2 Pet. 
 ii. 19, 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, 
 e.g., “ Stanzas for Music”’. 
 
 Vv. 5-7. Faith is not only illumination 
 
 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. σπουδὴν 
 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. 2825 ff. (30-35 
 A.D.), a man complains that his wife had 
 deserted him, although ἐπεχορήγησα 
 αὐτῇ τὰ ἑξῆς καὶ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν (“1 pro- 
 vided for her suitably and beyond my 
 resources’’). ἐπι- denotes a particular ap- 
 plication of χορηγέω (c/. Moulton, Proleg. 
 p- 113). ἐν ‘fis 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- 
 
 IIETPOY 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- 
 
 mous καθίστησιν εἰς τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπίγνωσιν. 
 9. ᾧ yap “ph 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,” i.¢., 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 
 
 d Acts xv. 
 29 (D), 1 
 John iv. 
 3, Tit.its. 
 
 ethical significance. Cf. James ii. 20, 
 
 “ Faith without works is apyy’’. Matt. 
 
 xx. 6, “ Why stand ye here all the day, 
 
 a&pyot?’’ 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. 11. 20. ὅπως... μὴ ἄργῆι τὰ 
 
 πλοῖα. Ρ. Lond. 2οδ810 (ii. a.D.). λόγος 
 
 ἐργατῶν ἀργησάντων. In P. Lond. 1Π|. 
 
 p- 27 (acensus-return of 160 or 161 A.D.) ἃ 
 
 certain Apollonius is described as belong- 
 
 ing to ‘‘ the leisured class of Memphis’’. 
 
 (τῶν ἀπὸ Μέμφεως ἀργῶν). P. Fior. 1. 
 
 P. Amh, 97? (both ii.a.p.) 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- 
 yvwots 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 inay 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 (eis =in, expressive 
 
 of result). ἐπίγν. contrasted with γνῶσις 
 marks “ἃ 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. 9. μνωπάζων : “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. lxi.) (fo lowing Beza 
 
128 
 
 e Heb. i. 3. 
 
 τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι αὐτοῦ " ἁμαρτιῶν. 
 
 TIETPOY B. Ι 
 
 TO. διὸ μᾶλλον, 
 
 ἀδελφοί, σπουδάσατε βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν 
 
 f Moulton, 
 Proleg. 
 pp. 188 ff. 
 
 g Matt. 
 Xxiv. 6 
 only. 
 
 1 μελλησω SSABCP, vg., Ti., Treg., WH; οὐκ αμελησω KL, syrr. 
 
 ποιεῖσθαι " ταῦτα yap ποιοῦντες οὐ * μὴ πταίσητέ ποτε" 11. οὕτως 
 γὰρ πλουσίως ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται ὑμῖν ἡ εἴσοδος εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον 
 βασιλείαν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿ἸΙησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
 
 12. Διὸ ἐμελλήσωϊ ἀεὶ ὑμᾶς ὑπομιμνήσκειν περὶ τούτων, 
 
 The analogy 
 
 of 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 
 
 μέλλω is incorrect. 
 
 Field (Notes on Trans. of N.T. p. 240) suggests that true 
 
 reading here is peAnow (cf. on σπουδαΐζω ver. 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; also 2 Tim. i. 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. iii. 3. While 
 καθαρισμός is used of the ceremonial 
 washings of the Jews, John ili. 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). BeBaiav. Cf. Deiss- 
 mann, B. S. pp. 105 ff. The word has a 
 legal sense. BeBatwous 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. “Τὸ walk worthily 
 of the calling wherewith ye are called.” 
 κλῆσιν Kat ἐκλογὴν. What is the differ- 
 ence between these two? καλέω used 
 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 μὴ πταίσητε, as a blind or short- 
 sighted person might do. 
 
 Ver. 11. Note the accumulation in 
 this verse of words suggesting splendour 
 
 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, ὁ δῆμος ἐθεᾶτο τὰς θέας ἀφειδῶς 
 πάνυ χορηγουμένας. εἴσοδος. Cf. Heb. 
 x. 19. Ina theatre, εἰσ. is the place of 
 entrance for the chorus (Ar. Nub. 326; 
 Av. 296), and in P. Par. ii. 41, we find 
 εἴσοδος Kowy=of 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 Apol. 
 xvi., and Clem. Hom. x. 25), but αἰωνίου 
 ἀρχῆς occurs in the Stratonicean inscrip- 
 tions already quoted (Deissmann, of. cit. 
 p. 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? Itcan 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. καὶ ov ποτε 
 ἐπιστρέψας στήρισον τοὺς ἀδελφούς 
 σου (Lk. xxii. 32). Cf. τ Pet. v. 10, 2 
 Pet. iii. 17, where στηριγμός = “ stead- 
 
1o—I5. ILETPOY B 129 
 h , 3 sige J a ΄ oq ses 
 καΐπερ εἰδότας Kal ἐστηριγμένους ἐ ; ΙΕ ΤΣ tite 
 ' ρ me 5 , ill yp us bi TH παρούσῃ ἀληθείᾳ. 13. Phe 
 δίκαιον δὲ ἡγοῦμαι, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον εἰμὶ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ σκηνώματι, διε- ΤΈΣ 
 γειρειν ὑμᾶς ἐν ὑπομνήσει, 14. εἰδὼς ὅτι ταχινή ἐστιν ἡ ἀπόθεσις i For aa 
 τ as ἐν 5 ruc 10n 
 τοῦ σκηνώματός μου, καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡρῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς eat 
 wi 
 ἐδήλωσέν por. 15. σπουδάσω 1 δὲ καὶ ἑκάστοτε ‘éxew ὑμᾶς μετὰ infin. see 
 att. 
 Xvili. 25, 
 Eph. iv. 28 
 
 lomovdalw SQ 31, arm., syrP, “an 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 peAAnow (ver. 12) (ibid. cf. 
 
 fastness of mind”. ἐν τῇ 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. “1 
 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 ἣ 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 vv. 
 16 ff. Cf. διαγρηγορήσαντες (‘fully 
 awake”’) in St. Luke’s account; Introd. 
 
 - 95. 
 ᾿ Ver. 14. ταχινή “imminent,” cf. ii. τ. 
 A poetical word peculiar to 2 Peter in 
 N.T. The process described by ἀπόθεσις 
 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. 13443, reads ζωῆς 
 καὶ καμάτου τέρμα δραμὼν ταχινόν, 
 where sense can only be “ὑγιεῖ (but 
 see discussion in Zahn. Introd., ii., pp. 212 
 f.). ἀπόθεσιν τοῦ σκην. ἀποτίθεμαι is 
 used οἵ “ 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. 606° (iv. 
 A.D.) [πρὸς ἀπόθεσιν ἀχύρου (for re- 
 moval of a chaff-heap) is found. Cf. 1 
 Pet. iii. 21, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου. 
 
 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.). 
 
 Ve. I5. omovdsadow. 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. 318. (ii. A.D.), 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 
 τούτων ἢ It must have the same refer- 
 ence as in verse 12, vz. 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 Μᾶρκος τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσ- 
 σόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν 
 Iren. iii. 1.1.). ‘‘ He 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 
 k.t.A. (v. 16) seem to imply a statement 
 of facts ” (Mayor, cxlill., where see whole 
 discussion against Zahn. Introd. 11. pp. 
 199 ff.). ἔξοδον. The same word is used 
 in Luke ix. 31 of the death of Christ. It 
 seems to include the thought of subse- 
 quent glory (cf. Expositor, vi. ii. pp. 
 73 f. Smith, Days of His Flesh, pp. 
 274 f.) The meaning “ death” is found 
 ετπι- 
 γνοῦσα τὴν (τοὴῦ Εὐδαίμονος ἔξοδον. 
 
 τὴν τούτων μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι : “τεῖοτ 
 
130 
 
 τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον τὴν τούτων μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι. 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟῪ Β 4 
 
 16. 
 
 οὐ yap 
 
 k Amos ii, σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις * ἐξακολουθήσαντες ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ 
 
 4, Isa. lvi. 
 II, ο΄. 2 
 Peter ii. 
 2, 15. 
 
 , cee 3 A A , ‘ , 3 5, αἱ 
 κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπόπται 
 γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου μεγαλειότητος. 
 
 17. λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ 
 
 Θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν, φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε 
 Pp μη μ χϑειση δ 
 
 to”; always in Greek writers, from Hero- 
 dotus down = “mentionem facere, 
 ‘«make mention of” (cf. Grimm-Thayer 
 under μνήμη). The sense here seems 
 much the same. 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.). : 
 er. 16. σεσοφισμ. μύθ. Cf. 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. μῦθοι 
 is often used in the Pastoral Epistles οἱ 
 the fanciful Gnostic genealogies (τ Tim. 
 i. 4, iv. 7; Tit. i. 14). ἐγνωρίσαμεν. 
 Used in N.T. of preaching the Gospel 
 (e.g. τ Cor. xv. 1). δύναμιν καὶ παρ- 
 ουσίαν. For collocation of words, cf. 
 Matt. xxiv. 30, Mark ix. τ. 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 wap. 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. ἘΠΕῚ 
 P, 'Tebt. 48, 13 f. (i. B.c.), 116 (ii ἘΠῚ 
 P. Gren., ii. 14 (δ), 2 (iii. B.c.)). Ditten- 
 berger, Sylloge, 226, 84 ff. (iii. Bc.) τῶν 
 δὲ ἀρχόντων συναγαγόντων ἐκλησίαν 
 καὶ τήντε παρουσίαν 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 ” (¢bid.). 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- 
 σία 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. ἐπόπται : used of those who had 
 attained the highest degree of initiation 
 into the Eleusinian mysteries. Judging 
 from the use of ἐποπτεύω in τ 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.1.S., 666% τὸν 
 Ἥλιον “Adpaxiv ἐπόπτην καὶ σωτῆρᾳ 
 (reference to an Egyptian Sun-god). Hof- 
 mann holds that the reference is rather to 
 the Resurrection and Ascension. μεγαλε- 
 totntos. Cf. Luke ix. 43, Acts xix. 27. 
 
16—1I9Q. TIETPOY B 131 
 ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης Ὁ υἱός pou 6 ἀγαπητός pou οὗτός 1 reg 
 ἐστιν, εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ ᾿ εὐδόκησα,---τ8. καὶ ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἡμεῖς Mark i. τ 
 ἠκούσαμεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ™ ἐνεχθεῖσαν σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντες ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ iii. 22. 
 ὄρει - 19. καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς WAS ra 
 ποιεῖτε " προσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, ° ἕως οὗ πο va, 
 ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν᾽ ned 
 n 3 Johnvi., 
 Acts x. 33, 
 
 Phil. iv. 14. ο Mark xiv. 32 Luke xiii. 8. 
 
 lao τῆς peyador. SyITe 
 
 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 kat 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. 
 ΒΕ τὸ 1 Peter i. 7, Rom. ii. 7, 10, 4 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 1 Pet. 
 1. 7. ‘ Honour in the voice which spoke 
 to Him; glory in the light which shone 
 from Him” (Alford). φωνῆς . - -. τοιᾶσϑε. 
 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. οὐρανός is 
 used in verse 18 to describe the source 
 from which the voice came ; ‘the sky,” 
 of. ili. 12, 13. εἰς Ov 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 dv 
 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. x. 
 
 Vv. 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 
 ferm., ‘See note δ. 10% ‘cf. Phili.1..7, 2 
 Cor. i. 21. τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, 7.¢. 
 allin the O.T. 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’. “καλ. 
 ποιήσεις C. aor. part. is the normal way 
 of saying ‘please’ in the papyri, and is 
 classical’? (Moulton Proleg. p. 228). ὡς 
 λύχνῳ ... Kapd. 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 mpod- 
 λόγον alone, viz. the fact that the προφ. 
 Aoy. is now βεβ. on account of the Trans- 
 figuration. (2) ἕως οὗ κιτιλ. is to be 
 taken with φαίνοντι, not with προσέχ- 
 ovtTes. (3) ἐν τ. Ke ὑμῶν is connected 
 
132 
 
  Ρεΐεγ 
 
 ii eae πον τα Say 
 
 Tim. ii. τ᾿  ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται " 
 q Heb. xii. 
 
 METPOY B 
 
 I, 20---21. 
 
 20. τοῦτο " πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας 
 21. οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη 
 
 τι, X.39. προφητεία ποτέ, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν 
 Art P 2 μ 
 
 absent ἀπὸ cod! 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 Ocov BP, syrh, boh., WH, Ti.; aytot Θεου SQKL, syrp + Treg. ; ayror 
 
 sah.; αγιοι του ©. A; αγιοι aro 6. C. 
 
 with ἀνατείλῃ alone, and not with S:avy- 
 doy. With these presuppositions we 
 may briefly consider the two leading in- 
 terpretations. 
 
 I. 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 mwpod. . . - τόπῳ͵); 
 the Gospel dawn (ἡμέρα διαυγ.); the 
 nner light of the spirit (φωσφόρος ... 
 tpav.). “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 
 φωταγωγεῖ ἕως καθαρὸν ὑμῖν τὸ φῶς τοῦ 
 εὐαγγελίου διαφανῇ καὶ 6 νοητὸς ἑωσφ- 
 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 ob . . . ὑμῶν as re- 
 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 φαίνοντι 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 ᾧ in (τὴ above. The adyp. 
 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 x.7.X. 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 
 ver. 9. 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 TWaoa ... οὐ γίνεται. πᾶσα... 
 οὐ need not be regarded as a Hebraism. 
 It is as normal as in I Jn. ii. 21, Jn. 
 iii. 16. ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως. This passage 
 is a noted crux. (1) Hardt, followed by 
 Lange, Spitta and others interpret ém- 
 Avo. = dissolutio. ‘No prophecy of 5. 
 is of such a kind that it can be annulled”. 
 But no satisfactory instance of ἔπιλυσ.- 
 in this sense can be adduced. (2) Ac- 
 cepting the sense of ἰδ. émA. = “ 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. τὴ. ἰδίας 
 ‘is opposed to the φωνὴ ἐνεχθεῖσα of 
 i. 17’’. (3) It seems most satisfactory to 
 understand ἰδ. ἔπιλ. 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 
 wn generation. 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- 
 ernment” (Mayor, p. 196). The geni- 
 tive ἐπιλύσεως is gen. of definition and 
 not of origin. ‘No prophecy is of such 
 a nature as to be capable of a particu- 
 lar interpretation.” 
 
 Ver. 21. οὐ yap θελήματι ἀνθρώπου 
 ἠνέχθη προφητεία wore. With ἠνέχθη 
 cf. νν. 17, 18. ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ πνεύμ. ... 
 φερόμενοι, cf. Acts ii, 2. ὥσπερ 
 φερομένης πνοῆς βιαίας. 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- 
 
1 a 
 
 II. 1. Ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν τῷ had, 
 
 ὑμῖν ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, οἵτινες παρεισάξουσιν αἱρέσεις " ἄπω- 
 
 Ψ 
 λείας, καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς Ser 
 "» 
 
 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. 
 
 CuHapTer 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 λαῷ. 
 
 ἐν τῷ λαῷ is used for the chosen people 
 in LXX. ψευδοπροφῆται. A class of 
 False Proohets is frequently mentioned 
 inthe O.T. 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 
 baulving: spirit’. (schulz. O.7. Tk: 
 i257). Cf. τ 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. 19). The cardinal distinction 
 between the true and the false prophet lay 
 in the moral character of their teaching 
 (Jer. xxiii. 21, 22). ψευϑδοδιδάσκαλοι. 
 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 
 
 IIETPOY B 
 
 133 
 ὡς καὶ ἐν Vv. 4, το, 
 Jas. 1. 25. 
 See 
 , = Moulton, 
 “πότην ἀρνούμενοι, ἐπάγοντες Pyoleg.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- 
 θάϑδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφη- 
 μοῦντες (ii. το). Rather the idea seems 
 to be of the introduction of false teaching 
 alongside the true, whereby the ὁδὸς 
 ἀληθείας is brought into disrepute. Cf. 
 παρεισενέγκαντες, i. 5. The idea of 
 stealth is present in παρεισάκτους 
 (Gal. ii, 5). αἱρέσεις. Clearly αἵρεσις 
 here is used in. original sense of 
 ‘tenet’? (“ animus,”  ‘“ sententia ’’) 
 (So Spitta, von Soden, Weiss; but 
 cf. Zahn., op. cit. ii. 233). In Galat. 
 Valk 20s iT Ors, Ἀν τὸν tHE) SENSE 15 
 ‘‘ dissensions,” arising from such di- 
 versity of opinion. It is used in the 
 sense of “sect” in Acts v. 17, 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. 2. 
 Kal τὸν Gyop. ... Gpvovpevor. Kal = 
 “even”. Cf. Mark i. 27. Ifthe ordinary 
 use of ϑεσπύτης 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 ayop. is illustrated in τ 
 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. ἐπάγοντες. The 
 
ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B 
 
 134 Ik. 
 
 Ὁ τ Tim. ii. ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν " 2. καὶ 
 
 πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν αὐτῶν 
 2, 2 Cor, 
 
 i τὶ viii, Tats ἀσελγείαις, δι᾽ ots ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας βλασφημηθήσεται " 3. 
 2, Luke i. ᾿ Ξ ΝΞ > 
 
 ah καὶ " ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ πλαστοῖς λόγοις ὑμᾶς “ ἐμπορεύσονται ᾿ οἷς τὸ 
 c Hzek. 
 
 ἘΞ , ” > > a Sipser , 25. κα » ἃ , 
 
 xxvii. 21. Κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν ob “νυστάζει. 4. 
 ἃ Acts iii. Re Ate ARE, 7 e , see | Sait ae > Η en | 
 
 τῷι τ Cor. εἰ γὰρ ὃ Θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ σειραῖς 
 
 leepats KLP, vulg., syrr., boh. +; σειροις ABC, WH, Treg.; σιροις ἐ᾿, Ti. 
 The two last are mere variations in spelling: the last gives a different word which 
 seems less applicable to fodov. The difficulty is, however, partially explained by 
 regarding σειραῖς as suggested by Seopois 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. v, 
 5, where the active is suitably used. 
 
 Ver. 2. ἀσελγείαις. are “acts of 
 dasciviousness”’. 686s 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, τ Tim. vi. 1. 
 Ver. 3. ἐν is causal. πλεονεξίᾳ = 
 “‘covetousness”. Cf. Luke xii. 15. 
 
 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”. 
 Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 17, 1 Tim. vi. 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., 5845 (ii. A.D.), 
 δι᾽ ὧν ἔκπαλαι αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν πατρίδα) 
 εὐεργέτ[ησεν] (Cf. iii. 4 and ii. τ, 
 ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν.) 
 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. 4-10a. 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. et yap 6 θεός. . . introducing 
 a series of conditional sentences. The 
 apodosis is found in οἶδεν κύριος 
 ...Of v. 9. σειραῖς. 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, 11, xxiii., 115, Od. xxii., 175). 
 It would seem to mean “ἃ golden 
 chain’ in Ὑ]. viti., 19; (25, c/s “Plato: 
 Theatetus, i. 53 C. The meaning 
 “fetters” is peculiar to 2 Peter (for 
 var. lect. σειροῖς, see textual note), 
 Taptapwoas = “cast into Tartarus”. 
 The verb is a ἅπαξ ey. τάρταρος 
 occurs in three passages of LXX. (Job 
 xl. 15 (20), xli. 22 (23), Prov. xxiv. 51 
 (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 
 
2—7. 
 
 NETPOY B 
 
 135 
 
 {épou! ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους,2 5. Kal dpxa-e Plato, 
 
 tou κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ 
 
 ἐφύλαξεν, κατακλυσμὸν κόσμῳ ἀσεβῶν ὅ ἐπάξας 6. 
 Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας τεφρώσας "ἢ" καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν, ὑπόδειγμα 
 
 μεχλόντων ἀσεβέσιν 3 τεθεικώς, 7. 
 
 A a i a f 
 μενον ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν ἀθέσμων ᾿ ἐν ἀσελγείᾳ ἀναστροφῆς épdcato,— 
 
 G. pp. 571. 
 
 1fogov ΜΚ ΒΟΚΙ;Ρ, Ti., Treg., WH; Coots SA. 
 
 ‘ , ‘A , 
 καὶ δίκαιον Λὼτ καταπονού- 2. 
 
 g Luke xiii. 34, Acts xiv. 27. 
 
 * ὄγδοον 'NGe δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα 695¢, 
 ut. 
 
 Kal πόλεις Pelop. ς. 
 
 13, Dem. 
 
 Art. 
 absent ii. 
 “πο οῖς 
 Abbott, J. 
 
 h Matt. xx. 18. iz Pet. iii. 2. 
 
 ‘““The latter reading may 
 
 have arisen from a marginal -οὺς intended to connect σειραῖς, but wrongly applied 
 
 to Lopov”’ (Mayor, Ed. p. cxciv.). 
 
 2 rnpoupevous BCKLP, syrh + Ti., Treg., WH; 
 
 SyrP, boh., sah. 
 
 κολαζομενους τηρειν SA, latt., 
 
 ϑασεβεσιν BP, syrh, syrPp, WH; τοις ασεβεσιν sah., boh.; aveBery SACKL, 
 
 vulg., Treg., Ti. 
 
 2 
 punishment for apostate Jews, and Tar- 
 tarus for the fallen angels. In Homer 
 (4... 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. 344 α). 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 οἱ 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.) 356, cf. Heb: xil.,, 18. Also 
 v. 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. ver.g. Enoch 
 ἘΠ 4, 12; xxviii. 2. 
 
 Ver. 5. ἀρχαίου κόσμου. The 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 τ Tim. 
 ii. 7,2 Tim.i. 11. 2 Peter again borrows 
 from Jewish tradition as to the preaching 
 ‘of Noah. Cf. Jos. Antig.i. 3, 1, Clem. 
 
 Rom. i. 7. κατακλυσμόν, cf. Matt. xxiv. 
 38, 39, Luke vii. 27, Gen. vi. 17. ἐπάξας. 
 Aorist participle implies co-incident ac- 
 tion. “ He saved N... . while he sent, 
 etc.” ἐπάγω is used of “setting-on,” 
 “letting 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 wumber 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. ili. 20. Cf. P. Petr. iii. 28. ὅτι 
 ἐδραγματοκλέπτει τρίτος av (bis), cf. 
 Abbott, J. G. § 562 
 
 Ver. 6. πόλεις Σοδ, καὶ Topopp. Not 
 genitive of apposition, but cities of the 
 district, where Sodom and Gomorrah were 
 situated. Cf. Jude 7. X. nai Γ. καὶ ai 
 
 Q 5. 3% a , 
 “περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις καταστροφῇ κατέκρι- 
 
 γεν. 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 for 
 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. Ixvi. p. 1094). 
 
 Ver. 7. καταπονούμενον, the word 
 applied to the condition of the slave whom 
 Moses delivered, Acts vii. 24. It implies 
 outward discomfort. a0éopwv. Cf. iii. 17, 
 
136 
 
 k Infinit. 
 with οἶδα 
 
 flETPOY B 
 
 II. 
 
 ὃ, βλέμματι γὰρ καὶ ἀκοῇ Sikatos! ἐνκατοικῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡμέραν ἐξ 
 
 τ Τίπι. 11. ἡμέρας ψυχὴν δικαίαν ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασάνιξεν,---Ο. οἶδεν Κύριος 
 
 5, Jas. iv. 
 
 vii. 11, 
 
 17, Matt. εὐσεβεῖς ἐκ πειρασμοῦ ἢ ῥύεσθαι, ἀδίκους δὲ εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως 
 
 Phil. ἵν. κολαζομένους τηρεῖν, 10. μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ 
 
 12,1 
 
 1 a \ Α 
 Thess. iv. μιασμοῦ πορευομένους καὶ κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας. 
 
 4, οἰαβϑβὶ- 
 cal. 
 1 Luke iv. 22, Col. i. 13, Rom. i. 26. 
 
 τολμηταὶ 
 
 lo δικαιος ΦΑΟΚΙ,Ρ, 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 yap καὶ ἀκοῇ. 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 BA. κιτιλ. 
 from ἐβασάνιζεν, (ὁ) 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 BA. «.7.A. 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. ἡμέρα 
 καθ ἡμέραν in Ps, Ixviii. 19. ἐβασάνιζεν. 
 It is somewhat peculiar that the active 
 should be used. ‘“ He vexed, distressed 
 his righteous soul.”” 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, κιτιλ. 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 οἱ διαμεμενηκότες μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ 
 ἐν τοῖς πειρασμοῖς pov (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 
 (1 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- 
 Copevous τηρεῖν : ‘to keep the unrigh- 
 teous under punishment until the day of 
 judgment”’. The reference may be the 
 same as in 1 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 to. 
 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 ἡμέρα κυρίου (iii. 10); 4 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, iii. 16). It is noteworthy that the 
 ultimate fate of the fallen angels is 
 not described except as κρίσις (ti. 4). 
 (2) Dissolution of the material universe by 
 fire (iii. 11, ili. 7, ili. 12, 111. 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. 
 1g), 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 
 those who follow the flesh as their leader’. 
 Cf. Matt. iv. 19,1 Tim. v.15. InIsa. Ixv. 
 2 we have πορενομένοις. . . 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 καταφρονοῦντας. 
 κυρ. cannot be taken in a purely abstract 
 sense, ‘‘despising authority”. κυριότης: 
 
8—II. 
 
 αὐθάδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες. 
 
 > tee A ’ ” > 
 ἰσχύϊ 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 
 KUpLOTHTOS καταφρονοῦντας is meant a 
 despising of the Lordship of Christ, which 
 was the central theme of the apostolic 
 teaching and preaching. The writer in 
 ver. τοῦ, goes on to speak of their attitude 
 towards δόξας, or ‘‘angelic beings”’. 
 Cf. Jude 8, κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, 
 ϑόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. It is true that 
 in Col. 1. 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 spoke lightly of the Unseen Powers 
 generally. Their teaching seems to have 
 been materialistic in tone. They were 
 ὡς ἄλογα ζῷα γεγεννημένα φυσικὰ (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. av. is 
 to be taken as an epithet of τολμηταὶ. 
 The idea in τολμ. is of shameless and 
 irreverent daring. αὐθάδεις (αὐτὸς and 
 ἥδομαι) = “self-willed,”’“‘ arrogant”. In 
 I 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 
 
 TIETPOY B 
 
 137 
 
 II, ὅπου ἄγγελοι 
 φέρουσιν κατ᾽ αὐτῶν παρὰ 
 
 γόγγυσος " ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν βλασ- 
 φημίαν: μηδὲ αὐθάδης μηδὲ πονηρόφρων. 
 ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων βλασφημίαι 
 γεννῶνται. The false teachers push for- 
 ward their views, regardless of conse- 
 quences. Cf. P. Amh. 78, 13 f. (ii. A.D.), 
 μίου] πλεονεκτῖ 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 or evil. Howcan βλασφημ. 
 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, 
 “εἰς 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 BX. 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. Il. ὅπου =“ whereas”. The 
 interpretation of this verse turns on the 
 meaning of κατ᾽ 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, 
 9). Inthe latter case κατ᾽ 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 (οῤ. cit. 
 797 5). 
 
138 
 
 m Use of 
 dat. in- 
 stead of 
 accus. 
 indicates 
 progress 
 towards 
 extinc- 
 tion of 
 
 ™ Κυρίῳ βλάσφημον κρίσιν. 
 
 prepp. with three cases (Moulton, Proleg. 106). 
 
 Luke v. 25. 
 
 TETPOY B 
 
 ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν kat φθαρήσονται, 13. ἀδικούμενοι 
 
 II, 
 
 12. οὗτοι δέ, ὡς ἄλογα ζῷα γεγεννημένα 
 
 φυσικὰ εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν, ἐν " οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες, 
 
 1 μισθὸν 
 
 ἀδικίας ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι τὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφήν, σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι 
 
 n Roin. x. 14, vi. 21, xiv. 21; John xix. 27, 
 
 1 αδικουμενοι NJ BP, syrh + WH; κομιουμενοι ACKLN¢, boh., spec., syrh + 
 
 ai bnecs 
 
 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 
 κατ᾽ αὐτῶν βλάσφημον κρίσιν, is only 
 intelligible by reference to Jude 9, where 
 Michael does not himself condemn Satan, 
 but says ἐπιτ' μήσαι σοι κύριος. Cf. note 
 on βλασφημοῦντες, ν. 10. 
 
 Ver. 12. γεγεννημένα dvorka— born 
 creatures of instinct’. Instinct is here 
 distinguished from the rational centres of 
 thought and judgment. They are ἄλογα 
 ζῷα. 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. év Tq 
 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*4f (iii. B.c.), the 
 writers ask for a receipt with reference 
 toa certain business transaction. τούτου 
 δὲ γενομένου ἐσόμεθα οὐκ ἠδικημένοι 
 “this having been arranged, we shall not 
 be defrauded”’. To this may be added 
 Mayor’s citation of Plut. Cato Mi. 17 
 (p. 766) εὑρὼν χρέα παλαιὰ τῷ δημοσίῳ 
 πολλοὺς ὀφείλοντας καὶ πολλοῖς τὸ 
 δημόσιον, ἅμα τὴν πόλιν ἔπαυσεν ἀδι- 
 κουμένην καὶ ἀδικοῦσαν. The accusative 
 vet after ἄδικ. 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. 14, Tit. 11. 3, Jas: v.13: 
 τρυφή only in N.T. in Luke vii. 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. 
 V. 27, 2 Peti iil. 14, 1 Pet i. τὸ, Judea, 
 μῶμος “reproach,” ‘‘disgrace”. Cf, 
 Hort. on 1 Pet. i. 19, where he traces the 
 way in which μῶμος and ἄμωμος, came 
 to be used with superficial meaning of 
 ‘*blemish,” cf. Ephes. i. 4, v. 27, Heb. 
 IX. 14. ἐντρυφῶντες : “ to be luxurious,” 
 cf. Xen. Hell. iv. 1, 30. ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις 
 αὐτῶν : to be taken with évrpud. ἀπάτη 
 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—I5. 
 
 iS? 
 
 évtpupdvres ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις ' αὐτῶν συνευωχούμενοι ὑμῖν, 14. 0 Matt. x. 
 10, Heb. 
 
 ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς “ μοιχαλίδος καὶ ἀκαταπαύστους 5 iii. τ, 
 
 PG 4 ὃ ’ \ > , ΠΝ , Eph. ii. 
 ἁμαρτίας, δελεάζοντες ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους, καρδίαν γεγυμνασμένην 12. 
 
 P , >” , , snl. pt Peteriiv; 
 πλεονεξίας ἔχοντες, κατάρας τέκνα" 15. καταλείποντες εὐϑεῖαν 1, Jas. i. 
 
 A = “ aA I3. 
 ὁδὸν ἐπλανήθησαν, ἐξακολουθήσαντες TH ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ τοῦ Βόσορ 54 Heb. iii. 
 12. 
 
 tamataits SACKLP, syrh (mg. ayamats), WH, Ti.; ἀγαπαις ΑΒ, sah., 501Ρ 
 +. Treg., WHm. At first sight it would seem probable that 2 Peter has misread 
 ἄγαπαις in Jude 12. Confusion is common in MSS. of O.T. between ἄγαπαω and 
 ἄπαταω, ἀγαπὴ and ἄπατη (e.g., Ps. Ixxviii. 36). Yet awary, ἄπαταω has been 
 proved to be the correct reading in many cases. αὐτων here is an argument in its 
 tavour. Nestle (of. cit. pp. 324 ff.) and Zahn (of. cit. ii. p. 235 f.) argue strongly 
 for ayatrats and omission of υμιν (συνευωχουμενοι = “ feasting with one another ”’) 
 (Mayor, Ed. cxcvii). 
 
 Ξακαταπαυστους $ECKLP, 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 -~rovs ”’ (Mayor, Ed. cxcvii. 
 ε΄. Moulton, Proleg. p. 47). 
 
 3 Βοσορ SCACKLP, boh., syrh, Ti., Treg.; Βεωρ B, syrp, sah., WH, Weiss; 
 Bewopoop ἃ. There can be little doubt that Booop's the correct reading. The 
 reading of ${ is manifestly due toa combination of Βοσορ and a marginal correc- 
 tion -ewp. Zahn. (op. cit. ii. p. 292) says that everywhere in LXX, Josephus, Philo, 
 only the forms Beop or Batop occur, and that Βοσορ 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 υἱὸν του Βοσορ in the 
 Georgian version of Jos. xiii. 22. Βοσορ also occurs as name of a place in Deut. 
 iv. 43, I 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 Σιμων against Συμεων 
 
 in i, τ᾽ (Mayor, Ed. cxcviii.). 
 
 mus, (Neue Fahrb. f. d. Klass, Altertum, 
 1903), p. 165, n. 5). 
 
 Ver. 14. ἀκαταπαύστους ἀμαρτίας. 
 For use of genitive with this verb, cf. 1 
 Pet. iv. τ See Grammatical Note. 
 δελεάζοντες. Cf. v. 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. τῇ ὁδῷ 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 so. 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,”’ i.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 
 
 ΠΡΟ B 
 
 Il. 
 
 ὃς μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγάπησεν, 16. ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρα- 
 
 νομίας - ὑποζύγιον ἄφωνον ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξάμενον ἐκώλυσεν 
 
 ‘ A Ve , 
 τὴν τοῦ προφήτου παραφρονίαν. 
 
 yo , > \ om” 
 I7. οὗτοί εἰσιν πηναὶ ayudpor 
 ͵ 
 
 »“" ti} 
 καὶ ὁμίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι, ots ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους 
 
 τετήρηται. 
 
 18. ὑπέρογκα γὰρ ματαιότητος φθεγγόμενοι δελεάζου- 
 
 σιν ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκὸς ἀσελγείαις τοὺς dAiyws! ἀποφεύγοντας τοὺς 
 ἐν πλάνῃ ἀναστρεφομένους, 19. ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, 
 
 ᾿ολιγως ABNe, vg., syrr., sah., boh., Treg., Ti., WH; οντως 
 would require aor. ; αποφυγοντας (‘‘ clean escaped”’ A.V.), read by KLP. 
 
 NWCKLP; ovras 
 In the 
 
 MSS. ovtws is hardly distinguishable from oAvyws (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, Sermons, Ser. iv. pp. 
 40 f. 
 
 Ver. 16. ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν, a periphrasis 
 for the passive of ἐλέγχω, = “ was re- 
 buked”’. ἰδίας 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). σπαρανομία = “4 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 
 ἄνυδροι was a contradiction in terms, 
 and instead he substituted πηγαὶ. λαί- 
 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 ἀναστρε- 
 φομένους = governed by ἀποφεύγοντας : 
 “(escaping from) those who live in 
 error ’’; 1.6. 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. v. 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 
 
16---22. 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B 
 
 141 
 
 αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς: ᾧ γάρ τις ἥττηται, τούτῳ τ Acts xi. 17 
 
 δεδούλωται. 
 
 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. ¢ 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 
 tthe 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. 20. Here, again, yap loosely 
 introduces the subject of the victims 
 allured by the false teachers away from 
 ‘their former faith. τὰ μιάσματα 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 μίασμα. Cf. μιασμός, v. το, 
 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, γέγονεν αὐτοῖς, κιτιλ. Cf. 
 Matt. xii. 45, Luke xi. 26, and Heb. vi. 
 
 4-8, x. 26. 
 
 Ver. 21. ὁδὸν τῆς ϑικαιοσύνης. Also 
 called ‘‘the way of truth,” ii. 2, ‘ the 
 ‘straight way,” li. 15. ἐντολῆς. Else- 
 
 where in N.T. the singular is used to 
 ‘mean a particular precept. Cf. Rom. 
 Wile 22,) 0 Lim.) vi. τὴν tis ‘charac- 
 ‘teristic of this writer to emphasise the 
 
 21. κρεῖττον yap "ἦν αὐτοῖς "μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν 
 τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν ὑποστρέψαι ἐκ τῆς παραδοθείσης 
 22. συμβέβηκεν αὐτοῖς τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς 
 
 (Rec.). 
 
 20. εἰ γὰρ ἀποφυγόντες TA μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου ἐν 5 Rom. ix. 
 ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τούτοις " δὲ πάλιν 
 ἐμπλακέντες ἡττῶνται, γέγονεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα χείρονα τῶν 
 
 , 2 Cor. 
 bn 
 Matt.xxv, 
 27, XXvi. 
 9, 24, 
 Arist. 
 Nub. 1215, 
 Xen. 
 Anab. 7, 
 7. 40. 
 
 t Luke 
 Xvil. 1 (om. (?) rové). 
 
 aspect of Christianity, not only as faith, 
 but as the moral law ἁγίας 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: 
 ‘‘the content of the true proverb” has 
 been ‘‘ verified,” or ‘realised ”’ in their 
 case. The first proverb is found in 
 Prov. xxvi. Ir. 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 
 of λουσαμένη, which is consistently used 
 of washing with water. Again, the point 
 ot 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. lxvii.) 
 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 Rone XX. 
 25, Jas.iv. Ἄ 
 1 Cor, vii. μένη εἰς κυλισμὸν βορβόρου. 
 
 «- 
 tn) 
 m= 
 Qa 
 Ὁ 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B 
 
 Ill. 
 
 , -, 
 " παροιμίας, Κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα, καί Ὗς ὕλουσα- 
 
 III. 1. Ταύτην ἤδη, ἀγαπητοί, δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολήν, 
 
 use of 5ο- "μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν 
 
 called 
 epexe- 
 getical 
 infinitive 
 
 καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου Kal σωτῆρος, 3. 
 τοῦτο πρῶτον ” γινώσκοντες ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶ- 
 
 see Μουϊ- - 5 ~ 2 “ Ri ΤΑ PR > ἢ > , 
 ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόν 
 
 ton, Pro- 
 leg. pp. 
 203-204. frais bk 
 b Col. iii. 16, 2 Cor. vii. 5, ix. 10, Phil. i. 29. 
 
 Jer. xxxvili. 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— 
 
 2 5 ΄ ey ΄ , 
 εἰς ἴδιον ἐξέραμ᾽ ἐπιστρέψας κύων 
 λελουμένη θ᾽ ὗς 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. 
 
 CuHapTER 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 r Peter? See Introduction, 
 
 p. 113. ἐν ats: ‘in both of which,” 
 constructio ad sensum. S.eyelpw... 
 ὑπομνήσει: cf. i. 13. 
 
 εἰλικρινῆ: cf. x Cor. v. 8, 2 Cor. i. 12, 
 ii. 17, Phil. i. τος εἰλικρινῆ διάνοιαν is a 
 technical philosophic term used by Plato. 
 Phaed. 66 A =‘‘pure reason,”’ such as 
 the geometer employs. In Phaed. 81 C, 
 εἰλικρινὴς 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, I Pet. i. 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 ἀποσ- 
 τόλων, κιτιλ. 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, 
 διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποσ- 
 τόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. évrodky=teaching οἱ 
 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 at. 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 γινώσκοντες. 
 Accusative is required, but all MSS. have 
 nominative, cf. Jude 18. ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων 
 TOV ἡμερῶν. 
 signs of the approach of the end, cf. 1 
 John ii. 18. ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται > 
 
 Mockers are one of the 
 
 te MB 
 
I—6. 
 
 NETPOY B 
 
 143 
 
 ‘ a 5 ΠΩΣ τε αι ee 
 wevot, 4. καὶ λέγοντες Ποῦ ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαννελία τῆς παρουσίας “αὐτοῦ; ς τ John ii. 
 
 ἀφ᾽ ἧς yup οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, πάντα οὕτως “ διαμένει ἀπ᾽ 6. 
 
 ἀρχῆς κτίσεως. 
 
 ἊΣ a fal - -“ 
 ἧσαν ἔκπαλαι καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ 8: ὕδατος συνεστῶσα τῷ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ “λόγῳ: 6. δι᾽ ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετωη- 
 
 ἐμπαίκτης is an unclassical form. οἴ. 
 Mark xv. 20. ‘his 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, «.t.A. 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 
 tural ytory 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, Rschatology of 
 Yesus. pp. 126, 127). τῆς παρουσίας: 
 See note on i. 16. ἀφ᾽ ἧς yap, κιτ.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, 1.¢., 
 “contrary to all previous human ex- 
 perience”. The Teaching of our Lord 
 Himself in one aspect would imply 
 that the actual παρουσία, 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). 
 Wy. 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 5 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 yao αὐτοὺς τοῦτο θέλοντας ὅτι οὐρανοὶ 
 
 12 2 John 
 
 ἃ John xv. 
 27, Vili. 
 58, 1 John 
 ili. 8, Jer. 
 ies: Ps. 
 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,” 1.6. before the crea- 
 tion of the world. The Rabbinical school 
 of Shammai held that Gen. i. 1, ἐν ἀρχῇ 
 ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν Kat THY γῆν᾽ 
 meant that the heaven was in existence 
 before the six days’ work, 1.6. ἔκπαλαι. 
 Perhaps this notion is present here. 
 ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι᾽ ὕδατος. 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. Ixxxili.; Chase, of. cit. 
 797). ovveot@oa=‘' wasformed’’. Cf. 
 Philo, i. p. 330. ἐκ γῆς καὶ ὕδατος καὶ. 
 ἀέρος καὶ πυρὸς συνέστη ὅδε ὁ κόσμος. 
 
 The above interpretation is in sub- 
 stantial agreement with Alford’s, who 
 distinguishes ‘‘the waters above the 
 firmament,’’ and ‘the fountains of the 
 great deep”. The Hebrew had no 
 notion of evaporation. ‘The rivers run 
 into the sea, and the water returns sub- 
 terraneously to their sources again (Ec- 
 ΟΙΡΈ 15. ἡ: 
 
 Ver. 6. δι᾽ ὧν. Μαγοσ δηά Schmeidel, 
 against the evidence of nearly all manu- 
 scripts, read δι᾽ ὅν.. Thisis rendered un- 
 necessary (1) if the above rendering of 
 ἐξ ὕδατος κιτ.λ. is taken, and the plural 
 δι᾿ ὧν refers to the two waters. δι᾽ ὅν 
 would refer to λόγῳ alone, or (2) if δι’ 
 ὧν reiers to ὑδάτων and λόγῳ taken to- 
 gether, which would in some ways suit 
 the sense of the whole passage better. 
 The ialse teachers had ignored the 
 agency of the Divine word. κατακλυ- 
 oeis; am. Aey. in N.T.; found several 
 times in P.Tebt. e.g. 54} (B.c. 86) 
 [ὥστε] - - - συμβεβηκότων κατακλυσθῆ- 
 vat. “80 {παῖ in consequence of what 
 happened, it was flooded’’ ; 5657 (late ii. 
 B.C.) yetv[wolke δὲ περὶ τοῦ κατακεκ- 
 λῦσθαι τὸ πεδίον “but know about our 
 plain having been inundated”. 
 
144 
 
 TIIETPOY B 
 
 Ill. 
 
 ε δὲ A > ‘ ‘oe a aA eats L λό θ , 78 
 7. ol δὲ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ τῷ αὐτῷ 1 λόγῳ τεθησαυρισμένοι εἰσὶν 
 πυρὶ τηρούμενοι εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως καὶ ἀπωλείας τῶν ἀσεβῶν 
 
 ἀνθρώπων. 
 
 ἡμέρα παρὰ Κυρίῳ ὡς χίλια ἔτη καὶ χίλια ἔτη ὡς ἡμέρα μία. 
 
 ὃ. Ἕν δὲ τοῦτο μὴ λανθανέτω ὑμᾶς, ἀγαπητοί, ὅτι μία 
 
 9. 
 
 οὐ βραδύνει Κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, 
 
 f WM. iii. 
 § xix. 2 
 (b). 
 
 πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι. 
 
 ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ 
 
 10. Ἥξει δὲ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς 
 
 τ τῳ αὐτῳ ABP, vulg., sah., boh., WH, Τί, ; τῷ αὐτου ΟΚΙ,, syrr., Treg. 
 
 Ver. 7. πυρὶ τηρούμενοι. 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 nochange is possible in the material 
 universe’’; and with whole passage, vv. 
 5-7, cf. Ruskin, Sesame and Lilies, p. 
 24. 
 
 Wy. 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 as a 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. 8. pia ἡμέρα, κιτιλ. 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 rooo 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. 9. ov 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 paxpo@v- 
 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. 
 μὴ βουλόμενός, κιτιλ. 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. ἡμέρα Kuptov. 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- 
 
y-ul. 
 
 ΄ 3 e ς > ‘ 
 κλέπτης, ἐν ἡ Ol οὐρανοὶ 
 
 ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B 
 
 145 
 
 ῥοιζηδὸν © παρελεύσονται, στοιχεῖα δὲ g John xix. 
 
 31, Rev. 
 
 , , ἈΝ ~ A a > 5 ~ ” c 67 1 
 καυσούμενα λυθήσεται, καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ Epya εὑρεθήσεται. Rana F 
 
 a ς Δ c ~ 
 II. Τούτων οὖν» πάντων λυομένων ποταποὺς Set ὑπάρχειν ὑμᾶς 
 
 Xen. 
 Anab. 1, 7, 17. 
 
 1 evpeOnoerat SBKP, syrP; ουχ ευρεθησεται sah. ; κατακαησεται AL, syrh, Ti. ; 
 καυθησεται vel.; κατακαυθησονται al.; αφανισθησονται C; om. kat yn... evpe- 
 
 θησεται vulg.; om. ευρεθησεται spec. 
 
 Both Nestle and Mayor agree in suggesting 
 
 the passive of a compound of pew (καταρυησεται or διαρρυησεται. I am indebted 
 to Professor J. H. Moulton for the information that the late Henry Bradshaw, of 
 
 Cambridge, suggested the reading epya apya 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 tkis passage. 
 
 Kal πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ὡς μόλυβδος ἐπὶ πυρὶ τηκόμενος, Kal 
 
 τότε φανήσεται τὰ κρύφια καὶ φανερὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 
 
 lenarian teaching, which speedily made 
 its appearance in the 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, ¢.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. c. 15; Oecumenius 
 says the word is especially used of the 
 noise caused by a devouring flame” 
 (Mayor, ed. p. 157). στοιχεῖα. Spitta 
 interprets or. as being the spirits that 
 preside over the various parts of nature. 
 But the situation of or. between γῆ 
 and ovpavot makes it practically cer- 
 tain that the heavenly bodies are meant. 
 The universe consists of οὐρανοὶ, στοι- 
 xeta and γῆ. οὐρανοὶ is the vault of 
 heaven, ‘‘ the skies”. στ. would therefore 
 mean sun, moon and stars. Cf. Justin. 
 Afol. 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. καυσούμενα. A 
 medical term, used of the heat of fever 
 (katoos). 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 kata- 
 καήσεται, but one would expect a word 
 
 expressing dissolution, like παρελεύσον- 
 ται, or λυθήσεται. 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. go 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 shall 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. τι. 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 Kal εὐσεβείαις. The use- 
 
ΠΕΤΡΟΥ B 
 
 11 
 
 3 πὸ > = ‘ > , a ‘ 
 ἐν ἅγιαις ἀναστροφαιῖς καὶ εὐσεβείαις, 12. προσδοκῶντας καὶ 
 
 , Ἢ , fol ~ ~ ε , rm. 5 Ν 
 σπεύδοντας τὴν παρουσιᾶν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἄμέερᾶς, δι nv ουρανοι 
 
 πυρούμενοι λυθήσονται καὶ στοιχεῖα καυσούμενα τήκεται. 
 
 13. 
 
 ‘ Ν 3 Ν Ν = ἈΝ x ἈΝ 3 , 3 A 
 KQLVOUS δὲ oupavous και yu καινὴν κατὰ TO ἐπάγγελμα αὐτου 
 
 προσδοκῶμεν, ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ. 
 
 14. Διό, ἀγαπητοί, 
 
 ἢ 2 Οογ. χί!. ταῦτα προσδοκῶντες σπουδάσατε ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι * αὐτῷ 
 
 20. 
 
 εὑρεθῆναι ἐν εἰρήνῃ, 15. καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν 
 
 σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, καθὼς καὶ ὃ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος 
 κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, 16. ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ὦ 
 
 ἱπασαις ταις ΜΚ ΚΙ,Ρ, ΤΙ. ; om. 
 
 -of the plural in cases of abstract nouns is 
 peculiar to the writerandto1 Peter. He 
 emphasises once more the close connexion 
 between morality and religion. 
 
 Ver. 12. σπεύδοντας. Either (τ) 
 “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 ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἣ γῆ καινή. 
 Enoch xei. 16. See note on’ ver. 7: 
 
 οὐρανός might appropriately be trans- 
 lated “sky”. ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοι- 
 ket; “wherein righteousness dwells,” 
 or ‘thas 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 kal ἀμώμητοι αὐτῷ. 
 αὐτῷ is dative = “in relation to Him,” 
 or ‘‘in His sight”. Cf. Rom. vii. τὸ: 
 εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ 7 εἰς ζωὴν αὕτη 
 
 ταις ABC, Treg., WH, Weiss. 
 
 εἰς θάνατον; Ephes. i. 4, εἶναι ἀμώμους 
 κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ. For ἄσπιλοι καὶ 
 ἀμώμητοι, cf. note ON ν. 13. ἀμώμητος 
 occursin Epistle of Aristeas (ed. Wend- 
 land), with reference to sacrificial victims. 
 ἐν εἰρήνῃ. Peace and righteousness are 
 one. Cf. Ps. Ixxxv. 10. The ‘“ well- 
 doers ’’ will be able to meet the Parousia 
 with calm expectation. 
 
 Ver. 15. καὶ τὴν τοῦ Kuplov... 
 ἡγεῖσθε. Cf. ν. 9. The Divine long- 
 suffering is capable of interpretation as 
 ἐς slackness,”’ or as opportunity for license 
 instead of as σωτηρίαν, an opportunity 
 for repentance. καθὼς 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 ver. 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 
 (cf. ii. 4, i811. 255/26, 1x. 22,23; Χὶ: 25. 55)» 
 (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. (cf. Zahn., Introd. 
 ii., pp. 211-2). ὁ ἀγαπητὸς . . . Παῦλος 
 need not imply that Paul wasalive. κατὰ 
 τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν. Cf. τ Cor. 
 iii. το, Gal. ii. g, 1 Cor. iii, 66, Col. i. 28. 
 
 Ver. 16. ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς 
 
 rte « 
 
1t—tL/. 
 
 HEFPOY iB 
 
 147 
 
 ex > A A > > ἊΝ \ , > 2 > \ ὃ , , 
 ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων, ἐν αἷς ἐστὶν δυσνόητά 
 
 Ε a a ‘ 
 τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς Kal Tas λοιπὰς 
 
 γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν ἱ αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν. 
 
 i Acts ii. 8, 
 Tit. 1. 12, 
 
 17. Ὑμεῖς οὖν, ἀγαπητοί, προγινώσκοντες φυλάσσεσθε iva μὴ τῇ 
 
 ἐπιστολαῖς. 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, «.t.A. This clearly involves 
 that a collection of letters is meant. 
 δυσνόητά τινα. ‘What are the δυσν- 
 énra referred to? ‘“ ProbablyiSt. 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, τ 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. vill., 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. 11.) (Mayor). οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστή- 
 ρικτοι. 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 dornp. 
 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, “το wrest ”’ 
 or “twist ᾽", 
 
 ὡς kal Tas λοιπὰς γραφάς. (τὴ 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 = O.T. 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. 
 
 Viva £7,. 18. 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. τὶ 
 ἀθέσμων occurs ii. 7; πλάνη ii. 18. 
 συναπαχθέντες (cf. Galat. ii. 13), ‘‘car- 
 tied away”. ἀθέσμων, see note ii. 7. 
 
148 
 
 TETPOY B 
 
 111: 18: 
 
 k Gal. ii. 13. τῶν ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ * συναπαχθέντες ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου στηριγμοῦ, 
 
 18. αὐξάνετε δὲ ἐν χάριτι καὶ γνώσει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος 
 
 3 lol 
 
 QUTG) 
 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. δ 
 στηριγμοῦ, ‘ steadfastness”; perhaps 
 “foundation ”’ is better, although in this 
 sense we would expect στήριγμα. There 
 is, however, a tendency in N.T. to con- 
 fuse words in -pa -pos. Cf. κύλισμα 
 (2 Pet. 11. 22). ἅρπαγμός (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 
 Κυρίου, κιτλ. The genitive is to be 
 taken with both words. γνῶσις 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). γνῶσις is the privilege of the 
 
 ce Ν A A > ε , 3A 
 ἡ δόξα καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος. 
 
 “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.). hp. 
 ai@vos is a very rare phrase not found 
 elsewhere in N.T. It is found in Sir. 
 xviii. 10, where the phrase is ἐν ἡμέρᾳ 
 αἰῶνος. The more usual expression is 
 εἰς TOUS 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). 
 
THE EPISTLES 
 
 ST. JOHN 
 
 VOL. V. IO 
 

 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Tue 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 “\wdvou (-άννου) a: δὴ ᾿Ιωάννου ἐπιστολὴ 
 a: L ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου Ἰωάννου : P “lwdvvou τοῦ 
 εὐαγγελιστοῦ καὶ ἀποσ(τόλου ἐπιστολὴ) a. Two later MSS. have inter- 
 esting titles—13 ἐπιστολὴ a Ἰωάννου - εὐαγγελικὴ θεολογία περὶ xu: f 
 βροντῆς υἱὸς Ἰωάννης τάδε χριστιανοῖσιν.ἢ 
 
 2. Patristic Evidence.—Polycarp. ad Philipp. vili.: πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν 
 μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν----ἃ mani- 
 fest echo of 1 John iv. 2,3. 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. der. Script. Eccies.; Iren. 111: iii. 4. 
 
 Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) says that Papias, whom Irenzeus 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 Efistolam ¥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. ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ παρθένου, 
 as the Apocalypse is entitled in 30 αποκαλυψ. του αγιου evSofotatov αποστολου 
 και ευαγγελιστου παρθενου nyamnpevov επιστηθιου twavvov Beodoyov, and TOY- 
 NAPOENOY was mistaken tor MPOZMAPOOY. 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 Ἰωάννου τοῦ παρθένου. 
 
152 ᾿ INTRODUCTION 
 
 (Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονὼς, ἀρχαῖος avnp),” 
 “used testimonies from the first (former) epistle of John (κέχρηται δ᾽ 
 ὁ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς) . προτέρας is 
 merely a grammatical inaccuracy, as conversely πρῶτος for πρότερος 
 in Matt..xxi..36:; Acts i. 1; 1 Cor. xiv. 99: Heb, x 9; Rev. xxi; 
 Cf. Eus. H. E. iii. 24; 4 προτέρα τῶν ἐπιστολῶν... at λοιπαὶ δύο. 
 
 Irenzeus, 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 a.p. 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, hac 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 iii. 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. 11. 8 with 
 Gosp. xiii. 34, xv. 10,12; Ep. ii. 11 with Gosp. xii. 35; Ep. iii. 8, 15 
 with Gosp. viii. 44; Ep. iti. 11, 16 with Gosp. xv. 12,13; Ep. iii. 12 
 with Gosp. vii. 7; Ep. iii. 18 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. ili. 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. 2 Tren, III. xviii. 5, 8. 
 >The Mur. Can, is given in Routh’s Relig. Sacr., i. pp. 394 seq. 
 
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, Rather and World, God and Devil, Children 
 of God and Children of the εν}. 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 : 
 (2) ἱλασμός in Ep. 11. 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. (bd) χρῖσμα (Ep. 11. 20, 27) is another ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The very 
 idea, however, is found in the Gospel (xiv. 26, xvi. 13). (2) The 
 Gospel is more spiritual in its eschatology, representing the Judgment 
 not as future but as present (iii. 18) and the Coming of Christ as 
 happening in the experience of each believer (xiv. 3); whereas the 
 
 1See Holtzmann’s Einl, in das N.T., and his elaborate discussion: Das Proél. 
 
 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 (v. 29), ‘the 
 last day” (vi. 39, 40, 44,54; xi. 24), and a personal Coming of Christ 
 (xxi. 22, 23).1 (4) 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 (Σίν. 
 16). See commentary on ii. 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,% 
 “ἃ 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 a.p. 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 στοιχεῖα) ’—not only 
 the Apostles Philip and Andrew® but, according to abundant and 
 trustworthy tradition, St. John. The latter 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. E. iti. 31, v. 24. 5 Mur. Can. 
 
 δ θη the credibility of this tradition see Drummond, The Char. and Auth. of the 
 
 Fourth Gospel, pp. 814 ff. 
 TIren. III. iii. 4. 
 
INTRODUCTION 5% 
 
 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 (A.D. 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 οὐ 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. 
 “Ἱ 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?” ‘He 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 I 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, “ δὲ the exhortation of his fellow-disciples and bishops,” 1.e., 
 his own congregation at Ephesus and his colleagues in the neigh- 
 
 1fren. III. iii. 4. 2 De Div. Serv. 42. 3 Eus. H. E. 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, iti, 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 
 
 PBR Ch 2 Tren. I. 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. 
 ®Tren., l.c. ’ De Prescript. Her. 33. 
 
 8 Dionysius of Alexandria in Eus. H. E. iii. 28. 
 9 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.” 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 Epistie 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, iii, 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 
 
 Δ Tren. I. xxi. 2 Tren. 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. ti. 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.” 
 
 THe 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 TOY 
 θλιβόμενον. 
 
 2 Ῥυξ by Eus. H. Ε. iii. 23 in the reign of Domitian (a.p. 81-96), by Epiphan. 
 Her. li. 33 in that of Claudius (a.p. 41-54). 
 
INTRODUCTION 159 
 
 are not such (περὶ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων θείων γραφῶν kat τῶν μὴ τοιούτων) ! 
 includes the Second and Third Epistles of John (4 ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα 
 καὶ τρίτη ᾿Ιωάννου) among “those that are controverted yet recognised 
 by most (τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων, γνωρίμων δ᾽ οὖν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς). 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 it. 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 ὁ τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητὴς ἐπέτεινε τὴν 
 καταδίκην αὐτῶν μηδὲ χαίρειν αὐτοῖς ip ὑμῶν λέγεσθαι βουληθείς. 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), ὃ and elsewhere he speaks of “ the 
 Second Epistle of John’’.7 
 
 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 
 
 ΕΓ πὶ, 25. 
 
 ? Comm. in Ev. Foan. v. 3 (ed. Lommatzsch, vol. i., p. 165). 
 
 5 Eus. H. E. iii. 39; cf. Jer. Script. Eccles. under ¥oannes Afostolus; Pafias. 
 iS ix. 3. SIT xvite 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 ὃ πρεσβύτερος. 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 1 once learned well from the elders 
 (τῶν πρεσβυτέρων) and remembered well, guaranteeing their truth. 
 For 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), 1 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 ᾿Ιωάννης), the Lord’s dis- 
 ciples, say (λέγουσιν) ’’.® 
 
 aSee Ὁ: 155- 
 
 5 Cf. Barth, Die Hauptprobl., S. 26: “In der That nun ist diese ‘ patriarchalisch- 
 monarchische’ Autoritat unerklarlich bei einem einfachen Presbyter einer Local- 
 
 gemeinde; sie erklart sich aber vollkommen, wenn der πρεσβύτερος wie Paulus ein 
 Apostel gewesen ist.” 
 
 3Eus. H. E. iii. 39. ΑΨ, xxxvi. et passim. Similarly in Heb. xi. 2. 
 
 5 ἀνέκρινον, not ‘enquire about”. Jerome (Script. Eccles. under Pafias) rightly 
 tenders considerabam. 
 
 § Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 
 
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,” 1.6., 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 (εἶπεν) ᾿ 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,? 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 (ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας) ᾿ 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. 
 
 SSEG\p. 151. 
 
162 INTRODUCTION 
 
 πρεσβύτερος because the latter had so styled himself in each of the 
 Epistles.! 
 
 ’ The Second Epistle is addressed ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ 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 “the 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 9.5 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), 1.6., 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 Kupia as her name. 
 The name was common in those days, and it occurs, é.g., in the 
 Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 498: ᾿Αντωνίᾳ ᾿Ασκληπιάδι τῇ καὶ Kupia. 914: 
 Αὐρήλιος ᾿Απφοῦτος υἱὸς ᾿Αρεοῦτος μητρὸς Kupias. 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 Kupia but Kupia τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ On the analogy of Γαΐῷ 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 mvev- 
 ματικῶς. 
 
 3 Ep. ad Ageruchiam. 
 
 + The words, however, can hardly mean more than “an elect lady”. 
 
 5 Schmiedel in Encycl. Bibl., vol. ii., col. 2560. Cf. B. Weiss, Einleit. 
 
 δ Others take “ExAextq as the name (“the lady Electa”). Clem. Alex.: “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 ecclesie sancte ”. 
 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 i. 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. * Cf. Ramsay, The Church in the Rom. Emp., p. 67. 
 8 Col. iv. 15: Νύμφαν καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ 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 ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Ιωάννου 
 τοῦ ἀποστόλου καὶ ἠγαπημένου, ὄντος ἐξορίστου ἐν Πάτμῳ 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. 
 
 31ὶι 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. 
 >xi-xili. Cf. 2 John τὸ, 11. 
 
INTRODUCTION 165 
 
 visiting his Church at an early date and reducing the recalcitrant 
 Diotrephes to order. 
 
 Tue ΤΉΧΤ 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. :— 
 
 ΟΝ Codex Sinaiticus, 4th c. 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 c. In the Vatican Library at Rome. 
 
 C Codex Ephraemi, 5th c. 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 5th c.; corrected first, probably in Palestine, 
 in 6th c. (03), then, probably at Constantinople, in 9th c. 
 (C8). 
 
 K Codex Mosquensis, 9th c. Brought to Moscow from the 
 monastery of St. Dionysius at Mount Athos. 
 
 1See C. R. Gregory’s Pwdegomena to Tischendorf’s Nov. Test. Gr., pp. 
 212 sqq. 
 MOLES: Vi ΕῚ 
 
146 |. INTRODUCTION 
 
 L Codex Angelicus Romanus, 9the. In the Angelic Library 
 of the Augustinian monks at Rome. 
 
 P Codex Porfirianus, 9th c. A palimpsest found by Tischen- 
 dorf in 1862 among the books of Bishop Porfirius 
 Chiovensis. 
 
 D Codex Bezez, 5th or 6th c. 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.® 
 
 2. Ancient Versions : 4— 
 Syriac— 
 
 (1) Syrvg Peshitto or Vulgate, 3rd (Ὁ) 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 (4.0. 382-84). The 
 three Epistles. 
 
 Egyptian— 
 (1) Cop Memphitic Version, 3rd (?)c. 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., ti. (a rude Latin 
 translation) ; Didymus, the blind teacher of St. Jerome in the Cate- 
 chetical School of Alexandria (a.p. 308-95), commentary on the 
 
 1 Gregory, pp- 345 544. 
 2 The signs * ? 5a bc affixed to uncials denote corrections by later hands. 
 8 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 (\st Ep., stopping abruptly- 
 at v. 3); Bede, Expos.; Euthymius Zigabenus (12th c.), 
 
 Erasmus, In Ν. T, Annotat.; Luther; Calvin (1st Ep.); Beza; 
 Carpzov, Commentatio in Ep. 2 Foan.; 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 (Ist Ep., translated by T. ἃ 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. Fohn; H. J. Holtzmann in 
 Hand-commentar zum Neuen Testament ; Bernhard Weiss, Die drei 
 Briefe des Ap. Foh.; Parrar, Early Days of Christianity, chaps. 
 xxxi-vii.; Cox, Private Letters of St. Paul and St. $ohn ; 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. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ne A ἈΝ ee 
 ον wy ote e haat og 
 iy δ ey ἐνῆν, DELON 
 
 εὐ ae cys alta: 
 Per Hey nent frit pare 
 vie ae ΟΝ 
 
 ταν Papo ete οι | 
 , γ.- ett mt; Wd 1 wr ἰ ay λ i 
 i ag Bi Ui oe aT YA is 44s Ὅν 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | i WOR ty ΜΙ ae 
 hy Ad CU Ba es Lh Le ΗΣ ‘Aa eG Mca ᾿ 
 i Ba ah en dis ah ah Candle “4 ΣΝ λον ἐν νὰ 
 
 i ‘a bull! ΡΣ ce ΠΝ 
 
 Ὁ}. Va 
 ete ry ἡ ᾿ Ἶ 
 ve ΠΝ 
 Ϊ ΨῚ wig , 
 ΔΩ 
 } 
 
 ery 
 | fied 
 
 Maki ae 
 
 ΓΑ ὦ. al) ν 
 ( ἐν i ᾿ f 
 Sa eigenen 
 “4 ᾿ ᾿ Va i 
 aan aad if 4 
 hy Heth; Rs 
 
 i ΠῚ Ν 4 
 ‘7 ᾿ 1 a ἢ γον πῆ ν 
 
 1A 
 
 , 
 
 ipa A tl ἴα. 
 ae ; 
 
 
 
IQANNOY TOY AITOZTOAOY 
 
 EMISTOAH KA@OAIKH ILPOQTH}. 
 
 I. τ. Ὃ "ἮΝ > dm ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ “ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλ- 3 Rev. i. 4 
 
 a 
 
 Hots ἡμῶν, ὃ 
 
 1 See Introd., p. 151. 
 
 4 ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ 3 αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ° ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ Bebe it, 
 
 2 Peter i. 
 
 16. 
 dJohni.14.  e Luke xxiv. 39; John xx. 27. 
 
 2Tert. (de Anim. 17; adv. Prax. 15) quotes thus: quod vidimus, quod audivi- 
 mus, oculis nostris vidimus et manus nostre contrectaverunt de sermone vite, as 
 though reading ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, κιτιλ. 
 
 Tue First EPIsTLe. 
 
 CuapTEeR 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 isno 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”. 
 (δ) 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. 
 Vv. 4: πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον with note. 
 ἦν, ‘“‘verbum eternitatis significativum 
 non habentis initium” (Clem. Alex.). 
 It ‘‘ was” ere it ‘‘was manifested”. ἀπ᾽ 
 ἀρχῆς, ΓΝ TVD (Gen. i. 1). The 
 Logos already was when time began. 
 “The desizn 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 καθ᾽ 
 ἡμᾶς μυστήριον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν 
 ἀεὶ τυγχάνειν αὐτὸ νῦν 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 “I 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 
 
 Lean % τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς 
 g Jobni. 7, καὶ 
 2 
 
 Acts i. 8, 
 ii. 32. 
 
 h Heb. viii. 
 6; Mar 
 iv. 20 3 
 
 Phil. iv. a. = eb Ἴμῶν εἶς 
 
 1 6851: I, τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ - 
 
 k Ruta ii. 42. 
 
 hates ἣν ' πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ores ἡμῖν" 
 i. ἀκηκόαμεν, ὀρ βαηθννι, ὑμῖν," 
 
 111. 24; John xvii. 21 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 13. 
 
 IQANOY A Ἢ 
 
 2. καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν, 
 
 5 , ΘΗ νιν x Ν Ν 5.» 
 ἘΠΕ τύΒΟ μεν, καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, 
 
 3. ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ 
 
 A tal , 
 ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς "ὶ κοινωνίαν ἔχητε 
 
 ‘4 κοινωνία δὲ ἣ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ 
 
 4. καὶ ταῦτα ™ γράφομεν ὑμῖν, ἵνα 
 
 m ii. 12, 13. 
 
 lat υμιν SABCP, Syrvg, Sah., Aeth., Arm., edd. 
 
 (see Moulton’s Gram. of N.T. Ghk., i. 
 pp. 142f.). ἐψηλάφησαν : the word is 
 used of the fumbling of a blind man in 
 Gen. xxvii. 12 LXX py ποτε ψηλαφήσῃ 
 με ὃ 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 verkiindigen, denn ihn selbst verkiin- 
 digen zu k6énnen, dazu fihlte er sich 
 nicht in Stande” (Rothe). τοῦ Λόγου 
 τῆς ζωῆς, “1τ1πΠεὲ 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. n. μαρ- 
 τυροῦμεν, according to the Lord’s parting 
 charge (cf. As XV. 27; Luke xxiv. 48 ; 
 Acts i. 8). ἣ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 (Rev. i. a 9, xix. 10) was the apostolic 
 amrayye ἀπαγγέλλομεν, κ. τ.λ.: 
 Be ayhente 3 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. ὃ ἕωρ. καὶ ax., not merely a 
 resumption but a reiteration of the pro- 
 tasis. καὶ ὑμεῖς, “ye also” who have 
 not seen Jesus. κοινωνίαν, 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 phrase καὶ. . . δὲ, 
 et... vero, atque etiam, introduces an 
 important addition or explanation (cf. 
 John vi. 51, Vill. τὸ, τὴ, τὺ: 275) pActs 
 XXil, 209; Heb: τα 1: ΡΘΕ τ᾿ π᾿ 
 “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 ¥erusalem- 
 Sinner Saved : “I 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. ἡμεῖς, 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- 
 
 " ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν 1 ἡ πεπληρωμένη. 5. Kat αὕτη ἐστὶν 2 ἡ ° ἐπαγγελία 
 ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἢ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι 6 Θεὸς φῶς 
 ἐστι, καὶ “ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία. 
 κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευ- 
 δόμεθα, καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν - 
 περιπατῶμεν, ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ 
 
 > , var a = τ A a 
 ἀλλήλων, καὶ “τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ Xpictod* τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ὃ 
 
 1 Peter i. 12. 
 
 12, xii. 35, 36. 5 Exod. x. 22, 23. 
 
 Syrvg, Sah., edd. 
 Ξεστιν αὐτὴ  ΒΟΚΤΨ,Ρ, edd. 
 
 6 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 q John i. 4, 5, 8, 9, viii. 12, ix. 5; James i. 17. 
 t Heb. ix. 13, 14. 
 
 lypwvy ACKP, Syrph., Vg., Cop., Aeth., 
 
 11 
 
 8 n John iii. 
 20, XV. II, 
 Xvi. 24, 
 Xvii. 13 
 2 John 
 12. With 
 id cf. 
 3 John, 4. 
 7. "ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ o iti. τι. 
 ; p Matt. 
 
 XXVili. ΤΙ; 
 ΕΞ John iv. 
 25, ΧΥΪ. 12, 
 Set Sc) os 
 r ii. 4, John iii. 19-21 ; John, viii. 
 
 6. " ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι 
 
 Arm., Aug. ; ἡμῶν SBL, many minusc., 
 
 Sayyedta NCABKL, Syrve., Vg. (annuntiatio), Aeth., Arm., Aug. (annuntiatio), 
 
 ‘\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 
 and iii. 11. 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 (c/. 
 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. p; 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 (‘‘we,” not “γε. 
 
 περιπατεῖν, Heb. “J Prt, of the whole 
 “ὌΝ 
 
 course of life. The Greek phrase is 
 ἀναστρέφεσθαι (conversart). 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 (¢/. John vii. 
 17). τὴν ἀλήθειαν, see note on ver. 8. 
 ‘Walking in the light ” has two blessed 
 results: (x) ‘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 ᾿Ιησοῦ, 
 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 of the Divine Son are able 
 
172 
 
 u John ix. 
 41, XV. 22, 
 24, Xix.11. 
 
 V ii. 26, iii. 
 7, iv. τ 
 Rev. i 
 
 ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 IQANOY A Ἃ 
 
 Ξ᾿ ε x v ~ Ν 
 εχομεν, EQAUTOUS πλανῶμεν, και 
 
 8—10. II. 
 8. "Edy εἴπωμεν St." ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ 
 
 Q- 
 
 “4 ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. 
 
 5 ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ὁμάρταις ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστι καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα 
 
 om xii. 9; ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς nae kal καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας. 
 
 Io. ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ il a ls a * ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτόν, 
 
 I. " Τεκνία μου, ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν, ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε: καὶ 
 
 8 1. 8, ii. 4; John v. 38, viii. 37. a Gal. iv. 19 
 
 the strength and activity of the sinful 
 principle (ἢ ἁμαρτία) in our souls. This, 
 however, is no reason fordespair. There 
 
 xxii. som 
 
 XXIV. 4,5, , 
 
 11,24. καὶ “ὃ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. 
 W ii. 4. 
 x Ps, xxxii. 1 
 
 5; Prov. 
 
 XXvili. 13. y Rom. iii. 26. z Rom. iii. 4. 
 
 (T.R., WH). Cf, comm. 
 to cleanse us from headto foot”. πάσης 
 ἁμαρτίας, ‘‘every sin,’ i.e. every out- 
 break of the sinful principle; not ‘all 
 sin” (πάσης τῆς ἁμαρτίας). Cf. Rom. 
 
 11, το: πᾶν στόμα. . . πᾶς 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: (x) Inherent corruption. Ὁ 15- 
 tinguish 4 ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν (“το 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. σπλανῶμεν, ‘lead astray” (cf. 
 Matt. xviii. 12). 4 ἀλήθεια, in Johan- 
 nine phraseology not simply ‘‘ der Wahr- 
 heitssinn, die Wahrhaftigkeit der 
 Selbstprifung 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 Adyos (ver. 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 (ἡμαρτήκαμεν),᾽ i.€., com- 
 mitted acts of sin (ἁμαρτίας) manifesting 
 
 is a remedy—forgiveness and cleansing 
 in the blood of Jesus; and there is a 
 way of obtaining it—confession. πιστός, 
 i.e., 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: “ΜῈ make Hima 
 liar, t.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 mindsin the Scriptures. 
 
 Consider the lapses of the saints, ¢.g., 
 David, Peter. 
 
 CHAPTER II.— 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 
 “I”. (2, He styles them texvia pov, 
 filioli mei, meine Kindlein—his favourite 
 appellation (cf. ἢ. 12. 28 3/31. 7, τϑ ive 
 4; “.- 21). Not only was it very suitable 
 
I—2. 
 
 27 ¢ b , 3, c N Η , 3 a 
 ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, " παράκλητον ἔχομεν “ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ᾿Ιησοῦν 
 
 f Ὁ “- A 
 Χριστὸν “ δίκαιον - 2. καὶ αὐτὸς “ἵλασμός ἐστι ᾿ περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶ 
 
 Luke xxiii. 47; Acts vii. 52, xxii. 14 5 1 Peter iii, 18. 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 173 
 
 Ὁ Cf. comm. 
 
 Ci. 2. 
 
 yd Matt. 
 XXVii. 19 5 
 
 e In N.T. only here and iv. 10, ἱλαστήριον 
 
 Rom. iii. 25 ; Heb. ix. 5 ; ἱλάσκεσθαι Luke xviii. 13; Heb. ii. 17. f Rom. viii. 3. 
 
 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 
 have the blood of Jesus to cleanse us.” 
 “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.” As a 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,” ‘fan advocate”. Vulg., 
 Advocatus ; Luth., Fitrsprecher bet dem 
 Vater. Here of the ascended Jesus; in 
 John xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, of the 
 Holy Spirit, where Vulg. simply trans- 
 
 literates Paracletus, and both our ver- 
 sions give “‘ Comforter,” Luth., Trdster 
 —an impossible rendering, since the 
 word is not act. but pass. Render 
 ‘“* Advocate” in every case. Cf. saying 
 of R. Litezer ben Jacob: ‘‘ He who does 
 one commandment has gotten him one 
 
 advocate (ards5 5, παράκλητος), 
 and he who has committed one trans- 
 gression has gotten him one accuser 
 
 (Δ Ρ’ 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 O.T. 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 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 IT. 
 
 Benn. 29 ἡμῶν - οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ Kal περὶ ὅλου © τοῦ 
 
 ili. 16 
 
 sina y xiii, kéopou. 3. Kai " ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν 
 
 - - i ~ -“ A 
 
 a eel ‘tas ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν. 4. ὃ bos teh δον μὰν αὐτόν,᾽᾿ καὶ 
 Χο; eT τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ Pulte ψεύστης ἐστί, καὶ " ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια. 
 xiv. 12; οὐκ ἔστιν: 5. ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ' τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον, ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ 7%}, 
 via 
 
 XXViii. 20; 2 Cor. vii. 19. k i. 6, 8. 
 
 1 John viii. 51, 52, 55, Xiv. 23, XV. 20, xvii. 6; Rev. iii. 8. 
 
 1 λέγων ott SAB, edd. 
 
 work as the ground of our acquittal. He 
 stands in the Court of Heaven ἀρνίον ὡς 
 ἐσφαγμένον (Rev. v. 6) and the marks of 
 His sore Passion are a mute but eloquent 
 appeal: “1 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- 
 fulthrough 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 profitiatio”’. 
 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. 
 Ὁ 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 ὃ 
 And how can 1 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- 56) : 
 
 (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. E.g., 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 50 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 (scio) as 
 γίνομαι (fro) to εἰμί (sum). ἐγνώκαμεν, 
 cognovimus, “ΜῈ have got to know,’ 
 1.6. “we know” τηρεῖν, “keepa watch- 
 ful eye upon” "Cf. Matt. xxvii. 36: καὶ. 
 καθήμενοι ἐ ἐτήρουν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ. 
 
 Ver. 4. μὴ τηρῶν, in classical Greek 
 a gentle hypothesis, merely suggesting a 
 possible case; but in later Greek μή 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. ἣ ἀγάπη Tov Θεοῦ, “ the love of 
 
 God,” is ambiguous like mim Nak, 
 
 amor Dei, l’ amore di Dio, Vamour 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—38, 
 
 ἢ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τετελείωται. 
 n > 1 
 ἐσμεν. 
 
 Ν ‘ 
 πάτησε, καὶ αὐτὸς oUTw” * 
 
 " καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐντολὴν παλαιάν, ‘Hv εἴχετε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς" 
 ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν 6 λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. 8. 
 πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν 
 
 4:7. 
 Heb. v. 12. 
 
 q Cf. comm. 
 Mark i. 27. } 
 
 1 Punct. ἐσμεν > WH, Nest. 
 
 JQANOY A 
 
 ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ '' 
 6. ὃ λέγων ° ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν, » ὀφείλει, καθὼς 4 ἐκεῖνος περιε- 
 περιπατεῖν. 7. ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐντολὴν 
 
 175 
 
 iv. 12, 17, 
 18; Luke 
 ΧΙ, 32; 
 John iv. 
 34, ν. 36, 
 XVii. 4, 23 
 Heb. ii. 
 ΤΟΙ X. I, 
 14, Xi. 40 
 n 2 Cor. v. 
 17 
 o John xv. 
 
 p iii. 16, iv. 11; 3 John δ; John xiii. 14; Matt. xxiii. 16, 18 ; Luke xvii. 10; 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 
 
 2 kat avtos ουτως SYCKP, Syrph, Cop., Arm., Tisch., Nest.; om. ovtws AB, Vg. 
 
 Sah., Aeth., Aug., WH. 
 
 5 ἀγαπήτοι SABCP, Syrve ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Arm., Aug., edd. 
 4am apyyns om. SABCP, many minusc., Syrvs 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. liii. 
 τι. 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, 
 K.7.A., 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”; i.e. 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 
 vy. I, 2). The change of pronoun (ἐκεῖ- 
 vos) does not imply a change of person, 
 since here as in ili. 3, 5, 7, 16, iv. 17, 
 ἐκεῖνος is not a mere pronoun, It is 
 used like 2116, and signifies “‘that great 
 One,” “the Master”. Cf. 2 Tim. il. 12, 
 13. περιπατεῖν, see 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 1 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 (cf. iii. 2, 21, iv. 1, 7; 11). About 
 to enjoin love, he begins by loving. 
 καινός, “novel,” ‘new in kind” (novus) 
 as distinguished from νέος, “new in 
 time” (vecens). am ἀρχῆς͵, here not as 
 in i. 1, but ‘from the beginning of your 
 Christian life”. ἡ ἐντολὴ 4 παλαιά, cf. 
 i. 2: τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. 
 
 Ver. 8. πάλιν, “again,” ͵.6. in an- 
 other sense, from another point of view, 
 not in itself but in our recognition of it, 
 “it is a new commandment”. 6 ἐστιν 
 ἀληθές, in apposition to évroAnv—‘‘a 
 thing which is true,” viz., the paramount 
 
176 
 ui. 5-7. 
 v Ver. 17; 
 
 Bie 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 II, 
 
 a A , ὰ 
 ὑμῖν - ὅτι "ἡ σκοτία ᾿παράγεται, καὶ “τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη "φαίνει. 
 1Cor. vii-g, 76 λέγων ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι, καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν, ἐν τῇ 
 
 : a A a Ν 
 w John i. ο. σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν ἕως ἄρτι. 10. 76 ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, ἐν τῷ φωτὶ 
 
 x Johni. 5, 
 ν. 3535 
 Rev. i. 16, 
 viii. 12, 
 XViii. 23, 
 Xxi. 23. 
 
 y iv. 20. 
 
 Zi. 5-7; Ps. xxxvi. 9. 
 
 Ὁ John iii. 8, viii. 14, xii. 35, xiii. 36, xiv. 5, Xvi. 5. 
 xii. 40). 
 
 A ~ a “- 
 μένει, καὶ " σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν τι. ὁ δὲ μισῶν τὸν 
 25 λ Q > a bo. a , > , ἮΝ τ a” , “ a 
 ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, " ἐν TH σκοτίᾳ ἐστί, καὶ ἐν TH σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ, καὶ 
 
 col , ~ 
 οὐκ οἶδε “ ποῦ ὑπάγει, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία ἐτύφλωσε TOUS ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ. 
 
 a Johann. only here and Rev. ii. 14; σκανδαλίζειν John vi. 61, xvi. I. 
 
 c John xi. 9, 10, xiv. 35, 36; Is. vi. τὸ (John 
 
 lev avtw ουκ ἐστιν BKLP, WH, Nest.; οὐκ ἐστιν ev αὐτω SAC, 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. 
 “1 know this,” says the Apostle, ‘‘ be- 
 cause the darkness is passing away and 
 the light, the true light, is already shin- 
 ing,” 2.6. 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 
 τινός 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. I-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 μένει : 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, xviii. 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- 
 ovat 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. τι. 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 
 
g—14. 
 
 a a , 
 12. γράφω ὑμῖν, τεκνία, ὅτι ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν at ἁμαρτίαι 
 
 ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. 
 ἀρχῆς. 
 
 γράφω ὑμῖν, ᾿ νεανίσκοι, ὅτι 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 13. Γράφω ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν " ἀπ᾽ 
 
 h 
 ® νενικήκατε 
 
 177 
 
 ἀ διὰ τὸ“ Matt. x 
 22, XXiv. 
 9; John 
 XV. 21 
 
 1 , Rev. ii. 3. 
 πο OV. 3 
 "ΠΡ ΘΙΟΙ 
 
 nN 
 TOV 
 
 γράφω 3 ὑμῖν, ' παιδία, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα. 14. Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, f Matt. xix. 
 
 20, 22 
 
 πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, ὅτι Acts, ii. 
 
 ἰσχυροί ἐστε, καὶ ' ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, 
 
 ν , 4 17. 5 
 καὶ νενικήκατε τὸν g John xvi. 
 
 33; Rom. 
 xii. 21. h iii. 12, v. 18, 19; John xvii. 15; Matt. v. 37, vi. 13, xili. 19, 38. i Ver. 18, 
 iii. 17 (ν.1.). k Eph. vi. ro. li. 10 reff. 
 το NY. 
 2 ypadw K, Vg., Aug.; eypaiya SSABCLP, 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. If any 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 I am writing this letter to you and 
 wrote the Gospel which accompanies it”’. 
 
 Ver. 12. τεκνία, all the Apostle’s 
 readers, his customary appellation (see 
 n. on ii. τ). 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 texvia 
 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. τ. The 
 ancient interpreters took τεκνία, πατέρες, 
 
 γεανίσκοι 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, vea- 
 νίσκοι, πατέρες OF πατέρες, νεανίσκοι, 
 τεκνία. According to the variant γράφω 
 ὑμῖν, παιδία, τεκνία is a general appella- 
 tion subdivided into πατέρες, νεανίσκοι, 
 παιδία. Ver. 14 should begin with 
 ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, παιδία. [πε 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: 
 (1) 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 ὑμῖν, παιδία, regards 
 πατέρες . . . πονηρόν 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,” wert (Aug.), infantes 
 (Vulg.), and the distinction is ὅτι 
 ἐγνώκατε tov 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. . 
 πο OV. 
 i vp 
 
 n Rom. xiii. τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ᾿ ἐν αὐτῷ - 
 
 6. ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κό π ἢ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία 
 16. ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, "4 ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, καὶ ἢ μ 
 a , An , 
 
 τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἡ " ἀλαζονεία * τοῦ PBlou, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, 
 
 14; Gal. 
 v. 16, 24; 
 Eph. ii. 3; 
 
 aici 2 Ἢ 
 2 Ῥειεσ ϊ. ἀλλ᾽ 5. « ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστί. 
 10, 18; 
 
 1QANOY A 
 
 Il. 
 
 ~ ~ , 
 15. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ - "' ἐάν 
 
 - 
 
 Te s a -€ 
 I7.- και Oo κόσμος * TAapayeTat, και ἢ 
 
 A nw a A“ > a fA 
 2 Peter ii.€muBupia αὐτοῦ" ὃ δὲ " ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 
 
 14; Mark 
 iv. 19. 
 
 4 iv. 5; John viil. 23, xv. 19. r Ver. 8 reff. 
 
 o James iv. 16; Rom. i. 30; 2 Tim. ili. 2 (ἀλαζών). 3 
 s John iv. 34; Matt. vii. 21, xxiv. 39; 1 Peter iv. 2. 
 
 p Luke viii. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 4 
 
 lov matpos SBKLP, Syrvg ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Arm., Aug., edd.; tov θεου AC, 
 several minusc., Aeth.; tov θεου και πατρος, several minusc. 
 
 2 ahalovera BK ; 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 world isa 
 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 oursouls”. ‘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. 
 
 3 αλλ NAKL; adda BC, edd. 
 
 Thou art a vessel, but thou art still full ; 
 pour out what thou hast, that thou 
 mayest get what thou hast not”. ἥ 
 ἀγάπη τοῦ Πατρός, like ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ (ver. 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. 19. 
 
 Ver. 16. ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός, not 
 object. gen. (Aug.: ‘‘desideri'um earum 
 rerum quz 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. ἣ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. ἀλαζονία, 
 vain pretension, claiming what one really 
 hasnot. 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 flesh”: cf. ‘‘ The 
 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 ἀλαζονία τοῦ βίου. To 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 
 
as IQANOY A 179 
 t , ΠῚ , “ 2 Lae Ν δ τὰ f ~ 1é2x _t Ver. 13 
 18. ‘Nadia, " ἐσχάτη " ὥρα ἐστι" καὶ καθὼς " ἠκούσατε OTL ὁ “ * ἀν ΕΣ 
 , ~ 4 , 7 "Ἴ 
 τίχριστος ” ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν - * ὅθεν " ] ΡΝ, 
 54, Xi. 24; Acts ii. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 52; 2 Tim. iii. 1; James ν. 1; 1 Peter i. 5; 2 Peter iii. 3. 
 w John v. 28. w Matt. xxiv. 5, 24. x Ver. 22, iv. 3; 3 John 7. y John iv. 25. z Acts xxvl. 
 
 19; Heb. ii. 17, iii. 1, vii. 25, 1x. 18. 
 
 1 ort Ὁ ΒΟΚΡ, Syrve ph, Vg., Cop., Aug., edd. ; 
 20 NcAKL ; om. δ ΒΟ, 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- 
 
 om. AL, several minusc. 
 
 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 be- 
 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. 
 t Cor. x. 11, xv. 51; Phil. iv. 5; 1 Thess. 
 iv. 15 sqq.; Heb. x. 25; James v. 8; τ 
 Peter iv. 7; Rev. i. 1, 3, iii, 12, xxii. 7, 
 10, 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 ὥρα 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 
 
180 IQANOY A 
 a Acts xv. γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν. 
 
 ue 
 
 19. " Ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον, ἀλλ᾽ 
 
 Ὁ John iit. οὐκ ἦσαν " ἐξ ἡμῶν " εἰ γὰρ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν," μεμενήκεισαν ἂν “μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν - 
 
 ς Matt.i. ἀλλ᾽ ἃ ἵνα ° φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶ πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν. 
 
 23, XXVi. 
 
 69; Acts 
 i.26. d1Cor xi. 19. 
 
 1 εξηλθον SSKLP; εξηλθαν ABC, edd. 
 Ἢ δ ul 
 
 e John iii. 21 ; 2 Cor. iii. 3. 
 
 20. Kal ὑμεῖς 
 
 29, 38, 58,‘ χρίσμα 3 ἔχετε ἀπὸ = τοῦ ἁγίου, καὶ " οἴδατε πάντα.Ζ 21. οὐκ ἔγραψα 
 
 f Ver.27. gCf.Comm. 81 Cor. ii. 15.. 
 
 2ησαν εξ ἡμων SAKLP, Tisch. ; εξ μων noav BC, WH, Nest. 
 8 χρίσμα WH; χρῖσμα Tisch., Nest. ; cf v. 27. 
 4@avta ACKL, Syrvg (understanding πάντα ἄνθρωπον) ph, Vg., Cop., Aeth., 
 
 Arm. ; παντες ἡ ΒΡ, Sah., edd. 
 
 John xxi. 22, compares O17 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, apostasize 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,” i.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.: 
 ἐς 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 yap ἀντὶ τοῦ λέοντός εἰμί σοι. 
 Ι καὶ πῶς μ᾽ 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. γεγόνασιν, ‘‘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, tune 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”. ἵνα, sc. ἐξῆλθαν 
 or γέγονε τοῦτο---ἃ frequent Johannine 
 ellipse: of. John i. 8, ix. 3, xili. 18, 
 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. Orvat. 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 oleo 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: μὴ ἅψησθε τῶν 
 χριστῶν pov. τοῦ ‘Aylov, not the Holy 
 Spirit. St. John has τὸ Πνεῦμα in Epp. 
 and Rey., but never τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἽΑγιον. 
 Either (1) Christ (cf Rey. 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 (81a). 
 Christ (cf. Tit. tii. 6). 
 
 Ver. 21. ἔγραψα, “1 wrote,” may refer 
 to the Gospel, which is an exposition of 
 the Incarnation, ἡ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν 
 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἔνσαρκος οἰκονομία (7. 
 note on ver. 14) ; but more probably ‘‘ aor. 
 referring to the moment just past” (Jebb 
 on Soph. O.T. 337). The aor. is appro- 
 
19—27. 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 181 
 
 ὑμῖν, ' ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οἴδατε αὐτήν, καὶ ὅτι hem 
 
 πᾶν ψεῦδος " ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστι. 
 εἰ μὴ ὃ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς τ' οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός ; οὗτός ἐστιν 
 
 ἀντίχριστος, ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα 
 
 ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱόν, οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει.3 
 > , CE ΑΚ. lol > | , 
 ἠκούσατε " ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω. 
 A > , Pp ne a 3 - εκ τ ΟΝ lal ‘ a 
 ἀρχῆς ἠκούσατε, ἢ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν TO υἱῷ Kal ἐν TH πατρὶ μενεῖτε. 7. 25. 
 ν᾿ ΠῚ > Marae λί a see > ὮΝ εκ κ᾿ 
 25. καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν “ ἣ ἐπαγγελία, ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν, τὴν 
 
 1 
 
 22. Tis ἐστιν 6! ψεύστης, tie 16. 
 6 m Luke xx. 
 27; Gal. 
 , 
 καὶ τὸν υἱόν. 23. ἢ πᾶς 
 [ a 2.3 
 2 . υ 
 ΠῚ aes oar 23, XV. 23. 
 o Ver. 7. 
 p John xv. 
 
 ke 
 
 XXiv. 49; 
 ‘ x 27 A » ea ‘ A , Acts i. 43 
 ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. 26. ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν περὶ τῶν πλανώντων τ Tim.iv. 
 wee Sie a x , 42 2 » 3 3 a > εν 8; 2 Tim. 
 ὑμᾶς. 27- Και ὕμεις τὸ χρίσμα" ὁ ἐλάβετε απ αὕτου, ἐν μι Nea 
 ΄ 5 ΟΕ , oo o διδά eA «ἀλλ᾽ ὦ ἀπ ΟΣ 7 Heb. iv. 1. 
 μένει, και οὐ χρειαν εχετε Wa τις OL ασκῃ υμας ὡς “το aUTO τι. 8 reff. 
 a s Heb. v. 12. 
 χρίσμα 8 διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων, καὶ ἀληθές ἐστι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι t John 
 Xiv. 26: 
 
 leo edd. 
 
 xvi. 13; Gal. i. 12; Heb. viii. 11 (Jer. xxxi. 34) 
 
 3 Add 6 ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν π᾿αατέρα exe. SABCP, many minusc., Syrvg ph. 
 
 Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Aug., edd. 
 
 ϑουν om. $,ABCP, Syrph, Vg., Arm., edd. 
 5 pever ev υμιν SSABCP, Vg., Cop., Sah. 
 
 Sad ws to MACKLP, Vg., Sah., edd. ; 
 
 4yaptopa B. 
 
 , Aeth., Arm., edd. 
 
 αλλα το B, Aeth. 
 
 ‘auto AKL, Cop. ; αὐτου  ΒΟΡ, Syrvg ph, Vg., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Aug., edd. 
 
 Sarveupa δ", 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 oni. 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. x.). 
 
 Ver. 22. ψεύστης; 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, i.¢., 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 πλανώντων, 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. ἀλλ᾽ 
 ὡς, «.T.A., a single sentence with one 
 
 Cerinthian distinction between Jesus and _apodosis, WVulg. makes it a double sen- 
 
 the Christ was a denial of the possibility” ten 
 
 of the Incarnation, z.e., 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. 
 ἘΠῚ xiv. 9. 
 
 Ver. 24. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, as in ver. 7. The 
 significant iteration of μένειν is lost in 
 A.V. (‘abide ... remain... continue”). 
 ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ Πατρί: observe the 
 order. The Son is the manifestation of 
 
 MOT: | Ve ἘΔ 
 
 ith-two apodoses: ‘‘as His chrism 
 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 even as, 
 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 μενεῖτε (‘‘ye 
 shall abide”) would express the Apostle’s: 
 confidence in the steadfastness of his 
 
182 
 
 u John xvii. 
 5. 
 
 vi.2; John 
 
 1; 3, ΣΕ, 
 
 Ὧν αν 
 
 Col. iii. 4; 
 
 IQANOY A 
 ψεῦδος - καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς, μενεῖτε i 
 
 Kat δ eee 96 ye] 3 “ > ~ y , > A 
 μὴ " αἰσχυνθῶμεν aT αὑτοῦ, ἐν TH ” παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 
 
 II, 28---29. III. 
 
 ἐν αὐτῷ. 28. “Kat νῦν, 
 
 id Ψ' 3 ΓΕ ὙΠ τ᾿ 2¥ θῇ 5» ὃνπ ΄ 
 TEKVLO, μένετε EV AUTH * ινὰ οταν pavepw No ἔχωμεν παρρησιαν, 
 
 20. ν ἐὰν 
 
 1 Peter v. εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστι, " γινώσκετε ὅτι * πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, 
 
 w 111. 21, ἵν, ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται. 
 17, ν. 145 ξ rar 
 Eph. iii. ΠῚ 
 
 I. Ἴδετε 
 12; Heb. 
 
 ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ὅ ἡμῖν ὃ πατήρ, ἵνα 
 
 ἵν. 16, χ. τέκνα Θεοῦ ἢ κληθῶμεν ὅ - διὰ τοῦτο ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι 
 
 19. 
 x Mark viii. 38; Rev. iii. 18. 
 z Phil. ii, 1. a John xv. 18. 
 
 y Matt. xxiv. 3, 27, 39; 1 Cor xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19; iii. 13. 
 a Matt. viii. 27; Mark xiii. 1; Luke i. 29, vii. 39; 2 Peter iil. 11. 
 
 Matt. v. 9, xxiii. 7, 8, 9, xxvii. 8; Luke i. 32, 35; Johni. 43. 
 
 1pevere KL; pevere SABCP, many minusc., Syrvg ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., 
 
 -Arm., Aug., edd. 
 
 2 orav KL, Syrvg ph, Vg., Aug.; eav SSABCP, Cop., Sah., Arm., edd. 
 
 5 exopev NQ*KL ; σχωμεν NCBCP, edd. 
 
 407. BKL, Syrph, Cop., Aeth., Arm., Aug., WH; ore καὶ SQACP, Syrve, Vg., 
 
 ‘Sah., Tisch., Nest. 
 5 Se8wxev SMABCKP, edd. ; eSwxev AL. 
 
 edd 
 
 readers, like ‘‘ England expects every 
 man to do his duty”. Cf. Matt. v. 48: 
 ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι. ἐν αὐτῷ, in 60 
 (Vulg), ‘in Him,” i.e, in Christ and 
 therefore in God (cf. ver. 24). According 
 to Aug., ‘‘in it,” z.e., the chrism, wnctio 
 (permanete in ipsa). 
 
 Ver. 28. καὶ νῦν, continuing and rein- 
 forcing the exhortation. ἐὰν φανερωθῇ : 
 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: ἐφ᾽ ots yap 
 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 viil. 
 2; John vii. 13, xvi. 29, xviii. 20; Acts 
 ii. 29, iv. 29, 31, xxvili. 31); then “‘con- 
 fidence,” ‘‘boldness,” especially before 
 God (cf. Heb. iv. 16; τ John iii. 21, iv. 
 17, 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”). Kat μὴ 
 αἰσχυνθῶμεν, in contrast to σχῶμεν 
 
 παρρησίαν. παρουσία, frequent in N.T. 
 but only here in the Johannine writings. 
 Not simply ‘“‘ presence” but ‘‘arrival,” 
 *“tadvent” (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. 
 1), and it is equally certain that ἐξ αὐτοῦ 
 refers to the Father, since ‘‘ begotten of 
 Christ” (cf. Tennysons “our fair father 
 Christ”) is not a Scriptural idea. The 
 
 6 κληθωμεν και ἐσμεν SABCP, Syrve, 
 
 Vg. (et simus), Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., 
 
 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.), 
 “ἐρεῖ 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. 
 
 CuapTer 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 weare. 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, “οὔ what country,” 
 though approximating in late Greek to 
 ποῖος, gualis, “οἵ 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 ἢ whatunearthly love?” Cf. Matt. 
 viii. 27: ‘‘ What unearthly personage ὃ ” 
 2 Peter ili. 11: ‘‘ How other-worldly”. 
 ἵνα, «.7.4., the purpose of this amazing 
 
I--3. 
 
 οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν. 2. ἀγαπητοί, viv 
 
 “ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα: οἴδαμεν δὲ 1 
 
 ἐσόμεθα, ὅτι ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστι. 
 
 > , > κε a ’ 
 ἐλπίδα ταύτην ᾿ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, * ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἢ ἁγνός ἐστι. 
 
 iii. 21; Exod. xxxiv. 29. 
 
 g John xi. 55; Acts xxi. 24; James iv. 8; 1 Peter i. 22. 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 ὅτι “ ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι el ς 
 
 183 
 
 I τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμεν, καὶ οὔπω © δυό ἐς i. 26, 
 
 16, 17. 
 
 e Col. iii. 4; 
 2 Cor. iil. 
 18; Phil. 
 
 3. Kat πᾶς 6 ἔχων τὴν 
 
 f1 Tim. iv. 10; Acts xxiv. 15; Col. iv. 27; Ps. Ixxviii. 7, exlvi. 5. 
 
 h 2 Cor. xi, 2; 1 Tim. v. 22. 
 
 1 δε om. SNABCP, 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 we have 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,” 2.6. 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 ἢ 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 ἐφα- 
 γερώθη (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 φανερωθῇ, ‘if (cf. note on ii. 28) 
 it may be manifested,” taking up οὕπω 
 ἐφανερώθη. This obvious connection 15 
 decisive against the rendering ‘‘ if He 
 shall be manifested” (cf. 11. 28 ; Col. iii. 4). 
 
 ὅτι, «.T.A.: 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 
 face to face” (x Cor. xiii. 12)? St. 
 Augustine expresses much of the Apostle’s 
 thought in a beautiful sentence: ‘‘ Tota 
 vita Christiani boni sanctum desiderium 
 est. 
 
 Ver.3. The duty which our destiny im- 
 poses. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, “resting on Him,” bes 
 on God as Father. Cf. Luke v. 5: ἐπὶ τῷ 
 ῥήματί gov, “relying on Thy word i 
 ἐκεῖνος, Christ; see note on ii. 6. aes 
 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.: 
 ἁγνεία εὐλάβεια τῶν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς 
 ἁμαρτημάτων * τῆς θεοῦ τιμῆς κατὰ 
 φύσιν θεραπεία. Suid. : ἐπίτασις σωφρο- 
 σύνης. God is called ἅγιος but never 
 Gyvos. Christ is ayvds because of His 
 human experience. The duty of every 
 one in view of his appearing before God, 
 his presentation to the King, is ἁγνίζειν 
 ἑαυτόν, 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. 
 CF.) Pili re-135. Aug. Ὁ" “* 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.” 
 
184 
 
 ~ , 
 i Matt. vii, 4. Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, Kat 
 " TT] a > Ls) 
 5. καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐκεῖνος 
 
 Ἢ ip Ν i 
 e k c 5 
 
 + ren ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία. 
 
 XXX1. ἊΝ 
 k Jobn i. 
 
 1 Cor. fal δ 
 
 56. 
 1 it. 28 reff. αὐτόν, 
 Ἢ Johni. 
 
 29; Col. ii. 14. 
 
 "ἐν αὐτῷ μένων, 
 > A 3, > ’ 
 οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν. 
 n ii. 6 ref. o Rom. vi. 14. 
 
 lapaptias ἡμῶν τῷ 
 Arm., Tert. (de Pudic. 19), Aug., edd. 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 pronaes ἡμῶν ens καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστι. 
 “ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει: 
 
 CKL, Syrvg, Vg., Sah. ; 
 
 11. 
 
 ἱ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ - καὶ 4 ἁμαρτία 
 ἱ ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς 
 6. πᾶς 
 πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων, οὐχ ἑώρακεν 
 7. Τεκνία,2 μηδεὶς πλανάτω P ὑμᾶς" 
 pi. 8 reff. 
 
 om. npev ABP, Syrph, Cop., Aeth., 
 
 2 rexvia SYBKL, edd.; παιδια ACP, WH (marg.). 
 
 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.” 
 
 Vy. 4-8. The Incompatibility of Son- 
 ship with Continuance in Sin. 
 
 Ver. 4. ὃ ποι. τὴν Gp., the converse 
 of 6 ποι. τὴν Sik. (11. 29). 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 
 ap. ἐστ. ἢ av. : 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,” 1,6. 
 the sinful principle; see note oni. 8. 
 
 Ver. 6., This seems a stark contradic- 
 tion of i. 8-ii. 2. (1) 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 “ποῖ loving one’s brother” 
 (vers. 10), (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 οἱ 
 the aorists, ἁμάρτητε, ἁμάρτῃ in ii, I. 
 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: δὸς. 
 σήμερον as contrasted with Luke xi. 3: 
 δίδου τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, and Matt. xiv. 22: 
 ἐμβῆναι. .. καὶ προάγειν. 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 ἔ ἔχομεν, | and, on the 
 other : πᾶς ὁ 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. An _ affectionate warning. 
 against Nicolaitan Antinomianism (cf. 
 note on i. 6-7). The Apostle cuts away 
 vain pretences by a sharp principle: a 
 
4—12. 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 18 
 
 on 
 
 ὃ «ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, δίκαιός ἐστι, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος "δίκαιος 4 lt. 29, ver. 
 
 ἐστιν. 
 
 ‘dm ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει. 
 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα "Adon “ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου. 
 
 8. 6 ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, "ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν - ὅτι τ ii. τ relf. 
 
 iv. 7. 
 
 εἰς τοῦτο " ἐφανερώθη ὁ υἱὸς “vim viii. 
 
 u ii. 28 reff. 
 ν Cf.comm, 
 
 9. πᾶς ὁ γεγεννη- 
 
 , “- ~ , a“ “- “- . 
 ένος "ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ Ww Matt. xi. 
 > ᾽ Αἱ 
 
 μένει - καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται. 
 
 “ lol >. fol 
 TO. ἐν τούτῳ *davepd ἐστι τὰ τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ 
 
 διαβόλου. 
 
 καὶ ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. 
 
 ἣν " ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους ° 
 
 2; John 
 Vii. 7, ix. 
 3,4» X- 37; 
 Rom. xiii. 
 12; Gal. 
 
 Πᾶς 6 μὴ * ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, v.19. 
 
 χ iv. 7, ν. 
 
 II. ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ " ἀγγελία :8. 
 
 γι Cor. iii. 
 13. Xi. 19; 
 Gal. v. 19, 
 
 12. οὐ καθὼς 
 
 “ “ A Φ A 4 
 *Kdiv ἐκ “tod πονηροῦ ἦν, Kal " ἔσφαξε τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ - καὶ χάριν z Ver. 7. 
 - > nal. 5. 
 τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτόν ; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν, τὰ δὲ τοῦ "1.7; John 
 
 XV. 12. ς 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 ὃ ἅμαρτ- 
 avwv—‘‘he that makes sin his business 
 or practice”. ἐκ of parentage (cf. vers. 
 9); ‘‘ hoc est, ex patre diabolo” (Clem. 
 Alex.). am ἀρχ., a vague phrase. In 
 inn <*ere time began” >in it. 7, iil, 11] 
 ‘from the beginning of your Christian 
 life”. Here “ from the beginning of his 
 diabolic career”; “ἃ quo peccare ccepit 
 incontrovertibiliter in peccando perse- 
 verans” (Clem. Alex.). λύσῃ, ‘ loose,” 
 metaphorically of ‘loosening a bond,” 
 “relaxing an obligation” (Matt. v. 19; 
 John v. 18), ‘‘ pulling to pieces” (John 
 ii. 10). 
 
 Ver. 9. 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 tis ἁμάρτῃ and 
 ὁ ἁμαρτάνων. Alexander in Speaker’s 
 Comm. understands: ‘ His seed,” 2.6., 
 whosoever is born of God (ef. Isa. liii. 
 Io, Ixvi. 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. t0-12. The Evidence of Divine 
 Sonship, viz., Human Brotherhood. 
 
 ἃ ii, 13 reff. 
 
 en ΧΙ, 34. 
 e Rev. v. 6, 9, 12, xiii. 3, 8, xviii. 24. 
 
 Ver. 10. 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 
 ‘‘ doing righteousness,” and now he de- 
 fines ποιεῖν δικαιοσύνην as ἀγαπᾶν τὸν 
 ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. See ποίε 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 Btb. 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 ἧ καθόλου 
 ἀρετή. . . - δίκαιος οὖν ὧν. τούτεστι 
 χρηστὸς καὶ ἐπιεικής. 
 
 Ver. I1. 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, x.T.A., a loose, 
 almost ungrammatical expression, analo- 
 gous to John vi. 58. Were there no ov, 
 ver. 11 might be regarded as a paren- 
 thesis: ‘‘ he 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 
 
186 
 
 f John xv. 
 18, 19; 
 Matt. v. 
 
 ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια. 
 
 eA ε , 
 UNAS ο κοσμοξ. 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 ΤῊ; 
 
 13. py} θαυμάζετε, ἀδελφοί pou,? εἰ * μισεῖ 
 14. Ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι * μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ 
 
 11. 
 gJohnv. Β θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν, ‘Str ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς - 6 μὴ ἀγαπῶν 
 
 21. 
 h a iv. τὸν ἀδελφόν,2 μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ. τῷ. πᾶς ὁ μισῶν τὸν ἀδελ- 
 
 i iv. 19. 4ke 
 
 A τὶ col 
 ον αὐτου 
 k Only here $ 3 
 
 and John οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ ὃ μένουσαν. 
 
 Viil. 44 in 4 ROG 
 , NF καμεν THY AYaATHY, 
 ll. O. 
 
 6 
 
 mJohnx. καὶ ἡμεῖς " ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς τιθέναι. 
 
 ΤῊ, 15. ἔσει a 
 
 18, xiii. OS 
 37. 38, XV. 
 Tae n il. 6 reff. 
 
 o Mark xii. 44; Luke viii. 43; xv. 12, 30. 
 
 , > , (ὦ χοῦ a A > , 
 ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστί - καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι πᾶς ἀνθρωποκτόνος 
 
 > 
 16. Ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώ- 
 
 A Ὁ lo Εν ε Ν ε ~ > ὦ ‘ > na» 
 ὅτι ᾿ ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ™ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκε" 
 
 ἘᾺΝ 
 
 δ᾽ ἂν ἔχῃ τὸν " βίον τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ " θεωρῇ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ 
 
 p John xvii. 24, xx. 6, 12, 14, 
 
 Matt. xxvii. 55, xxviii. 1; Mark v. 15, 38; Luke x. 18. 
 
 1un ABCKL, Syrph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aug., WH, Nest. ; και μὴ ΟΡ, Syrve, 
 
 Aeth., Arm., Tisch. 
 
 2 nov om. SABCP, Vg., Arm., Aug., edd. 
 3 τον adeAdov om. NAB, Vg., Arm., Aug., edd. 
 
 4 εαυτου B. 
 
 8 τὴν ayamny Tov 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. It is natural that the world 
 (see notes on ii. 15, iii. 1) should hate 
 those whose lives contradict its maxims 
 and condemn its practices. St. John 
 frequently addresses his readers as τεκνία 
 and ἀγαπητοί, 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 SACLP, Tisch., WH (marg.); avrw BK, WH, Nest. 
 
 7 θειναι 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 vii. 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 on ii. 6. ἡμεῖς emphatic, “ΜῈ 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 
 κόσμου, ‘the livelihood of the world”; 
 see note onii. 16. θεωρῇ, of a moving 
 spectacle; cf. Matt. xxvii. 55. κλείσῃ, 
 schliesst; the metaphor is locking the 
 chamber of the heart instead of flinging 
 
13—20. 
 
 « χρείαν ἔχοντα, καὶ τ κλείσῃ τὰ " σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, " πῶς ἡ 4 
 ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐν αὐτῷ ; 18. 
 "λόγῳ μηδὲ γλώσσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἔργῳ ὃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. 
 τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὃ ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσμέν, καὶ ἔμπροσϑεν αὐτοῦ 
 
 πείσομεν τὰς καρδίας ὃ ἡμῶν " 20. ὅτι ἴ " ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν ἡ 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 187 
 
 Mark ii. 
 
 25; Eph. 
 
 iv. 28. 
 
 r Matt. 
 
 19. Καὶ 4 ἐν xxiii. 14, 
 
 XXV. I0; 
 
 Luke iv. 
 25; John 
 XX. 19, 26. 
 
 s Luke i. 
 
 τεκνία μου, ph ἀγαπῶμεν 
 
 καρδία, ὅτι ὃ μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς ὃ τῆς καρδίας ἡμῶν, καὶ γινώσκει 78; 5 Cor. 
 
 Phil. 1, 8, 1.1. εἶν. 20; James ii. 15, 16. 
 
 vl. 12: 
 
 u James i. 22, 23, 25. v Mark vi. 23 (6, τι ἐάν). 
 
 2 pov om. S$ABCP, Syrph, Arm., Aug., edd. 
 
 2 unde τη ABCKL, edd. 
 
 WH, Nest. 
 
 5 γνωσομεθα SSABCP, Cop., Sah., Arm., 
 Stas Kapdtas SQA2?CKLP, Syrph, Vg., 
 
 Syrvg, Sah., Aeth., Aug., WH, Nest. 
 7 Punct. ἡμῶν o τι. 
 
 Sort om. A, several minusc., Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Aug. 
 
 it wide open and lavishing its treasures. 
 
 σπλάγχνα, ΞΕ ΤΟ, viscera, ‘the in- 
 
 ? 
 
 viewed by the ancients as 
 the seat of the affections. Cf. Col. iii. 
 12: σπλάγχνα oixtippot. ἡ ay. τ. O., 
 “love for God” (objective genitive), in- 
 spired by ard answering to the love which 
 God feels (subjective genitive). Cf. note 
 On ii. 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. v. i.: ‘‘ He 
 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 6, τι ἐάν (i.e. dv), 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 ‘four 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 
 
 ward parts,’ 
 
 3 ev epyw SABCLP, Arm., edd. 
 4 καὶ SSCKLP, Syrvg, Sah., Aeth., Arm., 
 
 Tisch. ; om. AB, Syrph, Vg., Cop., Aug., 
 
 edd. 
 Cop., Arm., Tisch.; τὴν καρδιαν A*B, 
 
 ϑκυριος C. 
 
 cares for us and desires us. Our dis- 
 covery has been an open secret to Him 
 allalong. (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 hebetterthanheseems? 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. : “1 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 ; 
 All 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. 1.)? 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 
 
188 
 
 w ii. 28 reff. 
 
 1! 
 x John xiv. eid 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 III, 21---24. IV. 
 
 21. ἀγαπητοί, ἐὰν ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν! ph καταγινώσκῃ 
 
 ἘΝ 5 » A 
 13, 14, χν. ημῶν,2 “ παρρησίαν ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, 22. καὶ “ὃ ἐὰν αἰτῶμεν, 
 
 7, 16, Xvi. 
 23. 
 y John viii. 
 
 29. 
 
 z Luke xii. 
 6, Xv. I0, 
 18, Xvi. 
 15; John 
 XX. 30; 
 Rom. iii. 
 20. 
 
 a John vi. 
 29, XV. 17. 
 
 b iv. 13; 
 Rom. viii. 
 
 ἔϑωκεν. 
 
 Deeley 
 a Rom. ii. 
 
 ἀρεστὰ “ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ποιοῦμεν. 
 
 καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, " καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡμῖν. 
 τηρῶν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν αὐτῷ. 
 
 ao a 
 τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι μένει ἐν ἡμῖν, 
 
 λαμβάνομεν παρ᾽ ® αὐτοῦ, ὅτι τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηροῦμεν, καὶ τὰ 
 
 23. καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ 
 
 > a pee 2 4 FS AD) A ca 3 a? a a 
 αὐτοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύσωμεν * τῷ ὀνόματι TOU υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 
 24. καὶ ὃ 
 be} 
 καὶ ἐν 
 
 " ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος οὗ ἡμῖν 
 
 IV. τ. ᾿Αγαπητοί, μὴ παντὶ πνεύματι πιστεύετε, ἀλλὰ " δοκιμάζετε 
 
 18; Σ Cor. iii, 13, xi. 28; Gal. vi. 4; 1 Thess. v. 21. 
 
 1npov ΜΌΟΚΙ,, Syrrg ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Tisch.; om. AB, several 
 
 minusc., Aug., WH, Nest. 
 
 Ξημων SAKL, Syrvs ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Tisch.; om. BC, one 
 
 minusc., WH, Nest. 
 3 απ ΑΒ0, edd. 
 
 4πιστευσωμεν BKL, WH, Nest. ; πιστενωμεν SAC, Tisch., WH (marg.). 
 
 how can love for the brethren yield this 
 inference? γινώσκει πάντα, “ readeth 
 every secret”. Cf. Johnii. 25. A quite 
 different and less satisfying sense is got 
 by punctuating τὴν καρδίαν ἡμῶν. ὅτι 
 ἐάν, κιτλ. The second ὅτι is then a 
 difficulty and has been dealt with in three 
 ways: (1) It has been ignored as r-dund- 
 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 I Tim. vi. 7) : “τ 
 is plain that God, etc.”. (3) ὅτι has 
 been conjecturally emended into ἔτι 
 (Steph., Bez.): “ still greater is God, 
 SiGe 
 
 VW. παρρησίαν, see note on 
 ii. 28. ὃ ἐὰν αἰτῶμεν λαμβάνομεν, 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 ‘tad salutem” and 
 ‘‘ad voluntatem,” comparing the experi- 
 ence of St. Paul (2 Cor. xii. 7-9): “ Ro- 
 gasti, clamasti, 'erclamasti: ipsum semel 
 quod clamasti audivi, non averti aures 
 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 
 
 21-22. 
 a Os 
 
 to hearken than tospeak. Bend humbly 
 and lovingly before God, expecting.” 
 τηροῦμεν, See note on il. 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, 7.4. τοὺς 
 ἀδελφούς (see note onii.g). τῷ ὀνόματι, 
 see note on ii. 12. 
 
 Ver. 24. τὰς ἐντ. avr., ‘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,” i.e., when first we be- 
 lieved. For the thought cf. 2 Cor. i. 21, 
 22; Eph.i. 13, 14; also Rom. viii. 15, 16. 
 
 CuapTeR 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, littie 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 from the world they talk, and the 
 world hearkeneth tothem. Weare from 
 
Σ --3. ΙΩΑΝΟΥ A 189 
 "τὰ πνεύματα, εἰ ἢ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ᾿ ὅτι πολλοὶ © ψευδοπροφῆται "Ὁ Yer 26. 
 4 ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 2. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκετε ' τὸ Πνεῦμα “ erga 
 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ © ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυ- mai τὰν 
 ϑότα,2 ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι. 3. καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ ὃ τὸν ἼΩΝ 
 ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ὁ ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυϑότα,Σ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι" καὶ ᾿ς 5 vy 
 
 ‘TodTé ἐστι TO τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου, ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ‘épxetat, καὶ νῦν ἐν i Jone Υ; 
 onn 
 xiii. 3, xvi. 27, 28, 30, xvii. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 36. e John ix. 22; 2 John 7. fii. 18 reff. 
 
 1 γινώσκετε SCABCL, Syrph, Cop., Sah., Aeth., edd. ; γινωσκεται K, Syrvg, Vg., 
 Aug.—an itacism. 
 
 Ξεληλυϑοτα SSACKL, edd. ; ἐληλυθεναι B, Vg., WH (marg.). 
 
 3 μη opodoyer all Gk. MSS. and all versions except Vg.; Ave Socr. H. E. vii. 
 32 (of .Nestorius): αὐτίκα γοῦν ἠγνόησεν ὅτι ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ ᾿Ιωάννου ἐγέγραπτο ἐν 
 τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις ὅτι πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ λύει τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι. 
 
 ΄ , a A κι Α 
 ταύτην γὰρ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων περιεῖλον οἱ χωρίζειν ἀπὸ 
 τοῦ τῆς οἰκονομίας ἀνθρώπου βουλόμενοι τὴν θεότητα " διὸ καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἑρμηνεῖς 
 «αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐπεσημήναντο, ὥς τινες εἶεν ῥαδιουργήσαντες τὴν ἐπιστολήν, λύειν ἀπὸ 
 
 τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν ἄνθρωπον θέλοντες. 
 Tesum, non est ex Deo. 
 
 omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum. Aug.: 
 
 Iren. 
 Orig. in Matth. Comm. Ser. 65 (Lomm. iv. p. 360). 
 
 111. xvii. 8: δέ omnis spiritus qui solvit 
 Nina 
 
 omnis spiritus qut solvit Christum (after 
 
 quoting omnis spiritus qui non confitetur Fesus Christum in carne ventsse). 
 ἜΧριστον om. AB, Syrvegph, Vg., Cop., Aeth., Arm., Iren., Orig., Socr., edd. ; 
 
 “‘«upLov RY. 
 
 5 ἐν σαρκι ἐληλυθοτα 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 
 “we 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 abideth in 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., 
 p. 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 
 was ἀδόκιμον (cf. τ Cor. ix. 27 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 
 5-7). Cf. Jer. vi. 30 LXX: ἀργύριον 
 -ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον . . . 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: ἀπεστάλην. -. 
 "οὐκ ἐξ ἑνὸς στείλαντος. πολλοί: Cer- 
 inthus had a large following. ἐξεληλ. 
 «εἰς 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. (‘‘ye 
 recognise”) or, like πιστεύετε, δοκιμάζετε, 
 imp -ταῖ. (“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 
 Ἰησοῦν, ‘the aforementioned Jesus,” 
 “ὁ Jesus as thus described”. μή makes the 
 statement hypothetical: “every spirit, if 
 such there be, which doth not confess”. 
 The variant Aver τὸν Ἰησοῦν. solvit 
 Fesum (Vulg., Aug.), “dissolveth” or 
 “severeth Jesus,” i.¢., separates the di- 
 vinity and the humanity, aptly defines 
 the Cerinthian heresy. It was much 
 appealed to in later days against Nesto- 
 rius. 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: ‘‘Ille venit 
 
190 
 
 g John xvi. 
 
 “-“ , > 4 nod 
 33. Tw κοσμῳ εστιν 107). 
 h John xiv. 
 
 30. 
 
 i ii. 16 reff. 
 k John iii. 
 
 31, Vill. ἰῷ 
 
 ΩΝ eo eR 
 1 John viii. 
 
 43, 47. 
 
 κόσμος αὐτῶν ἀκούει. 
 
 LQANOY A 
 
 > Ἄς 5 A , ΓΒΕ, Ὁ 
 5. Αὔτοι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἰσι 
 
 IV. 
 
 ε ο A ~ , A 
 
 4. Ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστε, τεκνία, καὶ 
 ν᾿ ΠῚ ΄, ‘ a a 
 
 ὁ νενικήκατε αὐτούς "1 ὅτι μείζων ἐστὶν 6 ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. 
 
 διὰ τοῦτο " ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλοῦσι, καὶ 
 
 6. ἡμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσμεν" ὃ γινώσκων 
 
 x , > , τ eee ΝΑ > μι 3 A nm 2 > ΄ cn 
 τὸν Θεόν, ἀκούει NUGY* ὃς οὐκ ἐστιν EK TOU Θεοῦ, οὐκ ἀκούει ἡμῶν. 
 
 > 
 mi.8reff; Ex τούτου γινώσκομεν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας Kal τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς 
 
 Matt. m ah 
 xxvii. 64; ™ πλάνης. 
 Eph. iv. nS 
 
 7. ᾿Αγαπητοί, " ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους * ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ 
 
 a > Ν A Ce - o> A A , ‘ id 
 14; James Θεοῦ ἐστι, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν, ° ἐκ TOU Θεοῦ γεγέννηται, καὶ γινώσκει 
 
 Vv. 20. 
 
 Ὦ ii. 7, iil. 11- O ii. 29, iii. 9. 
 
 Ἰαυτους Aug. cum., t.e., 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: οἶδά oe 
 τίς εἶ. 
 
 Ver. 4. ὑμεῖς emphatic (cf. ii. 20, 27, 
 iii, 14), as contrasted with the deluded 
 world. The faithtul are God’s delegates 
 (éx), bearing their Master’s commission 
 and continuing His warfare (John xx. 
 21), and they have shared His victory 
 (νενικήκατε). αὐτοὺς, i.e., the false pro- 
 phets (ver. 1). Eum (Vulg.); “Quem 
 nisi Antichristum?” (Aug.). ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν, 
 i.e., God (cf. iii. 24); ὃ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, ἑ ε., 
 ὁ 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),Ἠ ut “talk,” 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 speak 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, t.e, 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 be 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!’ ‘tis 
 ἀληθείας, see note on i. 8. τὸ mv. 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 Leen 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, 
 
IQANOY A 
 
 4—I1. 
 
 IQ! 
 
 τὸν Θεόν" 8. ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν, " οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν Oedv* ὅτι 46 Θεὸς ἀγάπη P|. ae 
 
 ὅτι τὸν 4 ἷν. 16. 
 r Johni. 14, 
 
 ε A A one 
 υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν * μονογενῆ " ἀπέσταλκεν 6 Θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα be iii. 16, 
 ζήσωμεν δι᾿ αὐτοῦ. 
 
 , A a ~ 
 ἐστίν. 9. Ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, 
 
 1ο. ἐν τούτῳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, " οὐχ ὅτι ἡμεῖς 5 sas 
 ἠγαπήσαμεν ' τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἀπέσ- ili. 17, xx. 
 21. 
 τειλε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ " ἱλασμὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. II. ἀγαπη-! ΠΡΊΝ 
 Ι 
 
 τοί, εἰ " οὕτως ὁ Θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, " καὶ ἡμεῖς " ὀφείλομεν ἀλλήλους u Ver. το. 
 
 w John iii. 16. 
 
 x Rom. xiii. 8; Matt. xviii. 33; Rom. xv. 7; Eph. iv. 32; Coll. iii. 13. 
 
 ν ii. 2 reff. 
 y ii. 6 reff. 
 
 I ηγαπήσαμεν SCKL, Tisch., WH (marg.)—an assimilation to the other aors. ; 
 
 γαπήκαμεν B, WH, Nest. 
 
 ‘I love God,’ and hate his brother, he is 
 aliar. 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. το: “ 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, 
 tedio 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,” 7.e., 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 isa 
 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 υἱὸν 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. xxii? 20, 
 
 xxxv. 17, where SVT), “my dear life,” 
 
 is rendered τὴν μονογενῆ pov. 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. 
 ζήσωμεν, 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 (160-18). 
 
 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 
 
 Zieh ret. 
 Johni. 18. 
 
 a Ver. 16, 
 iii. 24. 
 
 b ii. 5 reff. 
 
 ς iii. 24 reff. 
 
 di. τ ref. 
 
 ei. 2 reff. 
 
 f John iii, 
 17, iv. 42. 
 
 ἀγαπᾶν. 
 
 τὶ ca 1 
 ἐν ἡμῖν. 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 IV. 
 
 12. Θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται ᾿ ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλή- 
 λους, " ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μένει, καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ ἢ" τετελειωμένη ἐστὶν 
 > , , φ 5 > ~ lf ‘ > A 
 
 13. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ μένομεν, καὶ αὐτὸς 
 > ca oe @e? A »» 5» “- a ἘΣ ὅν 
 ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι * ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν. 
 
 14. Καὶ ἡμεῖς “τεθεάμεθα, καὶ © μαρτυροῦμεν ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέσ- 
 die aie xvi. ταλκε τὸν υἱὸν σωτῆρα τοῦ κόσμου. 
 
 15. “ὃς ἄν ὁμολογήσῃ ὅτι 
 
 10, 17. | ies in a ~ - 
 hJohn vi. Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν 6 υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, 6 Θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ 
 
 Θεῷ. 
 
 15, Xi. 22, 
 24, X1i. 36 ; 
 2 Peter ii. 
 B17 ῳ 
 
 I. 
 o Matt. v. 
 
 ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ. 
 13,Χ111..48; 
 
 K ἐν τῷ Θεῷ μένει, καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ. 
 ε t > *- et 
 
 16, Καὶ ἡμεῖς " ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν 
 ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστί, καὶ ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, 
 
 2 
 
 17. Ἐν τούτῳ ἢ" τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, ἵνα | παρρησίαν 
 nifoba xx. ἔχωμεν ™ ἐν TH ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως, ὅτι " καθὼς ἐκεῖνός ἐστι, Kal ἡμεῖς 
 ih 18. φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, ἀλλ᾽ 
 
 Luke xiv. ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ° ἔξω βάλλει τὸν " φόβον, ὅτι 6 φόβος “ κόλασιν "ἔχει " 
 
 ν hom. viii, ὁ δὲ φοβούμενος οὐ > τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ. 
 
 15; Heb. 
 
 11. 15. q Matt. xxv. 46. r James i. 4. 
 
 1 ev ἡμῖν ἐστιν NB, edd. 
 
 19. "ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶ- 
 
 s Ver. 10. 
 
 2ey αὐτω peve. 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. TereAerwpévn, 
 ἐς carried to its end” ; see note on ii. 5. 
 
 Ver. 13. Cf. iii. 24. The argument 
 is that God would not have granted us 
 this priceless gift if he were not 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). ἡμεῖς, either the editorial ‘‘ we” 
 or “1 and 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. ἡμεῖς, here “ you and I,” we 
 believers. Observe the three stages: (1) 
 “ vet to know” (γινώσκειν), (2) ““ believe” 
 (πιστεύειν), (3) “confess” (ὁμολογεῖν). 
 -éy ἡμῖν, see note on ver. 9. 
 
 Another incentive to love: it casts out 
 fear. τῇ ἀγάπῃ. “the love just men- 
 tioned”. Cf. τὸν φόβον, ὁ 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, 
 ἄνα... κρίσεως being parenthetical: 
 “herein. . . because” (iii. 16, iv. 9, ro). 
 
 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- 
 cia. 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”. 
 
 Ver. 19. ἀγαπῶμεν has no accus. 
 The thought is that the amazing love of 
 God in Christ is the inspiration of all the 
 love that stirs inour hearts. Itawakens 
 within us an answering love—a grateful 
 Jove jor 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. Vuig.: ‘‘Nos ergo diligamus 
 Deum, quoniam Deus prior dilexit nos”. 
 
12—21. V. I—3. 
 
 ae Re 
 μεν αὐτὸν, 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 ὅτι αὐτὸς 2 πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς. 
 ρῶτος ἠγάπησεν rp 
 
 193 
 
 tii. 9, iii, 
 
 ι᾽ » 
 20. “Ἐάν τις εἴπη, Hae 
 
 a) > a ek ἐν. ms TCH A'S x anit nu 5 ui. 6 reff. 
 Οτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν Oedv, καὶ Tov ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῇ, ψεύστης ἃ 
 
 ἐστίν " 6 γὰρ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν ἑώρακε, τὸν Θεὸν " ὃν 
 
 er. 12 
 reff. 
 w ii. 7 reff. 
 
 οὐχ ἑώρακε, πῶς δύναται ἀγαπᾶν ;3 21. καὶ “ταύτην Thy ἐντολὴν ἃ iv. 15 ref 
 
 ἔχομεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ," 
 
 αὐτοῦ. 
 
 b iii. 9 reff. 
 
 ἵνα 6 ἀγαπῶν τὸν Θεόν, ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ς τ Peter i, 
 
 22. 23. 
 
 Xiii. 4, 5. 
 
 V. τ. Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι "Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν 6 Χριστός, Ὁ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ e John xiv. 
 
 ’ 5 CCA CoA) a x , » A \ 
 γεγέννηται και “πᾶς oO αγαπων τον γεννησαντα ay ara και 
 
 γεγεννημένον © ἐξ αὐτοῦ. 
 
 5 x. 159 23 24 
 τὸν 
 
 ἃ 5 , , « 3 “A Η͂ 
 2. εν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν οτι αἀγατπωμεν τα 
 
 έ a a ov A a > a ‘ ‘ > Xe 3 A 
 τέκνα TOU Θεοῦ, ὅταν τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν, καὶ Tag ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ 
 
 τηρῶμεν.ἵ 
 
 3. " αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς 
 
 Tavtov om. AB, Aeth., Aug., edd. ; τον θεον δῷ, Syrvg ph, Vg., Cop., Arm. 
 2 avtos SBKL, Syrvg ph, Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Aug., edd. ; 0 θεος A, Vg. 
 
 Sov Suvarat ayamav SB, Syrph, Sah., edd. 
 
 4 amo του θεου A, Vg. 
 
 Sayama καὶ S$AKLP, Syrve ph, Vg., Aeth., Arm., Tisch. ; om. και B, Sah., Aug., 
 
 WH, Nest. 
 8 το γεγεννημενον NY. 
 
 7 rnpwpev KL P—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 ἄγαπῶμεν 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”. 
 
 ψεύστης, see note on i. 6, 
 
 Ver. 21. The Old Commandment. Cf. 
 17-10. 
 
 CuHaPTER V.—Vvy. 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 ; 
 Ὁ 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 ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός) is an 
 inspiration for both. 
 
 πιστεύων corresponds to πίστις (ver. 
 4). The lack of a similar correspondence 
 in English is felt here as in many other 
 passages (e.g., Matt. viii. 10, 13; ix. 28, 
 29). Latinis similarly defective: “ omnis 
 qui credit,” “fides nostra”. 
 
 Ver. 3. ay. τ. Θεοῦ, here objective 
 genitive; contrast ii. 5. iva ecbatic (see 
 
194 ΙΩΑΝΟΥ A 1 
 
 f Matt. xi. δισ δ - a aif Ss ‘ ela a > el i 
 28-30. w8TOu rape per kat ‘at ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν. 4. ὅτι 
 £ i. is ohn & , 3 ~ ~ 1) aN , Ἂ ‘ cr 3 Ν 
 
 τ J πᾶν τὸ * γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, νικᾷ τὸν κόσμον ᾿ καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν 
 
 2 3 
 
 ἣν. efi 
 jou ΡῈ ἡ νίκη 7 νικήσασα τὸν κόσμον, ἣ ner ‘Laci 
 
 33: 
 ΚΝεγ. 1 ref. 
 
 1 Heb. ix. Θεοῦ ; 
 Il, 12. 
 
 mJobn xix. 6, Οὗτός ἐστιν 6 ἐλθὼν ᾿ δι᾿ πὸ ὕδατος Kal αἵματος,5 Ἰησοῦς ὁ 
 34. 
 
 Pe ss ς 
 5. τις ἐστιν “0 
 
 νικῶν τὸν κόσμον, εἰ μὴ ὃ πιστεύων ὅτι *"Incots ἐστιν ὃ υἱὸς ὁ τοῦ 
 
 6 
 
 'Punct. εἰσιν; ott edd. 2 npwv NABKP, Vg., edd. ; vpwv L, Aeth. 
 
 ὅτις ἐστιν AL, Vg., Sah., Tisch., Nest.; τις ἐστι δε Β, WH (δὲ brack.); Syrve 
 quis enim, Aeth. et quis. 
 
 4 © χριστος o vios two minusc., Arm. 
 
 ὅκαι aparos BKL, Syrvs, Vg., Tert. (de Bapt., 16: venerat enim per aquam et 
 sanguinem, sicut Toannes scripsit), edd.; add. kav πνευματος SSAP, many minusc., 
 Syrph, Cop. ., Sah. 
 
 ®o om. SABL, 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. John xvii.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,” i.e. “‘ Mes- 
 other” (cf. iii. 23, where see note; iv. 21). siah”. Cf. John xi. 27, xx. 31). His 
 καὶ αἱ ἐντ., κιτολ. : of. Herm. Past. doctrine therefore is that faith in the 
 M. xii. 4, 8 4: οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν Incarnation, believing apprehension of 
 ἔχοντες TOV κύριον, τὴν δὲ καρδίαν αὐτῶν the wonder and glory of it, makes easy 
 πεπωρωμένην, καὶ μακρὰν ὄντες ἀπὸ τοῦ the commandments of God, 7.6., love to 
 κυρίου, ἐκείνοις αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὗται σκληραί God and love to one another. The re- 
 εἰσι καὶ Sse Aug. In ¥oan. Ev. membrance and contemplation of that 
 
 Tract. xlviii. x: “ 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 πᾶν, «.t.A. The neut. free and in such wise proved, of a con- 
 (πᾶν 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 only in 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 ‘is conquering ” (νικᾷ) Lord, and everything will seem easy to 
 
 because the fight is in progress, then uu”? (Santa Teresa). 
 “that conquered ” (ἣ 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 
 
4—8. IQANOY A 195 
 
 n ili. 18, 
 o Phil. 11. 
 
 4 ~ - ~ > 
 καὶ TO πνεῦμά ἐστι °TS μαρτυροῦν ὅτι TO πνεῦμά ἐστιν " ἡ “ ἀλήθεια. Α ᾿Ξ rhe 
 
 Χριστός * οὐκ ™ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, GAN ἐν τῷ ὕδατι kai! τῷ αἵματι" 
 
 a ~ A ~ ΄ - rf 
 7. ὅτι τρεῖς 2 εἰσιν ot μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, 4 ἰ- 6 ret. 
 4 7 o - δ Ν a ε ~ ov > ‘ lta) 
 καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ᾿ καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 8- Kal τρεῖς 
 
 ε ~ ~ nm & ~ A 
 εἶσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ." TO πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ 
 
 1 καὶ εν ABLP, edd. 2 οι τρεις KY. 
 
 3 ev τω OVpavw. . . ev TH yy ἃ Latin interpolation, certainly spurious. (1) Found 
 in no Gk. MS. except two late minuscules—162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. 
 Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) 
 Quoted by none of the Gk. Fathers. Had they known it, they would have employed 
 it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). (3) Found in none of the 
 early versions—in Vg. but not as it left the hands of St. Jerome. (4) Quoted by no 
 Latin weiter until Priscillian (close of qth c.). Apparet igitur ... verba quae 
 de tribus testibus caelestibus dici solent nullam prorsus fidem, auctoritatem nullam 
 habere, nec a gravi libidinis aut imprudentiae crimine liberari posse cos qui etiam- 
 num, falsa quippe pretate ducti, libris sacris obtrudi patiuntur. . . . Lrror vero 
 longe est gravissimus, si qui, quod de sancta trinitate ecclesia Christi praecepit, a 
 verbis illis Fohanni obtrusis vel maxime pendere opinati sunt (Tisch.). 
 
 testify—the Spirit and the water and /Christ,” one person in opposition to the 
 ἔπε blood, and the three are for the one {Cerinthian “dissolution” (λύσις) of Jesus 
 end.” and Christ (seenote oniv. 3). ἐν: Henot 
 St. John has said that faith in the In- \only “came through” but continued ‘‘in 
 carnation makes the commandments e water and in the blood,” i.e., His 
 easy, and now the question arises: How ministry comprehended both*the Baptism 
 can we be assured that the Incarnation of the Spirit and the Sacrifice for sin. 
 _is a fact? He adduces a threefold at- Rerhaps, however, the prepositions are 
 : testation: the Spirit, the water and the imterchangeable; cf. 2 Cor. vi. 4-8; Heb. 
 ‘blood. His meaning is clear when it is jx. 12, 25. %aA%6.: Jesus called Him- 
 {understood that he has the Cerinthian /self ‘‘the Truth ” (John xiv. 6), and the 
 heresy (see Introd. pp. 156 f.) in-View and / Spirit came in His room, His alter ego 
 tates his doctrine in opposition to it.{ (vv. 16-18). 
 erinthus distinguished between Jesus\~—Vv-7-8. The Water (the Lord’s con- 
 nd the Christ. The divine Christ ‘Secrated Life) and the Blood (His sacri- 
 escended upon the human Jesus at the ficial Death) are testimonies to the Incar- 
 / Baptism, i.e., He “came through water,” mation, but they are insufficient. A third 
 and left him at the Crucifixion, t.e., He testimony, that of the Spirit, is needed 
 did not “‘come through blood”. Thus to reveal their significance to us and 
 redemption was excluded; all that was bringit home toourhearts. Without His 
 needed was spiritual illumination. In enlightenment the wonder and glory of 
 opposition to this St. John declares that that amazing manifestation \ ill be hidden 
 the Eternal God was incarnate in Jesus {romus. It will be as unintelligible to 
 and was manifested in the entire course us as “ mathematics to a Scythian boor, 
 of His human life, not only at His Bap- and music toacamel”. τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυ- 
 tism, which was His consecration to His ροῦντες, masculine though Πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ, 
 ministry of redemption, butat His Death, and αἷμα are all neuter, because agrecing 
 which was the consummation of Hisin- κατὰ σύνεσιν with τὸ Mvetpa—a testi- 
 finite Sacrifice: ‘through water and mony, the more striking because involun- 
 blood, not in the water only but in the tary, to the personality of the Spirit. 
 water and in the blood”. eis τὸ ἕν, “ ior the one end,” i.e. to bring 
 Ver. 6. οὗτος, i.e., this Jesus who is_ us to faith in the Incarnation (ὅτι Ἰησοῦς 
 the Son of God, the Messiah whom the ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). This was the 
 prophets foretold and who “came” in end for which St. John wrote his Gospel 
 the fulness of the time. ὁ ἐλθών, not (John xx. 31). There is no reference in 
 6 ἐρχόμενος. His Advent no longer an the Water and the Blood cither to the 
 unfulfilled hope but an historic event. effusion of blood and water fiom the 
 διά, of the pathway or vehicle of His Lord’s picrced side (John xix. 34) or to 
 Advent. “Incots Χριστός, ‘Jesus the two Sacraments. 
 
 : 
 } 
 
196 
 
 r John xi. 
 52, XVii. 
 
 23. 
 s John v. 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 e e A ε ia) en x J 3 
 αιμα και OL τρεις “Eig TO εν εἰσιν. 
 
 Vv. 
 
 9. Et τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν 
 
 5» tA , ε , A A 4 5 Beh ABD o 
 ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν " ὅτι αὕτη 
 
 31:37), vill. ἐστὶν "ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ, iv? μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. 
 
 t John v. 
 26; Heb 
 viii. 16, x. 6 
 16 (Jer. 
 
 c , > 1 cn Lol Θ A » x ’ t > ε ~ ax 
 
 IO. ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν ULOV TOU Θεου, EXEL THY μαρτυρίαν © ἐν EaUTw 
 
 Σ Χ , OER 3 ἂψ , , δι τος ἂν > , 
 μὴ πιστεύων τῷ VEL, εὐστὴν πεποιήηκεν αὕτον, OTL OU πεπίσ- 
 
 xxxi. 33). τευκεν εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν, ἣν μεμαρτύρηκεν ὃ Θεὸς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ 
 
 u i. 10. ΣΥΝ 
 
 vi.2; John αὕτου. 
 v. 26. ΜᾺ 
 
 w John iii. ἡμῖν ὁ 
 B67 Corse, 
 
 ΠΡῚΝ να, σ᾽ ε a 3 rer > A> 
 Θεός ᾿ καὶ ἡ αὕτη ἢ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. 
 
 Ἀ oe > ‘ ε , τε ‘ ae 2 
 11. Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν 
 
 12. “ὁ ἔχων 
 
 2 ce 3, x PS Se x. > SN ει a A x‘ AY > 
 iii. 21-23. τὸν υἱόν, ἔχει THY ζωήν ᾿ ὃ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, THY ζωὴν οὐκ 
 
 ” 
 εχει. 
 
 1mv KLP; ott ΑΒ, ΝΕ. (testimonium Dei, quod majus est, quoniam testificatus 
 
 est), Cop., Sah., Arm., edd. 
 
 Punct. o Ti. 
 
 *eavtw S$; avtw ABKLP; αὐτῷ Tisch., WH (marg.), Nest.; αὑτῷ WH. 
 3 tw θεω SSBKLP, Syrvg, Cop., edd. ; tw viw A, Syrph, Vg. 
 
 Vv. 9-12. Our attitude to the Three- 
 fold Testimony. “1 we receive the 
 testimony of men, the testimony of 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 hati 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; cf. Matt. xvili. 16; John viii. 17-18). 
 Read (as in iii. 20) 6, τι μεμαρτύρηκεν, 
 ‘‘what He hath testified concerning His 
 Son,” i.e. the testimony of His miracles 
 and especially His Resurrection (Rom. 
 i. 4). The variant ἥν is a marginal gloss 
 indicating the relative (6, τι), not the 
 conjunction (ὅτι). The latter is incap- 
 able of satisfactory expianation. The 
 alternatives are: (1) ‘‘ Because the te ti- 
 mony of 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 τὸ 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, i.e., 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 Him a 
 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 self-surrender which is the 
 reasonable and inevitable consequence of 
 contemplating the Incarnation and reco2- 
 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 rpiv), and therefore indubitable. 
 These three stages are, according to the 
 metaphor 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 
 
g—16. 
 
 A ” ea a , 3 , Ἢ a © Ax 
 13. Ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὕμιν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς TO ὄνομα TOU υἱοῦ 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 197 
 
 ii. 12 reff., 
 ili. 23. 
 
 -“ ~ ~ 4 - , Ὲ 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ,͵ ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύητε ὅὙ John Xx 
 
 εἰς τὸ “ὄνομα ἢ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 > , See ὦ 
 GQKOUEL ἡμῶὼν 
 
 > > > a 
 μεθα, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἔχομεν τὰ ὃ αἰτήματα ἃ ἠτήκαμεν παρ᾽ * αὐτοῦ. 
 
 14. 
 > “A 
 ἣν ἔχομεν πρὸς αὐτόν, ὅτι * ἐάν τι αἰτώμεθα κατὰ > τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ, 
 
 - aa,,3 
 15. καὶ ° ἐὰν οἴδαμεν OTL ἀκούει ἡμῶν, ὃ ἂν 
 
 Nee ϑυτὶν Zz (α Z il. 28 reff. 
 Kat αὕτη ἐστὶν ἢ * παρρησία 2 i: ay 
 John xiv. 
 13, XVi. 
 23. 
 b Matt. vi. 
 10; Luke 
 XXli. 42. 
 
 pis 
 αιτω- 
 
 16. Ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ “ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς ς C/. : 
 
 111. 8 (ἐὰν στήκετε). 
 i, 18; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Col. ii. 19; 1 Peter iii. 14. 
 
 d Luke xxiii. 24; Phil. iv. 6. 
 
 _, Thess. 
 e ii. 25; Mark iv. 41 ; John vii. 24; 1 Tim. 
 
 ‘Tous πιστευουσιν εἰς TO ονομα Tov υἱου Tov θεου KLP; om. ΑΒ, Syrve Ph, 
 
 Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., edd. 
 
 2 kata πιστευητε KLP; τοις πιστευουσιν SQ*B, Syrve ph, edd. ; ot πιστευοντες 
 
 NA. 
 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 hearkenetn 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 
 is 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. V. 
 
 ἅπαρ AKLP; aw NB, edd. 
 
 Epistle commends Him. It is a supple- 
 ment to the Gospel, a personal applica- 
 tion and appeal. ἔγραψα, “1 wrote,” 
 looking back on the accomplished task. 
 εἰδῆτε, “know,” not γινώσκητε, “get to 
 know”. Full and present assurance. 
 
 Ver. 14. παρρησία, 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) 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 should 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 re- 
 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. Cf. Shak., Ant. and Cleop. 
 I. 11. :— . 
 ‘‘ 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 ἀνά- 
 βασις vod πρὸς Θεὸν καὶ αἴτησις τῶν 
 προσηκόντων παρὰ Θεοῦ (Joan. Damasc. 
 De. Fid. Orthod., iii. 24). Clem. Alex. : 
 ‘** Non absolute dixit quod petierimus sed 
 quod oportet petere ᾿ 
 
 Ver. 16. After the grand assurance 
 
 13 
 
198 
 
 f Matt. xiii. 94 
 332; θάνατον, 
 
 Heb. vi. θάνατον. 
 4:6. TENGE 
 g ili. 4. : 
 Sree CO ia eh al 
 
 i John xvii. πρὸς θάνατον. 
 
 Καὶ. 13 reff. οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει " ἀλλ᾽ ὃ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἱ τηρεῖ EauTdy,! καὶ 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 V. 
 
 > , Ν , > ~ , a < f Ν Ν 
 αἰτήσει, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν, τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι μὴ πρὸς 
 ” z ΄ Ν , . > a ie , ΄ oe 
 ἔστιν ἡ ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον " οὐ περὶ ἐκείνης λέγω ἵνα 
 
 g A ἀδ , ec , é Lary (oe ε , > 
 
 17. πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία éoti* Kal ἔστιν ἁμαρτία οὐ 
 
 18. Οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἢ πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 
 ΕΟ 
 
 lauvrov 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. £.g., 
 a bodily faculty, if neglected, atrophics 
 (cf. note on 11. rr). Sointhe 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: “1 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 
 yery flat, for it is a horrid bore to feel as 
 I constantly 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, 1. 
 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) A. 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 4 τοῦ Mvev- 
 ματος βλασφημία (Matt. xii. 31-32 = 
 Mark iii. 28-30). It inflicts a mortal 
 wound on the man’s spiritual nature. He 
 can never be forgiven because he can 
 never repent. He is ‘“‘in the grip ofan 
 
 eternal sn (ἔνοχος αἰωνίου dua a- 
 tos)”. Cf. Heb. vi. 4-6. This ree 
 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 veniz relinquitur locus, 
 mors prorsus imperium nondum occupat ” 
 (Calv.). δώσει, either (1) “ he (the inter- 
 cessor) will give to him (the brother),” 
 τοῖς ἅμαρτ. being in apposition to αὐτῷ, 
 ‘*to him, i.e. to them that, etc.” ; or (2) 
 “Ἢ 8 (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.” Also a 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. 
 ὃ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, i.¢e., Christ. 
 Cf. Symb. Nic. : Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, 
 τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ 
 Πατρὸς. As distinguished from γεγεννη- 
 μένος the aor. γεννήθεις 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: G) It 
 
17—2I. 
 
 πονηρὸς οὐχ | ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ. 
 καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὅλος " ἐν * 
 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ " ἥκει, καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα " γινώσκωμεν | 
 « ΑΗ κι Paks > ~ q2 A > a εκ 3 ~ 2 a 
 
 ἀληθινόν ᾿ καί ἐσμεν ἐν TO “ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 Χριστῷ" οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ 7 ἀληθινὸς Θεός, καὶ " ἡ 2 ζωὴ αἰώνιος. 
 Τεκνία, * φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ὅ ἀπὸ τῶν * εἰδώλων. 
 
 ri.2. 
 
 q ii. 8. 
 t 1 Cor. x.14; Eph. ν. 5. 
 
 i. 12, 14. 
 
 IQANOY A 
 
 199 
 
 19. οἴδαμεν ὅτι "' ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσμεν, ! Luke vii. 
 
 14, 39; 
 
 τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται. 20. οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς John xx. 
 t ‘ 17. 
 
 ὃν πὶ ili. 8. 
 
 bg n Luke ii. 
 12, 16. 
 
 o John viii. 
 42. 
 
 P (-opev) £ 
 Cor. iv.6; 
 Gal.iv.17. 
 
 21. 
 ἀμήν." 
 
 s 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. NAB, edd. 
 
 3 eavtous KCAKP ; εαὐτα $Q*BL, edd. 
 
 αμην KLP, Vg.; om. SAB, 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 γέννησις 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 ἅψησθε τῶν χριστῶν pov, 
 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 Solit- 
 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 
 ὁ Υἱὸς 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 (qAGe),” 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 onii. 8. ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, 
 as the world is ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ. 
 
 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 
 ‘“ suarding” a flock (Luke ii. 8), a deposit 
 or trust (1 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. 
 
IVANNOY ΤΟΥ 
 
 AITOZTOAOY. 
 
 ENHISTOAH KA@®OAIKH AEYTEPA.! 
 
 as eens 
 1 Tim 
 
 aS 0) ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΕΡΟΣ sila | κυρίᾳ 2 
 
 7 a π᾿ τ a 
 καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, OUS 
 
 Ι, 17, I ; 
 Here τὸ ἐγὼ 7 a Ὁ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ 
 
 “Ὁ ΤῈΣ Ἢ 2 
 2; τ Peter ἐγνωκότες hv ἀλήθειαν, 2. διὰ ἢ 
 
 Ὁ John xvii. καὶ 
 17, 10. 
 c i John ii. 
 
 4, 14, 24, 27, iii. 9. d 1 John iv. 17. 
 
 liwavvou B S$; twavov B B; emorod 
 Sevtepa 99; twavvov επιστολη καθολικη 
 Lwavvov Tov θεολογου επιστολη Sevtepa L ; 
 εἐπιστολη Sevtepa Lwavvou Tou ἐπὶ στηθους 4. 
 
 ἐπιστολὴ δευτερα 5 ; 
 
 d θ᾽ εἴτα, oe 3 x IA Ξ » 4 
 pel ημῶν εσται εἰς TOV αἰῶνα ᾿ 3. εσται 
 
 τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν “ μένουσαν ὃ ἐν ἡμῖν, 
 μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν > © χάρις, 
 
 er Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 2. 
 
 Lwayvou B P, 96; wwavvov καθολικη 
 K, ror, 106; του αγιου αποστολου 
 του αὐτου αγιου Lwavvou Tov θεολογου 
 
 τη εκλεκτη κυρια 73; εκλεκτη TH κυρια 31; ekAeKTH TH και κυρια Aeth.; 
 
 Κυρίᾳ Syrvg ph, Tisch. ; 
 
 ᾿Ἐκλέκτῃ Κυρίᾳ WH (marg.). 
 
 3 μενουσαν SBKLP, Vg., edd.; ενοικουσαν A. 
 
 teorar Se 15, 36, Euth. Zig. 
 
 ὅημων SBLP, Syrbo, Sah., Aeth., edd. ; upwv 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. 1. 6 πρεσβύτερος, see Introd. 
 pp. 159 ff. ἐκλεκτῇ Κυρίᾳ, see Introd. 
 pp- 162 f. οὕς, constructio κατὰ σύνεσιν, 
 
 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. xvili.: “I was a man who never 
 deserved that so much prosperity should 
 fall to my share”. ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (see note 
 on I 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 TO εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ πασῶν. 
 τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. τὴν ἀλήθειαν, “the 
 Truth just mentioned”. 
 
 Ver. 2. μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν, not merely 
 apprehended by the intellect but wel- 
 comed by the heart. μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, nobiscum, 
 bet 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. T hey 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—0. 
 
 “heos, εἰρήνη παρὰ Θεοῦ πατρός, καὶ παρὰ Kupiou! Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρός, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ. 
 
 4. ᾿ ᾽Εχάρην λίαν ὅτι εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου * περιπατοῦντας ἐν 
 ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς ἐντολὴν ἐλάβομεν 2 παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. 
 
 ΙΩΑΝΟΥ Β 
 
 201 
 
 Matt. ii. 
 10; Mark 
 Xiv. II; 
 Luke 
 xxiii. 8; 
 John xx. 
 20. 
 
 5. καὶ νῦν : 
 gi Johni, 
 
 2 mn rise Sun 9 ς 3 s , 4 ἈΠ ae . ἃ ii. 
 ἐρωτῶ σε, kupia,® “obx ὡς ἐντολὴν γράφω ὁ σοι καινήν," ἀλλὰ ἣν ε 7 ii. 6, 
 
 Ψ᾿ > ~ > ~ 
 εἴχομεν ὃ am ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους. 
 ἡ ἀγάπη, ἵνα * περιπατῶμεν κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ. 
 
 6. καὶ ᾿ αὕτη ἐστὶν hr John 
 ET ee PS σὸ 111; 
 αὐτὴ ἐστιν ἢ II, 23. 
 
 ir Johnv 
 
 3 reff. Κι John iii. 23. 
 
 1 «uptov SSKLP, Syrph, Cop., Arm.; om. AB, several minusc., Syrbo, Vg. (a 
 
 Christo ¥esu), Aeth., edd. 
 Ξεέλαβον NY. 3 Kupta Tisch. 
 
 4+ ypadw several minusc., Aeth., Arm. ; ypadwv RABKLP, V¢g., edd. 
 5 ypadwv σοι καινην BKLP, WH, Nest. ; καινὴν γραφων σοι SQA, Tisch. 
 
 θειχομεν BKLP; εἰχαμεν NA, 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 1 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. 
 “I 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 Introd., p. 
 155). They had profited by the nurture 
 of their godly home, the best equipment 
 for the battle of life. ‘‘ No man should 
 ever leave money to his children. Itisa 
 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, 
 “1 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, 
 «.7.A., ambulantes in veritate, die in der 
 Wahrheit 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 coni- 
 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 
 I John ii. 7. 
 
 Ver. 6. ἡ ἀγάπη, “the love just re- 
 ferred to”. περιπ. κατὰ Tas ἐντ. αὐτ., 
 regulating our lives by their require- 
 ments; περιπ. ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (ver. 4), keep- 
 ing within the limits of the Christian 
 revelation and not straying beyond them 
 —not προάγοντες (ver. 9). αὐτῇ; 1.6., 
 “love,” not “" the commandment” (Vulg.: 
 Hoc est mandatum, ut... in 60 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 multitudinous 
 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., lix. 2; ‘“‘qui justum cibat frusto, 
 
202 
 
 11 Johni. 8. 
 
 m 1 John iv. 
 trek. 
 
 n 1 John iv. , 
 
 2. 
 Οἱ John ii, 
 
 o> , 
 ἢ 18 Leases αντίχριστος. 
 Ἀν μεθα, ἀλλὰ “ μισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολάβωμεν. 
 att. X. 
 
 [QANOY B 
 
 “ , 
 Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί" οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ 
 
 ὮΣΞΞ 
 
 3 λή 1 ‘ > , ΓΕ > - - 5 > ας “- " 
 ἐντολή, καθὼς ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ περιπατῆτε᾽ 7. 
 ὅτι πολλοὶ | πλάνοι ™ εἰσῆλθον 2 εἰς τὸν κόσμον, οἱ μὴ " ὁμολογοῦντες 
 
 c 
 
 ἱ πλάνος Kal ὁ 
 
 8. βλέπετε ἑαυτούς, ἵνα μὴ ἀπολέσωμεν ἃ εἰργασά- 
 
 9. πᾶς 6* παραβαίνων," 
 
 41, 42, χχ. καὶ μὴ "μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει ᾿ ὁ μένων 
 
 8; James ke hs 2 a Aus 
 v.4. ἐν TH διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 r Matt. ii. 9, ba 
 
 xiv. 22; Markx. 32; 1 Tim. v. 24 (προάγων). 
 22, 23- 
 
 a X S228 , A a εκ ” 
 OUTOS και τον πάτερα KGL TOV ULOY εχει. 
 
 si Tim. ii. 15; 2 Tim. iii. 14. {1 John ii. 
 
 1 ἐστιν ἡ evToAn Ὁ ΠΡ; ἡ ἐντολὴ ἐστιν Ὁ ΒΚ, edd. 
 3εισηλθον KLP; εξηλθον NAB, Syrbo, Vg., Sah., Arm., Iren. (III. xvii. 8), edd. 
 
 (-av A, Tisch., WH). 
 
 Samokeowpev απολαβωμεν KLP ; απολεσητε απολαβητε δ" (απολησθε) AB, 
 Syrvg ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., Iren., edd. ; εὐργασαμεθα BKLP, Syrph 
 (marg.), Sah.; ypy-B*, WH, Nest.; epyaoaoBe SQA, Syrbo ph, Vg., Cop., Aeth., 
 
 Arm., Iren., Tisch. 
 
 4 παραβαινων KLP, Syrbo ph, Vg. (qui recedit), Cop., Arm. ; 
 
 Aeth., edd. 
 
 προαγων NAB, Sah., 
 
 5 rov,xpiotov KLP, Cop., Aeth.; om. ΑΒ, Syrph, Vg., Sah., Arm., edd. 
 
 perinde est acsi totum Pentateuchum 
 servasset ”. 
 
 Vv. 7-8. 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 I John iv. 1. 
 of μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες, a definite and well- 
 known sect. See note on 1 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 éAn- 
 λυθότα and ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν to Epydp- 
 ενον. 
 
 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.” 
 
 ὁ 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), z.e. the Messiah, the Saviour. Θεὸν 
 οὐκ ἔχει; t.e. according to His true nature 
 as the Father manitested in the Son (kai 
 τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν Υἱόν). It is neccs- 
 sary not merely to beleve in God but 
 to believe in Him ‘through Christ” 
 (x Peter 15922): 
 
 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 
 
Il. 
 
 10. " εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν οὐ φέρει, " 
 . , Peal > su x , SA ‘ , τ 
 μὴ λαμβάνετε αὐτὸν εἰς οἰκίαν, καὶ χαίρειν αὐτῷ μὴ λέγετε 
 
 IQANOY Β 
 
 203 
 
 2 Thess. 
 ili. 6. 
 Ir. 6V1Johni. 
 3,6, 7; 
 
 ᾿ A , A a» 9 δι a a " 
 ap λέγων 1 αὐτῷ χαίρειν, ’ κοινωνεῖ * τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς. 1 Tim. v. 
 γὰρ Acy » χαιρειν, S Epyous ΟΡ | hic a 
 
 w 1 John iii. 12. 
 
 lo yap λεγων KLP, Iren. (I. ix. 3); 0 λεγων yap ΝΥ ΑΒ, 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. Io-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. τὸ. φέρει, not ‘‘endureth” (cf. 
 Rom. ix. 22; Heb. xii. 20), but ‘‘ bring- 
 eth” as a precious boon (cf. Rev. xxi. 24, 
 26). εἰς οἰκίαν (cf. Mark ii. 1; iii. 10), 
 zu Hause; cf. ‘to church,” ‘to town,” 
 ‘*to market,” “το bed”. See Moulton’s 
 Winer, pp. 148 ff. χαῖρε, 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. τι, the latter. 
 **Zum Abschied, wenn der Abgewiesene 
 weiter zichen muss” (Holtzmann). 
 
 Ver. τσ. κοινωνεῖ, cf. τ Johni. 3. An 
 unholy κοινωνία. τοῖς ἔργ. αὐτ. τοῖς 
 πον., cf. τ John i. 2: τὴν ζωὴν 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 (I. 
 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. xiii. 28-29). 
 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 weli 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: “1 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. 
 “« TIli,” says St. Augustine (Contra Epis- 
 tolam Manichati, 2), ‘‘in vos seviant, qui 
 nesciunt cum quo labore verum invenia- 
 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 : 
 οὐ πᾶς 6 λαλῶν ἐν πνεύματι. προφήτης 
 ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τοὺς τρόπους Κυρίου. 
 It is not until the second century that 
 there is any appearance of buildings set 
 apart for worship. The primitive éxxAy- 
 cia. met in private houses (cf Rom. 
 XVIs wx (COL wxvisiexg)s)| \Col.iiv. τὸ 5 
 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 
 οἵ 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. 
 
 x1 Johni. 
 4 reff, 
 
 z Ver. I. 
 
 IQANOY B 
 
 12—I3. 
 
 12. Πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν γράφειν, οὐκ ἠβουλήθην ᾿ διὰ χάρτου Kat 
 μέλανος “ ἀλλὰ ἐλπίζω ἐλθεῖν 2 πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ “στόμα πρὸς στόμα 
 λαλῆσαι, ἵνα ἣ χαρὰ ἡμῶν ὃ ἢ " πεπληρωμένη." 
 
 13. ἀσπίζεταί σε 
 
 τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου τῆς " ἐκλεκτῆς. ἀμήν. 
 
 1 εβουληθην ΦΑΒΚΙ;Ρ, edd. 
 
 2 yeverOar ΑΒ, Syrph, Vg., edd. 
 
 3 ypov SSKLP, Tisch., WH (marg.), Nest.; υμων AB, Vg., WH. 
 4m wemAnpopevyn AKLP; πεπληρωμενὴ ἡ WB, edd. 
 Saunv 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. The Conclusion. ‘‘ 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., 
 pp. 12 ff.), the common material for 
 Jetter-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. ii. 3, xvi. 10): 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 
 jull, 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, τῇ 
 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 ἥ. 
 Ver. 13. See Introd. pp. 162 f. 
 
JQANNOY TOY AITOZTOAOY. 
 
 ENMISTOAH KA@OAIKH TPITH.! 
 
 τ, *“O ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΣ Γαΐῳ τῷ ἀγαπητῷ, ὃν ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ” ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 8 4 J pha 
 
 2. ᾿Αγαπητέ, περὶ πάντων εὔχομαί σε “ εὐοδοῦσθαι καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, b2 John 
 I ret. 
 
 καθὼς “ εὐοδοῦταί σου ἡ ψυχή. 
 
 3. “ ἐχάρην yap? λίαν, ἐρχομένων ¢ τ Cor. xvi. 
 
 ἀδελφῶν καὶ μαρτυρούντων σου τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς σὺ “ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ 4 2 John 4. 
 
 περιπατεῖς. 
 
 , © 
 4. ‘perLorépay τούτων οὐκ ἔχω χαράν," iva ἀκούω τὰ ἔτ: 
 
 e 2 John 4. 
 ohni. 4. 
 
 1iwavvov Y SN; twavov Y B; wavvov ἐπιστολη Y C, many minusc. ; twavvov 
 ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ Ὑ ΤΟΙ, 106; ἐπιστολὴ TpLTH Tov αγιου αποστολου twavvov L ; 
 του αὐτου αγιου Lwavvov του θεολογου ἐπιστολὴ τριτὴ 95; ἐπιστολὴ του αγιου 
 «ποστολου και ηγαπήμενου προς γαΐον ιωαννοῦυ 4. 
 
 Ξγαρ ABCKLP, Syrbo ph, Cop., WH, Nest.; om. §§, Vg., Sah., Aeth., Arm., 
 
 Tisch. 
 
 3 yapav SACKLP, Tisch., WH (marg.), Nest.; xapw B, Vg., Cop., WH. 
 
 Tue TuHirD EPISTLE. 
 
 Vv. 1-4. Address and Commendation. 
 “ The Elder to Gaius the beloved, whom 
 Ilovein 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 πρεσβύτερος, see Introd. 
 pp. 159 ff. éy#,seenoteon2Johni. ἐν 
 
 ἀληθείᾳ, see note on 2 Johni. 
 
 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 
 
 things”. The latter use is epic (e.g., 
 Hom. Il. 1. 287: περὶ πάντων eppevar 
 ἄλλων), and prosperity and health were 
 not the summa bona in the Apostle’s 
 
 estimation. εὐοδοῦσθαι, “prosper” in 
 worldly matters. Trouble tests char- 
 acter. 
 
 “A good knight is best known 
 in battle, a 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. ι 
 
 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 
 
206 
 
 gi Tim.i. 
 2; x Cor, 
 iv. 15; 
 Philem. 
 10; Gal. 
 iv. 19. 
 
 h Matt. 
 
 _ XXvi. 10. 
 
 i Heb. xiii.1. Κι John iii. 22 reff. 
 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 11; 2 Cor. i. 16. 
 
 ley NC°KLP ; ev tn ABC%, edd. 
 
 IQANOY Γ 
 
 ὅ ἐμὰ τέκνα ev! ἀληθείᾳ περιπατοῦντα. 
 
 ™ προπέμψας " ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 12 ἜΘ ΕΣ ὙΌΣ 
 ni Thess. ii. 12; Col. i. 10. 
 
 5— 
 
 3 , ‘ κ 
 5. ᾿Αγαπητέ, πιστὸν ποιεῖς 
 
 ὃ ἐὰν ἢ ἐργάσῃ 2 εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ εἰς τοὺς ® * ξένους, 6. ot ἐμαρ- 
 τύρησάν σου τῇ ἀγάπῃ " ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας ᾿ ols | καλῶς ποιήσεις 
 
 7. ὑπὲρ yap ° τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐξῆλθον ἢ 
 
 m Acts xv. 3, xx. 38, xxi. 5; Rom. xv. 24; 
 o Acts v. 40, 41; 1 Peter iv. 14, 16.. 
 
 ‘ 
 
 2 epyaon SBCKLP, edd. ; εργαζη A, Vg. (quidquid operaris). 
 3 eus τους KLP; rovro SABC, Vg., Syrbo ph, Vg., Cop., Sah., Aeth., Arm., edd. 
 
 4 e&nAOav YB, 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), 
 126 11 sitis nisicum fratrem vestrum vide- 
 ritis in caritate”. μειζοτέραν, a double 
 compar.; cf, ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ (Eph. ili. 8) ; 
 our “lesser”; Germ. mehrere. τούτων: 
 this use of the plur. (ταῦτα) rather than 
 the sing. (τοῦτο) iscommon. See Moul- 
 ton’s Winer, p. 201. ἵνα, epexegetic of 
 τούτων. Cf. Luke i. 43 and see note on 1 
 John iii. 11. τέκνα implies that Gaius 
 was aconvert ofSt. 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; épyaoy, aor. of each 
 particular act. καὶ τοῦτο, “and that 
 to”; more commonly καὶ ταῦτα (cf. 
 Heb. xi. 12). 
 
 ver. 6. On theanarthrous ἐκκλησίας, 
 see note on 2 John το. καλῶς ποιήσεις 
 has the sense of ‘‘ please” in the Oxy- 
 thynchus Papyri; ¢.g., 300, 3-6: ἔπεμψά 
 σοι διὰ τοῦ καμηλείτου Ταυρείνου To 
 πανάριον, περὶ οὗ καλῶς ποιήσεις ἐν- 
 τιφωνήσασά μοι ὅτι ἐκομίσου, “1 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. ii 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 wortiy of 
 God,” ἐξ. (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. I: εἰώθασι yap τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ TO 
 ὄνομα περιφέρειν, ἄλλα τινὰ πράσσοντες 
 ἀνάξια Θεοῦ. Cf. iii. τ: 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 I Johnii. 4. Winer (Moulton’s 
 Winer, p. 463, note 1) draws a distinction, 
 perhaps too fine, between λαμβάνειν 
 παρά Tivos and λαμβάνειν ἀπό Tivos. 
 
Il. 
 
 ἐπιδέχεται ἡμᾶς. 
 
 IQANOY Γ 207 
 μηδὲν λαμβάνοντες 4 ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν. 8. ἡμεῖς οὖν " ὀφείλομεν ἀπο- P ae yal 
 2 N , ῳ 8 ἘΜῈ , a i ix. 12-15. 
 λιμβώνεῳ τοὺς τριοντοὺς, ἵνα " συνεργοὶ " γινώμεθα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. ο. cee 
 ” ~ 2 <a 2) eth , = ἃ ‘ > 15. 
 Εγραψα ὃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ - ἀλλ᾽ ὁ φυλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν Αἰοτρεφὴς οὐκ ἐδ μη ἢ. 
 10. διὰ τοῦτο, ἐὰν ἔλθω, " ὑπομνήσω αὐτοῦ τὰ Oref. - 
 ν Νὴ εἰ jf err LS LA ΟΣ Ree 2 s Rom. xvi. 
 ἔργα ἃ ποιεῖ, λόγοις πονηροῖς ” φλυαρῶν ἡμᾶς ᾿ καὶ μὴ ἀρκούμενος 3) 9 21: 
 ‘ I - ill. 
 ἐπὶ τούτοις, οὔτε αὐτὸς ἐπιδέχεται τοὺς ἀδελφούς, καὶ τοὺς βουλο- 9; 2 Cor. 
 \ βῆ δοῦ Vili. 23. 
 μένους “ κωλύει, καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας " ἐκβάλλει. τι. ᾿Αγαπητέ, ” μὴ t Matt. v. 
 45. 
 v John xiv. 26; 2 Tim. ii. 14; Tit. iii. 1. w 1 Tim. v. 13. x Mark ix. 
 
 u Cf. Matt. xx. 27. 
 
 38, 30. y John rx. 34. 
 
 z Rom. xii. 9; Ps. xxxvii. 27. 
 
 1 εθνων KLP; εθνικων SABC, edd. 
 2 απολαμβανειν KLP; υπολαμβανειν SSABC*, edd. 
 3 eypawa: 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. twodap- 
 βάνειν, suscipere, ‘receive hospitably ” 
 (cf. ὑποδέχεσθαι), “take under one’s 
 protection”. Observe the Wortspiel— 
 λαμβάνοντες, ὑπολαμβάνειν. συνεργοὶ 
 τῇ ἀληθείᾳ : a division of labour. [Ιἴννε 
 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. 9-το. Churlishness of Diotrephes. 
 “1 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. 9. ἔγραψα 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 9) 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 ver. 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, ΧΙ. 1-3). 
 St. John deserved to be called “the 
 Apostle of Love”. φλυαρεῖν (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 ἄρκ., see 
 note on i Johnii. 4. οὔτε . - - καί, cf. 
 John iv. τι. κωλύει, ἐκβάλλει, Ιρτα5. 
 implying not that he actually did it but 
 that he tried to do it. ἐκβάλλει, here 
 not of literal ejection (cf. John 11. !15= 
 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.” 
 
208 
 
 a Heb. xiii. a 
 
 LQANOY Γ 
 
 μιμοῦ τὸ κακόν, ἀλλὰ TO ἀγαθόν. 
 
 _ 
 
 I2—I5. 
 
 6 ἀγαθοποιῶν, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν " 
 
 12. Δημητρίῳ “μεμαρ- 
 “kal ἡμεῖς δὲ 
 
 5 Ye , x , 
 και στόμα προς στομα 
 
 7. 
 Pr John 6 δὲ! κακοποιῶν, οὐχ ἑώρακε τὸν Θεόν. 
 αν} τὸ 2, τύρηται ὑπὸ πάντων, καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας ᾿ 
 d John xix. ἢ ὶ οἴδατεξ ὅτι ἡ ία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐ 
 John IX. μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ οἴδατε" ὅτι ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστι. 
 : pee Dy 3 Πολλὰ εἶχον ypdew,? ἀλλ᾽ οὐ θέλω διὰ μέλανος καὶ καλάμου 
 Bee se σοι γράψαι "4 14. ἐλπίζω δὲ εὐθέως ἰδεῖν σε, 
 13; Lu 
 xxiv. 36; λαλήσομεν. 
 John xx. 
 
 19,21, 36; TOUS ὃ φίλους ἢ κατ᾽ ὄνομα. 
 1 Peter v. ‘i ἦν 
 14. g John xi. 11; Acts xxvii. 3. 
 
 15. ‘Eipyyn σοι. ἀσπάζονταί σε οἱ " φίλοι. ἀσπάζου 
 
 h John x. 3. 
 
 10 Se L, Cop., Aeth., Arm. ; o SABCKP, Syrph, Vg., Sah., edd. 
 
 2 ou8are KLP, Syrbo ph, Aeth. ; οιἱδας ΦΑΒΟ, Vg., Cop., Sah., Arm. 
 3 γραφειν KLP; γραψαι σοι SABC, edd. 
 
 4 ypayar KLP; ypadew SABC, edd. 
 
 5 Serv oe SEKLP; ce ver ABC, edd. 
 
 Ver. 11. A warming against evil ex- 
 ample. The pres. participles ἀγαθοποιῶν. 
 κακοποιῶν denote continuance in and 
 practice of good or bad. See note on 
 I John iii. 6. ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, “a child of 
 God” (cf. τ John iii. 10). Observe the 
 gentleness of the Apostle: the natural 
 antithesis of ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ would be ἐκ 
 τοῦ ϑιαβόλου (1 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 
 teason 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 9, 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 τ Johni. 3. οἶδας 
 ὅτι, κιτιλ. : 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; γρά- 
 φειν, pres. of the process of putting it on 
 paper. κάλαμος (in full κάλαμος ypa- 
 devs), a reed-pen, as distinguished from 
 γραφεῖον, a sharp-pointed sti/us for writ- 
 ing on waxed tablets. Plutarch (Dem., 
 29, 3) Says that Demosthenes, when 
 meditating and writing, was accustomed 
 to bite his κάλαμος. 
 
 Ver. 15. εἰρήνη σοι, pax tibi, the 
 
 Jewish ‘greeting, ὮΝ Ὁ 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: ἀσπάζομαι “AAkny, τὸ 
 παθητόν μοι ὄνομα, καὶ Δάφνον, τὸν 
 ἀσύγκριτον καὶ εὔτεκνον, καὶ πάντας 
 κατ᾽ 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. 
 
212 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. j 
 
 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 ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει . . . ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τη- 
 ρήσατε. The phrase σπουδὴν πᾶσαν οὗ 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 in ex- 
 ceeding joy”. 
 
 P, 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 | 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, “1 desire to put you in remembrance, 
 though ye know all things,” 1.6., 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 iii. 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.) ΡΟ. adds the Pauline epithet dyopdcavta 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 ot 
 πάλαι mpoyeypappevor εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα (where the reference in τοῦτο is 
 obscure), P. has the fine phrase οἷς τὸ κρίμα οὐκ ἀργεῖ καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια 
 αὐτῶν οὐ νυστάζει. On the other hand we lose J.’s τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτα 
 μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, for which perhaps ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς émayyeh- 
 λόμενοι, αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς (P. ii. 19) was intended as 
 an equivalent, cf. Gal. v. 18, ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε: μόνον μὴ τὴν’ 
 ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί. 
 
 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 P. 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 κιτιλ. 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- 
 geance 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) εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι, τοῦτ᾽ 
 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 Ρ. (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. v. 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 J.’s description of the men of 
 Sodom, who went ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (for which he substitutes ὀπίσω 
 σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους) with J.’s 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 (τολμηταί, 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 dca 
 φυσικῶς ἐπίστανται, ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται by the periphrasis γεγεννημένα 
 φυσικὰ εἰς 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. 
 
 31 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,” 1.6., among the 
 brutes ? 
 
 We have now to consider the very curious verse interposed be- 
 tween J. vv. 8 and 10, P. 11. 10 and 12. In J. 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, | 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 μείζονες. In fact 
 the sentence is meaningless except to one who was already ac- 
 quainted with its parallelin 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 11. 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 ἀπάταις. J. speaks of dydmats 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—dydmy ? In my edition of 2 P., p. cxcv., 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 ἀπάτη 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 dvudpo 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, οἷς ὁ 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 
 P. in order to form the splendid cluster of figures in vv. 12, 13? 
 
 - We have still to consider the insertion in P. (ii. 13), ἀδικούμενοι μισθὸν 
 ἀδικίας, which commences the loose series of participles ending in ii. 
 15. Ifthe participle is omitted, this phrase recalls J. ver. 11, τῇ πλάνῃ 
 τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν, and is repeated again in 11. 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 εἰς 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 yap ἀποφυγόντες TA μιάσματα Tod κόσμου ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ κυρίου 
 καὶ σωτῆρος ἸΙησοῦ Χριστοῦ, words which recall what he had said ini. 4, 
 ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς, . . . διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως 
 
 ες τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ 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 1 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-τιλ., 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 iii. 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 ἧς 
 σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν. . . προφῆται ot περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος 
 προφητεύσαντες . . . οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς, ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν 
 αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς 
 πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (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 προγεγραμμένοι εἰς 
 τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα (though no doubt the immediate reference there is to 
 the prophecy of Enoch) and of P. it. 3, οἷς 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 iti. 4, P., omitting J..s somewhat obscure ver. 19, οὗτοί εἰσιν ot 
 ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες, oes 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 ἀφ᾽ ἧς 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); (Ὁ) 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 iti. 10 
 
 1 Reading δι᾽ ὅν, 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. ver. 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. iii. 12 and προσ- 
 δοκῶμεν of iii, 13, and again in iii. 14, while the goal eis ζωὴν αἰώνιον may 
 be compared with eis 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 éomdo- 
 “μένον in ver. 23. ἐν εἰρήνῃ 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, 
 P. 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 iii. 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 is able to keep His people free from stumbling 
 (cf. P. i. 10) and present them before His glory in exceeding joy” 
 (cf. P. i. 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, ii. 14, ili, 16). J.’s 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 
 Ξὰ ae 
 
220 INTRODUCTION 
 
 we may compare χάρις πληθυνθείη in i. 2 and ταῦτα πλεονάζοντα in 1. 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 ἀμήν, 
 which is omitted in P. by W.H. after Cod. B. Cf. A. J. Wilson, 
 Ὁ. 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. wv. 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. 1. 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. 1. 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. 14, “beware lest ye fall from your 
 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 B. 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. Fude 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 E7nleitung in das N.T., ed. 3, 1906, have 
 no hesitation in maintaining the priority and authenticity of 2P. | 
 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 
 ot πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα... 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 to P. tii. 2, 8 μνησθῆναι τῶν προει- 
 ρημένων 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 
 tarlier part of this chapter, forces itself 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, ii. 2 ἐξακολουθήσουσιν, 
 βλασφημηθήσεται, ii. ὃ 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. If on 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 
 τάλαι 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 iti. 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 11. 10 τρέμουσιν, 11. 17 εἰσίν, 11. 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 οἱ. 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 find in J. P. is more 
 reflective, J. more spontaneous. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Epistle of fude, 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 Ἰακώβου, Lk. 
 vi. 16, Acts i. 13) and Thaddaeus (Mt. ix. 3, Mk. iii. 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 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου. 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) Ἰησοῦ Xpiotod. 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 Ἰάκωβος καὶ ᾿Ιωσῆς καὶ Σίμων καὶ “loddas, and last but one 
 in Mk. vi. 8 ἀδελφὸς δὲ ᾿Ιακώβου καὶ ᾿Ιωσῆ καὶ ἸΙούδα 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., iti., 22, iv., 22, 
 ' quoted in my edition of James pp. viii foll.), and is said to have been 
 crucified a.p. 107 at the age of 1201 (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 ὧν 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 
 soming, 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 vv. 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.) 1 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 1 further illustrated the quality of vividness by “the 
 frequent reference to examples such as 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. 1-ν. 6. For noble and weighty expression we 
 may compare vv. 20, 21, ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί, ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς TH 
 
INTRODUCTION 229 
 
 ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι, ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
 Θεοῦ τηρήσατε, προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς 
 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, v. 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 vv. 22, 23. 
 
 For special details of the style of St. Jude see my larger edition, 
 pp. xxvi-Ixvi: one point which may be noticed here is his fondness for 
 triplets. Thus in ver. 2 we find ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη kal ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη. In 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 ver. 4 “the men who were designed for this judgment ” are described 
 as ἀσεβεῖς, Thy’ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, τὸν μόνον 
 1 2 
 
 δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι. In vv. 3-7 three examples of punishment are ad- 
 3 
 
 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: Goa 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 édddyoar. | 
 In ver. 16 we return to the triplet πορευόμενοι---λαλοῦντες (disguised in 
 the form καὶ τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα)---θαυμάζοντες. 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---᾿Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. Ver. 
 22 has the marked triplet ots μὲν---οὖς δὲ---οὖς 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 νῦν, 
 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 
 πειράζξεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας .---εἶτα i ἐπιθυμία τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, ἡ δὲ 
 ἁμαρτία ἀποκύει θάνατον, ver. 19 ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, 
 βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν, ii. 28 ἐπίστευσεν ᾿Αβραὰμ τῷ Θεῷ, 
 καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, καὶ φίλος Θεοῦ ἐκλήθη, iii. 6, ἡ γλῶσσα 
 VOL. V. 15 
 
230 INTRODUCTION 
 
 ἡ σπιλοῦσα, καὶ φλογίζουσα---καὶ φλογιζομένη, iv.. 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, ἀδιάκριτος, 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 in i. 3, 4, τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς 
 πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν, ἣ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε 
 τέλειοι. 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 ἄλογα Lda ἐπίστανται, ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται. ΑΒ 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. ὃ 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. Peter and 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, δίψυχοι: ταλαιπωρήσατε, Suggest a connexion 
 with an apocryphal writing quoted in Clem. Rom. i. 23 ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη, 
 ὅπσυ λέγει Ταλαίπωροί εἰσιν οἱ Sipuxou! and identified by Lightfoot and 
 Spitta with Eldad and Modad (on which see Herm., Vis., ii., 3), by 
 Hilgenfeld with the Assumption of Moses. The phrase in iv. 14, 
 ἀτμὶς γάρ 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 iii. 6 is 
 found in Enoch xlviii. 7. The Testaments of the Pairiarchs, which 
 also coniain quotations from Enoch (such as Sim. 5 ἑώρακα ἐν xapa- 
 κτῆρι γραφῆς Ἐνώχ, Levi 10 βίβλος Ἐνὼχ τοῦ δικαίου, ἐδ. 14, ἔγνων ἀπὸ 
 γραφῆς ᾿Ενὼχ ὅτι ἐπὶ τέλει ἀσεβήσετε, 7b. 16, Fuda 18, Benj. 9, Zab. 8, 
 Nepht. 4. ἐν γραφῇ ἁγίᾳ ᾿Ενὼχ ὅτι... ποιήσετε κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνομίαν 
 Σοδόμων), furnish several parallels quoted in my note on James iv. 7 
 ἀντίστητε TH διαβόλῳ Kal φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν. The words which im- 
 mediately precede (ἐγγίσατε τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐγγίσει ὑμῖν) are not unlike 
 another quotation which occurs in Herm. Vis. ii. 3, ἐγγὺς Θεὸς τοῖς 
 ἐπιστρεφομένοις, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἐλδὰτ 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 δηλήτορες 2 «οὗτοι» ἀβούλων, 
 τῶν δὴ κἀκ στόματος χεῖται θανατηφόρος ἰός. 
 
 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. δολοητορες. Gefficken reads δόλῳ 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. 8. 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 ἢ 
 
 The Epistle of Jude was recognised as canonical in the Third 
 Council of Carthage, a.p. 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. iil. iv.), mentions that, 
 owing to the use made of the apocryphal Enoch, the epistle of Jude a 
 plerisque reicitur. So Eusebius H.E. ii. 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 (4. 386 a.p.) acknowledged both Jude and 2 P. In Asia 
 Minor both Jude and 2 P. were recognised as canonical by Grégory 
 Naz. (d. c. 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, et 
 δὲ καὶ τὴν ᾿Ιούδα πρόσοιτό τις ἐπιστολήν. Clement of Alexandria com- 
 mented on Jude in his Hypotyposes (Eus. H.E. vi. 14)—the comment 
 is still extant in the Latin translation—and quotes him by name (Paed. 
 iii. 44, 45) with commendation, διδασκαλικώτατα ἐκτίθεται τὰς εἰκόνας τῶν 
 κρινομένων. He quotes him again Strom. iti. 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 (c. 170 a.p.), “ 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 35 
 
 Jude ver. 6, ἀγγέλους τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν. (Of the 
 angels some) ἔμειναν ἐφ᾽ οἷς αὐτοὺς ἐποίησεν καὶ διέταξεν ὁ Θεός, οἱ δὲ 
 ἐνύβρισαν καὶ τῇ τῆς οὐσίας ὑποστάσει καὶ τῇ ἀρχῇ, 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 kat 
 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, οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ obs μὲν ἐλέγξεις, περὶ 
 δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, οὗς 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 TH ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει, AS contrasted with 
 such passages as Luke iv. 21 σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἧ 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 $ude.—Clement of Alexandria in 
 his Adumbrationes (Dind. vol. iii. p. 483), after quoting Jude 9, 
 “Quando Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans altercabatur de 
 corpore Moysis,” remarks “hic confirmat Assumptionem Moysis,” 1.e., 
 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 a.v. 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 
 
 1Qn which see Schiirer, Hist. of $ewish 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 (Jdol. xv., 
 A pol. xxii.). He allows that its canonicity was denied by some, “quia 
 nec in 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 tats ἐκκλησίαις οὐ 
 πάνυ φέρεται ὡς θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ ᾿Ενὼχ βιβλία, and In Fohannem, 
 vi. 25, ὡς ἐν τῷ Ἐνὼχ γέγραπται, εἴ τῳ φίλον παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἅγιον τὸ 
 βιβλίον, also In Num. Hom. xxviii. 2, De Ῥγίπο. 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. Dei, 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.1 “The former was 
 written in Hebrew between 7 and 29 a.p., and possibly also the 
 latter. A Greek version of the entire work appeared in the first cen- 
 tury a.p. 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. 92 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: ὁ διάβολος ἀντεῖχεν 
 θέλων ἀπατῆσαι, λέγων ὅτι Ἐμόν ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα, ὡς τῆς ὕλης δεσπόζων " καὶ 
 ἤκουσεν τὸ Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος, τούτεστιν ὁ Κύριος ὁ πάντων τῶν πνευμάτων 
 
236 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Assumption, Jude 16 from the Testament (p. Ixii.). On the latter 
 Charles compares οὗτοί εἰσι 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. M. vii. 3, and calls attention to the frequent recurrence of the 
 word ἀσεβεῖς in the former (vv. 4, 15, 18) and zmpiz in the latter: see 
 vi. 1, facient facientes impietatem, vii. 3, pestilentiosi et impii, 7b. 7, ix. 3, 
 xi, 17; 
 
 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, ἥτις ἐνήλλαξεν τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῆς. Ὁμοίως καὶ 
 ᾿Εγρήγορες ἐνήλλαξαν τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῶν, ols κατηράσατο Κύριος ἐπὶ τοῦ 
 κατακλυσμοῦ, Test. Aser 7, μὴ γίνεσθε ὡς Σόδομα ἥτις ἢγνόησε 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. Dez, xv. 
 23, 4): ‘“Scripsisse quidem nonnulla divina Enoch illum septimum ab 
 
 δεσπόζων - ἄλλοι δέ, ὅτι βουλόμενος ὁ 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 ταφῆς  ἐβλασφήμει 
 γὰρ καὶ ὁ διάβολος κατὰ Μωσέως, φονέα τοῦτον καλῶν διὰ τὸ πατάξαι τὸν Αἰγύπ- 
 τιον" ὁ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, μὴ ἐνεγκὼν τὴν αὐτοῦ βλασφημίαν, εἴρηκεν αὐτῷ 
 ὅτι Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός, διάβολε. ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι ἐψεύσατο ὁ Θεὸς 
 εἰσαγαγὼν τὸν Μωσῆν ἔνθα ὥμοσεν αὐτὸν μὴ εἰσελθεῖν. 
 τ Αη edition has lately been brought out by Charles. 
 
INTRODUCTION 237 
 
 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 mpoyeypappevor, implying that he refers to a 
 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. ili. 19, cf. Heb. 11. 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 (v. 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. 11.4-9 
 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; (3) 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 ἤρξαντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ 
 τῆς γῆς καὶ θυγατέρες ἐγεννήθησαν αὐτοῖς, ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαὶ εἰσὶν ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ. 
 πασῶν ὧν ἐξελέξαντο. . . οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις. 
 ἐκείναις, καὶ μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς. 
 θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐγέννωσαν ἑαυτοῖς, ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες οἱ. 
 ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος, οἱ 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, ii. 1, xxviii. 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 “δὴ 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, ‘Eypyyopo 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 : 
 of. Viii., of 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 
 xviii. 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 ὁ δράκων ὁ 
 μέγας, ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὁ καλούμενος Διάβολος καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς, ὁ πλανῶν τὴν 
 οἰκουμένην ὅλην---ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ 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 pou τὰ ἁγνὰ τῆς παρθενίας λυμεὼν ἀπάτης ὄφις. 
 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’. 
 
 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. 50 
 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. 
 
 3See Tennant, pp. 199, 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, v7z., 
 that ‘‘the sons of God were the descendants of Seth, and the daughters 
 of men descendants of Cain’’.! See the quotation in Routh, Rel. Sacr. 
 ii. p. 241, where he also gives the alternative explanation εἰ δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἀγγέλων 
 VOOLTO τοῦτο, τοὺς περὶ μαγείας καὶ γοητείας . . . ἐσχολακότας συνιέναι χρὴ 
 τῶν μετεώρων ταῖς γυναιξὶ τὴν γνῶσιν δεδωκέναι. Eusebius (Pr. Ev. ν. 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 ... naturae 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. Dez, 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.!. 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 ’’.? 
 
 1 Tennant, 20, 21, 41. 
 
 3 For further information on this subject see Suicer’s Thesaurus under ἄγγελος, 
 and *Eyprjyopos, Hasting’s ἢ. 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 syv? and syr*. In citing the Egyptian 
 versions 1 have used the notation Boh., now commonly employed, 
 instead of the less distinctive Copi., 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 I 
 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 ὕμᾶς 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 Μ ΚΙ, 31 sytt., 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 ἢ and all the MSS. of 2 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 λαὸν. (Syrr.) Arm. 
 Ante ἐκ γῆς Aiy. Clem. 280 (and 997) Did. Cassiod. ὅτι κύριος σώσας τὸν λαὸν 
 ἐκ γῆς Aiy. ἅπαξ Sah., ὅτι ἅπαξ κύριος σώσας λαὸν αὐτοῦ Boh. Om. ἅπαϑ Lucif. 
 28. [ἅπαξ is so placed in Syrr. as to be connected with σώσας “when he had once 
 saved them,” G.] 
 
 παντα ABCN 13 Vulg. Syrh. Boh. Arm. Aeth. Lucif. [In the Afp. to 
 WH (Sel. Readings, p. 106) it is suggested that this may be a primitive error for 
 πάντας (cf. τ John ii. 20) found in Syr 1], τοῦτο 31 KL. Sah. 
 
 ὅτι] add. ὃ C.2 KL. 31. Arm. Clem. 280. Om. ABN 13. 
 
 κύριος] SNCKL. Syrh. Θεὸς Ο.3 Tol. SyrP Arm. Clem. Lucif. Ἰησοῦς 
 AB 13 Vulg. Boh. Sah. Aeth. [In App. to WH. (Sel. Readings, p. 106) it is 
 suggested that there may have been some primitive error, ‘‘apparently OTIKC 
 (ὅτι Κύριος), and OTIIC (ὅτι᾽ Ιησους) for OTIO (ὅτι ὃ) ”.] 
 
 γῆς] om. Syr?. 
 
 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 ὃ (λαὸν σώσας), I think the fact of the variants is better explained 
 by Spitta, who considers that the abbreviations I€, KC, ΘΕ might 
 easily be confused, if the first letter was faintly written, and that 
 
 1“ This is an error: the two best MSS. of 2 represent πάντα." ἃ. 
 
INTRODUCTION 24) 
 
 the mention of τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ Κύριον “I. Χ. in the preceding 
 verse would naturally lead a later copyist to prefer iC, a supposition 
 which is confirmed by Cramer’s Catena, Ὁ. 158, εἴρηται yap mpd τούτων 
 περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὡς εἴη ἀληθινὸς θεὸς οὗτος ὁ μόνος δεσπότης ὁ κύριος ‘I. X., ὁ 
 ἀναγαγὼν τὸν λαὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωσέως. Spitta himself however 
 holds that ΘΕ is the true reading, as it agrees with the corresponding 
 passage in 2 Peter ii. 4, ὁ Θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, 
 and with Clement’s paraphrase (Adumbr. 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 yap κύριος Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐξ 
 Αἰγύπτου σώσας κ.ιτιλ.; Jérome, C. Fov. 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 [οἱ] ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι 
 ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες. The article here is omitted by WK 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 . . . omAdBes), 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 εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοὶ πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες. 
 
 ἀποδιορίζοντες add. ἑαυτούς C vulg. syrr. Om, SABKL 13, etc. 
 
 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 ψυχικοί in inverted commas, as the utterance of the innovators 
 (and should we not then have expected the contrast ψυχικοί, mveupa- 
 τικοί ἢ), 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 :-— 
 
 υχικοὺς ὑμᾶς (Or τοὺς πιστοὺς) λέγοντες, ὄντες αὐτοὶ 
 Χ S Up Y ? 
 
 ψυχικοὶ πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες. 
 
 The opposition of 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, μωρία 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 Free 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 oniy 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 ots μὲν ἐλέγχετε 
 διακρινομένους, ols δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, ols δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, 
 μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα. (Text of WH. and 
 
INTRODUCTION 249 
 
 B. Weiss) καὶ οὖς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, 
 οὗς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ 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, Ὁ. 107). 
 
 22 ἐλέγχετε AC 13. Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth. (Eph. Theophy]l. Oec. Comm. Cassiod.). 
 ἐλεᾶτε SYBC? Syrh. ἐλεεῖτε KLP (Theophyl. Oec. ἐχέ.), ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζετε 
 (hic) Syrp. Clem. 773. 
 
 διακρινομένους ABCN. 13. Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Clem. 773, διακρινόμενοι 
 KLP +. 
 
 23. ovs δὲ (1st) NACKLP 13 Vulg. Syrh. Boh. Arm. Om. B., δὲ Syrp. Clem 
 oolere SABC 13 Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., ἐν φόβῳ σώζετε KLP +, ἐλεεῖτε 
 
 Clem. 773 (quoted below), ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ Syrp. ἐκ πυρὸς NABCKLP 
 13 Arm., ἐκ τοῦ 7. Boh. Om. σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες SyrP. 
 
 ἁρπάζοντες ots 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 timore. Αὐτὸ. 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 igne. 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 
 miseremini 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 ots μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, ols δὲ σώζετε ἐκ τοῦ 
 πυρός (al. om. τοῦ), ots δὲ ἐλεᾶτε (al. φέρετε) ἐν φόβῳ. Commentaries of 
 Theophylact and Oecumenius, κἀκείνους δέ, εἰ μὲν ἀποδιΐστανται ὑμῶν---- 
 τοῦτο γὰρ σημαίνει τὸ διακρίνεσθαι---ἐλέγχετε, τουτέστι φανεροῦτε τοῖς πᾶσι 
 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, ods μὲν ἐλέγχετε 
 διακρινομένους, ols δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, ols δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, 
 
 and $, ols μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους, ols δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, οὗς 
 
250 INTRODUCTION 
 
 δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ. We should draw the same conclusion from the 
 seeming quotation in Can. Apost. vi. 4 (οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, 
 ἀλλὰ) obs μὲν ἐλέγξεις, ods δὲ ἐλεήσεις, περὶ ὧν δὲ προσεύξῃ (ots δὲ ἀγαπή- 
 σεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου), which occurs also, with the omission of the 
 cause ols 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, 
 misevemini super eis in timore, representing καὶ ods μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς 
 ἁρπάζετε, διακρινομένους δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ. Syrh. et hos quidem misere- 
 mini resipiscentes, hos autem servate de igne rapientes in timore, 
 representing καὶ ols μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους, obs δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς 
 ἁρπάζοντες ἐν φόβῳ. Clem. (Adumbr.) quosdam autem salvate de igne 
 rapientes, quibusdam vero miseremini in timore,) representing ots δὲ 
 σώΐετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, ols δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ. Clem. Stvom. vi. 773, 
 καὶ oUs μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάΐζετε, 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 ots μὲν 
 ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, ols δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, Of 
 C, καὶ οὗς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, ols δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες 
 ἐν φόβῳ, and of KLP, καὶ ods μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινόμενοι, οὖς δὲ ἐν φόβῳ 
 σώΐετε 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 ὃ c, we find B 
 complete in a and c, but confused as to 6. As it stands, it gives an 
 impossible reading; since it requires ois μέν to be taken as the rela- 
 tive, introducing the subordinate verb ἐλεᾶτε, depending on the prin- 
 cipal verb odfete ; while ods 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 οὕς omitted in error after διακρινομένους. The latter phenomenon 
 is exemplified in the readings of Syrp. and Clem. Str. 773. The 
 texts of C and KLP are complete in a and ὦ, but insert a phrase 
 from cin b. The most natural explanation here seems to be that 
 the duplication of ἐλεᾶτε in a and ὁ (as in &) 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, spiritus concupiscentiis pollutus 
 carnalibus. 
 
INTRODUCTION 251 
 
 the second ἐλεᾶτε, and therefore of the second ofs 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 (App. 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 ὁ 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. 
 
At a) tl rf bats ἡ 
 ΤΗΝ mee ΤῸΝ (Ὁ ἮΝ Aah 
 “ἣν PAGS: stat “ae δ) vay 
 cH LP Sete, μ ale NU 
 a ati ree | et) Oe tied alae Ui. 
 ἐπῆν Μὴ ἅν ni Om ἡ ἥἡ τὰ ὙΠ is Hen 
 pani τὴν ia HS ἐν si ie 
 
 ip a es 
 
 (Vis δὶ 
 
 Uhh ae ὧς 4 ise t 
 yen chi itt ᾿ 
 ‘ei δε δ ab hae ὃ 
 “ἀπ νι aaa ᾿ 
 ἵν id 
 
 ta vant Cu Be 
 
 o en) 
 ' ni Τ᾿ A bs yf 
 
 ἢ ΠΡ ΝΝ Ka 
 "δ. 4 ᾿ 
 , we) Μ᾿ fis, 
 ΠῚ πω ΓΝ 
 ' 's apa 
 ia Ὁ. th sine 
 be ane ᾿ μαι TOUT ae (he eth gin ‘tbe nt hah 
 ua f Oat Se ia) ΤΡ 
 : i ΠΝ" ; “ΜᾺ ἢ ἣ Wy ue 
 petal Hi, it ET UE ΜΗΝῚ τὰ ᾿ ' 
 ' ἤν ὙΠ ΜΝ ane 1M WAMU ED | δ if 
 ἡ if ἀνα: five Py: Vy ee ἊΨ 1 η ͵ 
 
 baie γα ae } 
 ala ἐπ YEP RED an cane 
 
 Hit, ἮΝ ΠΝ γά. 
 y int | aN hati y 
 
 ἼΩ 
 
 
 
IOYAA 
 
 ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ. 
 
 I. ἼΟΥΔΑΣ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, ἀδελφὸς δὲ ᾿Ιακώβου, τοῖς ' ἐν 
 
 l τοις θεῳ -. « και εν ἰησου 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 I. 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, 
 δοῦλος Θεοῦ, ἀπόστολος δὲ “Il. X. See 
 Introduction on the Author. 
 
 τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις καὶ 
 Ἰησοῦ 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. 
 Ἴ. There is no precise parallel either for 
 ἐν Θεῷ ἦγ. or for Χριστῷ ter. The pre- 
 position év 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 ναοῖς 
 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,”? z.¢., “" be- 
 loved with φιλαδελφία as children’ of 
 God,” but I think that Hort is right in 
 considering that év 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 
 Ἰησοῦ, 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. 
 xili. 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 μετ᾽ 
 αὐτοῦ κλητοὶ κ. ἐκλεκτοὶ κ. πιστοί, in 
 St. Paul’s epistles, as in Rom. i. 6, ἐν οἷς 
 ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς, κλητοὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, I 
 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. τ 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 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ETTSTOAH 
 
 I_— 
 
 Θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις 1 καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις κλητοῖς. 
 
 2. ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη. 
 3. ᾿Αγαπητοί, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς. 
 
 ᾿ ἡγαπημενοις ABW; ἡγιασμενοις 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. xlviii. 12, xliii. 
 I, 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, TO καλὸν 
 ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, and 1 Pet. 
 ii. Q, ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον 
 ἱεράτευμα... λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν. 
 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 χαίρειν, 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 τ 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. τ Thess. iil. 
 12, ὑμᾶς δὲ ὁ κύριος πλεονάσαι καὶ πε- 
 ρισσεύσαι τῇ ἀγάπῃ εἰς ἀλλήλους. 
 ᾿Αγάπη (=the love of God) occurs also 
 in the final salutation of 2 Cor. ἣ 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. τ John iii. 1, ἴδετε 
 ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ 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. xili, ro). 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, 
 19.” The same salutation is used in 
 the letter of the Smyrnaeans (c. 156 A.D.) 
 giving an account of the martyrdom of 
 Polycarp, ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη 
 Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿ἸἸ. 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 8 
 special danger* threatening the Gospel _ 
 once for alldeliveredtothe 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 ἄγαπητοί 
 here. They are themselves ἀγαπητοί 
 because the love of God is shed abroad 
 in their hearts. 
 
 πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος. For 
 πᾶσαν, see my n. on Jamesi. 2, and ¢f. 
 2 Pet. i. 5, σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισενέγ- 
 καντες, i. 15, σπουδάσω ἔχειν ὑμᾶς 
 μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι, also Isocr. Orat. v. p. 
 gi ὦ, πᾶσαν τὴν σπουδὴν περὶ τούτου 
 
 * For this see the Introduction on Early Heresies. 
 
3: ΙΟΥΔΑ ENISTOAH 
 
 255 
 
 κοινῆς ἡμῶν 1 σωτηρίας ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι 3 ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν 
 ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει. 
 
 1 κοινης μων] K. υμων boh.; om. ἡμων KLP + ; σωτηριας] add. και ζωης N. 
 
 ἤγραψαι] γραφειν SX. 
 
 ποιεῖσθαι, Plato, Euthyd. 304 e, 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. I 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 ὀνόματος καὶ ἐλπίδος with Light- 
 foot’s n., Jos. Ant. 10. 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 γράψαι. Cf. Luke 
 xiv. 18, ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἰδεῖν αὐτόν, Heb. 
 Wit.) 27; al., also. Plut. (Cato Mz: 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. “Τὸ contend for the 
 faith,” almost equivalent to the ἀγώνισαι 
 περὶ τὴς ἀληθείας in Sir. iv. 28, see 1 
 
 im. vi. 12, ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα 
 τῆς πίστεως, and εἰς ὃ κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμε- 
 vos, Col. i. 29. We may compare ἐπα- 
 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 ἥν ποτε 
 ἐπόρθει, also Gal. iii. 23, Phil. i. 27, 
 συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει TOU 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 
 ὑμῖν, τ Tim. i τ, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς 
 ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, Tit. ii. 13, προσϑεχόμενοι 
 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 φωτισθέντας, id. 
 ἐπ. 20, 27, x2, 0) Pet. m1. τὸς This ex- 
 cludes the novelties of the Libertines, 
 cf. Gal. 1. 9. The later sense “‘ on one 
 occasion ”’ is found in 2 Cor. xi. 25, ἅπαξ 
 ἐλιθάσθην, τ 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 ἣ ἀληθὴς παράδοσις 
 (Ρ. 845), ἢ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ π. (p. 800), 
 ἡ θεία π. (p. 806), ἣ πάντων τῶν 
 ἀποστόλων π. (p. goo), αἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 a. (p. gor), and even in) the N.T. as in 
 1 Cor. xi. 2, κάθως παρέδωκα ὑμῖν τὰς 
 παραδόσεις κατέχετε, 2 Thess. ii. 15, 
 1 Tim. vi. 20, τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον. 
 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. 6x f. 
 
 τοῖς ἁγίοις. Used generally of Chris- 
 tians who were consecrated and called to 
 be holy, as in 1 Cor. i. 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. 
 
ΙΟΥΔΑ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 4-- 
 
 4. παρεισεδύησαν ἶ γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι 
 
 > A Q , > a x An Ὡς τὺ» hom , , 
 εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα, ἀσεβεῖς, THY τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέν- 
 
 l παρεισεδνησαν Β, 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. παρεισεδύησαν 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, éppvnv. The aor. is here 
 used with the perfect force, as in ver. 11 
 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. Al. p. 
 650, ὅπως εἰς τὴν τῶν αἰνιγμάτων ἔννοιαν 
 ἡ ζήτησις παρεισϑδύουσα ἐπὶ τὴν εὕρεσιν 
 τῆς ἀληθείας ἀναδράμῃ, D. Laert. ii. 142, 
 λαθραίως παρεισδύς εἰς τὴν πατρίδα, 
 Plut. M. p. 216 B, τὰ ἀρχαῖα νόμιμα 
 ἐκλυόμενα ἑώρα, ἄλλα δὲ παρεισδυόμενα 
 μοχθηρά, other examples in Wetst. The 
 noun παρείσδυσις occurs in Barn. ii. 
 το, iv. 9, ἀντιστῶμεν ἵνα μὴ σχῇ 
 παρείσδυσιν ὁ μέλας, Clem. Al. p. 180, 
 ἀκροσφαλὴς ἣ 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 ψευδαδέλφους οἵτινες 
 παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευ- 
 θερίαν ὑμῶν, Rom. ν. 20, 2 Macc. viii. 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 Ep- 
 χονται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ἐνδύμασι προβάτων, 
 ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσι λύκοι ἅρπαγες, cf. Acts 
 xx. 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 ἀργεῖ. 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. 14, 15. In ver. 18 below the same 
 warning is said to have been given by 
 the Apostles. The phrase ot mpoy. is in 
 apposition to τινες ἄνθρωποι, cf. Gal. 
 i. 7 with Lightfoot’s n., Luke xviii. 9, 
 εἶπεν δὲ πρός τινας τοὺς πεποιθότας 
 ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς. For mpoy., cf. Rom. xv. 4, 
 ὅσα yap προεγράφη eis 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,” #.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 poeenam. 
 
 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. 
 
 THY τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετα- 
 τιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν. With this we 
 may compare I 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), 2b. 
 Vi. 1, 15, Vill. 21, 0 ὍΣ, vin be, ΚΣ ἘΣ ΝΣ 
 John viii. 32-36, Gal. v. 13, ὑμεῖς 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, 
 and is further confirmed and explained by ἕβδομος ἀπὸ *Addp in ver. 14. 
 
δὶ | ΙΟΥΔΑ ENISTOAH 
 
 257 
 
 3 3 ‘ Ἀ , ὃ ; 1 ‘ , ey ἴα a“ 
 τες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν Kal τὸν μόνον δεσπότην ἦ καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν 
 
 1 δεσποτην] add. θεον KLP, syrr. +. 
 
 ἐλευθερίαν εἰς 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. 
 v. 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 
 ... of. Polyb. xxxvii. 2, πολλὴ δέ τις 
 ἀσέλγεια καὶ περὶ τὰς σωματικὰς 
 ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῷ συνεξηκολούθει. Thus 
 it has much the same range of meaning 
 as ὕβρις. 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 Kal κύριον ἡμῶν 
 Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. So 2 Peter 
 ii. I, τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην 
 ἀρνούμενοι. On the denial of God and 
 Christ see στ John ii. 22, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ 
 ἀντίχριστος, 6 ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα 
 καὶ τὸν υἱόν, Tit. i. 16, Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν 
 εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται βδελυκ- 
 τοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς πᾶν 
 ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι, Matt. x. 33, 
 ὅστιςἂν ἀρνήσηταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν 
 ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι Kayo αὐτὸν 
 ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου, 7b. 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?” Jb. xli. 2, xlv. 2, 
 xlvi. 7, xlviii. 10: “* 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 ἀρνεῖσθαι 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 μόνος is 
 elsewhere used of the Father only, as in 
 John v. 44, τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ 
 μόνον Θεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε, xvii. 3, ἵνα 
 γινώσκωσίν σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεον 
 Rom. xvi. 27, μόνῳ σόφῳ Θεῷ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ, τ Tim. i. 17, τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν 
 αἰώνων. .. μόνῳ Θεῷ τιμὴ κ. δόξα, 
 1δ. vi. I5, 16, 6 μακάριος κ. μόνος 
 δυνάστης 6 μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, and 
 by Jude himself, below 25, μόνῳ Θεῷ 
 σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ °l. X., rod κυρίου ἡμῶν, 
 δόξα. Wetst. quotes several passages 
 in which Josephus speaks of God as 
 ὃ 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 Kai ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς 
 δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος 
 ἡμῶν Χ. ᾿]. 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 
 κληρονομίαν 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 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ : 
 τ Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1), διαμαρ- 
 τύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ 
 Ἰησοῦ 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 
 
258 
 
 Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 4- oe 
 
 5. Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας 
 
 πάντα, ᾽ dt.” Κύριος ὅ ἅπαξ λαὸν ὁ ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτε- 
 
 vpas παντα ΚΙ, 31 syrr. Clem. Theoph. Oecon.+; vpas απαξ παντα B;. 
 
 απαξ παντα AC? 13 vulg. + Ti. Treg. WH; απαξ παντας 
 
 ὅτι SAB syrh; add. ὁ C?KL syrp. 
 
 H. (Sel. Read. p. 106) 
 
 3 κυριος SCKL syrh; Ιησους AB + ; θεος C* syrp, Clem. 
 4 απαξ Aaov NY, 68, tol., syrr., boh. (ort απαξ Ino. Aaov) sah. arm. Did. Cassiod. 
 Aaov απαξ Clem.; λαον ABCL, Ti., Treg., WH. 
 
 word, as in Tit. i. 16; but it is more 
 naturally taken as explicit, as in 1 John 
 il. 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 TOU πρώτου θεοῦ τὸν 
 κόσμον γεγονέναι ἠθέλησεν ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ 
 δυνάμεώς 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 a land 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 wavra.* Cf. 2 Pet. i. 12, 
 διὸ μελλήσω ὑμᾶς ἀεὶ ὑπομιμνήσκειν 
 καίπερ εἰδότας, 10. i. 13, διεγείρειν ὑμᾶς 
 ἐν ὑπομνήσει, 2b. iii. τ, 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 ὑμῖν ἀπὸ μέρους ὡς ἐπαναμιμνήσκων 
 ὑμᾶς. The word εἰδότας justifies ὕπο- 
 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. 
 
oo.) * 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 259 
 
 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 weread 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 i. 2, “1 heard everything 
 from the angels,” xxv. 2, “1 should like 
 to know about everything,” Secrets of 
 En. xl. 1, 2, “1 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 
 0.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, z.e. 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 
 
 * Cf. Exod. tora, ὃν. τ, 
 
 εἰδότας: ἤδη would have been more 
 suitable. For the opposition to τὼ 
 δεύτερον, cf. Heb. ix. 28, ὃ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ 
 προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν 
 ἁμαρτίας ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας 
 ὀφθήσεται, Theoph. Avtol. ii. 26, ἵνα τὸ 
 μὲν ἅπαξ ἡ πεπληρωμένον ὅτε ἐτέθη, τὸ 
 δὲ δεύτερον μέλλῃ πληροῦσθαι μετὰ τὴν 
 «ον. κρίσιν, 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 év in ver. 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 Td 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 τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαν- 
 τας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν... . εἰς κρίσιν 
 - . . τετήρηκεν.] Cf. Clem. ΑἹ. 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 
 principatum 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 6-1o. ; 
 
 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, 
 650 P. The term ἀρχή is used of the 
 evil angels themselves in Eph. vi. 12. 
 Cf. Enoch xii. 4, of the Watchers (angels) 
 
 V. 21, Vi. Q, Xiv. IE, 12. 
 
260 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 8.5 
 
 ριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον] τετή- 
 ρΉκεν 7. ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, τὸν 
 ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις 2 ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω 
 
 1 ζοφον] add. αγιων ἀγγελων speculum, Luc., cf. Η. (5. R. p. 106) ; 
 Clem. p. 280; add. ‘tin Tartaro constrictos” Orig. 
 
 αγριὼν ayy. 
 
 2 +potrov τουτοις ΦΑΒΟ; tovtots 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 ἧ τοὺς τεταγμένους πάντας 
 ἀριστεύειν ἀνάγκη, αὐτομολῆσαι δὲ πρὸς 
 τὴν ἄνανδρον ἡδονήν. So Just. Μ. Afol. 
 ii. 5, οἱ δ᾽ ἄγγελοι παραβάντες τήνδε τὴν 
 τάξιν γυναικῶν μίξεσιν ἡττήθησαν with 
 Otto’s ἢ. 
 
 ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον. Cf. 
 2 Cor. v. 2, τὸ οἱκ. τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, and 
 the quotation from Enoch in the last 
 n. [For οἰκητήριον, cf. Enoch xv. 7 
 (the message of Enoch to the Watchers) 
 “the spiritual have their dwelling in 
 heaven”, . . ἣ κατοίκησις αὐτῶν ἔσται 
 ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Chase.] 
 
 εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς 
 ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν. Cf. 2 Pet. 
 li. 4 σειροῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας, id. ii. 9, 
 ἀδίκους εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως κολαζομένους 
 τηρεῖν, ἐδ. iil. 7, τηρούμενοι εἰς ἡμέραν 
 κρίσεως. .. τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων, 
 Joel ii. 31, 6 ἥλιος μεταστραφήσεται 
 εἰς σκότος . .. πρὶν ἐλθεῖν τὴν ἡμέραν 
 Κυρίου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐπιφανῆ, Apoc. 
 vi. 17, ἦλθεν H ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς 
 αὐτοῦ, 10. xvi. 14, συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς 
 τὸν πόλεμον τῆς μεγάλης ἡμέρας τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος. Enoch x. 5, 
 ἐπικάλυψον αὐτῷ (Azazel) σκότος, καὶ 
 οἰκησάτω ἐκεῖ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, x. 12, δῆσον 
 αὐτοὺς... μέχρι ἡμέρας κρίσεως 
 αὐτῶν, ἐδ. xxii. 11 (Gr. in Charles’ Aff. 
 C) μέχρι τῆς μεγάλης ἡμέρας τῆς κρί- 
 σεως, 7b. liv. 6, note onxly.1. 80 ἡμέρα 
 τοῦ κυρίου τ Cor. i. 8, 2 Pet. iii. 10 al., 
 ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα 2 Th. i. το. 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. 
 
 ἀϊδίοις. The chains are called “ever- 
 lasting,” but they are only used for a 
 temporary purpose, to keep them for the 
 final judgment. It seems te 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 ἀϊδίου, and Rom. 
 i. 20, ἣ ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης. 
 
 Ver. 7. ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ 
 αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις. The 3rd εχ- 
 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 éy- 
 γέλους τε... .@s Σόδομα. Cf. 2 Pet. 11. 
 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 Ta νοσσία, ‘2 Macc. xv. 39, ὃν 
 τρόπον οἶνος... ἀποτελεῖ, οὕτω καὶ, 
 Luc. Catal. 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 ᾿Ἐγρήγορες ἐνήλλαξαν 
 τάξιν φύσεως αὐτῶν, οὺς κατηράσατο 
 Κύριος. Others understand τούτοῖϊς 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, (uy 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. ΙΟΥΔΑ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 261 
 
 a > » ό ὃ »" Ν 3 , δί ε έ 
 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, τ 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. 10, xxi. 8. 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 Πενταπόλεως) ἧς ἔτι 
 μαρτύριον τῆς πονηρίας καπνιζομένη 
 καθέστηκε χέρσος, Philo (De Abr. Μ. ii. 
 xxi.), μέχρι νῦν καίεται. TO yap Kepav- 
 νιον πῦρ 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. Μ. ii. p. 143. Some disallow this 
 sense of αἰώνιος and think that it can 
 only be used of hell-fire, as in 4 Mace. 
 ΧΙ, 12 (the words of the martyr contrast- 
 ing the fires of present torture with the 
 eternal flames awaiting the persecutor), 
 ταμιεύεταί σε ἣ θεία δίκη πυκνοτέρῳ καὶ 
 αἰωνίῳ πυρί, καὶ βάσανοι εἰς ὅλον τὸν 
 αἰῶνα οὐκ ἀνήσουσί oe. 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. 10 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. 
 I, 8, 2, Macc. iv. 48) a somewhat otiose 
 appendage. In the 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 
 
 VOLES V. 
 
 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. 10 in connexion with 
 the words οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ εἰδότες (see 
 ver. τὸ 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. 10: 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 
 ἀεὶ τοῖς καθεύδουσιν ἐνυπνιάζειν, ἀλλ΄ 
 οὐ μνημονεύουσιν ; Probl. 30, 14, 2, οἱ ἐν 
 τῷ καθεύδειν ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι ἱσταμένης 
 τῆς διανοίας, καὶ καθ᾽ ὅσον ἠρεμεῖ, 
 ὀνειρώττουσιν, cf. Artem. Oneir, i. 1. 
 Some interpret of polluting dreams (cf. 
 Ley. 15); but the word ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι 
 is evidently intended to have a larger 
 scope, covering not merely μιαίνουσιν 
 but ἀθετοῦσιν and βλασφημοῦσιν. We 
 must also interpret μιαίνω here by the 
 ἀσέλγειαν of ver. 4, the ἐκπορνεύσασαι 
 and σαρκὸς ἑτέρας of ver. 7. This 
 wide sense appears in Tit. i. 15, τοῖς 
 
 17 
 
202 ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ a 
 κυριότηταΐ δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. 9. ‘O δὲ 
 1 κυριοτήητα]--τητας δᾷ Orig. 
 
 μεμιασμένοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ mentioned offenders. For the former 
 μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ % we may refer to ver. 4, Tov κύριον ἡμῶν 
 συνείδησις. ἀρνούμενοι, for the latter to the contempt 
 κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ shown by the Israelites towards the com- 
 βλασφημοῦσιν. 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, as yoyyvorat uttering 
 hard speeches against God. When we 
 examine however the use of the word 
 ‘KupioTns 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 
 βλασφημοῦσιν, we seem to require a 
 more pointed and definite meaning, not 
 simply “majesty,” but ‘‘the divine 
 majesty,’ not simply ‘ dignities,”’ but 
 “the angelic orders”. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 
 to, Eph. i. 21 (having raised him from 
 the dead and set him on his right hand) 
 ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς Kal 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 εἴτε 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. τ 
 (honour him who speaks the word of 
 God), ‘6s κύριον, ὅθεν yap ἣ κυριότης 
 λαλεῖται, ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν, Herm. Sim, 
 v. 6, 1, εἰς δούλου τρόπον οὐ κεῖται ὃ 
 υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ 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. τὰ. 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 γίνεσθε ὡς Σόδομα ἥτις 
 ἠγνόησε τοὺς ἀγγέλους Κυρίου καὶ 
 ἀπώλετο ἕως αἰῶνος. 
 
 δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν. Cf. 2 Pet. 
 11, το, τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις δόξας οὐ τρέ- 
 μουσιν βλασφημοῦντες. The only other 
 passage in the N.T. in which the plural 
 occurs is 1 Peter i. 11, where the sense 
 is different. Dr. Bigg compares Exod. 
 XV. II, Tis ὅμοιός σοι ἐν θεοῖς, Κύριε: 
 τίς ὁμοιός 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. fud. 
 25, Κύριος εὐλόγησε τὸν Λευί, 6 ἄγγελος 
 τοῦ προσώπου ἐμέ, αἱ 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 ot the holy. 
 angels"’.* Ewald, Hist. Isr. tr. vol. 
 viii. p. 142, explains ἣ κυριότης of the 
 true Deity, whom they practically deny 
 
 * There is much said of the glory of the angels in Asc. Isaiae, pp. 47, 49 ὦ 
 
 «ἃ. Charles. 
 
9. [ΙΟΥΔΑ ENMIZTOAH 
 
 263 
 
 Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, Ste! τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόμενος διελέγετο 
 περὶ τοῦ Μωυσέως σώματος, οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασ- 
 
 19 δε Μιχαηλ... «οτε ACKL, δ᾿ ; οτε Μιχ. .-. Tore Β. 
 
 by their dual God; αἱ 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, ϑιὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἣ 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. 9. ὃ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος. 
 ‘The term apy. occurs in the N.T. only 
 here and in r 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 ὄρει Μωυσέως, ὁ 
 Μιχαὴλ ἀποστέλλεται μεταθήσων τὸ 
 σῶμα, εἶτα τοῦ διαβόλου κατὰ τοῦ 
 Μωυσέως βλασφημοῦντος καὶ φονέα 
 ἀναγορεύοντος διὰ τὸ πατάξαι τὸν 
 Αἰγύπτιον, οὐκ ἐνεγκὼν τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
 βλασφημίαν ὁ ἄγγελος, ᾿Επιτιμήσαι σοι 
 ὃ 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 to 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’. (δ) 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- 
 γος. γέγραφε δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς 
 βίβλοις τεθνεῶτα, δείσας μὴ Sv 
 ὑπερβολὴν τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν ἀρετῆς πρὸς 
 τὸ θεῖον αὐτὸν ἀναχωρῆσαι τολμήσωσιν 
 εἰπεῖν, Philo i. p. 165, and Clem, Al. 
 (Str. 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. ἔ 
 ιακρινόμενος. Here used in the 
 
 sense of ‘‘ disputing,” as in Jer. xv. Io, 
 ἄνδρα διακρινόμενον πάσῃ TH γῇ», 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, Tis 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 pracpov. For ἐπεν- 
 eyketv see Plat. Legg. ix. 856 προ- 
 δόσεως αἰτίαν ἐπιφέρων, 7b. 943, TLLwpiav 
 ἔπιφ. The word occurs elsewhere in 
 N.T. only in Rom. iii. 5. Field (On 
 Translation of N.T. p. 244) compares 
 Acts xxv. 18 ot κατήγοροι οὐδεμίαν 
 αἰτίαν ἔφερον ὧν ἐγὼ ὑπενόουν, Diod. 
 xvi. 29, δίκην ἐπήνεγκαν κατὰ τῶν 
 Σπαρτιατῶν, 7b. xx. 10, κρίσεις ἀδίκους 
 ἐπιφέροντες, χχ. 62, φοβηθεὶς τὰς ἐπι- 
 φερομένας κρίσεις, tom. x. p. 171 ed. 
 Bip. ἐπήνεγκαν κρίσιν περὶ ὕβρεως, and 
 
204 
 
 φημίας, ἀλλὰ εἶπεν ᾿Επιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος. το. Οὗτοι δὲ 
 μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν. βλασφημοῦσιν, ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα 
 
 , 
 ἐπίστανται, ἐν τούτοις φϑείρονται. 
 
 IOYAA ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 = 
 
 « 
 οσα. 
 to 
 
 TAs ΟῚ 53 ~ eo ~ ε 
 11. οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τῇ ὁδ 
 
 2 
 
 «80 
 
 1 κυριος] ὃ 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 οἱ 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 σοὶ, διάβολε, καὶ ἐπιτιμήσαι 
 Κύριος ἐν σοί, 6 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 
 Ἰησοῦς. 
 
 Ver. το. 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 βλασῷφ. 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. 
 1 Cor. ii, 7-16, a passage linked with our 
 epistle by the distinction between the 
 Ψψυχικοί 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. 19, 1 Tim. vi. 4, τετύφωται μηδὲν 
 ἐπιστάμενος. For the form οἴδασιν see 
 my ed. of St. James, p. clxxxiii. 
 
 ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς Ta ἄλογα ζῷα 
 ἐπίστανται. This stands for σάρκα in 
 ver. 8 and is explained by ἀσέλγειαν 
 in ver. 4, ἐκπορνεύσασαι in ver. 7, 
 
 μιαίνουσιν in ver. 8, κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας 
 αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι in ver. 16. 
 
 φυσικῶς, “by instinct,” so Dion. L. 
 X. 137, φυσικῶς καὶ χωρὶς λόγου. 
 Alford cites Xen. Cyvop. il. 3, 9, μάχην 
 ὁρῶ πάντας ἀνθρώπους φύσει ἐπι- 
 σταμένους, ὥσπερ ye καὶ τἄλλα ἵῷα 
 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 ὃ θεὸς ἣ κοιλία, Kal ἡ δόξα 
 ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, Eph. iv. 22, 
 ἀποθέσθαι... τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον 
 τὸν φθειρόμενον κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας. 
 
 Ver. τι. οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ 
 Καὶν ἐπορεύθησαν. For the use of ‘he 
 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 
 100, 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), πᾶς φίλαυτος ἐπίκλησιν Kaiv 
 εὕρηκεν (quoted by Schneckenb. p. 221) ; 
 he is named as a type of jealous hate 
 in 1 John iii, 11, 12, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν 
 ἀλλήλους . οὐ καθὼς Καὶν ἐκ TOU 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 “ABeA παρὰ Katy 
 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 estjudicium, 
 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 
 
ΣΙ. 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 to 
 Ov 
 WN 
 
 τοῦ Καὶν ἐπορεύθησαν, καὶ TH πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν, 
 
 and of love, cf. 1 John iii. 23. Euthym. 
 Zig. gives an allegorical explanation, 
 καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀδελφοκτόνοι eici, δι᾿ ὧν 
 διδάσκουσι τὰς τῶν ἀπατωμένων 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, οἵ ‘Opirar 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 right 
 (Epiphan. ib. 38, 1, ot Καιανοί φασι τὸν 
 Kaiv ἐκ τῆς ἰσχυροτέρας Δυνάμεως 
 ὑπάρχειν καὶ τῆς ἄνωθεν αὐθεντίας, and 
 boast themselves to be of kin to Cain, 
 Kal τῶν Σοδόβξιτῶν καὶ Hoad καὶ Κορέ, 
 see too Iren. i. 51. Clem. Str. vii. § 108.) 
 
 τῇ πλάνῃ Tov 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 Sit. xxxvii. 29, 
 μὴ ἐκχυθῇς ἐπ᾽ ἐδεσμάτων; Test. Reub. 
 I, πορνεία ἐν ἢ ἐξεχύθην, Clem. Al. Sér. 
 ii. Ρ. 491, εἰς ἧδον τράγων δικήν, 
 ἐκχυθέντες τς δ Soir, ΙΕ: ΤΣ 
 Ant. 21, εἰς 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 ἢ 
 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. 210, 
 “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 ἐπ᾿ 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. in the 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- 
 ϑαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραήλ, φαγεῖν 
 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. τ 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 1 Thess. ii. 3 f., where 
 
 ἮΙ do not think the marginal reading in the R.V., “ cast themselves away,” is 
 
 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 TH ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο. 
 
 IOYAA ETI ΒΘΛΗ 
 
 11- 
 
 12. οὗτοί εἰσιν [οἱ] 
 
 1 οντοι εἰσιν] add. (ex. v. 16) γογγυσται---πορενομενοι SY C2, 
 
 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 ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων 
 δόξαν, τ 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, τ 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, 9, 10 
 
 (of Diotrephes), Tit. i. 10, 11, εἰσὶ 
 πολλοὶ ἀνυπότακτοι. . . οὖς δεῖ 
 ἐπιστομίζειν, ib. i. 16; ib. iii. 10, 1Ι, 
 
 1 Tim. i. 20 (among those who have 
 made shipwreck of the faith mention is 
 made of Hymenaeus and Alexander) ots 
 παρέδωκα τῷ Latava ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν 
 μὴ βλασφημεῖν, 16. vi. 3-6, 2 Tim. ii. 16- 
 18, ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς yayypatva νομὴν 
 ἕξει, ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ Φίλητος, 
 οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν, 
 ib, li. 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, dvado- 
 γίσασθε τὸν τοιαύτην ὑπομεμενηκότα ὑπὸ 
 τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀντιλογίαν. It 
 is used as a translation of Meribah in 
 
 Num. xx. 13 al. and (in relation to Korah) 
 in Protev. Fac. 9. μνήσθητι ὅσα ἐποίησεν 
 ὁ Θεὸς τοῖς Δαθάν, Κωρέ, καὶ ᾿Αβειράμ, 
 πῶς ἐδιχάσθη ἡ γῆ 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 πλάνῃ; that of the 
 Levite Korah by ἀπώλοντο ἀντιλογίᾳ. 
 
 Ver. 12. οὗτοί εἰσιν [ot] ἐν ταῖς aya- 
 Tats ὑμῶν omdddes συνευωχούμενοι. 
 Dr. Chase quotes Zech. i. 10 f., Apoc. 
 vii. 14, Enoch xlvi. 3, Secrets of Enoch, 
 Vil. 3. XVili. 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 ἀπάταις for ἀγάπαις and 
 σπῖλοι for omdades. 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. M., 
 σπιλάδες. .. at ὑπὸ θάλασσαν κε- 
 κρυμμέναι πέτραι, ὅθεν καὶ ὕφαλος 
 ἄνθρωπος λέγεται ὁ κεκρυμμένος καὶ 
 πανοῦργος, 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. τοῖ Β, εὐδία σπιλάδος, which 
 Wytt. translates ‘ ὕγαπα 5 maris 
 caecam rupem tegentis,” tb. 476 A, 
 Oecumenius on this passage, at σπιλάδες 
 τοῖς πλέουσιν ὀλέθριοι, ἀπροσδοκήτως 
 ἐπιγενόμεναι (?-vors), and ἐξαίφνης, 
 ὥσπερ σπιλάδες, ἐπάγοντες αὐτοῖς τὸν 
 ὄλεθρον τῶν ψυχῶν. Wetst. also quotes 
 Heliod. ν. 31, θαλάσσῃ προσείκασας 
 ἂν τοὺς ἄνδρας αἰφνιδίῳ σπιλάδι 
 κατασεισθέντας. The compound κατα- 
 σπιλάζω joined with the parallel case 
 
12. 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ENMIZTOAH 
 
 267 
 
 ἐν ταῖς! ἀγάπαις 2 ὑμῶν σπιλάδες, συνευωχούμενοι ἀφόβως," 
 
 1 οι εν ταις] om. ot δῷ K vulg. Luc. Theophl. Oecon. +, Chase, 
 2 qayamats $$ BKL syrr. sah. boh. + ; amwarats AC. 
 
 3 ypwv] autwy A vulg. syrP +. 
 
 4 συνευωχουμενοι, adoBws syrr., Treg., WH; συνενωχ. αφοβως, Ti. 
 
 of ὕφαλος justifies, I think, this sense 
 of σπιλάς, which is rejected by most of 
 the later commentators.* ΟἿ. also the 
 use of vavayéw in τ Tim. i. το. Scopulus 
 is used in a similar metaphoric sense, 
 see Οἷς. 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, 
 μεμιασμένοι. 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 of... 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 εἰσιν 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 συνευ- 
 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”. 
 
 συνενωχούμενοι. Is used in the parallel 
 passage of 2 Peter with a dat. as in Luc. 
 Philops 4, Jos. Ant. iv. 8, 7. 
 
 ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες. 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 
 ἀφ. 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 eis 
 ζωὴν ἀνδρί, ὁ δὲ ἄφοβος κ.τιλ., 16. xv. 
 τ6, κρεῖσσον μικρὰ μερὶς μετὰ φόβου 
 Κυρίου ἢ θησαυροὶ μεγάλοι μετὰ ἀφ- 
 οβίας, Sir. v. 5, περὶ ἐξιλασμοῦ μὴ 
 ἄφοβος γίνου, προσθεῖναι ἁμαρτίαν ἐφ᾽ 
 ἁμαρτίαις. The phrase ἑαυτοὺς ποιμ.- 
 recalls Ezek. xxxiv. 8, ἐβόσκησαν οἱ 
 ποιμένες ἑαυτοὺς, Ta 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 Prov. xxviii. 7, ὃς δὲ ποιμαίνει 
 ἀσωτίαν, ἀτιμάζει πατέρα, ib. xxix. 3, 
 ὃς δὲ ποιμαίνει πόρνας, ἀπολεῖ πλοῦτον, 
 Plut. Mor. 792 Β, Ἄτταλον ὑπ᾽ ἀργίαᾳ 
 μακρᾶς ἐκλυθέντα κομιδῇ Φιλοποίμην 
 ἐποίμαινεν ἀτεχνῶς πιαινόμενον. We 
 may compare I Cor. xi. 27 f., James ν. 5, 
 1 Tim. v. 6. 
 
 νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων mapa 
 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, τς. The regular order of nature is 
 there contrasted with the disorder and 
 lawlessness of sinners. “1 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 νῆάς ye ποτὶ σπιλάδεσσιν ἔαξαν κύματα, where, he says, the 
 σπιλάδες are identical with λισσὴ αἰπεῖά τε cis ἅλα πέτρη Of 293; and Anthol. 
 xi. 390, φασὶ δὲ καὶ νήεσσιν ἁλιπλανέεσσι χερείους Tas ὑφάλους πέτρας τῶν 
 
 φανερῶν 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 
 
 A ‘ , > , e 4 x - i= 4 , < ‘ A ‘ 
 THY 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 ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 Zz 
 
 1 
 
 l rapadepopevor 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 
 bear fruit. ... 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 ver. 15, περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν 
 ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽ 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 
 figure is broken into two, πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι, 
 ὁμίχλαι 4 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: ‘‘ As 
 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 
 iii. 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 is, according to 
 Curtius, compounded of ὁπ-» connected 
 with ὀπίσω, ὄπισθεν, and ὥρα = tae 
 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, Spa 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 ὀπωρινός 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 ἦρος, χειμῶνος, ὀπώρας, with 
 Aesch, Prom. 453, ἦν δ᾽ οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς 
 οὔτε χείματος τέκμαρ οὔτ᾽ ἀνθεμώδους 
 ἦρος 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 οἷνόν τε νέον καὶ 
 ὀπωρινὸν 3 Kal 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 
 and winter, and two to spring and 
 ὀπώρα :— 
 
 φίλης τ᾽ ὀπώρας διπτύχους ἦρος τ᾽ 
 ἴσους 
 
 (where the epithet φίλης deserves notice). 
 It is said that the author of the treatise 
 De Diaeta (c. 420 B.c.), 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 1]. ν. 5, ὀπώρα 
 ὥρα μεταξὺ κειμένη θέρους καὶ τοῦ μετ᾽ 
 αὐτὴν μετοπώρου. And so we find it 
 used by Aristotle (Meteor. 1.0/5), Ge 
 χάλαζαι γίνονται ἔαρος μὲν. καὶ μετο- 
 πώρου μάλιστα, εἶτα καὶ τῆς ὀπώρας, 
 χειμῶνος δὲ ὀλιγάκις, and by Theo- 
 phrastus (περὶ Σημείων, 44), ἐὰν τὸ ἔαρ 
 καὶ τὸ θέρος ψυχρὰ γίνηται, ἣ 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. [OYAA ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 260 
 
 δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα δὶς ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθέντα, 13. κύμ- 
 
 » , > , x ς a 3 , > ΄ 
 aTa ἄγρια θαλάσσης ἐπαφρίΐζοντα TAS εαυτῶν 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 B.c. 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. vii. id. Mai. (May 9), 
 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 all rendered φθινοπωρινά 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,’ i.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 (φθίνειν) 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 ’. "ἢ 
 
 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 ἄκαρπον ἢ It 
 is because it might have been, and ought 
 to have been a truit-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. Cf. 
 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 éra- 
 φρίζω is used of the sea in Moschus ν. 5. 
 It refers to the seaweed and other refuse 
 horne on the crest of the waves and 
 thrown up on the beach, to which are 
 
 their dependence on the Vulgate “‘ arbores 
 
270 
 
 πλανῆται ots ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα τετήρηται. 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 i 
 
 14. 
 
 ᾿Επροφήτευσεν 2 δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδὰμ Ἑνὼχ λέγων 
 
 1 πλανητες ors ζοφος σκοτους Β. 
 2 ἐπροφητευσεν Β'; επροεφ. Β5; 
 
 compared the overflowings of ungodli- 
 ness (Ps. xvii. 4), the ῥυπαρία καὶ πε- 
 ρισσεία 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. 19, ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ 
 αὐτῶν. 
 
 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, ἐδ. 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 foot, 
 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 ἔν 
 
 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- 
 θεν τῆς σελήνης εἰσὶν ἕτεροι ἀστέρες 
 φθαρτοὶ ἀργοὶ... ods καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρῶμεν 
 διαλυομένους, τὴν φύσιν ὁμοίαν ἔχοντες 
 τοῖς ἀχρήστοις τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ζῴων, ἐπὶ 
 ἕτερον δὲ οὐδὲν γίγνεται ἢ ἵνα μόνον 
 φθαρῇ. For the close relationship sup- 
 posed by the Jews to exist between the 
 
 προεπροφ. $9; 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 (ver. 11), des- 
 tined to be swallowed up in everlasting 
 darkness. Cf. Apoc. vi. 13, viii. 10, 12, 
 extends 
 
 ots ὁ 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 (ἢ ταῖθ) μυριάσιν 
 αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ 
 ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατα πάντων, 
 
 Ἢ > , x > ~ .. 
 Kat ἀπολέσει τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς καὶ 
 ἐλέγξει πᾶσαν σάρκα περὶ. 
 πάντων «τῶν» ἔργων αὐτῶν 
 
 ὧν ἠσέβησαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἃἂμ- 
 αρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. The phrase ἕβ- 
 δομος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδάμ 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, 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ΒΠΙΣΊΤΟΛΗ 
 
 271 
 
 ᾿Ιδοὺ ἦλθεν Κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν 1 αὐτοῦ, 15. ποιῆσαι κρίσιν 
 κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς: περὶ πάντων τῶν 
 ΒΩ , Ἀπ me > , ‘ Ν lad - 4 
 ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὃ ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν 
 
 ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. 
 
 ’ 
 16. Οὗτοί εἰσιν 
 
 ᾿αγιαις μυριασιν] μυριασιν αγιων ἀγγέλων SY SyrP. sah. arm. +. 
 2 παντας τους ασεβεις) add. αὐτων KL, Ti. (incuria?); πασαν ψυχὴν δῷ, 50}, 
 
 sah. 
 
 3 ἀσεβειας avtwy] om. δῷ sah. + ; [ασεβειας] avtwy Treg. 
 
 4 σκληρων] add. Aoywv 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 μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων 
 cf. Heb. xii. 22, Ps. Ixviti. 17, Deut. xxxiii. 
 2. For the use of ἐν denoting accom- 
 panying circumstances see Blass, Gr. 
 N. T. tr. p. 118, and Luke xiv. 31, εἰ 
 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 
 κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ κρίσιν διαφθεῖραι. On the 
 distinction between the active ποιεῖν 
 κρίσιν “to execute judgment” (as in 
 John v. 27) and the periphrastic middle 
 Ξε κρίνειν (as in Isocr. 48 p) see my notes 
 on αἰτεῖν and αἰτεῖσϑαι, ἴδε and ἰδού 
 (James iv. 3, 16. 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. id. 
 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, ἐχάλησεν αὐτοῖς 
 σκληρά, τ Kings xii. 13, ἀπεκρίθη πρὸς 
 τὸν λαὸν σκληρά, Mal. iii. 13-15. 
 
 Ver. 16. οὗτοί εἰσιν γογγυσταί, pep- 
 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 r Cor. x. 10, of the murmurings 
 of the Israelites in the wilderness; Matt. 
 xx. II (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. 
 γογγυσμός is used in τ Peteriv.g. See 
 further in Phrynichus, p. 358 Lob. For 
 the word μεμψίμοιρος see Lucian, Cynic. 
 17, ὑμεῖς δὲ διὰ THY εὐδαιμονίαν οὐδενὶ 
 τῶν γιγνομένων ἀρέσκεσθε, καὶ παντὶ 
 μέμφεσθε, καὶ τὰ μὲν παρόντα φέρειν οὐκ 
 ἐθέλετε, τῶν δὲ ἀπόντων ἐφίεσθε, χειμῶ- 
 γος μὲν θέρος εὐχόμενοι, θέρους δὲ χει- 
 μῶνα . καθάπερ οἱ γοσοῦντες, 
 δυσάρεστοι καὶ μεμψίμοιροι ὄντες, and 
 Theophr. Char. 17. It is used of the 
 murmuring of the Israelites by Philo, 
 Vit. Mos. 1. 109 M. See other examp'es 
 in Wetst. The same spirit is condemned 
 in James i. 13. 
 
ΙΟΥΔΑ EMISTOAH 
 
 16— 
 
 γογγυσταί, μεμψίμοιροι, κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι, 
 
 ~ a ΄ 
 καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα, θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελίας 
 
 χάριν. 
 
 ε “ via as , , ; A ε , ral , 
 17. Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί, μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρημέ- 
 νων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾿ 18. ὅτι 
 
 κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι. 
 Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 3 and ii. τὸ, 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, γε 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 τῦφον 
 ἐξήλαυνε καὶ τὰς ἐπαχθεῖς καὶ ὑπερόγ- 
 KOUS κατοιήσεις καὶ μεγαλαυχίας, 10. 
 7 A, where 4 θεατρικὴ καὶ παρατράγῳδος 
 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, ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσε- 
 ται kat 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 xiii. το, see my note on James ii. 
 I, μὴ ἐν προσωπολημψίαις ἔχετε τὴν 
 πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ. X., and cf. τ 
 Tim. iii. 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 
 --θαυμάζοντες) compare Col. ii. 2, ἵνα 
 παρακληθῶσιν αἱ 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 
 
 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 
 ofter? 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 O.T. 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 εἰς 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 «.t.A. In 2 
 
19. 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 27 
 
 ies) 
 
 ἔλεγον ὑμῖν En ἐσχάτου 1 Χρόνου 3 ἔσονται 5 ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς 
 ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι τῶν ἀσεβειῶν. 10. Οὗτοί εἰσιν ol 
 
 ἀποδιορίζοντες," ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες. 
 
 len’ ἐσχατου YB; ott en” eax. AC; [ott] em” ἐσχ-: Treg.; ὅτι εν ἐσχατῳ KL 
 
 P vulg. sah. 
 
 ὥχρονου BC; του xpovov WA; xpovw KL; tw xpovw P sah.; των χρονων boh. 
 
 al. 
 
 ϑέεσονται SBCKLP; ελευσονται $9?AC?, sah. boh. 
 ὅτων ασεβειων) οπισω ἀσεβειων syrh; οπισω αἀσεβειας syrP. 
 
 5 αποδιοριζοντες) add. εαυτους 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, μὴ ἐν προσωπο- 
 λημψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου 
 ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς δόξης, where 
 some connect τῆς δόξης with κυρίου in a 
 qualitative sense. 
 
 Ver. 19. οὗτοί εἰσιν 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 ζῴου προῃ- 
 ρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιω- 
 ρίζομεν ὅπερ ἀναγκαῖον πᾶν ἔχειν ζῷον 
 (‘‘as, 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 
 Ὁ, TO μὲν φυσικὸν ὥρισεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, τὸ 
 δὲγνωμικὸν ἀποδιώρισε, translated “ natu- 
 
 rali in eo (Christo) constituta voluntate, 
 arbitrariam dispunxit,”’ ἐδ. p. 131 ο, ὡς 6 
 λόγος ἦν αὐτοῦ, μόνον τὸ ἐμπαθές, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
 τὸ φυσικὸν 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 Lev. xx. 
 διώρισα ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ““1 separated 
 you from the nations,” Job xxxv. 11; so 
 ἀφορίζω Matt. xxv. 32, ἀφορίζει τὰ 
 πρόβατα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐρίφων, Acts xix. 9 
 (Paul left the synagogue) καὶ ἀφώρισεν 
 τοὺς μαθητάς, 2 Cor. vi. 17, ἐξέλθατε 
 ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, Luke vi. 
 22 (ofexcommunication) ὅταν ἀφορίσωσιν 
 ὑμᾶς, Gal. ii. 12 (οἵ Peter’s withdrawal 
 from the Gentiles) ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώ- 
 ριζεν ἑαυτόν. 
 
 ψυχικοί., 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 (af. 
 Hippol. p. 164) εἰς τὸν οἶκον θεοῦ οὐκ 
 εἰσελεύσεται ἀκάθαρτος οὐδείς, οὐ ψυχι- 
 κός, οὗ σαρκικός, ἀλλὰ τηρεῖται πνευμα- 
 τικοῖς. 
 
 πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες. 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 μή, ὅτ' 
 μή. It is simplest to understand πνεῦμα 
 here of the Holy Spirit, cf. Rom. viii. 9, 
 ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ GAN’ ἐν πνεύματι, 
 εἴπερ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, τ Cor. 
 ii. 153, 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, 
 
 24, 
 
0 
 ~I 
 - 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ETIZTOAH 
 
 20— 
 
 « a OES , > ~ ε 4 a e€ , 
 20. Υμεις δέ, ἄγαπητοι, ἐποικοδοβοῦντες EQUTOUS TH ἀγιωτατῃ 
 a , 
 ὑμῶν πίστει, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι, 21. ἑαυτοὺς ἐν 
 a , A ~ 
 ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ τηρήσατε προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος Tod κυρίου ἡμῶν 
 
 1a ηρησατε] 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. ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀγαπητοί. Con- 
 trasted with the libertines, as in ver. 17. 
 
 ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ 
 ὑμῶν πίστει. For the spiritual temple, 
 cf. © Pet. 11. 9:8: Col. i. 23; Eph. ii. 20- 
 22, ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ TO θεμελίῳ τῶν 
 “ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, ὄντος ἀκρογω- 
 νιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ x.T.A., 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. “ΤΙ ye study the epistles of the blessed 
 apostle Paul, δυνηθήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι 
 els τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίστιν. Add Clem. 
 Strom. v. p. 644, ἣ 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 
 ψυχῶν). 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, 
 27. 
 
 Ver. 21. ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ 
 τηρήσατε. 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 ἑαυτῶν 
 σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθαι: Θεὸς γάρ 
 ἐστιν 6 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, ἣ ἀγάπη 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις 
 ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος 
 ἡμῖν, ib. viii. 39, πέπεισμαι ὄτι οὔτε 
 θάνατος οὔτε ζωὴ . .. οὔτε τις κτίσις 
 ἑτέρα δυνήσεται ἡμᾶς χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς 
 ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ, John xv. 9. καθὼς 
 
 «ἢγάπησέν pe ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς 
 
 ἠγάπησα, μείνατε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῆ ἐμῇ. 
 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 TO ἔλεος. Cf. Tit. ii. 
 13, προσδεχόμενοι THY μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα 
 καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλον 
 Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿]. X., 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 il. 
 25, 38. 
 
 els ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Some connect this 
 closely with the imperative τηρήσατε, 
 but it seems to me to follow more natu- 
 
55: 
 
 3 - 
 Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 
 
 διακρινομένους,2 23. ols δὲ ὃ σώζετε * 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 22. Kat οὗς μὲν ἐλέγχετε 
 
 275 
 
 1 
 
 ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, ots δὲ 
 
 leNeyyere AC vulg. boh. arm. + ; ἐλεατε δῷ ΒΟΞ; eXeerte KLP +. 
 2 Staxpivopevous MABC; διακρινομενοι KLP. 
 
 3 ous Se (1) NACKLP; om. B. 
 
 rally on the nearer phrase, mp. τὸ ἔλεος : 
 cf. I Pet. i. 37, εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς .. . 6 
 κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας 
 ἡμᾶς εἰς κληρονομίαν ἄφθαρτον. . . 
 τετηρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς τοὺς 
 - + » φΦρουρουμένους ... εἰς σωτηρίαν 
 ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ. 
 
 Ver. 22. οὖὗς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακριν- 
 ομένους. On the reading see the Intro- 
 duction. For the form ὃς μέν instead of 
 6 μέν, cf. Matt. xiii. 8, xxii. 5, Luke xxiii. 
 33, Acts xxvii. 44, Rom. xiv. 5, 1 Cor. 
 vil. 7, xi. 21, 2 Cor. ii. 16, 2 Tim. ii. 20, 
 not used in Heb., 1 and 2 Pet., James or 
 John. The doubled és δέ is found in 
 Matt. xxi. 35, ὃν μὲν ἔδειραν, ὃν δὲ 
 ἀπέκτειναν, ὃν δὲ ἐλιθοβόλησαν, 7b. xxv. 
 15, ᾧ μὲν ἔδωκεν πέντε τάλαντα, ᾧ δὲ 
 δύο, ᾧ δὲ ἕν. 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. to5f. 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 "μισήσεις πάντα 
 ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ᾽ ots μὲν ἐλέγξεις, ots δὲ 
 ἐλεήσεις, περὶ ὧν δὲ προσεύξῃ, obs δὲ 
 ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου, which 
 is also found in the Didache ii. 7, with 
 the omission of ots δὲ ἐλεήσεις. Cf. 
 John xvi. 8, ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον 
 περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ 
 περὶ κρίσεως, τ Cor. xiv. 24, ἐλέγχεται 
 ὑπὸ πάντων (the effect of the prophets’ 
 teaching on an unbeliever), Tit. i. 13, 
 ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν 
 
 4 σωΐετε ΨΚ ΑΒΟ; εν φοβῳ σωΐετε KLP. 
 
 ἐν τῇ πίστει, ib. i. 9, τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας 
 ἐλέγχειν, 2 Tim. iv. 2 (the charge to 
 Timothy) ἔλεγξον, παρακάλεσον ἐν 
 πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ, Apoc. ui. 19, ὅσους 
 ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω, Eph. v 
 13, τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ 
 φωτὸς 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, 
 “ἐ 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, ἐκεγχθήσεται γελοῖος 
 ὦν, 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 you,” which we may com- 
 pare with 1 Pet. iii. 15, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς 
 ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς 
 λόγον. . . ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραὔτητος 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 
 sameas that in ver. 9, τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρ., 
 and in Socr. E.H. v. 5, ὃ λαὸς εἶχεν 
 ὁμόνοιαν Kal οὐκέτι πρὸς ἀλλήλους 
 διεκρίνοντο. 
 
 Ver. 23. σώζετε. Here again a word 
 
276 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 38: τ 
 
 ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ, μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον 
 
 χιτῶνα. 
 
 24. Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς 2 ἀπταίστους ὃ καὶ στῆσαι 
 
 lous δε (2) ἐελεατε ev φοβῳ ΑΒ; om. KLP; εν φοβῳ Ο. 
 2 ypas NQBCL vulg. syrr. boh.; npas A; αὐτους ΚΡ, 
 8 απταιστους] add. και ασπιλους C. 
 
 which is strictly applicable to God is 
 transferred to him whom God uses as 
 His instrument, cf. 1 Pet. iv. 11 and 
 notes on τηρήσατε, ἐλέγχετε above, 
 especially James v. 20, ὁ ἐπιστρέψας 
 ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ σώσει 
 ψυχὴν ἐκ θανάτου. 
 
 ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες. The expres- 
 sion is borrowed from Amos iv. If, 
 κατέστρεψα ὑμᾶς καθὼς κατέστρεψεν ὁ 
 Θεὸς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα, καὶ ἐγένεσθε 
 ὡς δαλὸς ἐξεσπασμένος ἐκ πυρός, καὶ 
 οὐδ᾽ ὡς 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, 
 ἔπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος quoted in ver. 9, 
 and precéding a relerence 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 πῦρ 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 πῦρ αὐτὸ δοκιμάσει . .. εἴ 
 τινος τὸ ἔργον κατακαήσεται, ἕημιω- 
 θήσεται, αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται, οὕτως δὲ 
 ὡς διὰ πυρός. Such an one may be 
 spoken of as “ἃ 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. vii. 1, καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ 
 παντὸς μολυσμοῦ σαρκὸς Kal πνεύματος 
 ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ, 
 Phil. ii. 12, .1.Pet. 1.:17, iit. 15." For the 
 coniusion of the contracted verbs in -έω 
 and -ἄω in late Greek see Jannaris, ὃ 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, ᾿Ιησοῦς 
 ἦν ἐνδεδυμένος ἱμάτια ῥυπαρά. ΟἿ. 
 Apoc. iii. 4, οὐκ ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια 
 αὐτῶν, and Afocal. Pauli quoted by 
 Spitta, ὁ χιτών pov οὐκ ἐρυπώθη. The 
 derivatives of σπίλος are peculiar to late 
 Greek: the only other examples of 
 σπιλόω in Biblical Greek are James iii. 
 6, ἣ γλῶσσα... ἣ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον TS 
 σῶμα and Wisd. xv. 4, εἶδος σπιλωθὲν 
 χρώμασι διηλλαγμένοις. Compare for 
 the treatment of the erring 2 Tim. ii. 
 25, 26, ἐν πραὕὔὕτητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς 
 ἀντιδιατιθεμένους, μήποτε δῴη αὐτοῖς 
 ὁ Θεὸς μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας, 
 καὶ ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλον 
 παγίδος. 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. Final Benediction and 
 Ascription. I 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 φυλάξαι 
 ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους. Apparently ἃ reminis- 
 
24. 
 
 ΙΟΥΔΑ ΒΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 277 
 
 κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους 1 ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει, 25. μόνῳ 3 
 
 lapwpous] αμεμπτους A. 
 
 cence* of Rom. xvi. 25 f., τῷ δὲ Suva- 
 μένῳ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι. .. μόνῳ 
 σοφῷ Θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 ᾧ ἡ δόξαεἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν 
 αἰώ γεν. Similarly the noble doxo- 
 logy in Eph, iii. 20, commences τῷ δὲ 
 δυναμένῳ. The reading ὑμᾶς is con- 
 firmed by the evidence of δ and B, which 
 was unknown to Alford when he en- 
 deavoured to defend the reading αὐτούς, 
 found in KP and some inferior MSS. 
 
 ἄπταιστος. 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 wratw has the same figurative 
 sense in James ii. 10, iii. 2, ef 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 υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
 ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ. .. στήσει τὰ μὲν 
 πρόβατα ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ, Acts vi. 6, 
 οὺς 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. 
 geet) COLy 1.) 20,52, Cor: i1t7, iv. 2; Vils 
 12, xii. 10). 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 Kal ἀσπίλου 
 Χριστοῦ, traces the way in which the 
 words μῶμος ‘‘blame,” and ἄμωμος 
 ‘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 κατενώπιον is apparently con- 
 fined to the Bible, where it occurs in 
 Josh. i. 5, xxi. 42, Lev. iv. 17, Eph. i. 4, 
 ἀμώμητος 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 μονῳ] add. σοφῳ KLP +. 
 
 LXX and the N.T. and the literature 
 derived from them, and in the N.T. it is 
 confined to books much influenced by 
 O.T. 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 
 yap εἶ Θεὸς... ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ ᾿Ισραῆλ 
 σωτήρ, ib. ver. 21, Sir. li. 1, αἰνέσω σε 
 Θεὸν τὸν σωτῆρά pov, Philo, Confis. 
 Ling. §20,i. p. 418 jfin., 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 
 μουγ elsewhere in N.T. only in Tit. i. 3, 
 li, IO, ili, 4, ὅτε ἣ χρηστότης. .- 
 ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ. .. 
 κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ 
 πνεύματος ἁγίου οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ᾽ 
 ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ ᾿]. X. τοῦ σωτῆρος 
 ἡμῶν, τ Tim. i. τ, Παῦλος ἀπόστολος I. 
 Χ. κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶνκαὶ 
 X. Ἰ1. ἐδ. ii. 3, iv. 10. 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. τ Pet. iv. 11, ἵνα 
 ἐν πᾶσιν δοξάζηται ὁ Θεὸς διὰ “Il. X. ᾧ 
 ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶ- 
 γας. 
 
 δόξα. The verb is often omitted in 
 these ascriptions, cf. 2 Pet. αὐτῷ ἢ δόξα, 
 Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, Gal. i. 5, Luke ii. 16, 
 δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ. In τ 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 
 “tis” here; but the R. V. 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 genuineness of this doxology see the Introduction and 
 notes in Sanday and Headlam’s commentary, and the dissertations by Lightfoot 
 and Hort in the former’s Biblical Essays, pp. 287-374. 
 
 VOL. ν. 18 
 
ΙΟΥΔΑ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ 
 
 28- 
 
 Θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ; ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν δόξα μεγα- 
 
 A lol “ εν > 
 λωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς 
 
 πάντας 2 τοὺς αἰῶνας - ἀμήν. 
 
 1 δια |. Χ. του κυριου μων] om. 
 
 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 as 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 of allascriptions. Itis joined 
 with τιμή in τ Tim. i. 17 and elsewhere, 
 as here with μεγαλωσύνη. It is joined 
 with κράτος in τ Pet. iv. 11, v. 11, Apoc. 
 i. 6. Fuller ascriptions are found in 
 Apoc. iv. 11, ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος . - - 
 λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν 
 δύναμιν, v. 13, τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ 
 θρόνῳ... ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἣ 
 δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν 
 αἰώνων, vii. 12, ἣ εὐλογία καὶ ἣ δόξα καὶ 
 4 σοφία καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία καὶ ἣ τιμὴ καὶ 
 4 δύναμις καὶ ἣ ἰσχὺς τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν. 
 Just before (ver. 10) we have the re- 
 markable ascription 7 σωτηρία τῷ Θεῷ 
 ἡμῶν. Compare with this the ascription 
 of David (x Chron. xxix. 12), σοὶ Κύριε ἣ 
 μεγαλωσύνη kal ἡ δύναμις καὶ τὸ καύχημα 
 καὶ ἡ νίκη καὶ ἡ 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. 10, 
 δόξα δὲ καὶ τιμὴ Kal εἰρήνη παντὶ τῷ 
 ἐργαζομένῳ τὸ ἀγαθόν." An unusual form 
 of ascription occurs in Clem. Rom. 59. 2, ἣ 
 χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ μετὰ πάντων πανταχῆ τῶν 
 κεκλημένων ὑπό τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ" 
 
 KP. 
 
 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 κυρίῳ 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 
 po. πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. 
 
 πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος. Cf. τ Cor. ii. 
 7 (τὴν σοφίαν) ἣν προώρισεν ὃ OcdsT po 
 τῶν αἰώνων εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν, Prov. viii. 23, 
 πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέμε (ἰ.6. σοφίαν), 
 ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι. An 
 equivalent expression is πρὸ καταβολῆς 
 κόσμου found in John xvii. 24, ἠγάπησάς 
 pe π- κι. κι᾿ also Eph. i. 4, ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς 
 ἐν αὐτῷ π. k. κι and I Pet. i. 20 (Χριστοῦ) 
 προεγνωσμένου μὲν T. κικινρφανερωθέντος 
 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. 11. 7), and St. John of only one age 
 in the future. 
 
 εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας. This precise 
 phrase is unique in the Bible, but εἰς 
 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 τῶν αἰώνων occurs in Gal.i. 5, 
 Phil. iv. 20, τ Tim. i. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 18, 
 Heb. xiii. 21, 1 Pet. iv. 11, v. 11, Apoc. i. 
 6, etc. John uses only eis τὸν αἰῶνα 
 apparently with the same meaning. Other 
 variations are found in Eph. iii. 21, αὐτῷ 
 ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ἐν X. ἸἸ. εἰς 
 πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, 
 2 Pet. iii. 18, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς 
 ἡμέραν αἰῶνος. 
 
 2 εις παντας] εἰς δῇ. 
 
 * 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 ἣ δύναμις Kal ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας 
 
 ‘appears to be a conflation of two distinct forms,” 
 
 and ‘twas added to the Prayer 
 
 in the ‘Syrian’ text of St. Matthew’s Gospel ”. 
 

 
 i i ly, ᾿ i ‘ . Η ' zi | rer ᾿ ὃ i 
 : wir ᾽ i | cab ϊ ‘ 
 ἠδ ae 4 ᾿ Aa ᾿ ; : ᾿ ua ; j 
 
 THE REVELATION | 
 OF ᾿ | 
 ST. JOHN THE DIVINE. | | 
 
 
 
James Morratt, 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 tatlied, 
 
 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 (\xxxv. 8, 10), A.D. 70-10@, 
 
 = 
 
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, ἐ.6., 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 (δ); A and C, the most 
 weighty, to the fifth; Ὁ 3 to the eighth; and P to the ninth. Of 
 these, SAQ 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-xviii. 2, xix. 5-end. P is defective in xvi. 12-xvii. 1, 
 xix. 21-xx. 9, xxii. 6-end. 
 
 SAC reflect a fairly uniform text, which seems to have been 
 influenced by an older uncorrected text allied to that underlying the 
 vulgate. Hence, as δὲ 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). 
 
282 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 NAC, 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 
 
 1In 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 du'N.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 dstlichen Provinzen d. rim. Kaiserreiches (1891), 
 
 pp- 23 ἢ 
 
INTRODUCTION 283 
 
 insecure to admit of reliable inferences being drawn from their 
 contents (cf. Bebb in Studia Biblica, ii. 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 Einfiihrung, 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 f), 
 followed by Dr. Salmon (Introd. to N.T., pp. 567 f.), even argues from the Ep. Lugd., 
 (Eus., H. 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. 
 
 2Cf. Gregory, 609, and Mr. E. S. Buchanan’s collation in F¥ourn. Theol. Studies 
 Viii., pp. 96 ἢ 
 
284 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 αἷμα), 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 εἰς τὴν 
 ᾿Αποκάλυψιν). Cf. von Soden’s die Schriften des N.T,, 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. fiir 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. 10) 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 éyev. as in iv. 2, otherwise it 
 would have a verb of transport (so xvii. 3, xxi. 10). 
 
 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, 
 
286 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, 7.e., 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 amystery. 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. 9-11 (‘‘lignes toutes divines, qui suf- 
 front éternellement ἃ 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, c. 63 B.C., in most of x.-xi. xiv. 14 f., xv. 1-8, xvi. I-12, 17, 21, xvii. 1-6, xviii., 
 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, I-13, xii. 
 1-6, 14-17, xiii. I-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 f,), and glosses may be suspected occasionally (¢.g., i. 18, iii, 8, 
 ix. 9, xvii. 5; see ὃ 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. 
 i, 9-20, A vision of Jesus the messiah, introducing 
 ii.-iii. Seven letters to Asiatic churches :— 
 
 (x Ephesus. 
 
 (2) Smyrna. 
 
 (3) Pergamos. 
 
 4 Thyatira. 
 
 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) ,, red ” 
 (3) », black ,, 
 (4) , pale ,, ' 
 (5) ., souls of the slain. 
 (6) ,, earthquake and eclipse, etc. 
 Intermezzo :— 
 
 vii 1-8, the sealing of the re- 
 deemed on earth. 
 Vii. 9-17. the bliss of the redeemed 
 in heaven. 
 viii. I. (7) 4, silence or pause. 
 Vili. 2-5. A vision of heaven: an episode of angels, 
 introducing 
 viii. 6-ix, 21. Seven trumpet blasts for 
 (x) earth. 
 (2) sea. 
 
 (3) streams: the star Wormwood. 
 (4) an eclipse. 
 3 a woe of locusts. 
 
 (6) a woe of Parthian cavalry. 
 Intermezzo :— 
 Xe episode of angels and a 
 booklet. 
 xi. I-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 omer Aas cin 
 xiii. 11-18, (c) the false prophet or Imperial J earth. 
 priesthood. 
 Intermezzo :— 
 Xiv. I-5. the bliss of the redeemed 
 in heaven. 
 xiv. 6-20. episode of angels amd 
 doom on earth. 
 xv. A vision of heaven: the triumph of the 
 redeemed, introducing 
 Xvi. Seven bowls with plagues for 
 (τ) 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. 5» », triumph in heaven. 
 xix, II-21. (b) The Beast and his allies, and the 
 false prophet. 
 xX. I-10. (c) 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-XxXii. 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 f., 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. τὸ (downfall of paganism), and the third in 
 xx, I1-xxii, 5 (the new Jerusalem). But all such schemes are artificial. 
 
INTRODUCTION 291 
 
 literature, 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 N.T. (§§ 72-75), 
 and Dr. M. 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, 357-374). 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, 
 
292 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., x., xi., xli., Xlii., Xiv., XVil., Xvili.). 
 
 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 
 l’Apocalypse, 1888: Jewish fragments in xi. 1-13, xii., xiil., xiv. 6-20, 
 xvi. 18-14, 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 (Eznleitung in das 
 N. T., § 22), C. A. Scott, Ε. C. Porter, A. Ὁ. 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. g, iii. 7-10, ν. 9, 10, 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 Vélter’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 V6lter’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 Fohannes, 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, 8-92, 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 Eznleztung 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 (Ὁ) 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. a.p. 100) in 
 
 xii. 11, 17c, xiv. 1-5, xv. 1, 6-8, xvi. 1-12, 15, 17a, 21, xvii. 14, xix. 7- 
 10, 13d, xxii. 7a, 12, 13, 16-21), K. Kohler (Ε. ., 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 l 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, 19b, xvii.-xix. 3, xix. 11-xx.; the 
 
 12, 13, xix. 4-10, xxi. 1-8, xxii. 6-13, 16, 17, 20, 21), Spitta (Ofenbarung 
 des $ohannes, 1898: two Jewish sources, one B.c. 63 and one ec. 
 A.D. 40, with a Christian apocalypse by John Mark c. a.p. 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 vii. 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 $ohannes, 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 1.) detected two Jewish sources, one imbedded in the 
 other, the earlier from Caligula’s period (xiii, xiv. 6 f.), the later 
 irom Nero’s. The coast of reality almost disappears from view in 
 Volter’s latest theory (die Offenbarung Fohannis, neu untersucht u. 
 erklaért, 1904), which is a combination of (Ὁ) and (6) ; it postulates an 
 apocalypse of John Mark (c. a.p. 65) and an apocalypse of Cerinthus 
 (c. A.D. 7O0=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 (Ὁ); e.g., 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.-iii., 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 (cbid.), 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. T., 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 (4) 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. §§ 6-19 of Liicke’s epoch-making Versuch einer vollstdndigen 
 Einleitung in die Offenbarung ον. und in die gesammte apok. Literatur (sec. ed- 
 1822) ; English summaries and surveys by Dr. Torrey (E. F. i. 669-675); L. Hassé in 
 Inaugural Lectures (Manchester, 1905, 126-159); Dr. Driver (‘‘ Daniel,” τθοο, pp. 
 
 Ixxxvi. f.); Dr. A. C. Zenos in Dict. of Christ and Gospels, i. 79-94: and Dr, R. H. 
 Charles (E. 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, ¢.g., to the prevalent category of the two cons, 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 70 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 ὕψους), has always a moral basis; it is, he 
 declared, the echo of a great soul (μεγαλοφροσύνης ἀπήχημα)---οΓ, 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 οὐ κλοπὴ TO πρᾶγμα, ἀλλ᾽ 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 O.T. 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, (b) in the use of schematism to explain provi- 
 dence. For the latter, cf. Giesebrecht’s Die Berufsgabung der alttest. Probheten 
 
INTRODUCTION 299 
 
 But his use of Daniel especially is more than that of a littérateur 
 seproducing 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 (6) 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 (¢.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. 
 exxxv.-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 O.T. 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 O.T. reminiscences 
 of. 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.t 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 
 
 10n 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 suggestive: 
 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 
 
 1Even grotesque symbols of an Oriental cast would appeal to Hellenic readers 
 -who were familiar, ¢.g., with ἐπε Ἄρτεμις 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 (cf. 
 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. 
 
 (Ὁ) As a 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. 
 me, ¥. 6, vis) f., xiii. 11, xiv. 6,)xtx, 7) 16) 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. (δ) Along with this, traits 
 corresponding to analogous conceptions in Egyptian religion are 
 fairly common (see notes on i. 8, ii. 7, 11, 17, 26 f., 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.2 (ὁ) 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- 34f.). 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, 
 pp- 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 Expos., 1908, May-June). 
 
 2 Hermas, the next apocalypse of the early church, is tinged at one point by 
 this influence (cf. Reitzenstein’s Potmandres, 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. $., 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 Béklen and Stave (§ 10). 
 
304 INTRODUCTION 
 
 influence is strongly marked, though not so strongly as Vélter, 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: viz. (i.) the binding or noosing of the fiend (xx. 
 1 f.,cf. S. B. E., v. 19), (ii.) the blasting of the third part of the earth 
 (viii. 7 £., 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, ¢.g., against Barns in Expfos., 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, ¢.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 4.D., 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, v7z., 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 Erklirung des Neuen 
 Testaments (1909) is a convenient handbook to the whole subject of 
 these highways and byways of the apocalyptic fairy-land. 
 
 8 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 a.p. 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. Nevo, 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. 11, 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 (.e., Nero) flies away wounded across the 
 Euphrates into Parthian territory, while in Sib. iv. 137-139 (after 80 a.D.) 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 (i.¢., Rome) to the Parthians is described. Hereaches the king- 
 dom of the Medes and Persians, to return in the last days (361 f.) for a bloody con- 
 quest of the earth (κοσμομανὴς πόλεμος). Cf. Geffcken’s studies ‘‘ Zur dlteren 
 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 4.p., 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 a.v. (Suet. Nevo, 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. Orvat., 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, To 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, Apoc. 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. 
 1 f.). The seduction of the Jews by antichrist proper (xi. 7 ἢ.) is 
 subordinated by the prophet John to the seduction of the pagan 
 nations (xili.-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 Messiante 
 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 to, 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. 293-295). 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 1 
 (ἀφηρωίΐξαι, especially prevalent in the Ionian 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 Beittrdge 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 Roma 
 (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 Mdander 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. τι. Rom. Mythologie (ii. pp. 902-919) 
 and in Prot. Real-Encykl. (1901), x. 539 f., Wendland’s Hellen.-Rémische Kultur in 
 ihren Bezieh. zu μά. 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 (ἣ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ), in Apoc. iii. 14, con- 
 trast the servile language of the decree issued (c. 9,B.c.) by the Asiatic κοινόν, fixing 
 New Year’s Day as the emperor’s birthday: ἣν τῇ τῶν πάντων ἀρχῇ ἴσην δικαίως av 
 εἶναι ὑπολάβοιμεν (τοῦτο αὐτῷ ἀρχὴν Tod βίου καὶ τῆς ζωῆς γενονέναι). Ch 
 Dittenberger’s Ovientis 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. P. i. 53 1). 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.v.). 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 tc 
 be heard possibly in 2 Thess. and the synoptic apocalypse as well 
 in Apoc. xiii., 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 70 a.p. Similarly Schmidt, Weyland. 
 Wellhausen, and others (Neronic). ‘ Caligula’, in Hebrew (Gaskulgas = ἪΡ 
 
 oid>0)) as in Greek (TAIOZ KAICAP) is equivalent by gematria to 616, the 
 variant to which Irenzus objected (cf. on xiii. 18); but so is KAICAP @EOC 
 (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 fiir 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, 
 
 ‘** 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 ofits 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 £ 
 
 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 Emfire, 
 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 nomint) 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 maiestas, 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 F¥ahrb. 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. τα 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. 11 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. 
 
91 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 IHCOYE 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 strugglmg 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 the 
 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. 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.e., c. 93 a.D., 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. on i. 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), ot μηδὲ ἴχνος πώποτε πίστεως, μηδὲ αἴσθησιν ἐνδύματος νυμφικοῦ, μηδὲ 
 ἔννοιαν φόβου θεοῦ σχόντες (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, t.e., 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 μάρτυς, in its sombre 
 sense, did not necessarily imply that a Christian had suffered the death-penalty (cf. 
 Tert. de Fuga 12, Eus. H. E. 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. H. E., 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. Tert. 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 A.D. 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 (Ε. 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 réle 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 m&rtyrs 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 c.), 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 Father 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 ofa 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 ἔν, 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 (Antiq. x. 10, 4). 
 But the interpretation was widespread in apocalyptic circles, 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.? 
 
 1Tt 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 317 
 
 8. 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, z.c., the reign of Claudius, is absurd. The 
 Neronic date (z.¢., 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 ; (Ὁ) 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 11. 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. Por recent English statements of the Neronic date, see 
 Selwyn (pp. 215 f.) and Mr. B. 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.1 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 Bekdmpfung 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, viz., 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 εἷς ἔστιν) is Vespasian (69-79 a.p.), 
 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 (ὃ qv) but who meanwhile was 
 
 1 This might be (a) a uaticinium 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. Rom, Kaiserzeit, i. 520) that the poor health of Titus would not permit him 
 to reign for very long. 
 
INTRODUCTION 319 
 
 invisible (kat οὐκ ἔστιν) was to reappear from the abyss, only to be 
 crushed finally (kai εἰς 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. Ε. 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 .p., 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 (t.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, te. 
 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 (f¥ourn. Theol. Studies, viii. 436 f.) that the statements of 
 Eusebius (H. E. 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 
 external 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. 8. The Author.—The settlement of the date clears up the 
 problem of the authorship to this extent, that it confirms the 
 disjunctive canon of Dionysius (cf. Liicke, ὃ § 39-42; Simcox 
 xxili. 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 f., 222 f., 258 f,, the 
 Fourth Gospel = a correction not only of the synoptists but of the Apocalypse), and 
 in Schmiedel’s article (E.B. 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 321 
 
 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 6.5. the well- 
 known resemblances of the Lamb and the Logos are both specious and 
 secondary. The former (τὸ ἀρνίον Apoc. ; ὃ 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 (ὁ λόγος τ. θεοῦ, 
 Apoc. ; ὃ 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, (4) formulas like μετὰ ταῦτα, and (6) 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 ; ¢.g. 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, e.g. 
 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 (épwrdw) 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.), μέντοι, 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), éxetvos (never substantival), 
 
329 INTRODUCTION 
 
 ἐμός (only once), οὖν of logical appeal?! (not of historical transition), 
 ἹἹερουσαλήμ. 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. ἀἄναγινώσκω (of Scriptures), ἀποδίδωμι, ἀπόστολοι, ἄρσην, ἀφαιρέω, 
 βασανίζειν, βδέλυγμα, βίβλος, γαστήρ, γρηγορεῖν, 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, κηρύσσειν, 
 κόπτω, λιμός, λοιπός, λυχνία, μακρόθεν, μαρτύριον, μάρτυς, μηδείς, μετρέω, 
 μικροί, μυστήριον, νεφέλη, ὀλίγος, ὀμνύειν, ὀδούς, οὐαί, οὖς (contrast John 
 xviil. 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, 
 lil. 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, ¥ohk. Grammar, p. 479). 
 
INTRODUCTION ἡ) 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 xvii. 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 (ἅ εἰσιν .. . θεοῦ), v. 6 (ot εἰσιν . . - γῆν); 
 ν. 8 (ἅ εἰσιν .. . ἁγίων), xviii. 24, xix. 8 (τὸ yap .. . ἐστίν), xix. 10 (ἡ yap... 
 προφητείας), xix. 13 (kal 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. 5. 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, i. 84 f., 153 ἢ.) 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. iti, 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, 1888, 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 f., 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 AZgean 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 ᾿Ασίᾳ γενομένων, Dionysius) in the primitive church 
 of Asia Minor (so e.g., J. Reville, P. 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 (6) 
 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 ὃ πρεσβύτερος 
 was an important Christian disciple ; his authority was so great that 
 he could be called ὁ πρεσβύτερος 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). 
 
 WOOL. V. 21 
 
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 οἱ 
 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 (e.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, Vélter), 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, viz., the consciousness that the prophetic 
 
 1So Selwyn (127 f.), holding that the author of the Apocalypse retained his 
 
 earlier Jewish title. Butitis 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 (i.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, 1.6., 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. 
 
 To 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- ὁ 
 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 ᾿Ιωάννης ἐστὶν ὁ 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, Disterdieck, Selwyn, Erbes, O. Holtzmann, 
 Harnack, Kohler, Von Soden, Heinrici (Das Urchristenthum, 1902, 
 126 ἢ), ana Von Dobschitz (Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters, 1904, 
 91 f.). 
 
 1 Grotius: ‘‘ Credo autem presbytero, apostoli discipulo, custoditum hunc librum ; 
 inde 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, 1., 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 (c. 170 4.0.) 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 (c. 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- 
 ity in Rome. But it did not escape sharp criticism (τί pe ὠφελεῖ ἡ 
 ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου, λέγουσά μοι 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, e.g., 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 {πὲ the latter, like the Alogi, possibly ascribed 
 the Apocalypse to Cerinthus (cf. Schwartz’s essay, Ueber den Tod d. Sdhne 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 τι. 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 kal ἀσυλλόγιστον 
 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 (i.e., 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 (¢.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.1 
 
 § 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 of Fesus). 
 
 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 wurchristlichen 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 F$ewish Encyclopedia (1901 ff.). 
 
 Ep. Lugd.=“ The epistle of the churches at Vienne and Lyons,” 
 177 a.v. (Eus. H.E. v. 1). 
 
 Priedlander = Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms (1888, 
 6th ed.), by L. Friedlander. 
 
 Gfroérer = Gfrorer’s das Fahrhundert des Heils (1838). 
 
 Grill =Jd. Grill’s Untersuch. tiber 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. N. 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 ἢ. 
 
 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 Fudentums 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 Schipfung und Chaos (1895): with his essay 
 (1903) Zum religionsgesch. Verstindnis des Ν. 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 Zettalter 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 (E.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. Ὁ. 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. M. 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 nieuwen 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. 
 

 
 
 
 νὴ ' 
 Wn i y 
 Np vaya py 
 ye if M wit sii i ον 
 r : | sf : aly, “Ἀὴ Winans 
 ‘ τ : Ὁ} bn) mpi ry 
 ᾿ ' Uy ᾿ εν a 
 ks { ψυυ aL) be {ΜΠ Ὴ | pai Ὧ 
 ΤΥ * Te ue i AM oe 
 | | ᾿ μὴ Ἷ ΤῊΝ Sone oa 
 ας | il ih anne 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ΤΡ open Α 
 Maes. 
 
 "δ εν". 
 
 
 
ATIOKAAYY¥IZ IQANNOY.’* 
 
 1, I. “"ANOKAAYWIE Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν " ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς a Sc. joe 
 ~ A Ἐπ a A a ἐσ 
 εδεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ,2 ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν (article 
 absent 
 as from 
 
 Matt. i. 1, cf. Win. § 19, 10). For eschat. connotation, cf. Rom. ii. 5, viii. 19. b John xii. 49, 
 
 xiv. 10: constr. John vi. 52. c John v. 20, x. 32. 
 
 10m. with WC, etc. (edd.), from the title the του θεολογσυν 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. 11; Luc., Alex., το, 
 22) or as the herald of God (cf. Chrys., Orat., 36). Inscriptions show that θεολογοι 
 were sacred officials in Pergamum, Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. (Deissm., 231-232, Licht 
 vom Osten, 252 f.), who were frequently vpvwdor as well. 
 
 2 Punctuate Geos δειξαι τ. ὃ. avtov, with WH, Ws., Bs., Hort. On the alterna- 
 tive form Iwaver (δ ἢ), c/. Win. § 5, 26c, Schmiedel (E. Bi., 2504-2505), Thumb 2of., 
 
 Helbing 29-30. 
 
 CuapPTER I.—Vv. 1-3. The superscrip- 
 tion. Ἀπ. Ἰωάννου is the ecclesiastical 
 title (distinguishing it from the apocalypse 
 of Peter, or of Paul, etc.) of what professes 
 in reality to be an am. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 (subjective genitive), z.e., a disclosure of 
 the divine μυστήρια (Dan. ii. 19, 22, 28, 
 Theod.) in the immediate future (ἃ Set 
 y- 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, 10; Zech. 
 i. 6, and Amos iii. 7 (ἀποκαλύψῃ 
 παιδείαν πρὸς τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ τοὺς 
 προφήτας). Fesus Christ is used only 
 in i, 1-5 (xxii. 21 ὃ), Lord Fesus only in 
 xxii. 20, Lord (i.e., Jesus) only in xi. 8 and 
 xiv. 13; elsewhere either ὁ Χριστός (xx. 
 4, 6) αὐτοῦ (xi. 15, xii. Io) or (as in 
 Hebrews) the simple Fesus. ἃ δεῖ κιτ.λ. 
 (from Dan. ii. 28-29), either object of 
 δεῖξαι (Vit. ii. 229) or more probably 
 in opposition to ἥν. ἐν Taxer.=‘‘ soon” 
 (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 (i.e., 
 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- 
 ther 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. 9), 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 (δ) at the same time to 
 maintain reverence for the divine glory 
 (Baldensperger, 48 f.). But John’s Chris- 
 tian consciousness here and elsewhere ir 
 
330 
 
 ATIOKAAYVIZ IQANNOY Ἢ 
 
 . “Ἀ wn - A δ 
 dZech.i. ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ 4 ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννῃ, 2. ὃς 
 
 Ὁ. 13.11.8». ͵ Η͂ 
 Dan. Vi11.EMOPTUPTNOEV τον 
 16,ix.2rf.,., 
 Ap. Bar. οσαὰα 
 lv. 3 
 
 (Ramiel), 
 
 etc.: Dieterich’s Mithras Liturgie, 47 f. 
 
 : εἶδεν. 
 
 e Ver. 9. 
 
 A A , aA ΄“΄ 
 “λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 3. μακάριος 6 δ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς 
 
 f i.e., in present apocalypse. g 2 Cor. 
 
 iii. 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 ἢ, 
 xxi. 5 f.) in the series of visions; the 
 prophet’s sense of direct experience (¢.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 ἢ). 
 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. épapr. (epistol. aor., cf. Phim. 
 το, cf. further Thuc. i. 1 ξυνέγραψε). Ady. 
 
 τ. 6, like PTT 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 rdle of the prophets. 
 On the prophetic commission to write, 
 cf. Asc. Isa. i. 4-5 and i. 2, παρέδωκεν 
 αὐτῷ τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας ots 
 αὐτὸς εἶδεν, κιτιλ. The primitive sense 
 οὗ 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. θ. of 
 Judaism was not adequate to the Chris- 
 tian consciousness without the μαρτυρία 
 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 ἀπομνη- 
 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, K.T.A., carefully heeding 
 the warnings of the book, observing its 
 injunctions, and expecting the fulfilment 
 
2—4. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 
 
 997 
 
 λόγους " τῆς προφητείας καὶ ' τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα "Β Cf. xxii. 
 
 *6 γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς. 
 
 4. ‘lwdvyns ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ - ᾿ χάρις ὑμῖν 
 
 18-19. 
 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. 19. 
 
 [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 (V6lter, 
 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 éxxX., seven being 
 the sacred and complete number in 
 apocalyptic symbolism (E. Bi. 3436). 
 The tats must refer proleptically to 
 to ver. 11; for other churches existed 
 and flourished in proconsular Asia at 
 this time, e.g., 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, 
 a 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 ὁ dv, κιτιλ., a 
 quaint and deliberate violation of gram- 
 mar (Win. § 10, το Moult. i. g) in 
 order to preserve the immutability and 
 absoluteness of the divine name from 
 declension, though it falls under the 
 rule 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 (¢.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, ὁ στὰς, ὁ 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, 
 g), the latter part eclipsed by the com- 
 forting Christian assurance here. ἦν, 
 another deliberate anomaly (finite verb 
 for participle) due so dogmatic reasons ; 
 no past participle of εἰμί existed, and 
 γενόμενος was obviously misleading. 
 ὃ épx., instead of ὃ ἐσόμενος, to cor- 
 respond with the keynote of the book, 
 struck loudly in ver. 7. In and with his 
 messiah, Jesus, God himself comes ; épx. 
 (the present) acquires, partly through the 
 meaning of the verb, a future signifi- 
 cance. For the emphasis and priority 
 of ὧν in 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. lxi. 11, sevenfold spirit of virtues) 
 and shared by Justin (Dial. 87, cf. 
 Cohort. ad Graec., c. 32, ὥσπερ ot ἱεροὶ 
 προφῆται τὸ ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα εἰς 
 ἑπτὰ πνεύματα μερίζεσϑαί φασιν), or— 
 more probably—to the later Jewish 
 
538 AILOKAAY¥IZ LQANNOY 1. 
 
 m i. 8, iv. 8, καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ™6 dv καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ™épxdpevos: καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν 
 X. Ill. 
 
 14f. ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ - 5. καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ 
 
 n From | ABE e¢ p ό © q a ~ Ape 
 Hab. ii.3,Xptotod, °6 μάρτυς ὁ "πιστός, 6 “ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ὃ 
 Zech. ti. rm - λέ κ᾿ - A A ε A 4 , fe Ree 
 
 _"dpxov τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς " TO ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς Kat λύσαντι * ἡμᾶς 
 τ3, Heb. ἡ" 
 
 xii. 1-2. John xvili. 37. 
 
 ii. 10, 13, cf. Ps. Ixxxviii. 38 (LXX). 
 Clem. Rom. xxiv. 
 
 Ρ q 1 Cor. xv. 20, Col. i. 18, 
 r Isa. lv. 4 (LXX), only here in Apoc. 
 
 The λουσαντι . . - απο of PQ, min., vg., Me., Aeth., Areth. (so Bg., Trench, 
 Few., de W., Balj., Sp., Bs., Burgon: Corruption in Trad. Text, 59-60; for constr. cf. 
 Deissm., 227) is a corruption of λυσαντι εκ (SAC, τ, 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 ἀπολούων τε καὶ ἀπολύων 
 
 TOV κακών). 
 
 notion (b) of the seven holy angels 
 (Tobit xii. 15; cf. Gfrérer, i. 360 f) 
 which reappears in early Christianity 
 (cf. Clem. Al. Strom. vi. 685, ἑπτὰ μέν 
 εἰσιν of τοῦ μεγίστου δύναμιν ἔχοντες 
 πρωτόγονοι ἀγγέλων ἄρχοντες), modi- 
 fied from (c) a still earlier Babylonian 
 conception, behind (δ), 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, δ), 
 corresponding to the Persian Amshas- 
 pands (Yasht, xix. 19, 20, S. 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 
 EBSop.aSa 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. 
 213; 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 orin 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-scéne, he makes them precede 
 
 Christ in order. 
 
 Ver. 5. ἀπὸ, «.7.A., another gramma- 
 tical anomaly; as usual the writer puts 
 the second of two nouns in apposition, 
 in the nominative.—é6 p. 6 wm. 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”. ὃ πρωτότοκος (a 
 Jewish messianic title by itself, Balden- 
 sperger, 88) +. 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 from Ps. Ixxxvili. 
 28, κἀγὼ 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—ayarevrt 
 κιτιλ. The eternal love (cf. iii. 19) 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 Orr natn 
 
 (Exod. xix. 6) to emphasise the royal 
 standing of the Christian community in 
 connexion with their Christ as ἄρχων; 
 κιτιλ., and also (Tit. ii. 3) their indivi- 
 dual privilege of intimate access to God 
 as the result of Christ’s sacrificial death. 
 
= ay 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 399 
 
 ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν " ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ - 6. καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς 5 v.9, 1 Pet. 
 
 i, 18-10. 
 
 " βασιλείαν 1 ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ “ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ - " αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ Tot ν. το, 
 
 Σ Pet. ii. 
 κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν. 9: if 
 ae . 2 Macc, 
 7. “180d ἔρχεται * μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν, καὶ ὄψεται αὐτὸν " πᾶς ii.17, Jos 
 3 x A 9 > 2 ga 2 3 ee Ant. xx. 
 ὀφθαλμὸς, καὶ οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν - καὶ " κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν 9, Jub. 
 “ ὡ ΤΣ δ, tah : ΧΥΪ. 13. 
 πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. ναΐ - ἀμήν. u Cf. on xxi. 
 97 (Ps. 
 Ixxxviii. 
 
 27) (LXX). 
 
 ; of. on Apoc. xiv. 14. 
 
 9; from Hab. ili, 10, LXX. a John xi. 27 
 
 y ‘ The world,” Did. xvi.; cf. Matt. xxvi. 64. 
 
 v Resuming tréay. Same doxology as in 1 Pet. iv. 11 ; see also Mk. xiii. 26, 2 Thess. 
 i. 9, ἐπα ee in Camb. Texts and Stud. i. (1891) 168 f. i 
 4 Esd. xiii. 
 
 w xvi. 15. x Mk. xiii. 26, xiv. 62, 
 
 Z xviii. 
 
 1 βασιλεις και (P, τ, 28, 36, etc., And.) is one of several glosses introduced (like 
 tepav or ἱερατικὴν of Syr., S. for vepers, or nuwv of C, Lat. for μας) to ease the 
 difficulty of the original βασιλειαν (pQ*AC, etc., vg., Syr., Areth., edd.) [like veparevpa 
 
 τ Pet. ii. 5, 9]. 
 
 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, 
 viz., 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 
 4cf. 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 
 <o be conscious that they owe everything 
 
 to the redeeming love of Jesus. Faith- 
 fulness depends on faith, and faith is 
 rallied 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 ἡ 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 ἐξεκέντησαν (so John 
 xix. 37, Justin’s Aol. i. 52, Dial. xxxii., 
 cf. \xi., cxviii., adding eis) for κατωρχ- 
 σαντο (LXX mistranslation in this 
 passage, though not elsewhere, of 77) 
 
 —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. v. 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- 
 
540 
 b Cf. Riedel 
 OR 
 
 > a 
 
 9. Ἔγω 
 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; cf. R. J. 305, and Kattenbusch (ii. 533 f.). 
 
 Dan. vii. 2, Ex. xii. 3, 4 Esd. ii. 42, etc. 
 
 σεως ἐν οὐρανῷ (Christ with outstretched 
 arms, as crucified ἢ); 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. (b) No 
 such visible or victorious return of Christ 
 is fulfilled in the Apocalypse, for visions 
 like xiv. 14 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, x.t.A.: 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. k.7.A., Selected as 
 a special class (kal τότε μετανοήσουσιν, 
 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 τι. Unters. xi. I, pp. 
 61, 62), though the Apoc. is superior 
 to passages like 2 Clem. xvii. πᾶσαι 
 k.t.A.=the unbelieving pagans, who are 
 still impenitent when surprised by the 
 Lord’s descent (éri=‘ because of,” of. 
 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 a return 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. vat, ἀμήν: a double (Gk. 
 Heb.) ratification of the previous oracle. 
 
 Ver. 8. Only here and in xxi. 5 ἢ. is 
 God introduced as the speaker, in the 
 
 ATIOKAAYYVIZ ITQANNOY I 
 
 8. ‘Eye εἶμι τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ 3,” λέγει κύριος ὃ θεός, οὗ ὧν 
 καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, 6 * παντοκράτωρ. 
 “Ἰωάννης, ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει 
 
 182 f., cf. Isa. xli. 4, xliii. 10, ete. c Ver. 4. 
 18, only in Apoc. (ἢ) in N.T. Here, as 3 Macc. vi.. 
 δ. X53, 18; 
 
 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 
 εἶμι: Coleridge used to declare that one 
 chief defect in Spinoza was that the 
 Jewish philosopher started with I¢ 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 ΣΝ: + 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 
 (9 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 
 local oracles (for the famous one of. 
 Apollo near Miletus, see Friedlander, iii. 
 
o—9. 
 
 ATIOKAAYVIS ITQANNOY 
 
 341 
 
 “-“ 3 a , 3 ~ , ~ 
 καὶ βασιλείᾳ καὶ ᾿ὑπομονῇ ἐν Ἰησοῦ, ἐγενόμην ἐν TH νήσῳ τῇ f Keynote 
 
 καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ “διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν 
 
 19, Clem. Rom. xxxv., etc. 
 practically (cf. Eus., H.E.., 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 ail 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 leuamentum”. 
 
 i. Q-20, introductory vision. 
 
 Ver. 9. 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, 
 xii. 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, το (ἀδελφοὶ 
 ols κοινὰ τὰ πατρῷα). θλίψει, put first 
 as the absorbing fact of their experi- 
 ence, and as a link of sympathy between 
 writer and readers; καὶ βασιλείᾳ, the 
 outcome of θλίψις in the messianic 
 order: distress no end in itself; καὶ 
 ὑπομονῇ» patient endurance the moral 
 condition of participation in ἡ θλίψις 
 and ἣ 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 μακροθυμία is the 
 absence of resentment at wrong, to- 
 fovy =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 re- 
 peated in Apocalypse at xiv. 13), either 
 with all three substantives or merely 
 (cf. 2 Thess. iii. 5) with ὑπομονή. In 
 any case tm. is closely linked to ἐν 
 *I.; such patience, as exemplified in 
 Jesus, and inspired by him, was the car- 
 dinal virtue of the Apocalypse and its 
 age. In the 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- 
 
 VOL. V. 
 
 of age, 
 
 Heb. vi. 
 12, x. 36, 
 Lk. xxi. 
 
 g In sense of vi. 9, xx. 4, cf. Epict. Diss. iii. 24, 113. διὰ = ἕνεκεν 
 
 μην ἐν (“I found myself in”: implying 
 that when he wrote he was no longer 
 there), not by flowing waters (as ἴτε- 
 quently, ¢.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 do not know. As “the word of God 
 and the witness of Jesus” are not quali- 
 fied by any phrase such as ὅσα εἶδεν 
 (ver. 2, and thereby identified with the 
 present Apocalypse), the words indicate 
 as elsewhere (cf. διὰ, «.7.A., reff.) the 
 occasion of his presence in Patmos, i.¢., 
 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, Duisterdieck, 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, eé.g., Reuss, 
 Bleek, Bousset); the allusion to paprv- 
 ριον 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 
 
 ἢ (From 
 
 Zech. i. 6, 
 vii.12, etc. 
 LXX), cf. 
 trast γεν. ἐν ἑαυτῷ Acts xii. I. 
 
 *Ingod. το. 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, § τ, cf. Plutarch’s discussion 
 in defect. orac. 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. ro. 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 il. 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— 
 i.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. Isd. 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. 9-11, of. 
 Ign. ad Polyc. ii. 2, τὰ δὲ ἀόρατα αἴτει, 
 iva σοι φανερωθῇ), since the day of 
 weekly Christian worship is specially 
 mentioned on which, though separated 
 from the churches (was there one at 
 Patmos ὃ), 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 ἔ.). Chris- 
 tians, too, have their imperial day (ef. 
 Introd. § 2), to celebrate the birthday of 
 their heavenly king. With his mind 
 absorbed in the thought of the exalted 
 
 ATIOKAAY¥IZ IQANNOY Ἔ 
 
 ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ: 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 ἦλθον, 
 μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυρια- 
 κὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ἧ καὶ ἣ 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. Orat. 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, i.e., 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 revela- 
 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), (Ὁ) the guardian and 
 champion of the saints (ii., iii., etc.), (c) 
 the medium, through sacrifice, of their 
 relationship to God, (d) associated with 
 God in rewarding them, and (e) in the 
 preliminary overthrow of evil which ac- 
 companies the triumph of righteousness. 
 Compare the main elements of the divine 
 
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 10—13. 343 
 ἤκουσα | ὀπίσω pou φωνὴν μεγάλην “ds σάλπιγγος 11. ᾿λεγούσης, i C/. Ἐκεῖ, 
 
 “0 βλέπεις γράψον εἰς βιβλίον καὶ πέμψον “tats ἑπτὰ ἐκκλη- κ δε φωνήν; 
 
 σίαις, εἰς Ἔφεσον καὶ εἰς Σμύρναν 1 καὶ εἰς Πέργαμον καὶ εἰς Θυάτειρα ret oand 
 καὶ εἰς Σάρδεις καὶ εἰς Φιλαδελφίαν καὶ εἰς Λαοδικίαν ”. Fie λλμ 
 12. Καὶ ἐπέστρεψα " βλέπειν τὴν φωνὴν ἥτις ἐλάλει μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ - ie, aloo 
 καὶ ἐπιστρέψας εἶδον ἑπτὰ ° λυχνίας χρυσᾶς, pion 1). 
 
 13. καὶ ἐν μέσῳ " τῶν λυχνιῶν ὅμοιον ἢ υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου ᾿ plc 
 attract.to 
 
 ᾷ Ἢ σ. instead 
 m ii. 8, etc., xxii. 16. For ἐκκλ. cf. on 1 Thess. 1.2. Ὁ Cf. Jos., Ant., ix. 4, 59 
 
 of φ. 3 
 p Cf. xiv. 14, Ez. 1. 26, from Dan, vii. 13 (cf. Abbott, 175), 
 
 © Exod. xxxvii. 23 (cf. Abbott; 194 f,). 
 
 1 For the orthography of Σμυρναν (ζμυρναν $Y, vg.) see on ii. 8. 
 
 2 Almost invariably AC, like A (LXX), write eppeow for ev peow (cf. Meisterhans, 
 Gramm. d. att. Inschr., 110 f.): the original viov (of $9Q, 1, etc., Andc, so Ti., WH, 
 Simcox, Bj., Swete, Bousset) has been corrected, as at xiv. 14, into vw by ACP, etc., 
 Cyp., Ar. (so Al., Ws., WH marg.): the μαστοις (am. Aey. in this sense) of CPQ, 
 min., Ar. (edd.) has also been corrected into μασθοις (δῷ, min., Ti.) or even pafots 
 (A, min., so Lach., Ws.); pafovs uirorum μαστοὺς (Luke, xxiii, 29) mulierum: 
 χρυσαν, an irregular contraction, is smoothed out in ΡΟ into χρυσὴν (for the 
 
 papyri-usage, cf. Class. Rev., 1901, 35). 
 
 nature as conceived by the popular reli- 
 gion of contemporary Phrygia, viz., (d) 
 prophetic power, (Ὁ) 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. 11. 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 in a 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 v. 4. is the 
 human appearance of the celestial mes- 
 
344 
 q Only here 
 in N.T.: 
 
 Sir. xxvii ζώνην χρυσᾶν. 
 
 1 
 
 tds χιών" 
 
 xlvi. 1. 
 
 t From En. xiv. 20 (cvi. 2, 10), cf. Matt. xxviii. 3, Slav. Ἐπ. i. 5, xxxvii. 1. 
 
 XXiii. 19-20, Hom. Iliad, xiii. 474. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY ἃ 
 ἐνδεδυμένον “ποδήρη καὶ " περιεζωσμένον πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς 
 14. ἡ δὲ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ τρίχες λευκαὶ ὡς ἔριον λευκόν, 
 
 καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς “ φλὸξ πυρός " 
 
 U ii. 18, xix. 12, Sir. 
 
 1For a late variant (av tp. A. woet ep. και το evd. αὐτου A. ws χιων), conforming 
 the words to Daniel, cf. Simcox in Expos.’ iv. 316-318. 
 
 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. τ. The difficult 
 ὅμοιον is to be explained (with Vit. ii. 
 127, 223, 227) as=as (ii. 18, vi. 14, ix. 
 7, 8, xxi. II) or οἷον, “ 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 πόρπη 
 was part of the insignia of royalty and 
 its φίλοι (τ 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 x.; another conventional 
 simile for celestial beings. 4K. K. at τ΄» 
 a pleonastic expression; either = ‘‘his 
 head, t.e. his hair,” or ‘‘his forehead 
 and his hair”; scarcely a hendiadys for 
 “the hair of the head” (Bengel). 
 Jewish tradition rationalised the white 
 
 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 
 (Ixii. 6), and slays the wicked with the 
 word of his mouth (lxii. 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). ὡς φλὸξ 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). 
 X-=some hard (as yet unidentified) metal 
 which gleamed after smelting. The most 
 probable meaning of this obscure hybria 
 term is that suggested by Suidas: χαλ- 
 κολίβανον - εἶδος ἠλέκτρου τιμιώτερου 
 χρυσοῦ, ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἤλεκτρον ἀλλότυπον. 
 χρυσίον μεμιγμένον ὑέλῳ καὶ λιθείᾳ (HA. 
 actually occurring in LXX, Ezek. i. 27)- 
 
14—17. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ILQANNOY 
 
 345 
 
 15. Kal οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι "χαλκολιβάνῳ, ὡς ἐν καμίνῳ v ii. 18, cf. 
 
 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, xliili. 2 
 
 (Heb.), 
 
 4 Esd. vi. 
 
 κ᾿ a A a 17. 
 καὶ "ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ῥομφαία δίστομος ὀξεῖα ἐκ- χα Pres. ptc. 
 
 πορευομένη * 
 
 4 A , ~ “ 
 καὶ “ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ ὡς ὃ ἥλιος φαίνει ἐν τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ. 
 
 = pres. 
 indic. 
 (Heb. 
 idiom ?) 
 as often. 
 
 ἃ hs 
 17. Kat ὅτε εἶδον αὐτόν, "ἔπεσα πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ dsy > Thess. 
 
 νεκρός - καὶ ἢ" ἔθηκεν τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ λέγων, “Μὴ φοβοῦ: 
 
 z Judg. v. 31, Slav. En. i. 5, xix. 1. 
 
 ii. 8, cf. 
 
 4Esd. xiii. 
 4, το, ang 
 Isa.xlix.2. 
 
 a Isa. vi. 5, Dan. viii. 1%18, x. 17-19, En. xiv. 13-14, 19, 24-25, 
 Slav. En. i. 7-8, Tob xii. 16, Add. Esth, xv. 15, Matt. xxviil. 4. 
 
 Dan. x. 10, 12. 
 
 1 πεπυρωμενοι (PQ, etc., And., Ar., so Al., WH marg.) and mervpwpeva(s9, min., 
 vg., Sah., Syr., S., Aeth., Vict., so Ti, Bj., Bs., Holtzm.) seem variant corrections of 
 the original genitive memvpwpevns (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 Ὁ (ἰ.6., 
 
 glowing white brass). Haussleiter would 
 upon inadequate grounds omit ὡς ἐκ. k. 
 mem. (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 μέσῳ) among the 
 churches. Cf. v. 6 (ἐν μέσῳ) for another 
 reference to Christ’s central authority— 
 ἔχων, κιτιλ. 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 Major—pfopdata, κιτιλ. 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 «.7.X., the stereo- 
 typed behaviour (cf. Num. xxiv. 4) in 
 such apocalyptic trances (Weinel, 129, 
 52, ike ἧς 975) Σ᾽} fOr ‘the. ἘΕΙΣΟΣ 68 
 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 ¢. 
 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,” 10) 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 
 ili. 14. 
 
 d Cf. xxii. 
 3, 16f. I 
 
 e Job xxxviii. 17, Sap. xvi. 13. 
 
 “ A 
 ἐγώ εἰμι °G πρῶτος kat 
 
 3 
 
 , A ~ τὸ 
 θανάτου καὶ τοῦ adou. 
 
 f = κλεῖδας (Helbing 40). 
 the grave, see Rohde’s Psyche (1894), 491 f., 673 f. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 7 
 
 eda» 2.» , , ‘ 
 ὁ “ἔσχατος, 18. kai} ἐγενόμην νεκρός καὶ 
 ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων - “Kal ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς ® τοῦ 
 19. Γράψον οὖν ἃ εἶδες, καὶ ἃ εἰσὶ καὶ ἃ 
 
 g Gen. obj. For Hades = θαν. or 
 
 10m. και ο fv, after εσχατος, with primitive Latin text (Pr., Tic., Beatus, etc.), 
 Haussl. 218-220, Wellh. The words (a tharginal gloss., from Katt. £. €.?) 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 O.T. SQ om. καὶ (“If ο Cov 
 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). C/. 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 εἰμι 
 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 ἰδοὺ, 
 κτλ.» 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. v. 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 Mandean 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 GfrGrer, 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. Ixiv. (fifth century B.c.?): “I am 
 Yesterday and To-day and To-morrow 
 . . . Iam 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. 9 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 &. 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. 19. 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 
 
18—20., 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 347 
 
 μέλλει γενέσθαι: μετὰ ταῦτα. 20. "1d μυστήριον τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων h Anacolou- 
 
 ous εἶδες ἐπὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς μου, καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ λυχνίας τὰς χρυσᾶς--- 
 
 thon, μ = 
 nom. pen- 
 dens, A. 
 irreg. at- 
 tracted into case of οὕς after εἶδες 
 
 1For yweo@ar [Luke xxi. 36] (NcA, 1, 38, etc., Ande, Areth., WH, Bs., Bj., 
 Sw., Lach.) read γενεσθαι (ἡ ΟΡ, etc., Andpal, Al. Ti., Ws.). 
 
 K.T.A. 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 (ἃ μέλλει 
 γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα, i.¢., 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 ver. τι, 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. pvor. (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 atford 
 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. 111. 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, ὃ 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 Gfrérer, i. 368 
 f.), the wind (vii. 1), and the nether 
 abyss (ix. 11), having its presiding 
 heavenly spirit. The conception (E. 
 F. i. 593, 594) reaches back to post- 
 exilic speculation, in which Greece, 
 Persia and Judza 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- 
 
 tions, xiii. at ἑπτὰ, ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαι εἰσί. 
 II. 1. “Τῶι 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.). 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 
 
 Ti, 
 
 ‘ol ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες ἄγγελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν εἰσί καὶ at λυχνίαι 
 
 1 The variant tw (AC, Pr., τω τῆς 36, cf. Ws., 64-65) for the τῆς (τω εν εκκλησια 
 Εφεσου = S) of ΟΡ, Arm., And., Areth. is preferred by Lach., Tr., Naber, WH 
 (136-137), Sx., Sw., and Hort (38-40): for χρυσων (ΟΡ, etc., Ti., WH, Bj., 
 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, iil. 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. ro, 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. i. 
 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 roles of angels in the 
 Johannine Apocalypse. But in the latte: 
 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, 10, 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 
 lescriptions 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” (ἰ.6., 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 (¢.g., ἐν Ἐφέσῳ), 
 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. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 1-CuapTer III. 20. The 
 
ee ea 
 
 i—2. 
 
 © κρατῶν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας ἐν TH δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ, ὁ * 
 
 péow τῶν ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν τῶν χρυσῶν" 
 
 τὸν κόπον καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν σου, καὶ ὅτι οὐ δύνῃ “ βαστάσαι κακούς, 
 Nd. , , A > , 
 Kat “ἐπείρασας τοὺς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι ἀποστόλους ° 
 
 ὀφρὺν βαστάσει), ‘* Thou canst not so much as tolerate”. 
 
 “tested, put to the proof”. e Cf. oni. 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. I-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 
 70. A.D. in Palestine, 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 
 «ἔχων (the church i 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 signifi- 
 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 
 ourse and moral conduct of life, exem- 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ [LQANNOY 
 
 349 
 
 περιπατῶν ἐν a Lev. xxiv. 
 4, XXVi. 12 
 (LXX), 
 
 b Not in ii. 
 9, 13. 
 
 c (Cf. Epict. 
 
 καὶ οὐκ Diss. i. 3, 
 
 2 οὐδεὶς 
 5 σον τ. 
 d 1 John iv. 1, cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 5: 
 
 2. Οἶδα τὰ ὃ" ἔργα 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 
 ἔργα. 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 τῇ ὑπομονῇ - - - νικήσαντες τὸν 
 τύραννον τῇ ὑπομονῇ.--βαστάσαι, the 
 weak are a burden to be borne (Gal. 
 vi. 2): the false, an encumbrance to be 
 thrown ofi. 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 to, 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 IQANNOY 
 
 i. 
 
 f For these εἰσί, καὶ ‘edpes αὐτοὺς ψευδεῖς, 3. καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις, καὶ 
 
 unedu- 
 cated 
 forms in 
 “ES, (Bhs 
 Moulton, 
 1.52. 
 g For 
 
 phrase, cf. Matt. v. 23. 
 Cf. Eph. iii. 17, v. 2, 1 Tim. i. 5. 
 
 ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά pou, καὶ οὐ * κεκοπίακες. 
 Ξκατὰ σοῦ ὅτι τὴν "ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκας ! 
 
 4. “ANN ἔχω. 
 5. 
 
 ἐμνημόνευε οὖν πόθεν πέπτωκες," καὶ μετανόησον Kal τὰ πρῶτα. 
 
 hi Thess. iii. 12, iv.g, 2 Thess. i. 3; Clem. Rom. xxxiii. 1, xlix. 7. 
 i See Acts xxvi. 20. 
 
 1 For the perfective flexion (Helbing, 103-104) αφηκας (pyccAPQ, etc., Al. Lachm.,. 
 Bs., Ws.) [Matt. xxiii. 23] some (Ti., Tr., WH, Bj., Sw.) substitute αφηκες ($Q*C). 
 
 2 For the exwemtwxas of P, 1, etc., S., Andpal, vg., Vict., read either πέπτωκες (δῷ, 
 Ti., WH, Bj., Sw.) or -as (ACQ, etc., Ande, Areth., Cyp., Pr., Al. Lachm., Tr., Ws.). 
 
 period (1 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 evil 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 εὗρ. denote some definite and recent 
 crisis, while puo. 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; “1 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 μοι ἐγγράψαι (Smyrn. v.). 
 
 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: 
 (t.e., I John ii. g; r Tim.i. 5 f.), 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. ii. 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. τ John iii. 15). This em- 
 phasis upon brotherly love 45 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 Οἷς, ad Attic. iv. 17: “ ποῦ» 
 
3-—6. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 351 
 
 ἔργα ' ποίησον εἰ δὲ μή, Epxopal “oor καὶ ᾿' κινήσω thy λυχνίαν kii. 16, iii. 3. 
 Ε 
 
 σου ἐκ τοῦ ' τόπου αὐτῆς, ἐαν μὴ μετανοήσῃς. 
 
 recordor 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 
 “ Hymn of the Soul,” 44, 45, in Acts of 
 Thomas). Once this is brought home to 
 the mind (μνημόνευε, 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.¢., 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 (ktv.) 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. κινήσω «.T.A., (“ 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 
 
 x or 
 6. ᾿Αλλὰ τοῦτο phrase 
 see Vi. 14. 
 
 Jewish idea that Israel’s repentance would 
 bring the advent of messiah (cf. Schiirer’s 
 Hist. 11. 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 Irenzus 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 Irenzeus 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. (Stvom. ii. 20, iii. 4; cf. 
 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 
 
aoe 
 
 m Ps. 
 CXXxix. 
 
 ATIOKAAY¥VIZ IQANNOY 
 
 ἔχεις, ὅτι “poets τὰ ἔργα τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν, " ἃ κἀγὼ μισῶ. 
 
 re 
 
 η. 18.. 
 
 lol -“Β , - 
 21, cf.on ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις - Τῷ 
 
 Rom. Xxii. 
 
 9. 
 n Cf. Polyk. Phil. ii. 2. 
 
 (ἐδίδασκεν ἀδιαφορίαν βίου) and the 
 phrase attributed to him by Clem. Alex. 
 (παραχρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκὶ Set), a hint 
 which is confirmed, if the Nikolaitans 
 here and in ver. 15 are identified with 
 the Balaamites (viko-Aaos, 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. Astringent 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. 10). These as usual are ejacula- 
 tory, positive and brief—ékkA. 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 
 
 o MK. iv.23, etc., fr. Ezek. iii. 27. 
 
 himself simply as the medium for receiv- 
 ing and recording (cf. i. 1g) these oracles 
 of the Spirit (cf. xiv. 13, xix. 9, xx. 17). 
 Unlike other writers suchas Paul and 
 the authors of Hebrew and 1 John, he 
 occupies a passive rdéle, 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. 10), 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. II), privilege (personal, ver. 17, or 
 official, ver. 27), honour (iii. 5, 21), or 
 increased intimacy (iii. 12). As usual, 
 (cf. x Cor. ii. οἵ), 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” (Thuc. ii. 43, 2). 
 νικῶν (a quasi-perfect), in Herm. Mand. 
 xii. 2,4 £, 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 
 xv. 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, νικῶν 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¥IZ IQANNOY 
 
 353 
 
 PyikvTt δώσω αὐτῷ "φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν» Ἐπ. 1,2. 
 
 τῷ " παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ. 
 
 “8. Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ tis! ἐν Σμύρνῃ 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; Bey? 148. 
 
 1For τῆς SCPQ (Ti., Al. Ws., Bs., Bj.) Lach., WH, Sw. prefer τω (Asafa: 
 I, 18): Ζμυρνη (N, 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. 1, 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. 
 ΠΗ αν ΧΙ 15:5, etc., ‘and (for 
 Egyptian ideas) below on iii. 21. The 
 garden-park of God (w. = 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. v. 5. 1 (abode of translated) and 
 v. 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 ὁ τῆς τελείας ἀρετῆς χαρακτήρ. 
 But the allusion corresponds to the gene- 
 tal 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 O.T. 
 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. 10 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 element 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.—mrwx. 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 
 tabbi’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. I. 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 
 
 ATIOKAAY¥IZ TQANNOY 
 
 Il. 
 
 t Cf. χιμ λέγει 6 πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, ὃς ἐγένετο νεκρὸς καὶ “ἔζησεν 9. 
 
 u Vernace 
 
 , Ἀ 
 lar geni- Οἶδα “cou τὴν θλίψιν καὶ τὴν ἡ" πτωχείαν - ἀλλὰ ” πλούσιος εἶ: καὶ 
 
 tive (asin 
 ii. ao iii. 
 1, 8, 15), 
 cf. Ab- 
 bott, 
 Diat. 
 2781. 
 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. 
 
 πάσχειν. 
 
 < 
 
 lal Ἀ 
 τὴν βλασφημίαν 7 ἐκ τῶν λεγόντων “᾿Ιουδαίους εἶναι ἑαυτούς, καὶ 
 οὐκ εἰσὶν, ἀλλὰ συναγωγὴ "τοῦ Σατανᾶ. vo. Μηδὲν; φοβοῦ ἃ μέλλεις 
 
 ἰδοὺ μέλλει βάλλειν ὁ διάβολος ἢ" ἐξ ὑμῶν εἰς φυλακὴν 
 
 w 2 Cor. vi. 10, viii. 9, Jas. ii. 5, cf. Ps. xxxiv. 10-11, and espec. Tobit 
 y Jobn iii. 25. 
 
 z Constt. iii. 9, Rom. ii. 19, Lk. xx. 20 
 b 2 John 4, partitive by harsh Hellenistic usage. 
 
 1 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 etre ἐν Ιουδαίοις 
 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 Christtanity 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 avrois), and helping to prevent the 
 Christians from obtaining the martyr’s 
 body ἀξία pasate Kal ἐνισχυόντων 
 τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων : 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 
 O.T. 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 o. τοῦ 
 κυρίου (cf, Num. xvi. 3, xx. 4, Ps. Sol. 
 xvii. 18, o. 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. 10. μη. φοβοῦ, κιτιλ. ‘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 ἢ). 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 np. seereff., 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 a.p. 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. 6.); martyrdom is no 
 remote contingency. Compare Ep. 
 Lugd., where the martyr-crisis is taken 
 as an anticipation of the final persecution 
 (cf. Apoc. 111. 10, 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: γίνου 
 (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- 
 
9—I3- 
 
 iva πειρασθῆτε - καὶ ἕξετε θλίψιν ἡμερῶν ° δέκα. 
 ἃ ἄχρι θανάτου, καὶ δώσω σοι τὸν " στέφανον τῆς ᾿ζωῆς. 
 ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις Ὁ νικῶν οὐ 
 μὴ ἀδικηθῇ ἐκ τοῦ ὃ θανάτου τοῦ © δευτέρου. 
 
 “12. Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Περγάμῳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον. Τάδε 
 λέγει "ὁ ἔχων τὴν ῥομφαίαν τὴν δίστομον τὴν ὀξεῖαν 13. Οἶδα 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 553 
 
 γίνου πιστὸς © Gen. xxiv. 
 
 = 555 Num, 
 
 ΕἸ, Ὁ. xi 19, 
 Dan. i. 12, 
 14. 
 
 d xii. 11, 
 Acts xxii. 
 4, Phil. ii. 
 8, Sib. Or 
 ii.47, Ign., 
 Polyk. ii. 
 
 A“ a“ ῳ ε “A “- Ν “Ἔν. «Κ᾿ 3. 
 ποῦ κατοικεῖς, ὅπου ὁ θρόνος τοῦ Σατανᾶ, καὶ κρατεῖς TO ὄνομά μου, 6; Pet. ν. 
 
 ἮΤΟ f Gen. epexeg. 
 = Sir. xxi. 3. The spiritual jus gladit. 
 
 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, 
 «τοὺς δὲ μάρτυρας ὡς μαθητὰς καὶ μιμητὰς 
 τοῦ κυρίου ἀγαπῶμεν (also Euseb. H. 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” 
 (1.6., 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. 
 .--στέφ. . 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 or. frequently 
 occurs also in inscriptions as = public hon- 
 our for distinguished service (paid, ¢.g., to 
 Demosthenes and Zeno), whilst the yearly 
 appointment of a priest at Eumeneia to 
 the temple of Zeno was termed παράληψις 
 Tov 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 γενναίους ἀθλητὰς, ποικίλον 
 ὑπομείναντας ἀγῶνα καὶ μεγάλως νικήσαν- 
 τας, ἀπολαβεῖν τὸν μέγαν τῆς ἀφθ- 
 αρσίας στέφανον, and the Greek phrase 
 for noble deeds, ἄξια στεφάνων (Plut. 
 Pericl. 28). 
 
 Ver. II. ov 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, 
 4 ; iv. 8, Jas. 
 h xix. 15, Heb. iv. 12, En. lxii. 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 iii. 12) which haunted the ancient 
 outlook (especially the Egyptian) upon 
 the dark interval between death and 
 heaven. Cf. thesketch of Ani, seated on 
 his throne and robed in white, holding 
 sceptre and staff, and crying: “1 am not 
 held to be a person of no account, and 
 violence shall not bedone me. I am 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” 
 (Ε. B. D. 99). 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 Ῥώμης). 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- 
 ρίαν κρατῶν, τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν τῶν χειρῶν 
 
356 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 The 
 
 kx Tim. v. καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω τὴν * πίστιν | pou καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ᾿Αντίπας 1 6 
 
 1 xiv. 12: 
 “in me 
 
 , μάρτυς μου, 6 ἢ πιστός pou, ὃς ἀπεκτάνθη 1a) ὑμῖν, ὅπου ὁ σατανᾶς 
 
 m Christ's κατοικεῖ. 14. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὀλίγα. ἔχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας τὴν 
 
 own title 
 
 (. 5, ii. διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ, ὃς ἐδίδασκεν "TH Βαλὰκ °Badety σκάνδαλον 
 
 14). 
 n Heb. dat. 
 
 (Job xxi. 22 ὶς 1) ; correct constr.in ver.20. o Peculiar to Apocalypse; for τίθεναι or ποιεῖν. 
 
 1 As an alternative to taking Avrumas as indeclinable, WH (after Lachm.) suggest 
 the genit. Avrua (final C taken up from following O); so Nestle, Zahn, Schmiedel, 
 Bj., Sw. With ev ats or ats (before Avtimas, so Ws., Bs.), supply either exstitit 
 
 (Haym) or occisus est (Quaestt., 102, 2950). 
 
 The avreimas of 5. 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. 11. 
 73, 75, ili. 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, e.g., who con- 
 demns Polykarp is the local high priest 
 of the altar, and the animus against 
 Cesar-adoration which pervades the 
 Apocalypse easily accounts for the last 
 phrase 6 θ. 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, «.T.A., ‘‘ And the 
 magistrate pressed him hard, saying, 
 ‘Swear the oath [by the genius of 
 Czesar] 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 Mace. 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 Καῖσαρ, 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 μάρτυς, 
 «.7.A. He is faithful who retains his 
 faith. Antipas (-- Ἀντίπατρος, 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. E., 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 τὶ τῶν βλασφήμων". The 
 textual variants arose froma failure to 
 to see that Ἀντίπας (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 8. 
 mere minority; they do not represent or 
 
----τῦ. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ΙΩΏΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 357 
 
 ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, ἢ φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ “ πορνεῦσαι. Ρ τ Cor. 
 
 15. οὕτως ἔχεις καὶ σὺ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν 
 , > x ries , ; , \ q Xiv. 
 16. Μετανόησον: εἰ δὲ μή, “ἔρχομαί σοι ταχύ Kal xvii. 1-2, 
 
 ε , 1 
 ομοιως. 
 
 viii. 7-13 
 X. 20-30. 
 xiv. 8, 
 
 4-5, XViil- 
 
 319- T il. 5, iii. 3 
 
 1Al., Diist., Lachm., WH, Sw. (after ACQ, Arm.) om. των before Nux. 
 
 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 
 pov, 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.tz. In the Hexateuch 
 (JE=Num. xxv. 1-5, P= Num. xxv. 6-18, 
 xxxi. 8-16, Josh. xiii. 22) Balaam is repre- 
 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, rr for Zimri, and Philo’s Vzt. 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 E.F. 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 πορν- 
 eossible, as a general description of 
 
 MOP. Vv. 
 
 pagan religions viewed under the aspect 
 of unfaithfulness to the true God (οὔ. 
 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.94f. 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., 188 f.). The line was 
 drawn, but not always at the same place; 
 and naturally laxity lay on the borders of 
 enlightenment. 
 
 Ver. 15. οὕτως «.t-A. 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 Tia... 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 (Sank. 106 Ὁ) 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 
 
 5 xii. 7, xiii." πολεμήσω μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐν TH ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ στόματός μου. 
 
 4, XVil. 14 
 (Hebra-  € 
 ism 
 
 Shes 
 ony); 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, z.e., 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 (Pereq 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 O.T. religion upon earth—as well as 
 all the coming bliss, which in one sense 
 meant the transcendent restoration of 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 Il. 
 
 17. 0 
 
 χων οὖς ἀκουσάτω Ti TO Πνεῦμα λέγει Tats ἐκκλησίαις - Τῷ νικῶντι 
 , 53, A a ¢ Ls , ‘ ΄ ΓΒΕ Ἢ a 
 δώσω αὐτῷ τοῦ “μάννα 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, etc.). See Apoc. Bar. xxix. 8, 
 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 rer. div. 39, leg. allegor. 
 ili. 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. E.F. 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. Heitmiiller’s 
 Im Namen Fesu, 128 f.), 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. 
 19, 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. 
 
 ANOKAAYWIZ IQANNOY 
 
 goo 
 
 λευκήν, Kal ἐπὶ τὴν ψῆφον ὄνομα “Kawwdv γεγραμμένον, ὃ οὐδεὶς u Isa. Ixii. 
 
 οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ λαμβάνων. 
 
 2, ἶχν. 15. 
 v ΟΠ. on 
 Acts xvi. 
 
 “18. Kal τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν YOuateipors! ἐκκλησίας γράψον, 14. 
 
 10 ῃ the variant τω (Lach., WH, Sw.) for της, cf. ii. 1, 8. 
 
 The singular form, 
 
 Ovarerpy (Q, vg., etc.), is less well supported ; similar collocations of singular (i. 11) 
 and plural are not uncommon (E. Bi., 45386, 50645). 
 
 after death, to have his name used to 
 mark his year of office in public docu- 
 ments? ‘My name 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 new 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 
 veu 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. Papy7vi, 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 ‘“‘he 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-:40, 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 (i.¢., king), the last-mentioned ἐν 
 οὐρανῷ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν, ὡς φασὶν οἱ 
 μύσται. 
 
 Vv. 18-29. The longest 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. χαλκολιβ. 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, 
 
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ITQANNOY h 
 
 360 
 w Like wy. Τάδε λέγει "6 vids τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ ὡς 
 26-27, a > 
 from Ps. * φλὸξ πυρός, καὶ Tot πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ: 19. Οἶδα 
 11,750: » RV RR PL geo oe eae , wet 5 , κ᾿ 
 only here ou τὰ ἔργα καὶ τὴν " ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν διακονίαν καὶ 
 in Apoc. a 
 nine THY "ὑπομονήν σου, kai τὰ ἔργα σου τὰ ἔσχατα " πλείονα τῶν 
 
 In in- 
 i t= a a a 
 aah 20. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι ἀφεῖς τὴν γυναῖκα 2 “Ἰεζάβελ 
 
 , 
 dim filius, TPWTOV. 
 
 - “ Ν A ‘ > A 
 
 Boe ἡ λέγουσα “ ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν, kal διδάσκει καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς “ ἐμοὺς 
 
 (Deissm. 
 
 166-167 ; : ᾧ i ἢ 
 
 Inscript. Maris 7Egei, iii. 174, etc.). xi. 14, of. ἐραυν. ver. 23. y i. 15, cf. ὡς... συντ. 
 
 ver. 27. Fa ARE a b Contrast ii. 4-5, Matt. xii. 45, 2 Pet. ii. 20, cf. Ruth iii. 10. 
 c From 2 Kings ix. 22, cf. Sams. A gon. 1034-1045. d Constr. i. 5. e Possess. pron. only here- 
 
 in Apoc. 
 
 1 For φλογα (ACQP, etc., Lach., Al., WH, Ws., Sw.) read the harder φλοξ (δὲ 12 
 am., fuld., Pr, Ti., Bs., Bj., sc. εστιν). 
 
 2The well-attested gov after γυναικα (AQ, min., Syr., Areth., Pr., etc., so 
 Grot., Al., Zahn, and J. Weiss) may have arisen from the repeated gov 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 (ef. 
 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. H. £.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 SCP, 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 (€i8. φαγεῖν, 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. ὦ. Taylor's note) had already de. 
 
19—23. 
 
 Γδούλους πορνεῦσαι καὶ φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα. 
 
 , o , g ‘ > θέλ a > a ’ Ξ pit 
 Xpovov wa peTavornon, και OU ελει μετανοησαι εκ THS TTOPVELaS 34:0 = 
 
 αὐτῆς. 
 
 22. ἰδοὺ βάλλω αὐτὴν εἰς ἢ κλίνην, καὶ τοὺς ᾿ μοιχεύοντας 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 361 
 
 21. Καὶ ἔδωκα αὐτῇ. i. 3, xix. 
 
 general. 
 
 μετ᾽ αὐτῆς εἰς θλίψιν μεγάλην, ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων g ii. 22, ix. 
 
 αὐτῆς, 23. 
 
 2of., xvi. 
 
 Ἀ x k , 2A > a > 1 , ‘ ᾿ 
 καὶ τὰ "τέκνα αὐτῆς ἀποκτενῶ ἐν θανάτῳ καὶ τι,ο7.54ρ. 
 
 ΧΙ. 23— 
 
 γνώσονται πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι “6 ἐραυνῶν "νεφροὺς xii. 2. 
 
 iMal. iii. 5, cf. Isa. lvii. 3. 
 
 k 2 Kings x. 7, Sir. xxiii. 24-25, En. x. 9. 
 Ezek. xxxiii. 27, Ps. Sol. vii. 4, etc; LXX (θ.-- "\0")- 
 
 h See Jud. 
 iX. 2-3. 
 1 Jer. xiv. 12, xxi. 7, 
 
 m Clem, Rom. xxi. n am. dey. N.T. 
 
 1¥or epevvov (ΟΡ, etc., Al. Bs.) read (with AC, etc., edd.) the Egyptian 
 (Thumb pp. 176-177; Helbing, 7) form epavvav. 
 
 clared, ‘‘ more women, more witchcraft”. 
 For the connexion of women and sorcery 
 cf. Blau’s Altjiid. Zauberwesen 18 f., 23 f. 
 — λέγουσα x.T.A., 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. 
 Ap. xxi. 20; 2 Peter iii. 9). 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 (1 Cor. 
 xi. 29-30). The prophet, however, seems 
 to avoid calling Jesus or God σωτὴρ or 
 oolwy, a term appropriated by the po- 
 pular religions of Phrygia and lavished 
 on many deities as healers and helpers 
 (C. B. P. i. 262 f.). —potx., men and 
 women who imitate her licentiousness, 
 @X., physical distress, illness.—peravoy- 
 σουσιν, the fut. indic., expresses rather 
 more probability than subj. with éav py 
 (cf. Blass, ὃ 65,5). For tense of βάλλω 
 see Zech. νι]. 7, LXX, etc. 
 
 Ver. 23. τέκνα, literally, perhaps with 
 an indirect allusion to the killing of 
 Ahab’s seventy sons. ἄποκτ. θ. (Hebra- 
 ism), “1 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. v. 12, κατηράμενος ἤτω 
 αὐτὸς καὶ Ta 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- 
 εἰοη.---πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλ., the judgment 
 was to be as notorious as evidently the 
 scandal had been. The idea recalls one 
 of Ezekiel’s favourite conceptions.—éya 
 κιτιλ. “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 
 
 ts “ » - 
 o Ps. νἱ!. 9, καὶ “ καρδίας - καὶ "δώσω ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν. 
 
 XXVI. 2, 
 εἰς. 
 p Ps. Ixii. 
 
 £3, cf. 
 Apoc. xx. 
 12, XXii. 
 12,2Clem. 
 XViii. 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. 
 Tif; ot, elim.) 1:20; τ (Conve αὐ ΡΟ.) 
 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. Vdlent. τὴ, ‘‘ 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 (rod 
 o. 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 
 
 ATIOKAAY¥IZ LQANNOY 
 
 EI. 
 
 24. 
 
 A A - An , ” x 
 Ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς λοιποῖς τοῖς ἐν Θυατείροις, ὅσοι οὐκ ἔχουσι THY 
 διδαχὴν ταύτην, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰ “βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ὡς 
 
 -“ a κι 
 λέγουσιν, "Od βάλλω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἄλλο βάρος: 25. πλὴν ὃ ἔχετε 
 
 q 1 Cor. ii. ro. τ Cf. 1 John v. 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. v. 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 evitis 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. 11]. 1. 
 
 κρατήσατε, " ἄχρι οὗ ἂν ἥξω. 
 
 τέλους τὰ ἔργα μου, δώσω " αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν. 27. καὶ 
 
 ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν " ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, 
 
 , “- 
 " συντρίβεται, " ὡς κἀγὼ εἴληφα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός pou: 28. 7 καὶ 
 
 δώσω αὐτῷ τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωϊνόν. 
 
 τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. 
 
 “TIT. τ. Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Σάρδεσιν ἐκκλησίας γράψον, υ 
 
 ν Cf. Mic. ν. 5, Isa. x. 24-26. 
 y Doubie promise here only (exc. 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 nye 
 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 111. 5, 12, 21) the appeal 
 for attention, is couched in terms of 
 messianic conquest (from Ps. ii. 8, 9). 
 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. ii. 8, 9. For the shepherd’s staff as a 
 royal sceptre see E. Br. 4317. ὡς κἀγὼ 
 «.T.A., God, Christ, and the individual 
 Christian as in iii. 21 (John xvii. 16-22). 
 “Tilud ὡς aliquam similitudinem, non 
 paritatem  significat”” (Rosenmiiller). 
 John xxi. 15-17 is not ‘‘a deliberate cor- 
 rection of this terrible sentence” (Sel- 
 wyn, 195), 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 
 
 ATIOKAAYWIZ L[QANNOY 
 
 w xli. 5, xix. 15, cf. Bar. iv. 25. 
 
 363 
 
 26. Καὶ ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὃ *typav ἄχρι 8.“ Till 
 
 such time 
 as I 
 come” 
 (eschat., 
 as 111. 11): 
 ἥξω aor. 
 subj. from 
 ἥξα. 
 ti. 3, sug- 
 gested by 
 Κρατς 25. 
 Resuming 
 nom. 
 absol. 
 x Cf. John xiv, 6f., etc. 
 
 ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ 
 
 29. Ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω 
 
 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. 
 vii. [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 δῦναι 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. Ethtk, 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 Kénnecke, 
 p. 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 III.—Vv. 1-6. The message 
 to Sardis. The title of the speaker 
 (drawn from i. 4, 16, 20), as general as 
 
364 
 
 a Herod. 
 vil. 138 
 οὔνομα 
 εἶχε; ὡς ὃς 
 ew ᾿Αθήν- El. 
 as ἐλαύ- τ ᾿ 
 νει, Plato θανεῖν - οὐ γὰρ 
 Hipp. - 
 
 Μα]. 28:0. Θεου μου. 
 
 b Jas. ii. 17, x ; 
 τ Tim. v. Και μετανοήησον. 
 6: Philo, 
 de pro- 
 fug. § 10. 
 
 e Eph. v. 14. 
 
 d Ezek. xxxiv. 4, 16 (Helbing 85). 
 xvii. 8. g il. 5, 16. 
 poral acc. as Xi. 2, 6, 9, ΧΙΪ. 6. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ [LQANNOY 
 
 e See Gal. iii. 2f., Heb. x. 32 ἢ. 
 h Jer. xlix. 9, Matt. xxiv. 43=Lk. xii. 39, see on 1 Thess. v. 2. 
 
 TM. 
 
 Τάδε λέγει 6 ἔχων τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἑπτὰ 
 ἀστέρας - Οἶδα σοῦ τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι “ὄνομα ἔχεις ὅτι ζῆς, καὶ > νεκρὸς 
 an A τὰ 
 2. Γίνου “γρηγορῶν, καὶ “στήρισον τὰ λοιπὰ ἃ ἔμελλον ἀπο- 
 εὕρηκά σου ἔργα πεπληρωμένα ἐνώπιον τοῦ 
 e , a AL fser . > \ , 
 3. “μνημόνευε οὖν πῶς ᾿ εἴληφας kal ἤκουσας, Kal τήρει 
 2X 3 Ν , gz eo. Ah λέ Ν 
 ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς, "ἥξω ὡς: " κλέπτης, καὶ 
 
 3 AY a 9i ’ φ 4 SLLN , 
 ou μη γνῷς ποιαν @pav ἥξω επὶι σε. 
 
 4. ᾿Αλλὰ ἔχεις ὀλίγα 
 
 f John iii. 11, 33, xiv. 17, 
 i Tem 
 
 1 ra bef. epya is om. by Lach., WH, Ws., Sw. (AC, 1 mg.). 
 2For yvws (ACP, τ, etc., Areth., Al., Ws., Bs., Sw., Bj.) Lach. Ti. Tr. WH 
 
 (marg.) read the correct ywwon with SQ, vg., Aeth., Syr., Ande, Pr., 
 
 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. 
 1 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 δ) 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 
 ‘healthy ”. 
 
 Ver. 2. ἔμελλον, epistol. impfi—oov 
 ἔργα, ‘“‘any works of thine”. Judged 
 from the Divine standpoint (ἐνωπ. 6.), 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 “that”). The melancholy feature 
 about contemporary indifference at 5. 
 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 
 
 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. ὀλ. dv. “quasi paucos no- 
 minatos, i.e., 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 pepoduppévos ἐπάτησας, 
 k.T.A.) the sullied garment an emblem of 
 moral stains, including but not identical 
 with that of wopvevew (xiv. 4, cf. Sir. 
 xxii. 1, 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 ver. 5 really 
 repeats the same idea. ottws=“ 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 
 
 , ais aA > a me ” , > 
 περιπατήσουσι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν λευκοῖς, “STL ἄξιοί εἶσιν. 
 ¢ a e ¢ , a Ν > ‘ 
 οὕτως περιβαλεῖται ἑν ἱματίοις λευκοῖς - καὶ οὐ μὴ 
 
 lel nw ~ lel 34 
 ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς " βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ἢ ὁμολογήσω τὸ ὄνομα 6). 
 αὐτοῦ " ἐνώπιον τοῦ πατρός μου καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ. 
 i ~ , 
 6. Ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί Td Πνεῦμα λέγει Tats ἐκκλησίαις. 
 ~ ~ , i. 
 “ἡ. Kat τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Φιλαδελφίᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον, 5. 
 
 6, I, xvii. 5, 2, etc. See Herm. Vis. I. 3, 2, Sim. ix. 24, 4, Clem. Rom. xlv. 8, εἰσ. _ 
 p Reminisc. of syn., Matt. xii. 32, Lk, xii. 8. 
 
 Xvii. 8, xx. 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 
 k.1-A., 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.- 
 xc., white is the colour of righteousness, 
 associated with innocence (and joy? 
 Eccles. ix. 5), just as black with evil. 
 In Apoc. Pet. 5, the dwellers in Paradise 
 are clothed in ἔνδυμα 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, 1141}, 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 ζωῆς, this favourite 
 symbol of the Apocalypse whith goes 
 back even to pre-exilic Judaism (Jsa. iv. 
 Bc; Exod. xxx. 32 Εἰ etc.;) for 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 [QANNOY 
 
 ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν" 
 
 365 
 
 καὶ k xi. 13, see 
 on Acts 
 
 c -“ 
 5. Ὁ νικὼν 15, εἴς,, 
 ΕΏΟΙΧΧΟΣ 
 
 7 ἐξαλείψω TO | Jude 23 
 Isa. lxiv 
 m Cf.ignat. 
 Smuyrn. 
 FE 2) 
 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 c, 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 ὧν φράτηρ ἐσαχθῆναι, 
 ἐξαλειψάτο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτὸ ὁ ἱερεύς, and 
 Orientis Greci Inscr, Sel. 218135 (iii. B.C.) 
 ἐξαλείψαντας TO ὄνομα τὸ ἐκείνου. 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, T= ili. I, 11. 5 (pynp-)=ili. 3, ii. 5 
 (visitation) =ili. 5, 19 O=iii, 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 «.7.A., 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 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LOANNOY 
 
 11: 
 
 4 Unly here Τάδε λέγει ὁ ἅγιος ὁ ἀληθινός, ὁ ἔχων Thy ᾿ κλεῖν τοῦ " Δαυείδ, ὃ 
 
 = Christ 
 
 ’ 4 , 
 (cf. Acts ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείσει Kal κλείων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίγει " 
 
 iil. 14, iv. 
 271 30). 
 John vi. 
 69, etc.), 
 in Apoc. 
 Hendia- 
 
 dys = ὁ ἀληθῶς ἅγιος (Grot.)? “ Holy and true,” of God vi. το, cf. iv. 8. 
 orthographical forms in εἰ or c, see Win. ὃ 5, 13, 32, generally (ὃ 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. 
 
 3. 
 
 [οἷδά cou τὰ Epya:]} ἰδοὺ δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν cou * θύραν " ἠνεωγμένην, 
 
 - Ν 
 ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται κλεῖσαι “ αὐτήν - ὅτι μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν, καὶ 
 
 ΤΊ. 18. s On such 
 t 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. 
 
 1 Pr. om. οιδα σου τα epya (so Hauss. i. 211-212, breaking connection and har- 
 
 monistic). 
 
 of ‘‘genune,” opposed to unreal rather 
 than to untruthtul, cf. Justin’s Dial. 
 exvi., Athen. vi. 253 c: no pseudo- 
 messiah, as local Jews asserted, cf. 
 8c and g) is here grouped with ἅγιος 
 (i.e., not merely=legitimately messianic 
 as in John x. 36, Clem. Rom. xxiil. 
 5, but freed from creaturely weakness 
 and imperfection, his nature in intimate 
 touch with the divine fulness, Issel: 
 der Begriff der Heiligkeit im N.T., 
 1887, pp. 70, 110, R.$. 305), as in ili. 
 14, xix, II, xxi. 5, xxii. 6 with πιστός, 
 and in xv. 3, xvi. 7, six. 2 with δίκαιος. 
 Slightly otherwise, Apoc. Bar. Ixvii. 7: 
 ‘‘He is true, so that he* 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 κιτιλι (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, 10) 
 is threefold: (a) security in their relation 
 to God (ὃ δ), through the love of Christ 
 for them (9); (ὁ) ultimate triumph over 
 their foes (0), and (c) 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- 
 νται the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, 
 καὶ ἡ 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, 9, 10) his church’s 
 standing is guaranteed by his authority 
 (as in John x. 7, 9, Christ 4 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 οἵ 
 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 pov taken as the reason for the 
 promise ἰδοὺ ... oe, just as in ver. Io 
 ὅτι. . . pov is followed by kayo... 
 γῆς.--οΟἫὀὐτήν, pleonastic use of pron. after 
 relative, a Semitic idiom with Greek 
 affinities (Vit. ii. 138, Thumb 128, Blass. 
 8 50, 4) confined to Apoc. (exc. cit. f:. LXX, 
 
 
 
8---το, 
 
 ἐτηρησάς μου τὸν λόγον, καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω τὸ ὄνομά μου. 
 διδῶ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τοῦ “Σατανᾶ, τῶν λεγόντων 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 367 
 
 9. ἰδοὺ ¥ Irreg. 
 
 ; a form,WH 
 
 €QUTOUS 174, 
 Deissm. 
 
 3 , 3 ‘ 
 Ιουδαίους εἶναι, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ ψεύδονται: ἰδοὺ " ποιήσω 102. 
 
 3 ‘ xo o 3 ol A 
 αὐτοὺς “iva ἥξουσι καὶ 7 προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον τῶν ποϑῶν σου; 
 
 ἈΝ “- 
 καὶ γνῶσιν ' ὅτι ἐγὼ " ἠγάπησά σε. 
 
 lone iv. 35, V. 42, etc., ἵνα =infin. of conseq. as ix. 20, Xili. 13. 
 z John xi. 36, cf. Ps. 1xii. 8, Zech. viii. 20 f., John xvii. 23. See on xxi, 9. 
 
 Dan. Xii. 3. 
 
 1For γνωσιν ACPQ, etc., Syr., Arm., Aeth., Andr., Areth. 
 
 W 11. 9, = 
 ee hypo- 
 crites,” 
 
 10. Ὅτι ἐτήρησας τὸν "λόγον Did. viii. 
 
 Xs 
 x Constr. 
 
 y Isa. xlix. 23, xlv. 14, Ix. 14. 
 
 ai.g, cf. Sir. ii. 14, 
 
 (edd.), the variant 
 
 yvwon(, 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 hisname . 
 
 Ver. 9. διδῶ ἐκ (partit. gen., the con- 
 struction being dropped and resumed in 
 a rather harsh anacolouthon, ἵνα «.7.A.). 
 The absence of ἐκ before Aey. does not 
 prevent it from being interpreted as in 
 apposition to συναγωγῆς rather than as 
 directly dependent on 886. On the 
 forms of δίδωμι in Apocalypse see 
 Jannaris’ Hist. Gk. Gramm. 996, 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. ὃ and on ii. 9). 
 lgnatius 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 mpoc- 
 κυνήσουσιν, κιτιλ., 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 1 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”. 
 kal γνῶσιν, «.T.A., still Isaianic in col- 
 ouring (from xliii. 4, xlix. 23). Christ’s 
 love to his church (ἦγ. =‘‘ 1 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. 
 XXiv.21 ἢ, 
 
 Vii. 3, ix. Ξ SA es a 
 ae aeK κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 
 7 
 
 -c Ὁ comfort μηδεὶς λάβῃ τὸν στέφανόν σου. 
 
 nota 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IOQANNOY 
 
 τῆς ὑπομονῆς pou, κἀγώ σε τηρήσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας Tod 
 cf. Apoc. τῆς " μελλούσης ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης, πειράσαι τοὺς 
 II. “ἔρχομαι ταχύ: “ κράτει ὃ ἔχεις, ἵνα 
 
 ὙΠ 
 
 Ὁ πειρασμοῦ 
 
 12. “Ὁ νικῶν, ποιήσω αὐτὸν 
 
 (XX1i.7,20 = τ A a ‘ 
 7120) t στύλον ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ pou, ξ καὶ ἔξω οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃ ἔτι, καὶ 
 
 threat (ii. 
 16), cf. 
 
 XXii. 12. I 
 Win. ὃ 22, 5a, Abbott, Diat. 1920. 
 
 .g Emphatic, as opposed to Isa. xxii. 25. 
 
 See Ps. xxxviii. (xxxix.), 8: καὶ νῦν τίς ἡ 
 ὑπομονή μου; οὐχὶ ὁ 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 
 «tA. (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 
 ἐκ 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, ver. 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 δ) expected exemption from the tribula- 
 “tion of the latter days only for those who 
 
 ἃ ii. 25, cf. 4 Macc. vi. 18-21, Heb. x. 36. ῃ 
 f Gal. ii. 9 (see Legft.’s note), Isa. xxii. 23, Jer. i. 18. 
 
 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 for 
 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. 
 xxxilil. 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 ναῷ (verbally 
 inconsistent with xxi. 22) τοῦ θεοῦ 
 pov (four times in this verse). From 
 Strabo (xii. 868 B, ἥ τε Φιλαδελφία... 
 οὐδὲ τοὺς τοίχους ἔχει πιστούς, ἀλλὰ 
 καθ᾽ ἡμέραν τρόπον τινὰ σαλεύονται καὶ 
 διΐστανται: xiii. 936 Β, πόλις iA. 
 σεισμῶν πλήρής" οὐ γὰρ διαλείπουσιν 
 οἱ τοῖχοι διϊστάμενοι, καὶ ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλο 
 μέρος τῆς πόλεως κακοπαθῶν, K.T.A.) 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 circumstances (cf. Juv. vi. 411; Dio 
 Cass. lxviii. 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” (Ε. Bz. 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 
 
rII—Iz2. 
 
 4 53 ἜΡΟΝ Ἄν ἊΝ A 6 a ‘ a > ~ Sy. h 
 γράψω ἐπ΄ αὐτὸν TO ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ μου καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως 
 
 A 6 fol hoa fol ε λή £4 ΄ ΩΣ - 
 τοῦ θεοῦ μου, “τῆς καινῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἣ ᾿ καταβαίνουσα ὁ ἐκ τοῦ 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 369 
 
 3 
 
 Gal. iv. 
 26, Heb. 
 1. TO; Kile 
 22,Xiii.14. 
 i See on xxi. 
 2,10; false apposition. 
 
 1The ungrammatical ἡ καταβαινουσα (Sy*AC) has been corrected into ἡ κατα- 
 βαινει (Q, Andr., Ar.) and τῆς καταβαινουσης (N°). 
 
 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; cf. Jastrow, p. 173). Kal 
 γράψω, k.T.A., inscriptions upon pillars 
 bcing 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 
 cose 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, xvil. 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. xxviii. 30, quisquis memorat 
 illud nomen sanctum [i.e., τετραγράμμα- 
 tov] 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 
 (6) name denotes (cf. Isa. lvi. 5, Ezek. 
 xlvili. 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 averace 
 and honest Christian. On the connexion 
 between the divine name and the temple, 
 see 3 Macc. ii. Ὁ, 14, Judith .x. 8, etc. 
 The third (c) ‘‘ my own new name” (xix. 
 12) is reflected in Asc. Isa. ix. 5 (the Son 
 of God, et nomen eius non potes audire 
 donec de carne exibis); it denotes some 
 esoteric, incommunicable, pre-existent 
 (LXX of Ps. Ixxi. 17, En. Ixix. 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 © 
 
ΠΟ ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LOANNOY rn, 
 ΠΕ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ μου, καὶ τὸ "ὄνομά μου τὸ καινόν. 13. Ὁ 
 Ἐν ον ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. 
 Exes (ὦ cee aay τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον, Τάδε 
 ἀν Λα δ: ὁ Api, ὃ AGA TuS ὃ uueee | καὶ yan ἡ " ἀρχὴ τῆς 
 τ κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ: 15. Οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρὸς εἶ οὔτε 
 n= Genu- 
 
 tne, Did., xiii. 1-2. 
 
 Jesus Christ are to him στῆλαι καὶ τάφοι 
 'γεκρῶν, 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 nay sometimes be the same ”. 
 
 Vy. 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- 
 mises are assured and realised to men 
 through him (cf. π. καὶ a. 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. 
 fon 1537). The resemblance of 4 ἀρχή 
 K.T.A,, toa 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 fol. ii. 6, Diognet. vii. 
 
 and Jewish wisdom-literature,=aitia or 
 origin), which is practically Paul’s idea 
 and that of Johni. 3 (‘tthe Logos idea 
 without the name Logos,” Beyschlag). 
 This title ΟΥ̓“ 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, fourn. Bibl. Lit. 1902, 
 pp. 78-91. Cf. Introd. ὃ 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 ofany 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 effectiveness, compare 
 the critigism of Longinus in περὶ ὕψους 
 
<3—18. 
 
 Ἁ ae 
 PLeatds* “ὄφελον ψυχρὸς ἧς ἢ ἵεστός - 16. οὕτως ὅτι 
 καὶ οὔτε Leatds οὔτε ψυχρός, μέλλω σε 
 17. ὅτι λέγεις, " ὅτι " πλούσιός εἰμι καὶ “ πεπλούτηκα καὶ οὐ- qC/. Moult. 
 
 μου. 
 
 ΔΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 371 
 
 “ ν 
 "xAtapds εἶ,» ἄπ, λεγ, 
 As hay Of 
 τ ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός Rom. xii. 
 Il. 
 
 i. 200, 
 
 , ‘ ᾿ 
 Sev! χρείαν ἔχω, καὶ οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σὺ εἶ " ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ἐλεεινὸς Helbing, 
 
 καὶ πτωχὸς καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ γυμνός - 18. συμβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι 
 
 Matt. xii. 33? Epict. iii. 15, 13. 
 1 Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. viii. 9. 
 
 ram. Aey. N.T. 
 u Hos. xii. 8 (9), Zech. xi. 5. 
 
 73:74, 
 
 Win. § 12, 
 
 5. or 
 
 idea, 
 
 s John i. 32, cf. Plato’s Symp., 204a. 
 v Art. as in Lk. xviii. 13. 
 
 lovSevos (ΡΟ, 1, Areth, etc.) is a correction of the difficult and original ουδὲν 
 {‘‘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. xiii.); 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 unconditional 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 
 vy which it had been secured (v7z., 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 (Fragm. 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 εἰσιν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν καὶ 
 οὐ βλέπουσιν, πτωχοὶ καὶ οὐκ οἴδασιν 
 τ]ὴν πτωχιαν (2), where blindness and 
 poverty and unconsciousness of both 
 occur. ov, emphatic; ἐλεεινός, ‘needing 
 pity”? rather than (as Dan. ix. 23, x. 11, 
 LXX) ‘finding pity”; tad. (cf. with 
 ver. 19, Sap. ili, 11: σοφίαν yap καὶ 
 παιδείαν ὁ ἐξουθενῶν ταλαίπωρος), only 
 here and Rom. vii. 24 in N.T., two 
 passages representing the extremes of 
 misery—unconscious and conscious. ὃ 
 κιτιλ. = ‘the embodiment of”’. 
 
 Ver. 18. The counsel is conveyed in the 
 
372 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 ΠΤ, 
 
 1 τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου 
 
 wAfor- παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ χρυσίον “ πεπυρωμένον " ἐκ "πυρὸς ἵνα πλουτήσῃς, καὶ 
 gotten τς ὰ S ie h: ᾿ ‘ on ex) 15 ΄ A 
 eee ε΄. ἱμάτια ᾿ λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ καὶ μὴ φανερωθῇ ἡἣ ΄“ αἰσχύνη τῆς 
 ol. ii. 3 ps 
 iv. 16. γυμνότητός σου - καὶ ᾿κολλούριον " ἐγχρῖσαι 
 x Zech. xiii. 
 
 9. For ἵνα βλέπῃς. Ῥ 
 
 constr. ii. 
 II, Vili. 11 
 = dative. 
 
 Ig. ἐγὼ 
 
 y iii. 4, vii. 9, 14, xix. 14. 
 
 z See on xvi. 15. 
 ili. 11-12 = Heb. xii. 5-6, Ps. Sol. x. 2, 1 Cor. xi. 32. 
 
 ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ “ ἐλέγχω kal Traded: 
 
 a 1 John ii. 20, 27. b Prov. 
 ς John iii. 20, xvi. 8 (R.J. 365), Sir. xviii. 13. 
 
 1For εγχρισον (P, I, 92 marg., 96, etc.) tead eyxptoat (infin. not imper; the 
 technical term; Gz. Aey. in N.T.) with SAC, etc., vg., Pr., Anda, edd. 
 
 dialect of the local situation. ἀγοράσαι 
 in the poor man’s market (Isa. lv. 1, of. 
 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 ¢, 416 δ). 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, 48.---ἰ μάτια. 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” (Tvact. 
 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, i.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. 9) in 
 order to have her spiritual life revived. 
 Ver. 19. 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 the 
 method of God at least (ἐγώ, emphatic ; 
 ‘whatever others do”’), with whom cen- 
 sure does not mean hostility. φιλῶ, the 
 substitution of this synonym (contrast 
 Heb. xii. 6) for the LXX ἀγαπᾷ is re- 
 markable in view of the latter term’s 
 usage in the Apocalypse; the other 
 variation ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω (ἐλ. B, 
 παιδ. δὰ Α, 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 
 iii. 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. {nAeve (pres.)= 
 a habit, μετανόησον (aor.)=a definite 
 change once for all. The connexion 
 (ovv) seems to be: let the foregoing re- 
 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- 
 II, ἄλλα ζῆλον) gathering into a flame 
 of repentance that will burn up indiffer- 
 ence and inconsistency (cf. Weinel, 188 
 f.). The urgent need of immediate re- 
 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 
 
10---21. 
 
 ζήλευε οὖν καὶ μετανόησον. 
 
 κρούω - “ ἐάν τις " ἀκούσῃ τῆς " φωνῆς μου καὶ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν θύραν, 
 καὶ εἰσελεύσομαι ' πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ᾿ δειπνήσω pet αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς 
 21. Ὁ “νικῶν, δώσω αὐτῷ ἢ" καθίσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ 
 
 μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ. 
 
 3; crying “ open" (apert), cf. John x. 3. f Gen. 
 nom. (Abbott, Diat. 2421). hx Macc. x. 63, cf. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 373 
 
 20. Ἰδοὺ ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν καὶ ἃ And 
 
 not 7-- 
 then fate 
 of Matt. 
 XXVi. 64. 
 e Constr. 
 xiv. 13, 
 XV. 1, XXi. 
 XXVi. 29-31, En. Ixii. 14-15. g Ver. 12, Suspended 
 Lk. xxii. 30, a reminiscence of Col. iii. 1, Eph, ii. 6? 
 
 1 Before εισελευσομαι add (Hebraistic, introd. apodosis, x. 7, xiv. 10) καὶ 40, etc., 
 
 And¢, Pr. (Ti., WH marg., Bj., Bs.): the 
 βου Kat from the text used by Orig., Hil., 
 
 apparent absence of ακουση τῆς φωνης 
 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. 
 Vv. 2 (φωνὴ ἀδελφιδοῦ μου κρούει ἐπὶ τὴν 
 θύραν - ἄνοιξον μοι, 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. Ixii. 14) 
 was regularly conceived to be a feast (cf. 
 Dalman i. § 1, C. 4a 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 (ἰδοὺ ὁ κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν 
 ἕστηκεν) corroborate the eschatological 
 interpretation (so e.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 
 
 VOL. V. 2 
 
 “= 
 
 S. reads καὶ avovger (thus beginning the apodosis). 
 
 by itself (iii. 11) 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 
 (Cy Aeve) 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., τὸ 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.τιλ.ι, To 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 (cf. 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 
 
374 
 
 AITIOKAAY¥IZ [QANNOY 
 
 111. 
 
 θρόνω μου, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου 
 ρόνῳ μου, γὼ ἐνίκη μ ρός μ 
 
 > ~ , > Lol 
 
 ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ. 
 aA ΕῚ , ΕΣ 
 
 ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. 
 
 to 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 in i. 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. Ὁ ἔχων οὖς 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. 
 ΝΌΤΕ on i. 9-111. 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 Ronran 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 whieh 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. ¢.g. ii. 7 = xxii. 2, 14, 19; ii. 
 II = xx. 163 ii. 17 = xix. 125 11.20 = xy 
 43 ti. 28 = xxii. 10; 11. 5 = Vil. 9, ΤῊΝ 
 ili. 5 = xiii. 8, xx, 15 3 il. [2 = xxi. Tay 
 XX. 14 5 ill, 21 = iv. 4: il. 20 = mx. 98 
 etc.), that it is no longer possible to dis- 
 
22—IV. I. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 375 
 
 IV. 1. “META ταῦτα " εἶδον, ἢ καὶ ἰδοὺ θύρα ἠνεωγμένη ἐν τῷ α vii. τ, 9, 
 
 οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἡ “πρώτη ἣν ἤκουσα ὡς σάλπιγγος ἀ λαλούσης 
 
 ὦ xiv. 14, xix. 11, Zech. v. 9. ci. ro. 
 
 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 fuil 
 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 
 fully 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 (¢f. on i. 19), ushering in 
 the future (vi.-xxii. 5), which—-as dis- 
 closed by God through Chriat 4. 1)—is 
 
 XV. 5, 
 Xviii. 1, 
 ἈΠ 1, δὲν 
 
 i, 12. 
 d Loose appos. to σ. instead of φωνή, cf. ix. 13, 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 (i.¢., for judg- 
 ment)” ? This is precisely the course of 
 thought (first inner mercies and then 
 iv. f. ; although in the former John sees 
 in this life already God’s great patience 
 towards his people, The prophet is 
 now admitted to the heavenly conclave 
 where (by an adaptation of the rabbinic 
 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 v. further leads over into the 
 first series of events (the seven seals, 
 vi.-viil.) 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, 
 Schén, 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 ζῷα. 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 
 {¢a, who worship with a rhythmic emo- 
 tion of awe. 
 
 CuapTER IV.—Ver. 1. pera. . . ἰδού 
 introducing as usual in an independent 
 clause (instead of a simple accus., Vit. ii. 
 
376 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 ἵν. 
 
 eCf.1Kings μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, λέγων, ““᾿Ανάβα ὧδε, καὶ δείξω σοι ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι pere 
 
 XXii. 19. era 
 f(Oflocal TauTa . 
 position 
 
 =“stood”) 
 Jer. xxiv. 
 I, Jo. xix. 
 29, etc. 
 
 g Used in ne 
 Apoc. with gen., dat., and acc. indifferently. 
 
 2. εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι " 
 
 καὶ ἰδοὺ ° θρόνος * ἔκειτο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 
 καὶ © ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον " καθήμενος ᾿" 
 
 1The λεγουσα of HCP, τ, 92 marge, Areth., etc. is a correction of orig. Aeyov 
 
 be* AQ, etc., Ande, edd. [an awkward constr. ad sensum = ἌΝ 
 
 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. Inhis trance, a heavenly 
 voice comes after he has seen—not 
 heaven opened (the usual apocalyptic 
 and ecstatic symbol, e.g. Acts x. 1l1=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. 10) 
 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). avaBa ὧδε (cf. 
 
 ; of. Vit. i. 204 ἢ]. 
 
 the common phrase, ἀναβαίνειν εἰς τὸν 
 οὐρανόν, of penetration into heavenly 
 mysteries), from Exod. xix. 16, 24, φωνὴ 
 τῆς σάλπιγγος ἤχει μέγα. . εἶπεν δὲ 
 αὐτῷ Κύριος . .. ἀνάβηθι. As in the 
 O.T. 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, 5. 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. 9 f.). Enoch (xiv. gf.) 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. 10, 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 ἀνέλαβέν pe πνεῦμα 
 k.t.A., followed by ver. 5 καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπ᾽ 
 ἐμὲ πνεῦμα, ii. 2 and iii. 24; cf. Enoch 
 xiv. 9 Kal ἄνεμοι ἐν TH ὁράσει pov... 
 εἰσήνεγκάν pe eis τὸν οὐρανόν followed’ 
 by ver. 14 ἐθεώρουν ἐν τ. 6. p. Kal ἰδοὺ. 
 «.T.A., Ixxi. t απά 5, etc.). The primitive. 
 
2—3. 
 
 3: Kal ὁ καθήμενος ὅμοιος * ὁράσει λίθῳ ' ἰάσπιδι καὶ " σαρδίῳ " 
 ™ ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγδίνῳ. 
 
 καὶ 'Tpis ' κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου 
 
 k xxi. 20, Exod. xxviii. 20, xxxix. 13, Ezek. xxviii. 
 m Cf. Win. ὃ 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. 19 
 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. g 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- 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 “17 
 
 h “In ap- 
 pear- 
 ance,” 
 
 i Cf. on xxi. 
 
 Il. 
 20. 1 Ezek. i. 28, ἄπ. λεγ. N.T., 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 ex- 
 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 Sp. 6p. A. i. x. o. 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).—lpus. 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 ὃ 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, 
 110, where Plato describes the real earth 
 under the heavens of paradise as a place 
 where in perfection lie such things as 
 exist here but in fragmentary beauty— 
 for example, the pebbles esteemed here, 
 σάρδιά τε καὶ ἰάσπιδας καὶ cpapdy- 
 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 
 
 n Sc. εἶδον 
 from ἰδού. 
 
 o On the 
 forms 
 τεσσερ. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 IV. 
 
 4. Καὶ κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου 1 " θρόνους εἴκοσι ° τέσσαρας - 
 καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους εἴκοσι τέσσαρας πρεσβυτέρους καθημένους, 
 περιβεβλημένους ἐν ἱματίοις λευκοῖς * 
 καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν Ῥ στεφάνους χρυσοῦς. 
 
 206. 
 p Sap. v. 15-16, 2 Macc. xiv. 4, cf. Jos. Ant., iii. 7, 7. 
 
 1@povor (PQ, etc., Areth., Bg., Al. Bs.) after Opovov seems a correction of (ana- 
 coluthon) θρονους SA, 34, 35, Andc, etc. (Lach., Ti., 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 
 εἰς 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, H. F. 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, 
 ots δικαστὰξ: τῶν ὅλων προσαγο- 
 ρεύουσιν (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 
 {oa and the seven λαμπάδες). In Slav. 
 En. iv. 1, immediately after “the 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 yap Kal 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. II) 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, ¢.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. 21]. 
 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. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 379 
 
 A - 
 5. Καὶ “ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου ἐκπορεύονται ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ Kala Ps. xvii. 
 
 He 14, Xxix. 
 « βρονταί Jub. ii. 1, 
 A δ ΤΊ. 4,12,16, 
 καὶ " ἑπτὰ "λαμπάδες πυρὸς καιόμεναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου [ἃ iii τ, ν.6, 
 5 1 a , A a cf. Ap. 
 εἰσιν τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ]. Bar. 
 ᾷ Ξ xl viii. 8, 
 6. καὶ 2 ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου ὡς "θάλασσα ‘badivy, ὁμοία κρυσ- and Slav. 
 En. χῖχ. 6. 
 τάλλῳ. 8 XV. 2. 
 a a és Exod. 
 Καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου τέσσερα toa aan 10f., 
 Ezek. i. 
 
 22f., ἄπ. Aey. N.T, 
 
 1Either a εἰσιν (ΟΡ, 1, 36, 94, Syr., Ti., WH, Sw., Bj.) or a ἐστιν (A, Lach., 
 Ws., Bs.) is to be read for at evowv (Q, etc., S., Areth.). 
 
 3 K6nnecke (Emendationen zu Stellen N.T., 34) and Bs. (?) om. καὶ κυκλω του 
 θρονου as a gloss (so min., Me., Harl., Arm., Tic.), while Bruston takes καὶ ev 
 
 μεσω Tov θρονου as the mistranslation of Ὁ al) (= and the throne was 
 
 in the midst of it, #.¢., of the glassy sea). For τεσσαρα here and in ver. 8 read 
 τεσσερα (A, edd.), as generally throughout Apoc. (a kowwy-form, 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, p. 33, cf. 1904, 
 
 Ρ- 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 
 φέγγος 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, 10, 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 ¢ reads like an editorial 
 comment or a liturgical gloss; the 
 πρεσβύτεροι, ¢.g., are undefined. 
 
 Ver. 6. For a sea in heaven, cf. above 
 (on ver. 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, “ἃ 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, 
 
lr 
 
 580 ATIOKAAYVIS IQANNOY 
 
 ἃ From “yéuovta ὀφθαλμῶν ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν. 7. καὶ τὸ ἕῷον τὸ 
 τας i πρῶτον ὅμοιον λέοντι, καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ζῷον ὅμοιον * μόσχῳ, Kat TO 
 
 ν um. 
 
 xxiii. 22, τρίτον ζῷον ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου, καὶ τὸ τέταρτον ζῷον 
 
 xxiv.8 4 ΑΥΤΟΝ Ε 
 w “apiece” ομοιον αεέτῳ πετομενῷ.- 
 (distribut. ,, 
 
 8. καὶ τὰ τέσσερα Loa, ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν αὐτῶν 
 ἔχων ἥ ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν Kat ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν, 
 
 A 
 x Isa. vi. 3, καὶ * ἀνάπαυσιν " οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες, 
 
 cf. Slav. 
 En. xi. 2, 
 σις τς 
 y Notin 
 Isa. vi. 3 ᾿ 
 (LXX), οἵ. οἱ 1. 8. 
 
 “ἥλγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος Κύριος 6 Θεὸς 6 7 παντοκράτωρ, 
 Secs Ae: 88 ‘ee ee | , ” 
 ὃ ἣν καὶ 6 ὧν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. 
 
 1 ΤῸ 15. arbitrary to omit (Wellh.) κυκλόθεν. . . οφθαλμων, and the variant addi- 
 tion (kat εξωθεν, Q, Pr., etc.) after κυκλοθεν 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 (1 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, k.T.A. : ‘and in the middle 
 (of each side) of the throne and (conse- 
 quently) round about the throne,” the 
 
 four SVT 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 court.—réooepa, cf. 
 Slav. En, xxx. 13,14. The posture of the 
 ζῷα 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. το ἢ, 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- 
 ligtonsgeschichtliche Erkladrung 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 sights.—yépovowy, either with τὰ 
 τ.ἵ. (Exwv for once a real participle) or an 
 asyndeton (if ἔχων here, as elsewhere in 
 the Apocalypse, must be supplied with a 
 copula), κυκλ. K. é = “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, #.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 
 k.T.A.) 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 
 
AILOKAAY¥VIZ IQANNOY 
 
 q—tii. 38 I 
 9. καὶ ὅταν "δώσουσι ' τὰ Loa δόξαν καὶ " τιμὴν καὶ ” εὐχαριστίαν z C/. Μοαὶν 
 1. 105, 
 
 “- θ , a. & ~ θ , ~ ¢c ~ > 4 JA fal ie oes 
 τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ, τῷ “ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» a Ps. xxviii. 
 (xxix.) 1, 
 
 10. “megobvrat οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες *mpecBUTepor ἐνώπιον τοῦ καθη- 3 Tim. i, 
 ψένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας enter 
 τῶν αἰώνων, καὶ " βαλοῦσιν τοὺς στεφάνους αὐτῶν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου, Foe Lost, 
 λέγοντες, vil Got 
 11. ““Ἄξιος εἶ, ὃ *KUptos καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, " λαβεῖν τὴν δύξαν © vil 22. 
 καὶ Thy τιμὴν καὶ Thy δύναμιν " Be ais 
 
 2 Chron. vii. 3. 4 
 Dio Cass. xxxvi., Cicero’s pro Sextio, 27. 
 3, xvi. 7), Abbott, Diat. 2681, Helbing, 34. 
 
 1For δωσουσι AP, min., Anda (edd.), δωσωσι (δ 30, min., 
 172] and δωσι (min., S., Andc, Areth.) are variants (Pr. 
 
 TOV αἰῶνα. 
 
 ἂν. 14, cf. 
 
 e Verg. Georg. iv. 212, Mart. x. 72, Tiridates in Tac. Ann. xv. 29, Tigranes in 
 f Nom. practically = vocative 
 g v. 12, ο΄. 1 Chron. xxix. 11. 
 
 (contrast xi. 17, xv 
 
 Bs.) [cf WH, app. 
 
 cum dederant, vg. cum 
 
 -darent); cf. Win. ὃ 14,9; § 13, 7—the former being an unusual Conj. aor. 
 
 wrath. The precedence of 6 ἦν over ὁ 
 ὧν 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 ζῷα acknowledge him as the 
 "ἅγιος, the latter epithet probably retains 
 its O.T. sense, 1.¢., 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.9. The frequentative meaning of 
 "δώσουσι comes irom the sénse rather 
 than from the grammar of the passage. 
 “Whenever,” etc. (t.¢., 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 
 κε praise ”) or under stress of punishment 
 (xi. 13, xiv. 7, xvi. 9) and fear of judg- 
 ment. The addition of τιμή in doxo- 
 logies amplifies the idea, by slightly 
 “emphasising the expression of that vene- 
 ration and awe felt inwardly by those 
 who recognise his δόξα. 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 8.«.7., 
 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. Scere 
 Apoc. 11. 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 οἱ 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 
 
 h Cf. 4 Esd. ὅτι 
 vi. 6, and 
 on x. 6 
 below. 
 
 i Constr. cf. 
 Ril. Lz, 
 John vi. 
 57, XV. 3 
 (dat. in- 
 s{rum.). 
 
 WOK: 
 βιβλίον 
 
 axx.t. 
 
 ATIOKAAYYVIZ ITQANNOY 
 
 » σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα, 
 
 καὶ ᾿ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν ' καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν.᾿᾿ 
 
 Καὶ εἶδον " ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου: 
 , ἔσθ ἢ θ 2 »b , 
 
 γεγραμμένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν,2 ἢ κατεσφραγισμένον᾽ 
 
 b am. λεγ. N.T., cf. Dan. viii. 26, xii. 4, 9 (Isa. xxix. 11). 
 
 Louk ἡσαν Q, 14, 38, 51, “‘created out of nothingness”: A om. και ἐκτίσθησαν, 
 Pr., 36 om. noav 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 (KA, 1, 14, Syr.) hardly alters the general 
 sense of the passage, and is probably conformed to eowQev, 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, 
 gov 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. 11 ix. 13, Apoc. Bar. iv. 18, 
 19, 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᾽ ὠδῆς συνεχῶς (Dieterich 36 f., cf. 
 Apoc. Pet. 19-20). Test. Levi 3 ἐν δὲ 
 τῷ pet’ αὐτόν εἰσι θρόνοι κ. ἐξουσίαι ἐν ᾧ 
 ὕμνοι ἀεὶ τῷ θεῷ προσφέρονται. 
 
 CuapTER 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. 9 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. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΛΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΏΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 383 
 
 2. Καὶ εἶδον ἄγγελον “ἰσχυρὸν κηρύσσοντα ἐν ς Defined 
 
 Ἢ - Ἐ by Φ. μ., 
 φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, “Tis ἄξιος ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον, καὶ λῦσαι τὰς cj. Ps. 
 a ἢ ; ΟΣ a 5 clii. 20. 
 σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ ;᾿ 3. καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἐν TH οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ 
 τῆς γῆς οὐδὲ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν 
 4. Καὶ ἐγὼ ἔκλαιον πολὺ ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη ἀνοῖξαι 
 MS 8.2 a d = Genit. 
 5. kat “ets “ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων partic. 
 
 τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό. 
 
 proves upon this theory by taking ὄπ. 
 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 of 
 
 grammar ; to describe a sealed book as 
 ‘* written within ” istautological; 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 N. T. 
 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. lxxxix,-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 are 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 (j 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, xvii, 14, etc.) 
 
 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 Jook 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 réle 
 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 cf. 
 Winckler (Alt-ovient. 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. 11, το). 
 
 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. dvoitar... σφραγῖδας, 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, ¢f. 
 Sibyll. iii. 396); the Davidic descent of 
 Jesus was a tenet of certain circles in 
 primitive Christianity (Dalman i. ὃ 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 loquentem 
 ad aquilam et arguentem eam iniquitatis 
 ... hic est unctus, quem reseruauit 
 altissimus in finem [dierum, qui dicitur 
 
334 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ TQANNOY 
 
 V. 
 
 Constr. λέγει μοι, “Μὴ κλαῖε" ἰδοὺ “ ἐνίκησεν ὁ *héwy ὃ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς 
 
 Xv. 9 (iii. 
 21, Ps. a 
 Sol. iv. 1 
 ἐνίκησε 
 σκορπ- 
 ίσαι), 
 infin. of 
 remote 
 purpose (Blass, § 69, 3). 
 x Chron. xxviii. 4. 
 
 56, Apoc. xiv. I. 
 
 3 = 
 das αὐτοῦ. 
 
 f Gen. xlix. 9, Heb. vii. 14. 
 h Diminut. preferred in Apoc. to ἀμνός of 4th gospel, etc. 
 
 Ιούδα, 5 pila Δαυείδ, " ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ σφραγῖ- 
 6. Καὶ εἶδον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων 
 
 ’ As a ’ h 5 , i= mw A ike 3 mY 
 ζῴων καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων “ ἀρνίον *éaTHKOs* ὡς ἐσφαγ 
 
 g xxii. 16, Isa. xi. 1-- Rom. Xv. 12, 
 i Acts vii. 
 
 1For ἐστηκος (APQ, min., Orig., Hipp., Lach., Al., WH, Bj., Sw., Ws.) Ti., 
 Tr., Bs. read [Win. § 14, 5] eotykos (NI, 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. το ; 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 
 apviov did not originally belong to the 
 mise-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.— 
 ἀρνίον (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 ΓΤΎ ΣΝ 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. 1 or liii. 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 ver. 5 unchanged, Christ is 
 erect and living (cf. xiv. 1 and Abbott’s 
 Foh. Vocabulary, 1725), as 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 apvds, cf. Abbott, 210 f. In 
 Enoch Ixxxix. 44 f. (Gk.) David is ἄρνα 
 prior to his coronation and Solomon ‘a 
 little sheep” (i.e., a lamb).—dp8adpots 
 x.T.\., the function ascribed by Plutarch 
 (de defectu ovac. 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. 
 
 AIIOKAAYYVIZ IQANNOY 
 
 4Qre 
 395 
 
 μένον, ἔχων " κέρατα ἑπτὰ καὶ | ὀφθαλμοὺς | ἑπτά, οἵ εἰσι 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 Loa καὶ οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσ- 
 βύτεροι ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου, “ ἔχοντες ἕκαστος ἢ κιθάραν καὶ 
 
 (Apyos πανόπτης = starry heaven), 8.0. 125, 2908 ἔ. 
 aoristic (Blass, ὃ 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 Αρος. ἀρνίον, which 
 is opposed to θηρίον and is always (ex- 
 cept xiii. 11 f.) used of Jesus, denotes not 
 only the atoning sacrificial aspect of 
 Christ (v. 6, 9 f., 12, xii. 12) 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. $Fesu, 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 
 ap.vés, 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 ἢ). 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,® 
 597f. 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- 
 
 0 1.€. οἱ πρεσβ. (loose syntax) ὃ 
 
 Dan. vii. 
 20 f., viii. 
 3, En. Xc. 
 371., etc. 
 11. 4, iv. 6, 
 from 
 Zech. iv, 
 10 (111. 9): 
 eyes= 
 stars 
 N Viii. 5, Cf. iii. 3, Vii. 14, Xix. 3, 
 Pp Xiv. 2, xv. 2. 
 
 7. Kat ἦλθεν 
 8. καὶ 
 
 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. ἀ. (as before God him. 
 self, xix. 4).—y. 9., cf. Soph. Oed. Tyr. 4, 
 πόλις δ᾽ ὁμοῦ μὲν θυμιαμάτων γέμει. 
 An essential feature in the rites of Roman 
 sacrifice was music played on fébicines ; 
 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. viii. 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 AoyiKdv.—ai... ἁγίων, 
 probably an editorial gloss like xix. 8 ὁ, 
 suggested by the verbal parallel in viii. 3 
 (so, e.g., Spitta, Volter, Briggs, Julicher, 
 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 
 
 
 
386 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΎΨΙΣ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 
 
 V. 
 
 q Ps. cxli.2. φιάλας χρυσᾶς γεμούσας “ θυμιαμάτων [" αἵ εἰσιν at προσευχαὶ τῶν 
 
 r =a, by 
 false at- 
 traction. 
 
 8 Isa. xlii. 
 10, Ps. 
 XXxXiii. 3, 
 cxliv. 9, 
 etc. 
 
 t So xiv. 3, 
 cf. Judith 
 XVi. I (A), 
 13 (15), 
 Ps, Sol. 
 lil. 2, etc., 
 and Eus. 
 
 αὐτοῦ" 
 
 II. Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα 2 φωνὴν ἀγγέλων 
 
 ἁγίων] " 9. καὶ *adoucw ὡδὴν ὅ καινὴν λέγοντες, 
 “ἴλξιος εἶ λαβεῖν τὸ βιβλίον καὶ ἀνοῖξαι τὰς σφραγῖδας 
 
 ὅτι " ἐσφάγης καὶ “ἠγόρασας τῷ Θεῷ “ἥ ἐν τῷ ” αἵματί σου, 
 lol Ν A 
 2x πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, 
 ἈΝ ug > ὺ - A) Tet Peal y 4 ν γε a 
 10. καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν ἢ βασιλείαν καὶ ἢ ἱερεῖς - 
 ‘ ‘ 
 Vz , 1. πον ας ea 
 καὶ *Baotkedoouow | ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 
 
 πολλῶν κύκλῳ τοῦ 
 
 28. ἐπι A a 
 uCf.Isa. θρόνου καὶ τῶν Lwwv καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ ἣν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν 
 
 lili. 7. 
 
 v See on ἢ 
 1 Cor. vi. 20, and below xiv. 3-4. 
 cf. 4 Esd. iii. 7. i 
 1 Kings xxii. 19, cf. τ Pet. iii. 22. 
 
 wi. 5, of. τ Pet. i. 18-19. 
 y i. 6, Briggs here also would omit the καί. 
 
 x vii. 9, fr. Dan. iii. 2, 4, 7, 
 Z XXii. 5. a vii. 11, 
 
 1 For βασιλευσομεν (Pr., vg.), βασιλευσουσιν (“Ὁ , τ, min., S., etc., Bg., Ti., Ws., 
 Holtzm., Bs., Bj., Briggs, etc.) is preferable to βασιλευουσιν (AQ, min., Syr., Anda. 
 Lach., Al. Tr., WH, Sw., Jacoby 448-449) in sense of Matt. v. 5. 
 
 2 After ἡκουσα Ti., Tr. (WH marg.), Bj., Sw. add ws (ΝΟΥ, 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 to the Lord. 
 The future which God rules is revealed 
 by him through Christ; and this moves 
 enthusiastic gratitude, till the universe 
 tings from side to side with praise. 
 
 Ver. 9. φδὴν x. followed (14) by ἀμήν, 
 as in the worship of the church on earth 
 (Col. iii. 16, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 16). ἅδουσιν 
 (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 
 “theology’’ 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, 338*. 
 
 Ver. to. 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, ¢.g., 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. 
 19) hails Israel as the people 6 pot δοκεῖ 
 τὴν ὑπὲρ παντὸς ἀνθρώπων γένους ἱερω- 
 σύνην καὶ προφητείαν λαχεῖν. 
 
 Ver. 11. 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. 
 
g—13. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ITQANNOY 
 
 387 
 
 μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ "χιλιάδες χιλιάδων, 12. “ λέγοντες φωνῇ b From 
 
 an. vii. 
 
 μεγάλῃ, IO, cf. En. 
 3, = \ Xlv. 22, 
 ““Aguds | ἐστιν τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἐσφαγμένον λαβεῖν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ xi. 1, Ixxi 
 
 8, etc. 
 
 d λ - Xe , ἄν, ὁ δ ‘ ‘ ‘ \ , x 2 TN 
 
 πλοῦτον Kat “σοφίαν καὶ ἰσχὺν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν καὶ ᾿ εὐλο- ς Constr. 
 , » ad sens. = 
 “yiav. λέγοντες. 
 
 ἃ Rom. x. 
 
 I Kat A , a 2 A > n Lg Jae, a a ‘ge Ρ . 
 3. ι Wav κτισμα οεν τῳ ουρανῷ και ἐπὶ THS ys και “ὑπο 12, ΧΙ. 33. 
 
 , a a ἀνὰ Ν A , ‘ ὙΎΜΕ Ὶ > a , ” Phil. iv. 
 κάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης Kal τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα, ἤκουσα 10, Eph. 
 
 oe 
 ® \éyovtas, ay 
 
 e Cf. onvii. 
 «{ ~ jae. an , ‘ nm , ic 2 , Ry 6 I2. 
 Τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ 2 καὶ τῷ dpviw ‘i εὐλογία καὶ Tiwi τ, 
 A A r. i. 20. 
 τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα Kal τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. " Phil. i 
 10, Eph. i. 
 ὃ he Aba x : 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. 
 
 tagios A (Bg., Ti., WH marg., Ws.), constr. ad sensum [αξιος et, S.], is prefer- 
 able to the easier agvov of 30), min., Syr. 
 
 2 τω Opovw AQ, min., Ande (edd.) is preferable to του @povov of WYP, 1, etc., S., 
 
 Areth. (WH text, Bj.). 
 
 Ver. 12. For similar arrangements in 
 Jewish doxologies, see Gfrérer, ii. 146-8 ; 
 and, for iox. Tu. 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. 18 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. ciii. 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. 10). 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.Cc., μέγας βασιλεὺς τῶν τε ἄνω 
 K. τ. 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 (Z. 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. c. 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’”’. 
 
338 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 I. KAI εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὸ ἀρνίον * μίαν 
 
 V. 14—VI. 
 ἔλεγον, *“*Aunv’’* ‘Kat ot πρεσβύ- 
 
 ἃ ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ σφρα- 
 
 Ν 3 ΄- ~ ε x 
 Ῥἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῷων λέγοντος ὡς φωνὴ ἢ 
 
 b See v. 11. 
 
 ἘΝ το, χῖχ. 14. Καὶ τὰ τέσσερα {oa 
 1 Detached z ὶ σεκύνησαν. 
 Neen gaa επεσαν και προ € n 
 (so often 
 in O.T.), 
 cf. τ mid γίδων, kat 
 Xiv. 16. 
 Just. 
 A pol. i. 65, 67. a See v. 5, etc. 
 
 1For φωνῆς (P, 1) read φωνη [harsh ex. 
 Bg., Lach., Ti., Tr., Bs., Diist., Bj. [φωνῇ 
 
 Ver. 14. The prologue is brought to 
 a splendid close by ‘‘amen” from the 
 four ζῷα, 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” (“ δᾶ similitu- 
 dinem tonitrui... amen reboat,” Jerome) ; 
 Q, Areth., etc. Alf., 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 
 (iv., 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 iv., 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. I-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), 
 
 of nom. indep.] ACQ., etc. » And., Areth. 
 7, 87, 93, WH, Sw., Ws.}. 
 
 international complications due to the 
 scuffing and strife of peoples, and 
 physical disasters as a fit setting for 
 them. 
 
 The vision of the seven seals opened 
 (vi. I-vili. 2): vi. I, 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 (ueni 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 (cf. 2 Macc. ii. 25; ᾿ξ: ; “ithe 
 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, Arad. 
 Deserta, i. 449) have been a frequent 
 omen of the end (cf. ¥os. Bell. vi. 5. 
 Sih. Or. iii. 796), partly reproduced from 
 (Persian elements in) Zech. i. 7 fi, vi. 
 i-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. xxxiii. 27, xxxiv.. 
 28 f., and Sir. xxxix. 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, 
 lii. 658, 671, 676 f. For other efforts to: 
 associate these horsemen with the winds 
 or the planets, see Jeremias (pp. 24 ἢ} 
 and Μ. W. Miiller in Zeitr. f. d. neutest. 
 
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 389 
 
 5. 
 
 Bpovtijs, °“"Epxou’’. 2. Kat εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος “λευκός, καὶ λύε 
 
 ὃ καθήμενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔχων “ τόξον " καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στέφανος, καὶ πα εν 
 ἐξῆλθε νικῶν καὶ ἵνα νικήση. 4. Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγ- ἃ oe 
 ia τὴν ϑευτέραν, ἤκουσα τοῦ δευτέρου ζῴου λέγοντος, “«ὄξρχου ἢ. ΜΕΥ 
 4. Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἄλλος ἵππος ‘ πυρρός “ καὶ τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν 5a aa, 
 
 ἐδόθη αὐτῷ λαβεῖν τὴν εἰρήνην ἐκ τῆς γῆς Kal “ἵνα ἢ" ἀλλήλους ε 
 ἐ σφάξουσιν ᾿ καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ μάχαιρα μεγάλη. 
 
 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 Eastern 
 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.—vikav 
 kK. κιτιλ. 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 ὃ 
 Not the Roman Empire, as if the four 
 steeds represented the first four emperors 
 (so, variously, Renan, Spitta, Weiz- 
 sicker), but a raid of the Parthians (so 
 most edd. from Vitringa to Erbes, Vélter, 
 Holtzm., Bousset, Bruston, Ramsay, 
 Scott), which represented war in its 
 
 VOL, Vv. 
 
 am. λεγ- 
 
 ‘ τ ὍΝ 4 “ 
 5. Kat ὅτε ¢ xii. 3, ἅπ. 
 rey. N.T. 
 
 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 A.D. 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 
 γικητής 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, 
 (Ὁ) the bloody feuds in Palestine under 
 Caligula, (c) the famine in Syria under 
 Claudius (Ac. xi.), (d) the subsequent 
 pestilence, (¢) the Neronic martyrs, and 
 (7) the agitations of the empire under 
 Galba, etc. (for portents cf. Plin. Ep. 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 
 
 i Cf. Lam. 
 iv. 8-9 
 (blood- 
 lessness) : 
 
 ‘"Epxou”’. 
 
 fthe αὐτὸν ἔχων "ζυγὸν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ITQANNOY 
 
 Vi. 
 
 ” Η͂ τὰ Η͂ ΄ ” a ΄ , ré 
 ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν τρίτην, ἤκουσα τοῦ τρίτου ζῴου λέγοντος, 
 Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος μέλας, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ’ 
 
 6. καὶ ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν 
 
 ἡ. Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν τετάρτην, ἤκουσα φωνὴν τοῦ 
 
 8. καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος 
 
 m” ~ 
 1 ὄνομα αὐτῷ ὁ Θάνατος. 
 
 Greek A Ἢ 4 = A Σ 
 terms ἐν μέσῳ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων λέγουσαν, 
 αἰανής Ι ἐς : A , m 4 , ‘ a , - Lg 
 and aléow Χοῖνιξ σίτου ™ δηναρίου, καὶ τρεῖς χοίνικες κριθῶν » δηναρίου * 
 ior λιμὸς. ἤι ς OF Ns > Nou! a5 , ” 
 k Prov. xvi. καὶ τὸ ἔλαιον καὶ τὸν οἶνον μὴ " ἀδικήσης. 
 x1, Ezek. 
 Iv. 16, v. 
 I, xlv. το. ” ” 
 1 -᾿ἡμερή. τετάρτου {wou λέγοντος, ““ Ἔρχου ᾿᾿. 
 σιος ο , Nive , Peers 2A 
 τροφῇ χλωρός, καὶ ὃ καθήμενος ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ, 
 (Diog. 
 Laert. 8, 
 
 18, cf. Herod. vii. 251). 
 
 aor. of prohibition. o Hom. 1]. viii. 479. 
 
 m Gen. price (sc. πωλεῖται): cf. Matt. xx. 2. 
 
 n Thuc. ii. 71, iv. 98, 
 
 τ Read avtw (NQQ, 5, And., Areth., Tr. marg.: cf. xiv. 4, 9, xix. 14) for per avrov 
 (edd.), and, after εδοθη, avtw (Q, min., vss., Bg., Bs.) for the correction avrots 
 
 (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 A.D. 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 avtots 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. 1901, 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.—éravw 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. 
 
 κι 
 και ὁ 
 
 , ~ a > = r> ε , ‘ 2 x - \ > 
 
 τέταρτον τῆς γῆς ἀποκτεῖναι "ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν λιμῷ καὶ ἐν 
 - ’ fol “ 
 
 "θανάτῳ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν θηρίων τῆς γῆς. 
 
 Ξ τὰ q 
 τὴν πέμπτην σφραγῖδα, εἶδον ὑποκάτω τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τὰς “ ψυχὰς 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ΙΩΏΩΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 391 
 
 P°ASys “ ἠκολούθει “ αὐτῷ Kal ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ἐπὶ τὸ i. 18, xx. 
 
 13-14, 
 Hos. xiii. 
 14, Isa. 
 XViil. 5. 
 xiv. 13, cf. 
 Luke ix. 
 
 9. Kat ὅτε ἤνοιξε 
 
 a A a , 49. 
 τῶν ἐσφαγμένων “Ὑ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τὴν “ μαρτυρίαν τ Instrum. 
 
 ἣν εἶχον, 10. καὶ ἔκραξαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, λέγοντες, ““ “Ἕως πότε, ὃ 
 
 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. é.g., ix. 11); 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. 
 9) during the first century a.p. 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. 
 2332a. 
 
 8 xviii. 8;= 
 
 u xx. 4 (cf. Heb. xii. 23). V i. 0, 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 
 
 Ἰησοῦ 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, xvii. 6, and Jos. B. $. vii. 10, 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. το. Like Clem. Rom., John is 
 fond of δεσπότης as implying the divine 
 
 might and majesty (3 Macc. iil. 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, viz., as the answer to the 
 sufferer’s appeal (cf. Introd. 8 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 r 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, “1 
 
392 
 
 w =oBepios ” δεσπότης ὃ 
 κύριος 
 (Philo), 
 Plato, 
 Euthyd. 
 302: cf. 
 on Luke 
 
 ἑκάστῳ “στολὴ “ λευκή, καὶ 
 
 il. 29, Acts iv. 24, Did. x. 3, Dan. iii. 37, ix. 8, εἴς... 
 Ziii. 4, 5, 18. 
 
 2, Deut. xxxii. 43, etc. y John xvi. 2. 
 
 have suffered”. For ἐκδικεῖν αἷμα cf. 
 Dittenberger’s Sylloge Inscript. Graec. 
 8162 (1 cent. A.D.) ἵνα ἐγδικήσῃς τὸ 
 αἷμα τὸ ἀναίτιον, etc.; for ἐκδ. ἐκ. (= 
 
 %)) 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 τ 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. κιτιλ. 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, lvili. 1) applied by a com- 
 paratively rare usage (1 Peter i. 15 and 
 Apoc. iv. 8 being dependent on O.T.) to 
 Sod, whose intense holiness must be 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 eee , > 
 6 ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός, οὐ 
 “ “ 37 
 
 ἡμῶν ἐκ τῶν κατοικούντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; 
 
 Vi. 
 
 *kplvets καὶ "ἐκδικεῖς τὸ 7 αἷμα. 
 
 11. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς 
 
 8... ’ > - - > , 3, 
 ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται ἔτι 
 
 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 Ikxii. 
 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 privileges— 
 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.—“tAnd they 
 were told to rest (or wait quietly) for ἃ. 
 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). 
 Gfr6rer (ii. 50) cites a rabbinic tradition 
 that the messiah would not come until 
 
 all souls in ap (an intermediate resting- - 
 
 place of the departed?) were clothed’ 
 with bodies. ἕως «.7.A., 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 ἢ, quoniam in statera ponderauit» 
 
11--14. 
 
 χρόνον μικρόν, ἕως πληρωθῶσιν 1 καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι " αὐτῶν καὶ οἷν 
 © ἀδελφοὶ ἢ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ὅ“ ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί. 
 Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν ἕκτην ᾿ καὶ “σεισμὸς μέγας ς For 
 ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ἐγένετο ᾿ μέλας ὡς σάκκος ἐ τρίχινος, καὶ ἡ 
 σελήνη ὅλη ἐγένετο ὡς αἷμα, 13. καὶ οἱ "ἢ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
 ἔπεσαν εἰς τὴν γῆν, ὡς συκῆ βάλλει τοὺς “ὀλύνθους αὐτῆς ὑπὸ 
 
 ἀνέμου μεγάλου σειομένη * 
 
 form, cf. Helbing, 73-74. 
 Dio Cass. Ixvi. 23, etc. 
 g am. Acy. N.T. 
 
 14. Kal 6 οὐρανὸς ἀπεχωρίσθη ὡς 
 
 ATIOKAAY¥IS, IQANNOY 393 
 
 Note 
 repet. of 
 poss. gen. 
 1Χ. 21. 
 
 12. 
 
 ethnic 
 use (= 
 fellows of 
 same 
 religious 
 commun- 
 ity) cf. 
 (OFS) 3 as 
 96 f. 
 
 ἃ On Aeolic 
 
 δ viii. 5, xi. 13, xvi. 18, Matt. xxiv. 7, 4 Esd. vi. 14, Ap. Bar. Ixx. 8, 
 f Isa. xiii. 10, 1. 3, 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, 20, 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. xiii. 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. 1r and 12 f. 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 To the Name of Fesus, 220- 
 234). 
 
 ἘΠ 12-14. The earthquake (reff.), dar- 
 kening of sun by atmospheric disturb- 
 ances, (Verg. Georg. i. 463 f., Lucan i. 
 75 f., 522 f. 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- 
 
994 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 Wie 
 
 . ~ Ν A “ , 
 i Jer. iv. 24, βιβλίον ἑλισσόμενον, ‘kal πᾶν ὄρος καὶ νῆσος ἐκ τῶν τόπων 
 Ezek. 
 
 nw a ‘ ε - “ “ ‘ erie 
 xxxviii. αὐτῶν ἐκινήθησαν ᾿ 15. kat ot βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς καὶ ol “μεγισ- 
 
 20, Nah. 
 16 Ὁ ΟΣ 
 Sen. Nat... 2 
 Quaes. iv. δοῦλος καὶ ἐλεύθερος 
 
 Ἀ ‘ -“ 
 τᾶνες καὶ οἱ ᾿ χιλίαρχοι καὶ οἱ "᾿ πλούσιοι καὶ οἱ ἰσχυροὶ καὶ πᾶς 
 
 ἣ 3 Ἂν 
 Ὁ ἔκρυψαν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς 
 
 26. = a a , 
 k xviii. 23 πέτρας τῶν “ ὀρέων, 16. 5" καὶ λέγουσι τοῖς ὄρεσι καὶ ταῖς πέτραις, 
 
 = the 
 Parthian 
 
 chiefs (Macedonian term)? cf. Dan. v. 23, LXX, Ps. Sol. ii. 36. C 8 
 From Hos. x. 8, Isa. ii. ro f., vi. 16, Ezek. xxxix. 17-20, Luke xxiii. 30; 
 
 m Jas. v. 1. n 
 
 a characteristic of the wicked in En. xcvii. 3, c. 4, Cil. I. 
 
 cf. Helbing, 41. 
 
 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: 
 “ἐᾷ thunder-din resounded marvellously 
 through the waste mountain above us; 
 it seemed as if this world went to wrack. 
 . .. 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. 10, 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. I-9) on 
 kings, εἴς, and (in En. xxxvii.-Ixxi. 
 generally) on the earth’s rulers. There 
 is no need to suspect kal... ἀρνίον 
 (16) as an editorial gloss (Vischer, Spitta, 
 Weyland, de Faye, Volter, Pfleiderer, von 
 Soden, Rauch, J. Weiss, Briggs) ; it may 
 be a characteristic touch designed to 
 point the O.T. citation (for αὐτοῦ in 17 
 or in xxii. 3 cf. r Thess. iii. rz, 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 
 (x-8) on earth and one (9-17) in heaven. 
 The former (and indeed the whole see 
 tion, cf. the ἑστῶτες of 9) is an implicit 
 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—17. 
 
 “ Πέσετε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ κρύψατε ἡμᾶς 
 ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, 
 καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου, 
 17. P ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ,] 
 
 ‘ , , a ᾽ 
 καὶ τίς δύναται 4 σταθῆναι ; 
 
 ATIOKAAY¥IS IQANNOY 
 
 Mal. iii. 2, 
 Zeph. i. 
 14, 18, etc, 
 
 q Win. § 14, 
 4. 
 
 αντων (SC, 38, vg., Syr., 3., Haym., etc., Ti., Tr., WH, Sw., Bj.) is an emen- 
 dation of the original and difficult avrov (APQ, min., Me., Arm., Aeth., And., 
 
 Areth., Pr., Lach., Al., Ws., Bs.). 
 
 9-17 acontinuation of vi. (Spitta). Vv. 
 1-8 are a Jewish fragment incorporated 
 by the author? who writes g-17 himself 
 (so, e.g., 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. 1), 
 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 (Ὁ) two different classes of 
 people are meant. In the former event 
 (a) John applies the Jewish oracle of 1-8 
 to the real Jews, t.e., 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 (6) holds that in 
 taking over this fragment and adding 
 another vision John meant Jewish Chris- 
 tians by the 144,000. The latter identi- 
 fication (so, ¢.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. 9 (so, e.g., de Wette, Bruston. 
 
6 AIIOKAAYVIS IQANNOY vh. 
 39 
 ae anet? VII. 1. Μετὰ τοῦτο εἶδον τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους ἑστῶτας ἐπὶ τὰς 
 1κ6 
 Tiamat, τέσσαρας γωνίας τῆς γῆς, "κρατοῦντας " τοὺς τέσσαρας » ἀνέμους 
 Nn. Xvill. κα ~ a a , ΕΙΣ ats ~ - 2 rome a 
 ΕΝ τῆς γῆς, va μὴ πνέῃ ἄνεμος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, μήτε ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, 
 er. ΧΙΣ. 
 36, Ezek. 
 
 XXXvii. 9, Dan. vii. 2. 
 
 Porter, Wellhausen, and Hoennicke: das 
 Fudenchristentum, 194 f.). Only, the 
 general description of redeemed Chris- 
 tians in v. g 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 “16 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 dwells with them, 
 sympathises with their trials, is mindful 
 of their struggles, and wifes away every 
 tear from their eyes.” 
 
 CuaPTER 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, 
 εἴς.» 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 ἢ: A.C. 246, 247) 
 ¢.¢., from Sibyll. viii. 203 f., etc., where a 
 
 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 (ibid. 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. 1 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. x 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 O.T. 
 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 poy φαία 
 καὶ θάνατος μακρὰν ἀπὸ δικαίων : hkere- 
 
=—4. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ LQANNOY 397 
 
 pte ἐπὶ wav! δένδρον. 2. Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἀναβαίνοντα c Cf. Jos. 
 eu. 
 
 ἀπὸ “ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου, ἔχοντα σφραγῖδα Θεοῦ °Lavtos* καὶ ἔκραξε 
 'φωνῇ μεγάλῃ τοῖς τέσσαρσιν ἀγγέλοις οἷς ἐδόθη ᾿ αὐτοῖς ἀδικῆσαι 
 τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, λέγων, 3. “Μὴ ὅἥ ἀδικήσητε τὴν γῆν 
 μήτε τὴν θάλασσαν, μήτε τὰ δένδρα, ἄχρι ᾿ σφραγίσωμεν τοὺς 
 "δούλους τοῦ Θεοῦ ᾿ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῶν " μετώπων αὐτῶν ᾿᾿. 
 ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων ᾿ ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσ- 
 
 iii. 7, 8 
 and below 
 χοὰς 
 
 d Cf. xvi. 12 
 and on 
 ΧΧΙ τ: 
 Isa. xli. 2, 
 Ezek. 
 xliii. 2, 
 Bar. iv. 
 36, ν. 5. 
 En. v. I, 
 
 4. Kat 
 
 capes 'xididdes, ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ πάσης "“ φυλῆς υἱῶν "᾿Ισραήλ᾽ ἕξ Jub.xxi.4. 
 
 g Aor. subj. ‘‘action not yet begun,” Burton, 164. 
 
 more common ἄχρις οὗ or av cf. Blass, § 65, 10, 
 ΧΕΙ. 16, Xiv. I, 9, Xvii. 5, XX. 4, XXil. 4. 
 cf. ix. 11, ii. 18, etc. 
 
 f Cf. on iii. 
 8 
 
 ἢ t.e. the angels, as Matt. xxiv. 31. ‘For tha 
 
 i vii. II-12, xix. 5. k Only (in N.T.) in ix. 4, 
 
 1 Irreg. indep. nom. after accus., as often in Apoc., 
 m Only here in Apoc., except xxi. 12 (also an interpolated source ?). 
 
 1 For παν (NP, 1, etc., Ti., Bj., Sw., WH) Lach., Tr., Al. Diist., Ws. read τι 
 
 (CQ, min., vg., Pr.) [ἐπὶ δενδρου A, Me., Syr. Arm., Aeth. (Bs = δενδρον ?) : 
 
 conj. 
 
 Naber (deleting also p. τα SevSpa in ver. 3) ἐπι 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 
 
 sab, 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 on φυλακτήρια as protective 
 marks and amulets). In Test. Sol. (tr. 
 Conybeare, ¥ew. 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; i.e. 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 
 ~vii. 1 f., the basal passage in Dan. xi. 40, 
 44, xil. τ. 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) 
 ws 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 
 γῇ, are free reproductions, with a special 
 »oplication, of the ideas underlying Mark 
 
 xiii. 7, 8, 24, 25, so Αρος. 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 (δ) 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. 40 ἢ: 
 Jud. i. 34) or drops out entirely, while 
 it is curiously connected in the Talmud, 
 as already in Test. XII. Patr. (Dan. 5); 
 with Beliar, and in Irenzus (v. 30, 32) as 
 in Hippolytus (de Antichr. 5, 6) with the 
 
398 
 
 AITIOKAAY¥IZ IQANNOY 
 
 VII. 
 
 5. ἐκ φυλῆς ᾿Ιούδα δώδεκα χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι ° 
 ἐκ φυλῆς Ρουβὴν δώδεκα χιλιάϑες " 
 ἐκ φυλῆς Γὰδ δώδεκα χιλιάϑες - 
 
 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. 8, 
 ὃ 
 
 ο Cf. ν. 9. 
 
 p Irreg. 
 appos. to 
 piur. 
 sense of 9. 
 ὄχλος. ἃ 
 
 qNom.after ἐδύνατο, ἐκ 
 (sc.) ἐδοὺ ; 
 cf. John 
 Xi. 13, 
 
 ἐκ φυλῆς Ζαβουλὼν δώδεκα χιλιάδες * 
 
 ἐκ φυλῆς ᾿Ιωσὴφ δώδεκα χιλιάδες ᾿ς 
 
 ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαμεὶν δώδεκα χιλιάδες - ἐσφραγισμένοι. 
 
 ΜΕΤΑ ταῦτα εἶδον ὄχλον πολύν,͵ ὃν ἀριθμῆσαι " αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς: 
 “ παντὸς ἔθνους καὶ φυλῶν καὶ λαῶν καὶ “ γλωσσῶν, 
 
 » ἑστῶτες ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου, περιβεβλη- 
 
 4 , .-“Ἔ 4 
 Lev.xxiii. μένους στολὰς λευκάς, καὶ “ φοίνικες ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν adTay* το. καὶ 
 
 40. 
 
 rSeeonxix. κράζουσιν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγοντες, 
 
 1 and xii. 
 10. 
 Biv ὙΠ ΧΙ, ἐν τὰ 
 10, χῖχ. 1, ἄρνιῷ. 
 ἔν. 11-12. 
 u Cf. Win. 
 § 13. 20. 
 v xi. 16. 
 
 ”? 
 
 a τ ΄, αἰ ἃς ae Dey - , ον ~ , A ig err 
 Η "σωτηρία "τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ “τῷ 
 
 ε ΕΣ ε A 
 11. ‘Kat πάντες ot ἄγγελοι " εἱστήκεισαν κύκλῳ Tod θρόνου καὶ 
 ἐν κ a , Ν “- 
 τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων, καὶ ἥ ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ 
 
 1 Read, for καὶ t. οχλος πολυς, the οχλον πολυν of A, vg., Me., Aeth., Cypr., Pr. 
 (Lach.) [Syr. = κι p. T. εἰδον οχλυν trodvy ον, κ-τ.λ.]. 
 
 origin of ἜΘΗ This sinister repu- 
 tation (cf. A.C. 171-174, Selwyn 200-204, 
 Erbes 77 f.), current long before Irenzeus’ 
 day, rested on the haggadic interpretation 
 of passages like Gen. xlix. 17; Deut. xxxiil. 
 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. 10: ‘ 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. ro. “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. 
 
 ATIOKAAY¥VIZ IOQANNOY 
 
 509 
 
 θρόνου ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ Θεῷ, 12. λέ- w Initial 
 
 Amen, 
 γοντες, ; Xix. 4, 
 wii? , ε > , © ἃ , wars ᾿ς , n-fe > , XX1l. 20. 
 Αμήν " ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ * σοφία καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία x C/. v. 12; 
 ae Χ ‘ εἰ δύ ᾿ξ Σ ‘ SVQEGIMILG > . 2A σ. and 
 καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ "ἰσχὺς τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐν 
 ns ΕἸ ob xii. 13 
 τῶν αἰώνων. duny.” (cf. Dan. 
 Ξὶ ii. 20). 
 13. Καὶ “ ἀπεκρίθη εἷς ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λέγων μοι, “Οὗτοι ν asin z 
 Chron. 
 ot περιβεβλημένοι τὰς στολὰς Tas λευκάς, τίνες εἰσὶν Kal πόθεν xxix ih, 
 a ’ z Constr. 
 ἦλθον ;”’ 14. καὶ "εἴρηκα αὐτῷ, “Κύριέ μου, σὺ " οἶδας ᾿. Kat” pratt. si. 
 - ΞΟ ΔΓ] , a , a 25, Cant. 
 εἶπέ μοι, “Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐρχόμενοι “ ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης, Ὁ 
 a Aoristic 
 εν. 7. 
 
 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 (v. 12) and 
 deliver (vii. 14) men, in straits where no 
 human prudence could prevail. See 
 Clem. Rom. lx. 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 
 εἷς 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 (¢.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. 9) is to be world-wide, this 
 
 c 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.1o. 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 and at 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 martyrio 
 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. It is noticeable 
 that the mystic union of the individual. 
 Christian with Christ mainly comes for- 
 
VII 
 
 Ξ καῦμα * 
 
 ἱ ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς, 
 
 400 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ITQANNOY 
 d Reward καὶ €m\uvay Tas στολὰς αὐτῶν Kal ἐλεύκαναν αὐτὰς ἐν τῷ αἵματι 
 and glory _ 
 (c.g. Jer. τοῦ ἀρνίου. 
 XXXi. g- 5, ‘2 ἢ fe 
 12);Lev- 15. “ διὰ τοῦτό εἰσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 1{π1Ὸ privi- ‘ , yy ee Ee κῆ» \ Q 2 a A > Phi 
 lege καὶ λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς ἐν TO ναῷ αὐτοῦ 
 (Deut. x. ὩΣ ἑ Pert μ᾿ Ξ t - ἀχὸ αν Ὲ 
 8, etc., cf. καὶ 6 καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου ἦ σκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. 
 Ps, Sol. ii. 2 , »” Θ᾽ " , + 
 40). 16. οὐ πεινάσουσιν ἔτι, οὐδὲ διψήσουσιν Ett, 
 ἜΣ Xi. 19, Ε οὐδὲ μὲ , ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς ὁ RX ade a 
 xxii. 3 οὐδὲ μὴ πέσῃ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς 6 ἥλιος, οὐδὲ πᾶν 
 (wor- a 
 ship). 17. ὅτι τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἀνὰ pecov! τοῦ θρόνου 
 f Divine nA 
 ean kat © ὁδηγήσει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ " ζωῆς πηγὰς * ὑδάτων, 
 and proe 
 tection, 
 
 Ps. Sol. vii. 1,5; cf. xxi. 3, John i. 14, also Lev. xxvi. 11, Isa. iv. 5, Ezek. xxxvii. 27, etc. 
 i Ezek. xxxiv. 23, Ps. xxili. 1, John x. 1f.; not Death, 
 
 cxxi. 6; from Isa. xlix. ro. ἢ xvi. 9. 
 
 Clem. Rom. li. 
 
 k xxi. 6, xxii. 1, 17, John iv. 
 
 g Pa: 
 
 10, vii. 8 (Jer. ii. 13), Cant. iv. 15. 
 
 lava μεσον, the true reading, is not a subtle allusion to mediatorship (Abbott, 
 198-199) but a loose synonym for ev peow (cf. Weymouth, Fourn. Philol., 1869, ii. 
 318-322): the ζωσας of min., Me., Syr. (ζωὴν και ἐπι S.) is a correction of the orig. 
 gen. of quality {wns (MSS., edd.), which is thrown to the front (like σαρκος in 
 
 I Pet. iii. 21) for emphasis. 
 
 ward in the Apocalypse (¢f. 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 ‘he 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. θρόν.). 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 Johni. 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 μή 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 καῦμα 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 ζωῆς) ; a favourite 
 Johannine idea. In Enoch xilii, 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 ‘‘a 
 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, cf. 
 Dieterich, 97 f.). [π 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. 5. 127. In the ideal 
 
15—17. VIII. 1—2. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ [QANNOY 
 
 401 
 
 καὶ ᾿ἐξαλείψει ὁ Θεὸς πᾶν "᾿ δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν; Isa. xxv. 8. 
 
 αὐτῶν. 
 WALI. 
 
 [] 8 3 “- 3 ~ ε ς , 
 σιγὴ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὡς ἡμιώρον. 2. 
 
 m Form (cf. 
 XXi. 4) of 
 om. 
 
 KAI ὅταν "ἤνοιξε τὴν σφραγῖδα τὴν ἑβδόμην, ἐγένετο peculiar 
 
 to Apoc. 
 
 in N.T. 
 a orav irreg. 
 
 equiv. for 
 
 Kat εἶδον τοὺς “ἑπτὰ ἀγγέ- 
 
 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 Boéklen, 133 f.).—é68nyyoe, 
 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 ἢ) where the Hellenic 
 conception of Gods garden in the next 
 world predominates (Dieterich, 19 f.).— 
 Briggs explains the variants σκηνώσει 
 ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς (vii. 15) and ox. μετ᾽ αὐτῶν 
 (xxi. 3), ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθ. (xxi. 4) and ἐκ τῶν 
 66. (vii. 17) as variant translations of 
 
 jw OANA and OM ; 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. 1, 2), opens, after a prelude (2-5), in 
 viii. 6 and does not close till xi. 19 (cf. 
 viii. 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 
 
 b 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 (vill. 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 (ἧμ., cf. 
 Win. § 5, 22 a for form) may have been 
 an ominous period; Josephus (B. F. vi. 5, 
 § 3) describes a portent at the siege οἱ 
 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 36f., R.F. 319 ἢ); they 
 belonged to pre-Christian Judaism (Tobit 
 xii. 15, “1 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 ὃ the prayers of the righteous are. 
 offered by Sandalphon (cf. Longfellow’s- 
 Sandalphon, and contrast Heb. vii. 25). 
 
AITOKAAY¥VIZ LQANNOY 
 
 VIII. 
 
 3. καὶ “ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἦλθε Kal ἐστάθη ΄ ἐπὶ τοῦ 
 
 A a - , i 
 ταῖς προσευχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων ᾿ πάντων ἐπὶ τὸ 
 
 4. καὶ ἀνέβη ὃ 
 
 ταῖς προσευχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων ἐκ χειρὸς τοῦ 
 ς. καὶ "᾿ εἴληφεν ὁ ἄγγελος τὸν λιβα- 
 
 h Dat. commodi? 
 
 i ; n cf. Moult. i. 
 k Num. iv. 11, inner altar of incense. é. 
 
 402 
 dx Thess. λους oft ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἑστήκασι, καὶ ἐδόθησαν αὐτοῖς ἑπτὰ 
 iv. 16, I 
 Cor. xv. 4 σάλπιγγες. 
 2, Matt. ; = wile he ΟΝ ΠΩΣ : 
 xxiv. 31, θυσιαστηρίου, ἔχων λιβανωτὸν ὅ χρυσοῦν καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ θυμιά- 
 4 Esd. ν. 
 4, Vi. 23; ματα πολλά, ἵνα δώσει ἢ 
 cf. Josh. κθ , x “ ΟῚ ΡΣ A) , 
 vi. 4, Jer. " θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν τὸ ἐνώπιον τοῦ ᾿ θρόνου. 
 iv. 19 ΗΝ 
 Zephi. καπνὸς τῶν θυμιαμάτων ἢ 
 15-16. > ’ yee J A A 
 e As vii.2. ἀγγέλου ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 f iii. 20, vii. 
 I, etc. (= ἵ ἢ is Sn 
 “at altar of burnt offering”) Amos ix. 1. g 1 Kings vii. 50. 
 75. = “in aid of". i Cf. Win. § 20, 11f. 
 God (ix. 13). m Aoristic pf., v. 7. 
 
 1 The variants 8woy and $w are corrections of the original δωσει (NAC, 1, edd.) 
 —.va with fut. indic. as iii. 9, etc. (Win. § 5, 17, ὃ 13, 7, § 14, 9)- 
 
 This septet of distinguished angels be- 
 longs to the circle of ideas behind i. 4, iv. 
 5, v. 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 (? 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, i.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 isa temple, although 
 this is not expressly stated till xi. 19; 
 nor is it homogeneous with the throne- 
 description in chap. iv. λιβανωτόν 
 (‘‘ incense,” Gm. Aey. N.T.) is used by 
 mistake for the classical ABavwrpiv(LXX, 
 πυρίε]ιον or θυίσκη) = “censer,” as al- 
 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 ὃ, 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. 19) 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. 10, crave 
 punishment upon God’s enemies through- 
 
3—6. 
 
 AIIOKAAYY¥VIZ LOQANNOY 
 
 403 
 
 ‘ ΔΝ , Pera | > a Ν A ΄ νν» A 
 ψωτὸν καὶ ἐγέμισεν αὐτὸν ἐκ TOU πυρὸς TOU θυσιαστηρίου καὶ ἔβαλεν ἃ vi. 13. 
 
 ο Exod. xix. 
 
 " εἰς τὴν ἢ γῆν" Kai ὃ ἐγένοντο Bpovrai! καὶ φωναὶ καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ 16, Ezek. 
 
 σεισμός. 
 
 6. Καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι ἔχοντες τὰς ἢ ἑπτὰ σάλπιγγας ἡτοίμασαν 
 
 X12. 
 
 p Seven 
 trumpets 
 in Levi- 
 tical 
 orchestra, 
 
 Neh, xii. 41, etc. 
 
 1Bpovrat kat αστραπαι kat φωναι A, 16, 38, Me., Syr. (Lach., WH marg., Al., 
 
 Ws.), text SQ, min., vg., Arm., S., Ande, 
 
 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, 7.e., 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 ὁ κόσμος οὗτος, Did. x.). 
 In Apoc. Mos. (tr. Conybeare, $ewish 
 Quart. Rev., 1895, 216-235) xxxiii., 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. 1. 
 xxxili. 23; Zech. i, 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 r6le 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. v, 4;.and Tertull. de Orat. xii.). 
 Plato, in Sympos. 202 E., makes the 
 
 Pre εἴο (lilt, ΝΗ, Β]:, Sw., Bs.). 
 
 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. I, 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. 6f. 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. Ti. xx. 426- 
 427) be worked out with any plausibility. 
 
 Vv. 6-12. The first four trumpets. 
 
 Ver. 6. Inthe 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 
 
 s . ςε a a ’ 
 4 xi.19,xvi. αὑτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσι. 
 21 only, ἴῃ 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 VIiw. 
 
 7. Καὶ 6 πρῶτος ἐσάλπισεν, καὶ. 
 
 N.T. See ἐγένετο “χάλαζα καὶ “ πῦρ μεμιγμένα ἐν " αἵματι, καὶ ἐβλήθη εἰς. 
 
 Ovid's 4 x 
 Met.xv. THVv ν᾿ 
 788, Exod. se 
 
 ix. 24, Isa. ὅρων KATEKAN, Kal πᾶς χόρτος χλωρὸς κατεκάη. 
 
 XXVill. 2, 
 Ps. xviii. 
 
 πος , a A , ΟΣ ἄγ | , a ἐς 
 και TO τριτον THS ys κατεκαάη; καὶ TO τριτον των δέν- 
 
 8. Καὶ & 
 
 δεύτερος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν, “Kal ὡς ὄρος μέγα πυρὶ καιόμενον. 
 
 ἸΟϑάαν, ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν ᾿ καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ τρίτον τῆς θαλάσσης 
 
 9, LXX 
 s Ezek. 
 
 XXXVili. 
 22, Joel 
 ii. 30 (iii. 
 3)- ᾿ς 
 
 t 4 Esd. v. 8, Isa. il. 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, i.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 b, 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 ὃ, 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 ὦ, 
 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 am οὐρανῶν . .. 
 βρέξει. .. πῦρ 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 
 
 Ὁ En. 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. 
 
 Yatpa, 9. καὶ ἀπέθανε τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ θαλ- 
 άσσῃ, τὰ “ ἔχοντα ψυχάς, καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν " πλοίων 7 διεφθάρησαν. 
 
 v Exod. vii- 
 x Isa. ii. 16. 
 
 various disasters, especially when stars 
 fell. Wetstein cites Bara Mezia, 59, τ; 
 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, g. 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. § 5) 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. AITIOKAAYY 
 
 10. Kat ὁ τρίτος ἄγγελος 
 
 I= IQANNOY 405 
 
 καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐκ: Cf. Sib. 
 
 ἐσάλπισεν, i ‘ 
 r. Vv. 158+ 
 
 τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀστὴρ μέγας καιόμενος ὡς λαμπάς, καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ a xvi. 4, cf. 
 
 ’ a a ~ 
 τρίτον τῶν ποταμῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς "πηγὰς τῶν ὑδάτων. 
 
 Ps. Sol. 
 Xvii. 21, 
 Test. 
 
 II. καὶ τὸ 
 
 ” lol , - 
 ὄνομα τοῦ ἀστέρος λέγεται ὁ ἢἤΑψινθος ᾿ καὶ “ ἐγένετο τὸ τρίτον τῶν Levi. 4. 
 
 ὑδάτων “ εἰς ἄψινθον, καὶ 
 ὑδάτων, ὅτι ἐπικράνθησαν. 
 
 “ , “ 
 ἐσάλπισεν, καὶ “ἐπλήγη τὸ τρίτον τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς 22. 
 ~ aA , A 
 σελήνης Kal τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων, ἵνα σκοτισθῇ τὸ τρίτον αὐτῶν, 
 ἈΝ a ε , 
 Kal ἣ ἡμέρα μὴ *pdvy τὸ τρίτον αὐτῆς, καὶ ἡ νὺξ ὁμοίως. 
 
 πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπέθανον ἐκ τῶν 
 12. “Kat ὃ τέταρτος ἄγγελος 
 
 b Jer. ix. 15, 
 XXili. 15. 
 
 ς Luke xiii. 
 19, cf. 
 Win. § 29, 
 
 d Exod. x. 
 21-22; cf. 
 on Vi. 12, 
 with 4 
 Esd. v. 4. 
 
 13. Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ | πετομένου ἐν ® pEeTOUPAVMATL, @ ix λεγ. 
 A ~ δ oie 
 λέγοντος φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, ἢ ““ Οὐαὶ, οὐαὶ, οὐαὶ τοὺς 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. N.T. 
 
 i xii. 12. k Cf. ver. 11; = ἀπό Matt. xviii. 7. 
 
 1 The curious and inferior variant ayyeAov (P, 1, etc., Arm., Vict., And., Vitringa: 
 unus ut aquilam, Pr.) probably arose from a copyist’s recollection of xiv. 6. K6n- 
 necke (Emendationen zu Stellen N.T., 34-35) prefers the complete (so 13) reading 
 
 ayyedov 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 circa 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 [cf. 
 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. . - εἰς, 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 (τοοτ), 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 (pavy, or φανῇ, 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. Ixxvii. 17-22, Ixxxvii. 1 (cf. 
 
 6 
 
406 
 
 ἃ Vili. To, 
 xii. 9, Isa. 
 xiv. 12, 
 Luke x. 
 18. 
 
 b xi. 7, xvii. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 IX. 1. ΚΑΙ ὃ πέμπτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν, καὶ εἶδον 
 
 ΙΧ. 
 
 " ἀστέρα ἐκ 
 
 τοῦ οὐρανοῦ " πεπτωκότα εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ κλεῖς τοῦ 
 a “- μὴ 
 "φρέατος τῆς ἀβύσσου, 2. καὶ ἤνοιξε τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ 
 
 8, xx. 1,3, ἀνέβη “ καπνὸς ἐκ τοῦ φρέατος ὡς καπνὸς καμίνου μεγάλης, καὶ 
 
 En. x 
 
 Luke viii.“ €oxoTwOy ὁ ἥλιος Kal 6 ἀὴρ ἐκ τοῦ καπνοῦ τοῦ φρέατος. 
 
 31,cf.Gen. Ps 
 xxix. 2, ἐκ TOU 
 
 c Gent xix. ν 
 28, Exod. Tt, 
 xix. 18, 
 Joel ii. 2, 
 10. 
 
 ἃ 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, t.e., 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. Bz. ‘‘ 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 jifth 
 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 (2nd 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. I) 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 
 
 οὐδὲ πᾶν δένδρον, εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους 5 οἵτινες οὐκ 
 
 e Cf. Schol. on Arist. Acharn. 150. 
 
 3. "Καὶ 
 
 καπνοῦ ἐξῆλθον ἀκρίδες εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς éfou- 
 
 ὡς ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ σκορπίοι τῆς γῆς᾽ 4-. καὶ ἐρρέθη 
 > » J A ἀὃ , Ν , ~ lol f ade f Aa Xx x 
 
 αὐτοῖς ἵνα μὴ ἀδικήσουσιν τὸν χόρτον τῆς γῆς, ᾿ οὐδὲ ἦ πᾶν χλωρὸν, 
 
 Ἀ ἔχουσι τὴν 
 
 f Hebraistic -ε οὐδέν ; 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 a βυσσον 
 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. 95). 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.); i.e., 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 prey- 
 ing on their natural food (Exod. x. 15), 
 already plagued (viii. 7) they are let 
 loose upon men unmarked by the Divine 
 
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 I—7. 407 
 t G "Θεοῦ ἐπὶ τῶ ύ . καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς 1 ἵνα ἱ Full 
 σφραγῖδα τοῦ " Θεοῦ ἐπὶ ΤῊ μετώπων. 5 fig é wi τῳ dente 
 μὴ ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα βασανισθήσονται 'pivas ᾿' πέντε" pera 
 , ᾿ ’ 
 καὶ ὁ βασανισμὸς αὐτῶν ὡς βασανισμὸς σκορπίου, ὅταν παίσῃ April to 
 ugust. 
 ἄνθρωπον. k Progres 
 Sy cea a ey tik , k , εν sive fut. 
 6. καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις " ζητήσουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τὸν Burton, 
 . on- 
 θάνατον, trast Phil, 
 1 LAS a SSS τὸ τῷ 2 eae 1. 23. 
 καὶ οὐ μὴ εὕρωσιν 2 αὐτόν 1 Job iii. 21 
 κ᾿ ef. viii. 3 
 καὶ " ἐπιθυμήσουσιν ἀποθανεῖν, Jer 
 \ , ε ee Par Anacr. 
 καὶ φεύγει ὁ θάνατος ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν. igh 
 a Soph. El. 
 7: Kal τὰ ὁμοιώματα τῶν ἀκρίδων ὅμοια " ἵπποις ἡτοιμασμένοις ἜΡΟΝ ἐς 
 ae <a" Ovid: 
 εἰς πόλεμον, Ibis 123- 
 . ἐς sat 
 Aesch. fr. 314, οὐ. Sib. Or. viii. 353, Herod. vii. 46, and Eur. Hipp. 1047. πὶ Joel ii. 4.) erie 
 
 1 Read avrots (NA, 1, Pr.) as in vv. 3 and 4 (90), with Ti., Ws., Bs., Bj. (Lach. 
 WH marg., Sw., ver. 5). 
 
 3 Read ov μη (NAPQ, τ, etc., And., Areth.) evpwow (AP, min., etc.) with Lach., 
 Diist., WH marg., Ws., Bs., Bj. [ευρησουσιν SQ, 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. F. iv. 97). Why are trees (vii. 1) 
 exempted? For the reason suggested 
 in Ps. Sol. xi. 6, 7-? 
 
 Ver. 5. παίσῃ 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. 
 ie IN’. ix.'20). 
 
 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᾽ ἀπ᾽ 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 Empire, ch. \xiv; 
 Lecky’s Euvop. 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 antennz 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. 8-9) true to nature (woman’s hair 
 [1.6., 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. 10) recapitulatory (=ver. 5; 
 note ὁμοίας σκορπίοις, an abbreviated 
 comparison like Homer’s κόμαι Xapi- 
 Tego ὁμοῖαι), partly (ver. ey imagina- 
 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 ἽΜῺΝ 
 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- 
 
AIIOKAAY¥VIZ LQANNOY 
 
 408 IX. 
 o For form, καὶ ἐπὶ Tas κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν ὡς στέφανοι ὅμοιοι χρυσῷ, 
 
 cf. X.9, xi. κι a 2A , 3 a = 
 
 12. Ab- καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν ὡς πρόσωπα ἀνθρώπων 
 
 bott (go) 4 
 
 compares ϑ. καὶ " εἶχαν τρίχας ὡς τρίχας γυναικῶν * 
 
 the femi- \ oe p2ge 2A ε , s 
 
 nine garb καὶ οἱ Ῥ ὀδόντες αὐτῶν ὡς λεόντων ἦσαν " 
 
 of the \ os , ὡς θώ ὃ δῷ 9 
 
 fanatics 9. καὶ εἶχον θώρακας as θώρακας σιδηροῦς 
 
 in Jeru- bles a a 
 
 pee καὶ ἡ “ φωνὴ τῶν πτερύγων αὐτῶν ὡς φωνὴ ἁρμάτων πολλῶν 
 
 (Jos. Bell. , 39 aN 
 
 Bie eal: τρεχόντων εἰς πόλεμον. 
 
 Li. 6, 
 
 Ῥ ρος ro, καὶ ἔχουσιν " οὐρὰς "ὁμοίας 2 σκορπίοις καὶ κέντρα, καὶ ἐν 
 
 3D. «Tats οὐραῖς αὐτῶν ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἀδικῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μῆνας 
 ᾳ Jer. xlvii. »*, ΕΙΣ SID Sa = Shae ας ΔΩ) 
 
 ΠῚ Ἢ πέντε. II. ἔχουσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν βασιλέα τὸν ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσ- 
 
 5. oy) ΓΕ ἐν peas SEA EE (RG Ἂς “ἊΣ πον ~ wet A 
 rVer.19, σου ὄνομα αὐτῷ savin Αβαδδών,᾽᾿ καὶ ἐν τῇ * Ἑλληνικῇ 
 
 ΧΙΪ. 4: ἅπ. # > wee? , , 
 
 hey NT, ὄνομα EXEL cinup cud : 
 5 Constr. χ- ὐὑαὶ ἡ ἢ . 
 
 Ἐξ 12. *‘H οὐαὶ ἡ pe moilenens 
 
 pe ἰδοὺ 7 ἔρχεται ἔτι δύο οὐαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα. 
 t Cf. Job 13. Kat ὁ ἕκτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν ᾿ καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν * μίαν ἐκ 
 
 Xvili. 14. if "ἃ diet ees ᾿ Ἧ 
 u ge xvi. τῶν κεράτων τοῦ " θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ * χρυσοῦ τοῦ ἐνώπιον τοῦ "ἢ Θεοῦ, 
 
 » XXViii. a a 
 
 22. 14. λέγοντα τῷ ἕκτῳ ἀγγέλῳ ὁ ἔχων τὴν σάλπιγγα, “Λῦσον τοὺς 
 Vv ar. dey. a FRAG yt 
 
 N.T. τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους τοὺς δεδεμένους “ἐπὶ TH ποταμῷ τῷ μεγάλῳ 
 w Constr. 
 
 Blass,§ “Edppdty”’. 15. Kai ἐλύθησαν ot τέσσαρες ἄγγελοι οἱ ° ἡτοιμα- 
 
 33, Is 
 
 Win. § 29, E 3 Ὁ 
 
 1b. 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. z =indef. art. viii. 13, Dan. viii. 13. a Exod. xxx. I-10 
 1 Kings ix. 23, Ezek. xli. 22. Ὁ 4.¢., θρόνου (vill. 3). c “At,” or “ beside,” John iv. 6. 
 d xvi. 12. e Providential sense, xii. 6, cf. Dan. vii. 12. 
 
 1 After ἀρμάτων 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. 
 
 Ξομοιας PQ, min., And., Areth., vg. (edd.) [opotors KA, 14 (Tr., WH marg.)] 
 prim. corrupt. of opova as adverb, like ομοιον = οιον i. 13, xiv. τ4 (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 Cratylus, 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. tem. (Viteau, ii. 
 98-100), but an instance of the so-called 
 “ Pindaric” anacoluthon (¢f. 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. 10, x. 4, etc., the “bath 401" 
 (Gfrorer, i. 253 f., Dalman, viii. 1). 
 
 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. 1. 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 rdle of destructive angels in Jewish . 
 eschatology ef. Charles on Slav. En. x. 3 
 and for the astrological basis (En. Ixxvi. 
 to f.) of this tradition see Fries in Jahrb 
 
6—17. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨῚΣ LQANNOY 
 
 409 
 
 σμένοι εἰς ‘thy ὥραν καὶ ἡμέραν Kal μῆνα καὶ ἐνιαυτόν, © ἵνα f Constr. i. 
 
 ἀποκτείνωσι τὸ ἢ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 
 
 στρατευμάτων τοῦ | 
 ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν. τη. Καὶ * 
 
 καὶ τοὺς καθημένους ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἔχοντας θώρακας 
  ῥακινθίνους καὶ ᾿ θειώδεις " καὶ αἱ κεφαλαὶ τῶν ἵππων ὡς κεφαλαὶ 
 a A a A 
 
 λεόντων, καὶ ἐκ τῶν στομάτων αὐτῶν ° ἐκπορεύεται πῦρ καὶ καπνὸς 
 
 9, Sib. Or. iii. 544, v. 103. 
 
 ἱππικοῦ δισμυριάδες μυριάδων - ἤκουσα τὸν 
 a ‘ 3 a le 
 οὕτως εἶδον τοὺς ἵππους ἐν TH ᾿ ὁράσει, 
 
 i Only here in N.T. ; 
 Diff. sense in iv. 2. Only in Acts ii. 17 (O.T. quot.), elsewhere in N.T. 
 curious variant spineas (= daxav@ivovs) Pr. see Nestle’s Einfuhr. 264. 
 
 Qs V. 12, 
 xiv. 6, 
 article 
 grouping 
 several 
 substan- 
 , . tives. 
 πυρίνους καὶ ge With 
 ἐλυθ. 
 rather 
 than 7r. 
 despite 
 Viii. 6. 
 h Zech. xiii. 
 ki.e., ‘As is now to be described”. 
 m Nah. ii. 3: on the 
 n 1 Chron. xii. 8. 
 
 16. καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν 
 
 i 
 
 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 ἢ. 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 f., we have “" dream-like incon- 
 sequences” (Simcox), or else two frag- 
 ments of apocalyptic tradition, originally 
 heterogeneous, which are pieced together 
 (at ver. 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 rdle 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, I 
 
 Chron. xx. 1) between oon 
 (=Gyy.) and 055% 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 
 λῦσον (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. 11. 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”. ἔχοντας (horse and 
 rider regarded as one figure: in the Per- 
 sian heavy cavalry horses as well as men 
 were clad in bright plate) κτλ.» “they 
 wore coats of mail, the colour of fire and 
 jacinth and brimstone,” 7.6., 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 Kal φοβερὰν ὄψιν (cf. Sir. 
 x'viii. 9).—tp, «.7.A., 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 
 
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 IX. 
 
 A ~ ~ , Ν 
 18. ἀπὸ τῶν τριῶν πληγῶν τούτων " ἀπεκτάνθησαν τὸ 
 
 19. ἦ γὰρ ἐξουσία τῶν 
 
 ~ , 3 
 20. Καὶ ot λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ot οὐκ ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν 
 
 ‘iva “μὴ προσκυνήσουσι τὰ δαιμόνια καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα “Ta 
 
 * καὶ 
 
 410 
 4 “ 
 Ρ Plur. vb. καὶ θεῖον. 
 with sing. , ry ἷς ; - πα . a bby = x ~ a6 me 
 noun (in τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐκ τοῦ “ πυρὸς καὶ TOU καπνοῦ καὶ τοῦ “ὕει 
 collective  _ Ὦ τ 
 sense); τοῦ ἐκπορευομένου ἐκ τῶν στομάτων αὐτῶν. 
 cf. on x a Ps a ἥδ PETES 
 viii.g. ἵππων ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν ἐστιν καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν αἱ γὰρ 
 Xiv. 10. - κ᾿ :. κα 
 ee 20, οὐραὶ αὐτῶν "ὅμοιαι ὄφεσιν, ἔχουσαι " κεφαλάς, καὶ ἐν αὐταῖς ἀδι- 
 xxi. 8 a 
 τ Cf. above KOUGL. 
 Onver.10.__~ - a o ALA A 
 s Sir. xxv. ταῖς πληγαῖς ταύταις, * od! ᾿ μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν “ ἔργων τῶν " χειρῶν 
 15. 2A 
 t xvi. 11, 21. HUT@V, 
 i “ “ A , A AQ , 
 Min’ χρυσᾶ καὶ τὰ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ τὰ χαλκᾶ καὶ τὰ λίθινα καὶ τὰ ” ξύλινα, 
 Αἰ Pe Υ ἃ οὔτε βλέπειν δύνανται οὔτε ἀκούειν οὔτε “ περιπατεῖν " 21. 
 Ad, 
 Isa. ii. 8, 
 
 20:= “idols”. Philo. vit. contempl. § τ. 
 result. 
 Apoc. Pet. 25, Ezek. xliii. 9. 
 
 w From Dan. v. 4, 23, also from Ps. cxv. 4-7, etc., En. xcix. 7. 
 
 v Constr. iii. 9, Matt. xxi. 32, etc.; ἵνα μὴ of conceived 
 
 x Cf. xxii. 15, 
 
 1 For (before perev.) ovre (AP, 1, 36, etc., Bg., Lach.) read ov C, min., And’, pal, 
 Areth., WH, Bs., Bj. [ουδὲ 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 (cf. 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 orac. 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. 
 —fap., 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 their hands”. (See Clem. 
 Strom. vi. 5. 39, 40)---ἀργυρᾶ, contracted 
 form, as in 2 Tim. ii. 20 (Helbing, pp. 
 34 f.).—gapp., 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 (c. 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 φονεύσαν- 
 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 f. 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. 1 f.) 
 between the sixth (ix. 13-21) and the 
 seventh (xi. 15-19) members of the series, 
 
18—21. X. 1—3. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 411 
 
 οὐ μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν " φόνων αὐτῶν οὔτε ἐκ τῶν " φαρμακειῶν αὐτῶν γ Cf. xvii. 4 
 
 ” 2 ~ , 2. ἡ m” > a : 7A 
 OUTE εκ TNS πορνείας αὕτων OUTE EK τῶν κλεμμάτων αὐτων. 
 
 with xviii, 
 
 2, 23, En. 
 - xeVi4 
 X. 1. ΚΑΙ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ alee Lea. 
 a xvii. gf., 
 οὐρανοῦ, " περιβεβλημένον "νεφέλην, καὶ ἡ "ἶρις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν Malin. 3 
 ῦ Ἢ a 2 Kings 
 αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ “ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, Kal οἱ 2 πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς % γε 
 , , \ 67 3 a Ν 3 “1 ΄ > Z an. Aey. 
 στύλοι πυρός " 2. Kat ° ἔχων ἐν TH χειρὶ αὐτοῦ * βιβλαρίδιον ἤνεῳγ- ΝΎ 
 μένον " καὶ " ἔθηκε τὸν πόδα αὐτοῦ τὸν δεξιὸν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸν " hon 
 pI Ὁ“ ~ Ἰὰς, acc 
 δὲ εὐώνυμον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 3. Kal ἔκραξε φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὥσπερ " λέων cae 
 i a νι ῳ ” 9. 7 6) Ἀπ ΞΟ CN yee a “cloud- 
 μυκᾶται Kal ὅτε ἔκραξεν, ἐλάλησαν at ἑπτὰ βρονταὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν weet? 
 (like 
 ) ᾿ Bs ᾿ Horace's 
 Augur A pollo). b iv. 3. ci. 16, cf. Matt. xvii. 2. di. 15, cf. Exod. xiv. 19 (LXX), 
 e As if ἄλλος ayy. had preceded (ver.1). _  f Corrupt form of class. dimin. βιβλιδάριον. g Sap. 
 XViii. 16. h Am. i. 2, iii. 4, 8, Hos. xi. το, etc. idm. Aey. N.T.; of thunder Aesch. Prom. 
 
 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. I-1z 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. 1-xx. 10). One of these is 
 Jesus, the divine messiah, who has 
 hitherto (v.-ix.) been depicted as the 
 medium of revelation. Since his réle 
 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 seven-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. ἢ, that a freer and less 
 
 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. 11.9. 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. Id. xxvi. 21, μύκημα 
 λεαίνης, properly of cattle=“‘ to bellow’. 
 ἐλάλησαν «.7.A.=‘‘uttered what they 
 had to say”’ (7.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 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 x 
 
 ki. τοῖν, τὸ φωνάς "4 καὶ Ste ἐλάλησαν ai ἑπτὰ βρονταὶ ἤμελλον 1 γράφειν * 
 
 Xiv. 13, 
 etc. 
 1 Dan. viii. 
 
 26, xii. 4, σαν al ἑπτὰ βρονταί, kat μὴ αὐτὰ γράψῃς. 
 
 cf. Apoc. 
 Bar. xx. 
 
 καὶ ἤκουσα " φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, λέγουσαν ᾿ Σφράγισον ἃ ἐλάλη- 
 
 5. Καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος, ὃν 
 
 a c - ΓΕΒ a“ ’ ΕΝ a ol m2? ᾿ - 
 εἶδον ἑστῶτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, “Ape THY χεῖρα 
 
 3: a \ nA on 
 m Gen. xiv. αὐτοῦ Thy δεξιὰν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, 6. καὶ " ὥμοσεν ™év TH ζῶντι εἰς 
 
 19, 22, 
 Deut. 
 XXXli. 40, 
 
 - a Lt ~ A 
 τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, “ ὃς ἔκτισε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ TA ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ 
 
 a - ‘ ~ o 
 Ezek. xx. THY γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ, “OTL 
 
 ζἐπεθταῖο) P χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται 7. ἀλλ᾽ 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 ἡμελλον (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, i.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 οἱ 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 Slav. 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 
 αλῆσαι 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 worid 
 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 ot 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, ἣ 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. αν consec. with the Heb, 
 
4—9. 
 
 μου ἀγγέλου, ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, καὶ “ ἐτελέσθη τὸ μυστήριον 4 xv. x, 
 ; ΠῚ κι.) ἘΜῈ 8 εῷἹ s ‘ ‘ ε “ A , ”? Joh 
 Tod Θεοῦ, "ds "εὐηγγέλισεν τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ δούλους τοὺς προφήτας . 
 
 8. Καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἣν ἤκουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, πάλιν λαλοῦσαν 
 μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ καὶ λέγουσαν, “Ὕπαγε “λάβε τὸ βιβλίον ' τὸ “ ἠνεῳγ- 
 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 avaBa (iv. 2) an Attic form. 
 xi. 12, for form. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 
 
 9. Καὶ “ ἀπῆλθα πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον, λέγων αὐτῷ 
 
 413 
 
 n xix. 
 
 30. 
 
 r Zech. i. 6, 
 Amos iii. 
 7, Dan. ix. 
 6, το, etc., 
 cf. Acts 
 ili. 21. 
 Favourite 
 thought 
 of sub- 
 primitive 
 
 s Cf. Gal. iii. 8. evay. 
 
 t xvi. 1. uv. 7: 
 w Cf, ix. 8, 
 
 1For βιβλιϑαριον (Q, etc., Anda,c, Areth.) or βιβλαριδιον (NYP, τ, 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- 
 prov is plainly, as the context implies, 
 full of solace and relief to God’s people. 
 —evnyy- The total (exc. xiv. 6) omission 
 of εὐαγγέλιον and the restricted use of 
 its verb in the Apocalypse may have been 
 due to the fact that such terms had been 
 soiled by ignoble usage in the local 
 Ionian cult of εὐάγγελος (¢.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 pvotyiptov=‘‘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- 
 veyed 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 Czesars 
 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 ra, 2b- 
 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. 
 I-13, xii. 18; and Rauch regards x. x b, 
 2 ἃ, 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 μοι and λέγει 
 pou in vv. 9, 11 = variant versions of 
 
 ak DN) are not decisive. 
 
 Ver. 8. ἡ φωνὴ (cf. ver. 4) left un- 
 grammatically without a predicate, the 
 two participles being irregularly attracted 
 into the case of ἥν (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, € 
 
 σται γλυκὺ ὡς peru”. 
 Psiicxix: 
 
 103,and χειρὸς τοῦ ἀγγέλου, καὶ κατέφαγον αὐτό" 
 
 4 Esd. 
 viii. 4 
 (absorbet 
 ergo 
 anima 
 sensum 
 et deuoret 
 quod 
 sapit). 
 Moulton, i. 111, 115). ; 
 John xii. 16: = “" οἵ," “concerning”. 
 
 μου. 
 
 word of God; in our phrase, he makes it 
 his own or identifies himself with it (Jer. 
 xv. 16). To 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 and14). The natural 
 order occurs in ver. 10. 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- 
 vos 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. μοι, 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, 
 Vii. 4, 9, Viii. 13, ix. 6, 16 f.) with those 
 international movements (‘‘kings” = 
 φυλαί, or those in xvii. τὸ, 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. I-2, 3-13) evi- 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ITQANNOY 
 
 “ἐ δοῦναί μοι τὸ βιβλαρίδιον ” 
 μ' Pp 
 
 11. Kat *Aéyouciv μοι, “Δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι 
 
 See Dieterich’s Mithras-Liturgie, p. 101. 
 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. 
 
 xe 
 
 . Kat λέγει μοι, " “Λάβε καὶ κατά- 
 
 gaye αὐτό᾽ καὶ πικρανεῖ σου τὴν κοιλίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ στόματί σου 
 1ο. Καὶ ἔλαβον τὸ βιβλαρίδιον ἐκ τῆς. 
 
 Ae 3 - ’ , 
 και Ἴν εν τῷ στόματι 
 
 μου ὡς μέλι, γλυκύ" καὶ ὅτε " ἔφαγον αὐτό, ἐπικράνθη ἡ κοιλία 
 
 ‘ 
 * ἐπι 
 
 Ῥλαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσι καὶ γλώσσαις καὶ "ἢ βασιλεῦσι toddots”’. 
 
 y In sense of κατέφαγον which it echoes (cf. 
 i 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 (cf. 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- 
 13 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 to 
 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 ¢ (ὅπον. 
 . « - ἐσταυρώθη), with possibly 9 a and 
 
10---11. XI. 1. 
 
 ΧΙ. 1. Kai " ἐδόθη "μοι " κάλαμος ὅμοιος 
 
 12 b, 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 70 A.D. between May and 
 August (cf. Joseph. Bell, v. 12,3) by a 
 prophet who anticipated (cf. S.C., 2109, 
 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. ii. 3, etc., cf. A. 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 lnked any sym- 
 bolic or allegorical meaning to them, 
 although such can easily be attached in 
 a variety of ways, ¢.g., to the language 
 of 1, 2in 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 vision... 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, 
 
 ΑἸΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 ALS 
 » ῥάβδῳ, λέγων, ax. τι. 
 
 ΧΧΙ, 15-16, 
 
 iY 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 (Gfrérer 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 
 (5. 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 (cf. 
 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 ver. 4). Wellhausen 
 argues from the singular πτῶμα (8, 9) 
 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 (TWAT 773}?) like a staff, 
 
416 
 
 AITOKAAY¥IZ IQANNOY 
 
 XI. 
 
 - * A A 
 c Ezek, xli. Ἔγειρε καὶ “ μέτρησον τὸν “ ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, καὶ 
 
 1-2. 
 
 ἀ John viii. τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας “ἐν αὐτῷ" 2. καὶ τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ 
 0, 
 
 20. 
 e See on 
 Xvii. 17, 
 
 ναοῦ ἔκβαλε ἔξωθεν, kat μὴ αὐτὴν μετρήσῃς, ὅτι " ἐδόθη τοῖς ἔθνεσι" 
 
 fn WOT RE SS aN ‘ F fet ee £ , - , , 
 prophetic Και THY πολιν ΤῊΡ αγιαν πατήησουσι μηνας τεσσεράκοντα δύο. 
 
 perfect. 
 
 fxxi.a,xxii.3- Kat "δώσω τοῖς ϑυσὶ μάρτυσί ‘pou, "Kal " προφητεύσουσιν 
 
 19, Matt. 
 XXVIi. 53 
 (title of 
 Jer. in 
 later , a ἘΔ» ες εὐ 
 Judaism). Κυρίου τῆς 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, xil. 6. 
 ο Cf. Win. § 23, 50. 
 
 m Isa. xxii. 12, Jer. vi. 26, Jas. iii. 5 
 p Grammat. irregularity, to emphasise personality of witnesses. 
 
 , ’ 
 ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ' ἑξήκοντα, περιβεβλημένοι  “ σάκκους. 
 4. " Οὗτοί εἰσιν αἱ δύο ἐλαῖαι καὶ at δύο λυχνίαι αἱ ἐνώπιον τοῦ 
 
 h Cf. on ix. 5. 1: π᾿ ΚΑΞι Cor. 
 
 n From Zech. iv. 3, 11-14. 
 
 For περιβεβλημένοι (CC, 1, S., vg., And., Areth., Vict., Hipp., etc., so Al., 
 Ti., Ws., Bs., Bj., Sw.) Lach., Tr., WH read the primitive corruption περιβεβλη- 
 μένους (Q*AQP, min.), though WH suggest it may be an early error for weptBeBAn- 
 
 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= 97) 
 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 "ἢ (.6., 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,” i.e., 
 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 
 (5. 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.—perpyjons. 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. g 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 a.p., 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 εἴ τις αὐτοὺς θέλει ἀδικῆσαι, 
 
 A A ~ ΠῚ , 
 “ πῦρ ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτῶν καὶ κατεσθίει 
 
 τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτῶν" 
 
 καὶ εἴ 1 τις αὐτοὺς " θελήσῃ ἀδικῆσαι, 
 
 οὕτω δεῖ αὐτὸν ἀποκτανθῆναι. 
 
 6. οὗτοι ἔχουσιν τὴν ἐξουσίαν " κλεῖσαι τὸν " οὐρανόν, 
 ἵνα μὴ ὑετὸς βρέχῃ 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 ἀναβαῖ- 
 
 νον ἐκ τῆς “ ἀβύσσου " ποιήσει μετ᾽ 
 αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀποκτενεῖ αὐτούς. 
 
 a vee 
 (Apoc. xiii. 7)? 
 
 ATIOKAAY¥VIZ ILQANNOY 
 
 Ν ‘ ~ ΕΜ πον A 
 8. καὶ τὸ πτῶμα αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῆς 
 
 u Cf. Encycl. Relig. and Ethics, i. 53:55. 
 
 417 
 
 ΠΧ 57,2 
 Kings i. 
 10f., 
 Luke ix. 
 54) 
 (Moses) 
 Num. xvi 
 35+ . 
 
 t For subj. 
 with ei, 
 cf. 1 Cor 
 Xiv. 5 
 (Deissm. 
 118). 
 
 s 1 Kings 
 Xvii., Sir. 
 xviii. 3, 
 Jub. 
 Xxlii. 18. 
 
 t See feats 
 ascribed 
 to Moses 
 in Exod. 
 Vii. 19-21; 
 1 Sam. iv 
 a σὰ , ‘ , 
 
 QUTWY πόλεμον και νικήσει 
 
 v From Dan. vii. 21; divine permission 
 
 ‘For και et Bl. conj. καν (from katy $*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) in- 
 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. 
 I2-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 
 Vili. 31, etc.), unless he is identified with 
 the supernatural fiend and foe of ix. 2, rr. 
 (Bruston heroically gets over the diffi- 
 culty of the beast’s sudden introduction 
 by transferring xi. I-13 to a place after 
 xix. I-3). The beast wars with the wit- 
 nesses (here, as in ix. 9 and xii. 17, 
 Field, on Luke xiv. 31, prefers to take 
 πόλεμον = pax Hv,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 
 
418 
 
 w xiv.8,xvi- πλατείας τῆς “ πόλεως τῆς 
 19, XxVii.- 
 XVili. 
 
 x Ps. cv. 38. 
 
 AILOKAAY VIZ [QANNOY 
 
 ΧΙ. 
 
 ἡ μεγάλης, ἥτις καλεῖται πνευματικῶς 
 Σόδομα καὶ “Αἴγυπτος, ὅπου καὶ 6 Κύριος αὐτῶν ἐσταυρώθη. 9. 
 
 y Cf.onii. καὶ βλέπουσιν ἢ ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν τὸ 
 
 10 (parti- ἃ 
 tive). 
 
 a Here asin 
 8= collec- 
 
 tive term (“corpses”), as πρόσωπον Gen. xlviii. 20, κεφαλή Lev. x. 6. 
 
 πτῶμα αὐτῶν ἡμέρας τρεῖς καὶ ἥμισυ, kal τὰ " πτώματα αὐτῶν οὐκ 
 
 b Cf. Isa. Ixxviii. (1xxix.) 
 
 3, Ps. Sol. ii. 31, En.xxii. 10; 2 Kings ix. 10, and Jer. xxiii. 19. 
 
 1 Pr. om. kat Avyvmros (an early gloss, Haussleiter 213). 
 
 Further editorial 
 
 Christian additions are suspected in nts ... ἐσταυρωθη (so ¢.g., Weyland, S. 
 Davidson, Wellh.) or owov . . . εσταυρωθη (so ¢.g., Sabatier, Schdn, Vischer, 
 Pfleid., Rauch, Volter, Baljon, Bs., de Faye, Kohler, von Soden). 
 
 by (a) incidental O.T. comparisons of 
 the Jews to Sodom (Isa. !i. 9; Jer. xxiii. 
 14; so Asc. Isa. iii. 10), (b) the Christian 
 editor’s note ὅπου καὶ ὁ κύριος αὐτῶν 
 ἐσταυρώθη, (c) a passage like Luke xiii. 
 33, (4) the reference in xvi. 19, and (e) pas- 
 sages in Appian (Syr. 50 μεγίστη πόλις 
 ‘I.), Pliny (ΗΠ. N. xiv. 70), Josephus 
 (Apion, i. 22), and Sib. Or. (v. 154, 226, 
 413, written before 80 4.p.), all of which 
 confirm this title (cf. the variant addition 
 μεγάλην in Apoc. xxi. 10) : it isindeed put 
 beyond doubt by the peculiar antichrist- 
 tradition upon which the Jewish original 
 was based (A.C. 19f., 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 = 
 xvii. 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), ΡΥ Τὰ for PTW: 
 --πνευματικῶς (cf. Gal. iv. 24 1.) as dp- 
 posed to σαρκικῶς (‘‘literally,” Just. 
 Mart. Dial. xiv. 231 d) is “allegorically, 
 or mystically.’”’—xat 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 material.——87rov «.7.., 
 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. 9. Cf. 2 Chron. xxiv. 19 f., Matt. 
 xxiii. 34 f., Job. i. 1τ2.---ἀφίουσιν, for 
 other N.T. assimilations of irreg. to reg. 
 verb (Win. § 14. 16; Blass, § 23. 7), of. 
 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 yap ἀγρίου Onpds 
 ἄγρια καὶ βάρβαρα φῦλα παραχθέντα 
 δυσπαύστως εἶχες 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).--- βλέπουσιν, the onlookers, 
 who evidently sympathise with anti- 
 christ (cf. on xvi. 12), include pagans as 
 well as Jews (Andr.).— ἡμέρας, x.7.A., 
 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. 
 
g—15. 
 
 ἀφίουσιν " τεθῆναι εἰς μνῆμα. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ΙΩΏΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 IO. καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ς 
 
 419 
 
 Ps. cv. 38) 
 Neh. viii. 
 
 , a“ - 
 χαίρουσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ εὐφραίνονται᾿ καὶ “δῶρα πέμψουσιν 1 το, 12, 
 
 Esth. ix. 
 
 ἀλλήλοις, ὅτι οὗτοι οἱ δύο προφῆται “ ἐβασάνισαν τοὺς κατοικοῦντας το, 22. 
 
 ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 
 
 Ν A 
 
 καὶ © φόβος μέγας *émémecev ἐπὶ τοὺς ἢ θεωροῦντας αὐτούς. 
 Ἅ....ὄ ὃν. 3 i ~ ar > a > A λ , 3 - 
 
 καὶ ἤκουσανῇ ᾿ φωνῆς μεγάλης ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λεγούσης αὐτοῖς, jo. 
 ΟΥ̓͂Ν Σ΄ > BY > Ἀ > ~m , 
 
 Kat ᾿ ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν τῇ ™vededy> 
 
 “ΚΥΑνάβατε ὧδε᾽᾽᾿. 
 
 ν . a 
 καὶ ἐθεώρησαν αὐτοὺς ot ᾿ἐχθροὶ αὐτῶν. 
 
 ΓῚ ‘ A A ε έ eee Ζ - A 
 II. “Καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ ἥμισυ * πνεῦμα ζωῆς 
 ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσῆλθεν ἐν αὐτοῖς,2 καὶ ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτῶν, 
 
 d Sap. ii.1a 
 14-15, I 
 ings 
 Xviil. 17. 
 
 e From 
 Ezek. 
 XXXVii. 5, 
 
 12. 
 
 f xiii. 15,= 
 pon 
 mM 
 
 13. Kat ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ 
 
 ἐγένετο " σεισμὸς μέγας, καὶ τὸ “ δέκατον τῆς πόλεως ἔπεσε, καὶ (Gen. vi. 
 
 17). 
 
 ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν τῷ σεισμῷ "ὀνόματα ἀνθρώπων χιλιάδες ἑπτά ”g Gen. xv. 
 
 καὶ ot λοιποὶ ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο καὶ 
 οὐρανοῦ. 
 14. " Ἧ οὐαὶ ἡ δευτέρα ἀπῆλθεν" 
 
 ἰδοὺ ἡ οὐαὶ ἡ τρίτη ἔρχεται ταχύ. 
 15. Καὶ ὁ ἕβδομος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν, καὶ ἐγένοντο φωναὶ μεγά- 
 
 λαι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, "λέγοντες, 
 
 in vi. 16, xvii. 6, and xviii. 10. 
 Ὁ am. Aey. N.T. t 
 Jer. xiii. 16, Dan. ii. 18, 44, Isa. xxv. 3. 
 
 whole favour the futures in 9-10. 
 
 1 2 Kings ii. 11. 
 p Cf. on iii. 4, Num. i. 20, 28; Deissm. 196-197, Abbott 91-93. 
 r Cf. as ix. 12, and xii. 12. 
 
 (citation from Dan. ii. 19), in N.T.:=S OW? ΓΝ. 
 1Ti., Bs., Bj. read πεμπουσὶιν (pQ*P, Arm., Tic., Spec., etc.). 
 
 mi ~ a A 12. 
 “ἔδωκαν δόξαν “τῷ 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 
 Nn vi. 12, Matt. xxvii. 51. 
 4 Xvi. 9, II, 
 s Only here and xvi. 11 
 
 m Acts i. 9. 
 
 t Constr. ad sensum. 
 
 The vss. on the 
 
 2 Read ev (om. ev CP, 1, etc., Tr., WH ?) 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) avTovs. 
 3 For ἡκουσαν ( 
 
 *ACP, vg., Ti., Tr., WH, Ws., Sw., Bj.) ἤκουσα (NCQ, etc., Me., 
 
 And., Areth., Tic.) is read by some (e.g., Al., de Wette, Diist., 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. το, 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 IWIN 
 =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 
 here:= 
 β. ἐπιτ.κιν 
 Xvii, 18, 
 cf. Obad. 
 aI, 
 
 v (Possess. 
 genit.) 
 
 Ὑ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ΙΏΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 ΧΙ. 
 
 ““ Ἐγένετο ἡ ἣ βασιλεία τοῦ “ κόσμου τοῦ * Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ 
 
 lol 3) 
 Καὶ * βασιλεύσει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 
 
 16. ᾿ Καὶ οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι οἱ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 
 from Ps. κάθηνται ' ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους αὐτῶν, “ἔπεσαν "ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν 
 
 11. 2, 6, 
 
 Ν -“ ~ 4 
 quot. also καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ Θεῷ, λέγοντες, 
 
 in Actsiv. ae pnt pita Ἶ ide 
 26;cf.Ps) 17. Εὐχαριστοῦμεέν σοι, “ Κύριε 6 Θεὸς 6 παντοκράτωρ, 
 ΧΧΙΪ. 29, 
 and Isa. ὃ dv καὶ 6 ἦν, 
 lii. 7.8; 
 God's ὅτι ὅ εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου Thy μεγάλην, 
 reign 
 yeaa in καὶ * ἐβασίλευσας. 
 Apoc. xix. 
 ἜΝ 18. καὶ τὰ ἔθνη “ ὠργίσθησαν, 
 w Ps. (x.) a 4% ε 9 , 
 16; ¢f..on καὶ ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου, 
 Acts iii. Leg δὲ ΤΩ na ¢ θῇ 
 18, Dal- καὶ 6 ‘Kkaipds τῶν νεκρῶν * κριθῆναι, 
 ni. an A A 
 oy καὶ ‘ δοῦναι τὸν ὅ μισθὸν " τοῖς δούλοις σου τοῖς ἢ προφήταις, 
 x Dan. 11. ae | , Ν ak , s ko» 1 a 
 44, vii. 45 καὶ τοῖς ᾿ ἁγίοις καὶ τοῖς “ φοβουμένοις τὸ " ὄνομά σου, ‘Tots 
 quot. i κα ἈΠ en 2 
 ἐπ ΕΗ μικροῖς καὶ τοῖς μεγάλοις, 
 + ple καὶ ™SrapGetpar τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν yay.” 
 Ζ Ὁ 10, V 
 9 14. = > a ee Ft . 
 a ce b Common at open. of votive inscriptions (Asia Minor). 
 xix. 6. 
 
 as 2 Sam. xvi. 8, éBac.=“‘is king”. 
 ὀργιζέσθωσαν λαοί. 
 
 ci. 8, xvi. 7, xviii. 8, 
 
 ἃ Inceptive aor. cf. Luke xv. 32, 1 Cor. iv. 8, Burton 54. From Ps. xcii. xciii.) 1 where, 
 
 e xii.17. From Ps. ii., xcviii. xcix., κύριος ἐβασίλευσε, 
 f Constr. Rom. ix. 21 (ἐξουσία... i 
 Esth. ii. 12 οὗτος δὲ ἦν ὁ καιρὸς κορασίου εἰσελθεῖν. 
 
 ++ ποιῆσαι); = ἵνα κριθῶσιν x.7.A. 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. cxv. 13: quot. in xiii. 16, xix. 5, xx. 12. 
 
 k Here only, N.T.; cf. xiv. 7, xv. 4, and 
 M Viii. 9, cf. om 
 
 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 $*CQ, etc., Syr., S., Ande, Areth., vg., Pr. 
 2 Lach., Tr., WH, Sw. read Tous μικρους και τους peyadous (NQ*AC). 
 
 (6 X. only in these sections= ‘‘ messiah "ἢ 
 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, ¢.g., Baljon, von Soden, 
 Rauch) or the similar phrase in En. xlviii. 
 to (with Dalman). 
 
 Ver. 17. ὁ 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 deletion.—8.ag@. ‘* 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’ 
 
o—I19Q. 
 
 c 
 
 19. Kal " ἠνοίγη 6 ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ 
 
 καὶ ὥφθη ἡ " κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ " 
 
 of foreboding which is sounded in xii. 12 
 before the actual conflict. 
 
 Ver. 19 introduces xii. 1-18; all that 
 the prophet can speak of, from his 
 own experience (7. 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. ὥφθη xi. το, 
 xii. 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, e.g., Abarbanel (on 1 Sam. iv. 4: haec 
 est arca quam abscondit ante uastationem 
 temipli nostri et haec arca futuro tem- 
 pore adueniente messia nostro manifesta- 
 bitur). Epiphanius repeats the same rabbi- 
 nical tradition (καὶ ἐν ἀναστάσει πρῶτον ἣ 
 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 
 righted 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 
 
 NOL, V. 
 
 AILOKAAY¥IZ LQANNOY 
 
 > ~ > ~ 
 ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 
 
 42ι 
 
 n On form, 
 see 
 Deissm. 
 189. 
 
 o 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. 19) 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, ver. 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 réle 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. θ. αὐτοῦ, cf. v. 6), certainly in rr 
 (which, even apart from the Lamb, in- 
 terrupts the sequence) and 17 ¢, if not 
 
 27 
 
422 
 
 piv. 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. τ Sam. iv. 19 FJ sr) 5 
 (υἱὸν & -- 5) 3} (ὅπου... . ἐκεῖ -- 
 Ow ὍΝ), 8 ὦ. οὐκ τ-- 550 dy 
 cf. 14 and on iii. 8), ο (the old serpent= 
 OPT οἵ PWN wr) 
 possibly τὸ (κατήγωρ -- “Ἴ}72}}) and 
 12 (κατέβη, cf. ἐβλήθη of το--"1."). 
 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 
 run 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 δ), 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., @.g., Pfleiderer, Early Christ. Con- 
 ception of Christ, 56 f., after Dieterich’s 
 Abraxas, 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, 
 ¢.g., Of Miletus and Magnesia, where 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LOANNOY 
 
 ΧΙ. 
 
 καὶ ἐγένοντο ἢ" 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 (ver. 12). Moriturus 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. 
 
 
 
ὙΦ ΟΝ, 
 
 XII. 
 
 βεβλημένη τὸν ὃ" ἥλιον----καὶ ἣ 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.) 
 
 CHArTER X1iI.—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, nor 
 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 explained if 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 11 and 17¢). J. Weiss puts 1-6 
 and 13-17 together, regarding 7-12 as 
 an independent continuation of the third 
 woe (editorial notes in 3, rz, and τῇ). 
 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 
 
 AITOKAAY¥IZ IQANNOY 
 
 423 
 
 I. Kat "σημεῖον μέγα ὥφθη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, γυνὴ ἢ περι- a» Matt. 
 
 XXiv. 30, 
 aril. 
 att. ii. 2. 
 b Ps. civ. 2. 
 
 editor only in 10-12 (with 17 ¢ 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. I-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. ov. almost=‘‘in the 
 sky ” (cf. ver. 4.). A Greek touch: cf. 
 Hom. Jliad, ii. 308, ἔνθ᾽ ἐφάνη μέγα σῆμα" 
 δράκων ἐπὶ νῶτα δαφοινός (i.e. 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” (z.e., the 
 stars, cf. Schrader, pp. 360, 361). For 
 Hebrew applications of the symbolism ¢/. 
 Gen. xxxvii. 9, 10 and Test. Naph. 5 
 (καὶ Ἰούδας ἦν λαμπρὸς ὡς ἡσελήνη 
 καὶ ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ἦσαν ιβ΄ 
 ἀκτῖνες). The Egyptian Osiris was also 
 wrapt in a flame-coloured robe—the sun 
 being the ‘‘ body” of deity (Plut. de Iside. 
 
424 
 
 o 
 
 in Apoc. 
 is επί 
 with gen. , es 
 οἰ κεφαλή. TEKELV. 
 
 d Isa. xxvi. ¢ Η ; τ 
 17, Μῖς. TUPPOS μέγας, ἐχὼν 
 lv. 10. = 
 
 « Obj. infin. τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ἑπτὰ 
 of ‘desire , 
 implied in TO 
 preced. 
 ptcc”’ 
 (Burton, 
 
 389). i : 
 f Ezek. xxix. 3; only in Apoc. in N.T. 
 Dan. vii. 7. 
 
 AIIOKAAY¥VIZ IQANNOY 
 
 g cf. vi. 4. 
 k Only in Apoc. in N.T., cf. xix. 12, xiii. 1. 
 
 X1L 
 
 Only here καὶ “ ἐπὶ “τῆς “κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς στέφανος ἀστέρων δώδεκα---2. καὶ 
 ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα: καὶ ἅ κράζει 1 “ ὠδίνουσα καὶ βασανιζομένη 
 3. Καὶ ὥφθη ἄλλο σημεῖον ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἰδοὺ * δράκων 
 Ὁ κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ ' κέρατα δέκα: καὶ ἐπὶ 
 "διαδήματα: 4. καὶ i οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει 
 τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν. 
 καὶ ὃ δράκων | ἕστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης ™ τεκεῖν; 
 
 h Ps. Ixxiv. 13-14. i From 
 1 For form cf. Win. § 14, 14. 
 
 fa τεκεῖν incorrectly for τίκτειν ; τέκῃ (cf. xi. 7), on mood see Burton, 303, 305. 
 
 1 Read και (NVC, Aeth., Pr., S., etc.) paler (NAP, 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 Volter and others) are wholly 
 imaginary (Kohlhofer, 53 f.). 
 
 Ver. 3. muppds: 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 muSruSSu 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 etiological 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- lxxiii., 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 (i.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, i.¢., 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, “πες 
 flexu multiplici ut reliquae serpentes cor- 
 
2—6. 
 
 iva ὅταν ™téxy τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς " καταφάγῃ. 
 ἄρσενα, ὃς μέλλει “ ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ 
 καὶ Ῥ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον 
 
 αὐτοῦ. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 425 
 
 5. Καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱόν πα Matt. ii. 
 ie 16-20, 
 
 ° σιδηρᾷ" Luke xiii. 
 
 30-31, 
 
 Acts iv. 
 
 25-27. 
 
 6. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ “ ἔφυγεν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, ὅπου ἔχει ἐκεῖ o ii. 27, xix. 
 
 im A A 15; Cf. 
 τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα ἐκεῖ " τρέφωσιν αὐτὴν " ἡμέρας Si. ΤῊ 
 
 χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα. 
 
 17, 1 Cor. xii. 2, 4. 
 
 q Matt. ii. 13, cf. Ps. Sol. xvii. 9. 
 
 viii. 196 f. 
 p Acts viii. 
 39, I 
 Thess. iv. 
 τ (= τρέφεται, 14) for constr. see x. 
 
 11, Win. § 5, 20 f., Moult. i. 58-59. How? with heavenly food, like ancient Israel (Ps. Ixxviii. 24, 
 
 cv: 40)? s Cf. on xi. 2-3. 
 
 1 Read apoeva 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 ὃ 
 
 Wetstein cites 
 
 a verbal parallel from Aristoph., Eccles., 549-550 (ἄρρεν yap ἔτεκε παιδίον . ἧκκλη- 
 
 aia;). 
 
 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 
 
 ν᾿ 
 
 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 croix 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-.τιλ.,-- 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- 
 ἡμένα ἀπὸ βασιλέων καὶ 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- 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 XII. 
 
 . Kat ἐγένετο ἱπόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ: ὁ "Μιχαὴλ καὶ ot 
 Y μ' ῳ ρανῷ Xo) 
 
 ΕΣ 5» A a lol : a A ‘ c , 
 fin. of εχ- ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ oi πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τοῦ δράκοντος, καὶ 6 δράκων 
 
 planation 
 
 (cf Moult. ἐπολέμησε καὶ “ot ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ, 8. “Kai οὐκ ἴσχυσεν, οὐδὲ 
 
 1.217-218). χα 
 u From 
 
 Dan. x. 
 
 13, 21, xii. ὃ μέγας, 76 
 
 1, cf. Judez 
 
 wot 
 
 v Matt. xxv. 
 41; evil 
 beings in 
 heaven, 
 Asc. Isa. 
 vi. οἵ. 
 
 ε 
 
 \ 
 και OL 
 
 W cis οὐδὲν δέον συνέβη τελευτῆσαι THY τάξιν αὐτῶν (Papias, cit. Andr.). 
 ail. 20, xx. 3, 8, Io. 
 
 56f. y Isa. xxvii. 1. Zz XX. 2. 
 
 € xi. 15, xix. I. 
 
 τόπος "εὑρέθη αὐτῶν ἔτι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. 
 ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, *6 καλούμενος ““Διάβολος,᾽᾽ καὶ 
 Σατανᾶς,᾽᾿ ὃ " πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην, " ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, 
 ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν. 
 ε φωνὴν “μεγάλην ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγουσαν 
 
 9. καὶ ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων 
 
 (.ς 
 
 ο 
 
 IO. καὶ ἤκουσα 
 
 x xx. 11, Par. Lost, vi. 
 b From Slav. En. xxix. 5. 
 
 1 Read toxvoev (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. (= 
 onbas ona manbdn cnn: 
 
 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 ὁ M. x. οἱ ay. 
 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 role 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. ¥. 
 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 
 
 ἐγένετο . . . TOU 1. 
 
 earth, forms an independent Jewish tradi- 
 tion which can be traced to the second 
 century B.c. (ef. Sibyll. iii. 795-807, 
 2 Macc. v. 2-4; Jos. Bell. vi. 5, 3). ---καὶ 
 οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ. The only allusion in 
 the Apocalypse (cf. even xx. τὶ 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, cf. 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, x.t.X., cf. 2 Cor. ii. 11, 
 xi. 3), and (δ) eagerness to thwart and 
 slander them before God (ver. 10, cf. En. 
 xl. 7; Zech. iii. r f.). The second is 
 naive and archaic, of course, in a Chris- 
 tian apocalypse. 
 
 Ver. το. κατήγωρ (349 9) 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 IQANNOY 
 
 427 
 
 “"Apte ἐγένετο ἡ ὅ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δύναμις d Gj-on xix. 
 > ae ΤᾺ 7 a I; here 
 καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ " Χριστοῦ alm.= 
 τε “victory” 
 αὐτοῦ - (1 Sam. 
 FA Ἔ HK xix. 5, Ps. 
 ott ἐβλήθη ὁ κατήγωρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν, xx. 7, and 
 t = loka le F, γί er er - «  Lukei.71) 
 ὁ ᾿ κατηγορῶν αὐτοὺς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἡμέρας καὶ sy 
 Ι! 
 νυκτός. € χὶ “15, cf. 
 Ἶ Xx. 4,6 
 11. καὶ αὐτοὶ " ἐνίκησαν αὐτὸν ὃ διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ dpviou, (final 
 + Sid τὰ ΤῊΣ Pen 4 Sir ed editor's 
 kat διὰ τὸν ᾿ λόγον τῆς ‘paptupias αὐτῶν, ; and). 
 A tom Jub, 
 καὶ " οὐκ ἠγάπησαν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἄχρι * θανάτου. xlviii. 15, 
 a a 18, 
 12. διὰ τοῦτο ᾿ εὐφραίνεσθε " οὐρανοὶ Kal ot ἐν αὐτοῖς “oKy-¢g1 johnii. 
 ἡ 13-14. 
 νουντες. Rom. viii. 
 Pe rip ee a en 33°34) 37° 
 ovat τὴν γῆν Kal τὴν θάλασσαν, nao 
 A lv. Il. 
 ὅτι κατέβη ὁ διάβολος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔχων θυμὸν μέγαν, ii. 2, vi. 9. 
 δι τι es ΓΑ. ” k ii. 10, 
 εἰδὼς ὅτι ? ὀλίγον καιρὸν ἔχει. John xii. 
 13. Kai ὅτε εἶδεν ὁ δράκων ὅτι ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἐδίωξε τὴν ag 
 γυναῖκα “ἥτις ἔτεκε τὸν ἄρσενα. 14. καὶ " ἐδόθησαν τῇ γυναικὶ ες μοὶ 
 
 ai δύο πτέρυγες τοῦ ἥ“ ἀετοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ἵνα πέτηται εἰς τὴν ἔρημον 
 
 N Xviii. 20, Ps, xcvi. 11; only here (Apoc.) in plural. 
 
 years (6, 14), C/. Xx. 3. q Cf. on i. 7. 
 
 TX. 
 
 m Isa. xlii. 
 10f., xliv. 
 23)xlix.13. 
 
 O viii. 13, cf. Sib. Or. 111, 323. p = 34 
 
 I 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, ¢f. 
 above on 9). 
 
 Ver. 11. 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., 89 f.), 
 John hails from another standpoint, as 
 inaugurating the messianic age. Vezxilla 
 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. τα 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 appéar 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”.—ovat 
 x.t.A. This desperate and last effort of 
 Satan is a common apocalyptic feature 
 (cf. e.g., 4 Esd. xill. 16 £; Ap. Bar. 
 XXVili. 3, xli. 1, Ixxv. 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. ‘‘The two wings of a huge 
 griffon-vulture’’ (τοῦ either generic ar- 
 
428 
 
 Ss. ver. 6. 
 t Dan. vii. 
 
 25 
 (Theod.), 
 
 ” 
 
 ATIOKAAYY¥VIZ IQANNOY 
 
 Ν o πὲ ὧν Ν lA a 
 και ἡμῖσυ καιρου απὸ προσώπου TOU ὄφεως. 
 
 XII. 
 
 > Η , 2 sc , 22074 x Ca ᾿ 
 εἰς τὸν TOTTOV QUTNS, οπου τρέφεται €KEL καιρὸν καὶ καιρους 
 
 15. καὶ ἔβαλεν 
 
 Ὁ ε > lol , 3 a> , lol a en ε . , 
 xii. 7;= ὁ Odts ἐκ TOU στόματος αὐτοῦ ὀπίσω τῆς γυναικὸς ὕδωρ ὡς ποταμὸν, 
 
 dual 
 
 (Win. § ἵνα αὐτὴν “ ποταμοφόρητον ποιήσῃ. 
 
 27, 5). , 
 u Hebraism γυναικι, 
 
 (wT ὃν ἔβαλεν 6 δράκων ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ. 
 
 16. καὶ ἐβοήθησεν ἡ γῆ τῇ 
 
 καὶ ἤνοιξεν ἡ γῆ τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς καὶ κατέπιε τὸν ποταμὸν 
 
 17. καὶ “ ὠργίσθη ὁ 
 
 5 , sc. 8 n~ , ‘ 2 A x a x , a A 
 3p) δράκων ἐπι TH γύναικι, και ἀπῆλθε ποίησαι πόλεμον μετα των 
 
 Ξε "8, 
 
 age λοιπῶν τοῦ 7 σπέρματος αὐτῆς, τῶν * τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ 
 ν am. Aey. x 
 a καὶ "ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿ἸΙησοῦ. 
 1 
 ἐποίησεν ᾿ A i 
 τεἀπόερσεν (Hesych. on Iliad, vi. 348). “Τὸ get her swept away by the stream”. w xi. 18= 
 “waxed wroth”. κα χὶ 7: y Cf. 2 John 1, 4, 13; αἰβοι Pet. i. 1-2, iv. 12f. zi John ii. 3, 
 
 iii. z2, 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. 
 II) is at best secondary. 
 
 Ver. 15. Another mythological meta- 
 phor for persecution or persecutors, like 
 ‘torrents of Belial’ (Ps. xvili.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. v. 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. xiii. 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.—r.A. an 
 apocalyptic term = the derelicti 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. . . . 
 Ἰησοῦ) to the source, he paves the way 
 
 a Vi. 9, Xiv. 12, 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. g 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 tva νικήσασα τῷ μὲν 
 σκολιῷ ὄφει ἀπαραίτητον ποιήσῃ τὴν 
 καταδίκην. 
 
 The keynote of the situation hinted 
 in xu. 17 ἢ 15. Struck in x1. δι ἢ 
 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- 
 
15—18—XIII. 1—3. 
 
 18. Kat > ἐστάθην] ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον τῆς θαλάσσης, XIII. 
 
 AMOKAAY¥VIZ ΙΩΏΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 429 
 
 I. καὶ ὃ On form, 
 cf. Helb- 
 
 "εἶδον ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης θηρίον dvaBaivov, ἔχον κέρατα δέκα καὶ ing, 98-99. 
 
 a Cf. xvii. 3. 
 
 κεφαλὰς ἑπτά, kal ἐπὶ τῶν κεράτων αὐτοῦ δέκα διαδήματα, Kalb From 
 
 ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ 
 
 τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ὡς στόμα λέοντος. 
 
 A , > “ A A ’ > lol Ἁ > , 
 τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην. 
 
 3. καὶ μίαν ἐκ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐσφαγμένην εἰς θάνατον - 
 
 cf. Win. § 5, 31, Helbing, 21-22. 
 
 "ὀνόματα βλασφημίας. 
 "ὃ εἶδον ἦν " ὅμοιον “ παρδάλει, καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς 
 
 “καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ δράκων 
 
 e Dan. vii. 6, cf. Matt. iii. 8, 9, εἴς. 
 
 athena! ; Dan. vii. 
 
 2. καὶ TO θηρίον 4-6. 
 
 aber « c Hereonly, 
 ἄρκου, KGL NT.: cf. 
 Ign. Rom. 
 ν. λεοπαρ- 
 δοις, ὃ 
 ἐστιν 
 στρατιω- 
 τικὸν 
 τάγμα. 
 
 d On form, 
 
 f xvii. 7-8. Sc. eldov. 
 
 1 For ἐεσταθην (PQ, Me.,S., etc., And., Areth. so Ti., Al.,S. Davidson, Ew., Ramsay, 
 Briggs, Gunkel, J. Weiss, Bs., Bj., etc.), Lach., Tr., Diist., Hofm., WH, Ws. (p. 5), 
 Sw., Holtz., Hirscht, read eorady (SQAC, 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. 10) the monster 
 from the sea, #.e., the Roman Empire. 
 
 Ver. 18. The scene is the sea-shore, 
 ex hypothest, of the Mediterranean 
 {Phedo, tog ὃ, III a, etc.), z.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. I: ecce ascendebat de mari aquila, 
 -also xiii. 1). 
 
 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. Ann. 
 xv. 47) with the blasphemous names. 
 Hence the ten horns (successive mon- 
 archs in the Danielic oracle) are super- 
 fluous here, except as δὴ 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 
 υἱός 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 Rom. 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 (z.e., 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’”’.—Kal ἔδωκεν x.7.A., 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 tat ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου 
 person 4 
 denoted ὅλη ἡ γῆ " ὀπίσω τοῦ θηρίου. 
 by μίαν ΟΥ , 
 
 ATIOKAAY¥VIZ ITQANNOY 
 
 XIII. 
 
 fadtod ἐθεραπεύθη, καὶ ὃ" ἐθαυμάσθη. 
 x ΄ ῥα 
 4. καὶ προσεκύνησαν ᾿ τῷ δράκοντι 
 
 Pa) S ἐξ , ral 6 ea: | Ν , a 6 iw 
 the beast.OTL €OWKEV THY εζουσιαν τῳ HPL®, και προσεκύνησαν τῳ np τῶ 
 
 h xvii. 8; 
 pregn. 
 constr. 
 “went 
 after him 
 in won- 
 der”. Cf. 
 Acts viii. 
 g-11. An- 
 tithesis 
 
 λέγοντες, 
 
 δύο: 
 
 from this 
 
 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. 
 
 ͵ 
 
 “τίς "ὅμοιος τῷ θηρίῳ ; 
 “cc ‘ , , a 3 > a 9 
 καὶ Tis δύναται πολεμῆσαι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ; 
 5. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στόμα ᾿ἱ λαλοῦν μεγάλα καὶ βλάσφημα -2 
 
 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία "᾿ ποιῆσαι μῆνας " τεσσαράκοντα. 
 
 6. καὶ ἤνοιξε τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ εἰς βλασφημίας πρὸς τὸν θεόν, 
 
 k xviii. 18, Exod. xv. 
 
 τῇ From Dane viii. 12, 24, xi. 28, 30, 32: pregn. Heb. use =‘ exercise” or “‘ practise” (intrans.), with: 
 
 ἐξ. not μῆνας (Jas. iv. 13). Ὦ xi. 2. 
 
 1 For to θηριον (A 79, Anda, Ws., WH marg., Bs.) read tw θηριω (SYCPQ, etc., 
 
 Ande, Areth., edd.). 
 θηριον, see ver. 8, 12, xiv. 9, II, xx. 4.] 
 
 * Read βλασφημα A, 12, 28, 34, 35, 47, 
 
 [The acc. is conformed to general usage of προσκ. with 
 
 79, 87, And., etc. (Lach. Al. Ws.): the 
 
 idiomatic ποιησαι has been early improved by the addition of o θελει (δ 8) or πολε-- 
 pov (Q, Andc, Areth.), and Naber conj. onpeta 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 [¢.e., Nero’s] nascentur contentiones 
 non modicae et periclitabitur ut cadat et 
 non cadet tunc, sed iterum constituetur 
 in suum initium”; also Suet. Vesp. τ 
 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, i.e., an antichrist. The 
 context would certainly read quite natur- 
 
 ally without 3 a, 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 
 aggrandised 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. rr) words.”  So- 
 Apoc. Bar. lxvii. 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. To-12) havereturned. On the claims. 
 
4-9. ATIOKAAY¥IZ IQANNOY 43 
 βλασφημῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Kal τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ [τοὺς ἐν ο C/. John 
 X1X. 10-11, 
 τῷ οὐρανῷ σκηνοῦντας ]. and below 
 ma δ on XVI. 
 7. καὶ " ἐδόθη αὐτῷ " ποιῆσαι πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων Kal 17. 
 Ξ ᾿ pxi.7. Ful- 
 νικῆσαι αὐτούς - filment of 
 αὶ π᾿ ef Dan. vii. 
 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ “ ἐξουσία ἐπὶ πᾶσαν φυλὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ 2. 
 ΠΣ 1 q Dan. v. 
 ἔθνος. 19, Vii. 23. 
 8 . ’ r.3 ε a » 6 a 8 Constr. ad 
 . καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ᾿ αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς sensum, 
 a ‘the 
 ys; beast, or 
 a a - a -~_ his Im- 
 "οὗ of " γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς [τοῦ perial re- 
 ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου] ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. ag al 
 > 2 tem.” Cf. 
 9. “el τις ἔχει οὖς, ἀκουσάτω. ee 
 to Nero 
 Beat! Καὶ Ε Υ Ἐ 4 _ (DioCass. 
 lxiii.): ‘‘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. 
 
 Ὁ li. 7, etc. 
 
 1The omission of 7a in ACP, 1, 12, 14, 92, Arm. (zoh.), Iren., Andp, Andbav (so 
 
 Spitta) is due to homoioteleuton. 
 
 of the emperor, see Introd. 86, and Sib. 
 Or. v. 33, 34 (Nero ἰσάζων θεῷ αὐτόν), 
 Asc. Isa. iv. 6-8, x. 13, etc.—Tots ... 
 σκηνοῦντας, an exegetic gloss defining 
 σκήνη (cf. xii. 7, 12). The temple in 
 Jerusalem is no longer the scene and 
 object of the beast’s blasphemy. 
 
 Ver. 7. In Enoch xlvi. 7 the rulers 
 
 κι K. goes with γέγραπται, not ἐσφαγμέ- 
 γον. 
 
 Ver. 9. The prophet’s nota bene 
 introduces (ver. 10) what is either (a) a 
 demand for patience and non-resistance, 
 or (δ) an encouragement to it. (a) ‘Be 
 patient. If captivity is your destiny from 
 God, accept it. If any one is (destined) 
 
 and kings ‘‘make themselves masters of for captivity, to captivity he goes (in 
 
 the stars of heaven [.e., 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. 
 10). Only the elect will be able to resist 
 its appeal (ef. 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. 11. 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 a. 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 apviov is 
 less difficult). Elsewhere the book of 
 life appears by itself. In any case, ἀπὸ 
 
 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 Io 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 to 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. τ. τὸς τὸς “vis! 8: Τὶ Pade 
 de Flacc. τι, 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.— Se «.t.A. 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. 
 
43? 
 
 v Gen.ix.6> το. "el τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, 
 Jer. xv. 2 εἰ ῳ ΕΝ 
 (XX). εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει - 
 w ionian A 
 form εἴ τις ἐν “ μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτενεῖ, 
 (Win. § 8, SHE aN yh ates 5 Εἰ 
 1; οἴ: δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν ἥ“ μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι " 
 Thumb, Shen eye Η͂ \ κε , ne ie tee 
 68f.)? ὧδέ ἐστιν ἡ " ὑπομονὴ Kal *4 πίστις τῶν ἁγίων. 
 x Cf. ver. , a ἐς Ἂ 
 18; Win, 11. Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλο θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον ἐκ τῆς γῆς, καὶ εἶχε κέρατα 
 § 23,1. , 
 “Here is δύο "ὅμοια dpviw, καὶ " ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων. 12. καὶ thy ἐξουσίαν 
 room ee 3 Pe A αν Aldus: op eee in Α: ἡ ~ ΩΝ 
 for.” τοῦ πρώτου θηρίου “ πᾶσαν ποιεῖ “ἧ ἐνώπιον " αὐτοῦ - καὶ * ποιεῖ τὴν 
 ySeeoni. Ἅ, Ἄ ᾿ς gg? ΟΥ̓ a ty , δ᾿ Onoi 
 g,also γῆν καὶ τοὺς " ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας ‘iva προσκυνήσουσι τὸ θηρίον 
 Xiv. 2. pa a ΩΝ 
 “Etquo τὸ πρῶτον, οὗ ἐθεραπεύθη ἧ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου “ αὐτοῦ: 13. 
 contemp- a a A ~ A a 
 tius abut- καὶ ποιεῖ ἢ σημεῖα μεγάλα ἵνα καὶ ' πῦρ ποιῇ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατα- 
 eretur , 3 ᾿ Pe ΣΨ. a , \ k = ᾿ 
 patientia βαίνειν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 14. καὶ ἢ πλανᾷ τοὺς 
 omi- “- 4." ἢ, a a 1 a aA ws yar A 
 num" κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ᾿διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι 
 ate ™ ἐγώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι 
 z Sec. 
 article 
 
 ALIOKAAYYVIZ IQANNOY 
 
 XIII. 
 
 usually omitted. Win. ὃ 18, 7b. For idea, cf. 4 Macc. xvi. 18-23, etc. For form, cf. Class. Rev. 1904, 
 
 108-109, Helbing, 31-32. ‘ ap. i 
 passage forms an apocalyptic application, 
 § 20, 11 f. d Ver. 14, xix. 20. 
 only. 
 
 as false Elijah. kii. 20, Deut. xiii. 2-4. 
 
 a Chap. ix. 10; from Dan. viii. 3; cf. Matt. vii. 15, of which this 
 Ὁ Gen. iii. 15, cf. τ Macc. i. 30. 
 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. 
 En. lxvii. 7. 
 
 c Cf. Win. 
 g With ἐν, here 
 ixi.5: 
 1 Cf. xii. 2 (6ua=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. Io). 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, #.e., the priests of the 
 Czsar-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 y7Hs—the mythological 
 trait is applied geographically to Asia 
 Minor (i.¢., 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 (6p. 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 Irenzus, 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. 
 II, after r1o=‘‘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. 
 
 ANOKAAYY¥IZ, TQANNOY 
 
 433 
 
 εἰκόνα TO θηρίῳ "ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς paxalpys καὶ ἔζησε. 15.0 0}. om 
 
 αὐτόν (8). 
 
 ‘ ld > ~ -“- lol ~ > / A , - . 
 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ δοῦναι πνεῦμα τῇ εἰκόνι τοῦ θηρίου, iva καὶ ο Acts xvi. 
 
 16. 
 
 ολαλήσῃ ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ θηρίου, καὶ ἢ ποιήσει ' iva “ ὅσοι ἂν μὴ Mpoo-pC/. ver. τ2. 
 
 , A eee 2 “~ 6 , P2 θῶ 
 κυνήσωσι τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ θηρίου ” ἀποκτανθῶσι. 
 πάντας, τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους, καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ 
 τοὺς πτωχούς, καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους, Piva ᾿ δῶσιν 
 
 αὐτοῖς "χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς "Ὧ᾿ χειρὸς 
 
 τὸ “ μέτωπον αὐτῶν, 17. [καὶ] "ἵνα μή τις δύνηται 2 “ ἀγοράσαι ἢ 
 a > 4. « > x , a a” 6 Η Χ Ν 
 πωλῆσαι, εἰ μὴ 6 ἔχων τὸ χάραγμα, τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θηρίου, " ἢ τὸν 
 
 ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. 
 
 322). q Dan. iii. 5-7, 15. 
 
 Xvi. 2, xix. 18-20 (vii. 3, ix. 4), of. Ps. Sol. xv. 30. 
 
 Ant. iii. 7.6. Orneck? Ps. Sol. ii. 6. 
 w 1 Mace. xiii. 49. 
 quality; cf. v. 12, vii. 12. 
 
 18. "ὧδε ἡ "copia ἐστίν. 
 
 τ Indef. plur. as x. 11, xvi. 15 (-- " they get”). 
 
 Double 
 use of 
 
 ποιεῖν, 
 the ἵνα 
 
 16. καὶ ποιεῖ 
 
 +++ ποιῇ 
 (epexeg. 
 Of μεγάλα) 
 of ver. 13 
 (with πῦρ 
 displaced 
 for em- 
 phasis) = 
 ὥστε 
 ποιεῖν Of 
 result 
 (Burton, 
 8 Xiv. 9-II, 
 u Cf. Jos. 
 
 - er “ t A na Te 
 αὐτῶν τῆς ‘Seftas, ἢ ἐπὶ 
 
 ες »” 
 ὃ ἔχων 
 
 t Cf. Assuan Papyri (K, 4.6). 
 
 v = Infin. epexeg. 1 John v. 20, etc. Burton, 198, 213. 
 x xvii. 9, cf. 4 Esd. vi. 10 ¢ijre1,"E¢pe. 
 
 y only here in Apoc., of human 
 
 1 ποιήσει SQ (min.), Syr., Tr. marg., WH marg., Ws.: for τὴν evxova (A, min., 
 Lach. Al. Bs.) Ti., Tr.. WH, Ws., Bj., Sw. read ty εἰκονι (ΡΟ, etc., Hipp., 
 
 Areth.). 
 displaced by avtyn (avtw). 
 
 Little is to be said for WH’s conj. that rn yy has been either lost after or 
 
 2 Lach., Ti., Bj. om., Al. WH, Bs.. Sw. bracket, the και of S§cAPQ, 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 ὃ 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).---ἀποκτανθῶσιν, cf. the scutcheon of 
 Captain Pope in Bunyan’s Holy War— 
 ‘“‘ the stake, the flame, and the good man 
 invit.”. 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. Detection was inevitable, 
 for the very coins were stamped (Matt. 
 xxii. 10) with the head of the Czsar, 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 {τ 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”.—pérwrov. 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 IQANNOY 
 
 XIII. 
 
 νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου - ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστί, 
 
 κ 
 και oO 
 
 ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι + ἑξήκοντα ἕξ. 
 
 1 χξζ΄, 1.6., εξακοσιοι (-at) εξηκοντα ε (NAPA, etc., Iren., Vict., Pr.), but xub’, 7.2, 
 ξξακοσιοι Sexa εξ (C, 5, 11, Tic., Spec., “quidam sequentes idiotismum’”’ apud 
 
 Tren.). 
 
 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, i.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, i.e., 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 
 (ver. 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 ἀνθρώπου, 
 i.e., 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,’’ z.e., 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, Ὁ 
 JO (=616), DWNT DY (-- 666), 
 Nimrod (ὩΣ) 9) 79, Bruston), or 
 
 any other (cf. Cheyne’s Traditions and 
 Beliefs of Anc. Israel, p. 248). This 
 generic number is expressly identified or 
 equalised by John with the number of an 
 
 individual, viz., Nero Cesar (ἢ ἽΌΡ)» 
 the Greek letters of which yield 666. 
 The defective writing of Op (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 Irenzeus. Gunkel’s proposal 
 
 mya OWN (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; (δ) isopsephia, 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 motes further the 
 ominous usage of 13=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. iy. 9) remarks, 
 apropos of the present passage, ἐστὶν ὃ 
 ἀριθμὸς οὗτος πάθους σύμβολον καὶ κακ- 
 ὥώσεως τοῦ σωτῆρος τῇ ἕκτῃ ἡμέρᾳ πεπον- 
 θότος. Irenzeus 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. 1—3. 
 
 AITOKAAYY¥IZ IQANNOY 
 
 435 
 
 XIV. τ. Kai εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ τὸ " ἀρνίον " ἑστὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος Σιών, ἃ ν. 6. 
 
 be 
 
 Ὁ vii. 4; οἵ. 
 
 4 > > A Ν μ᾿ Ν ᾿ 
 καὶ μετ΄ αὐτοῦ " ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες ἔχουσαι τὸ Zech. xiv. 
 
 » a a ~ a 3: 
 ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ “ γεγραμμένον ἐπὶ τῶν c iii. 12, 
 
 a 
 
 μετώπων αὐτῶν. 2. 
 
 ὑδάτων πολλῶν καὶ ὡς φωνὴν βροντῆς μεγάλης - καὶ ἧ φωνὴ ἣν 
 ἤκουσα ὡς “κιθαρῳδῶν κιθαριζόντων ἐν ταῖς κιθάραις αὐτῶν. 5. 
 
 ‘to 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 θηρίον 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. 
 15, 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.- 
 xxil., 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. 
 
 \ » a > “ 5 ~ ε 4 
 καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς φωνὴν 
 
 Ezek. ix. 
 4. 
 αἴ, x15, xix: 
 I, 6. 
 © 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 downtall 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; iv τὸ; 4; Ant. xviii. 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. xiii. 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. 
 9 ἢ, 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 
 
 f i.e., the 
 angels. 
 
 . , , Ν lol , 
 gjud. xvi. τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΛΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 ΧΙν.. 
 
 3Ξ, A -- 
 καὶ ‘a8ovow " ὠδὴν Σ καινὴν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον TOY 
 
 Ἐ καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο μαθεῖν. 
 
 13. 
 hcf.ii17, τὴν ὡδὴν εἰ μὴ αἱ ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες, ᾿ οἱ 
 
 πὸ Sen ᾿ dae 2 
 iconstr.ad Nyopacwevor ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. 
 sensum 
 (as v. 13, 
 
 Xi. 4, etc.) 
 k Triple 
 οὗτοι an 
 apoc. 
 formula 
 (cf. Jude 
 12, etc.). 
 lcf. Just. 
 A pol.i. 15, 
 Matt. xix. 
 12, Eus. 
 ΗΕ: τ: 
 
 γάρ εἶσιν. 
 
 τῷ ἀρνίῳ]. 
 
 24 (Melito τὸν εὐνοῦχον), 2 Clem. xii. 2, C.I.G. 3098 (παρθένοι ἱερατείας, in ethnic sense). 
 
 4. " οὗτοί εἰσιν ot μετὰ γυναικῶν οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν - 
 
 παρθένοι 
 
 * οὗτοι of ™ ἀκολουθοῦντες τῷ ἀρνίῳ ὅπου ἄν " ὑπάγει. 
 A a “- Ν 
 « οὗτοι “ ἠγοράσθησαν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων Ῥ ἀπαρχὴ τῷ θεῷ [καὶ 
 
 Ν ᾳ 3 “ Ι ας 9 [ΠΥ ΤΗΣ lol Pa oe , > 
 5. καὶ “ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν οὐχ “ εὑρέθη ψεῦδος - * ἄμωμοί εἰσιν. 
 
 m Matt. 
 
 XVi. 24-25, Joh. xxi. 19, 1 Pet. ii. 21-22. Quoted (in Ep. Lugd.) of the martyr Vettius Epagathus. 
 
 nas in Mark vi. 56 (indic.). ο 2 Pet. ii. 1. 
 liii. 9, Zeph. iii. 13, Ps. xiv. 1f., xxx. 2. 
 (sacrificial). 
 
 p cf. Schol. on Eurip. Orest. 96. 
 T Jude 24; cf. Col. i. 22,1 Pet. i. 19, Heb. ix. 14 
 
 q I Pet. ii. 22, Isa. 
 
 1 Ti. (Al.), Ws., Bj. rightly om. ws (with ΣΦ ΡΟ, etc., Me., Pesh., Aeth., Arm., Orig., 
 Method., And¢, pal, Areth., Pr.) before ὡδην, 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, 
 e.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.—akodov- 
 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. 
 E. B. D. τοι: ‘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! ”’—aré in 3, 4 15 
 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, 1gor) 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.”—«at 7.4., usually 
 taken asa scribe’s gloss. Elsewhere the 
 saints are redeemed by, not for, the Lamb: 
 ν. 9). 
 
 ' Wy. 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 Jn- 
 schriften von Magnesia, 26. These 
 
o/s 
 
 ATIOKAAYYVIZ IQANNOY 437 
 
 6. Καὶ εἶδον "ἄλλον! ἄγγελον πετόμενον ἐν * μεσουρανήματι, s here and 
 ” 13 ᾿ + ιν , are ‘ w , ΟῚ 15, 17f., 
 ἔχοντα “ εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον “ εὐαγγελίσαι ἐπὶ τοὺς ἡ καθημένους ἐπὶ perhaps 
 a“ a A > on ‘ Mi (Ε t ε 
 τῆς γῆς "καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔθνος καὶ φυλὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ λαόν, idiomatic 
 use Of a. 
 7. “λέγων ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, in Plato, 
 μὴ = προ- 
 “5 φοβήθητε τὸν θεὸν καὶ " δότε αὐτῷ δόξαν, σέτι, Cf. 
 ΓῚ ἦλθ ς ῳ ~ , > A use of 
 ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα τῆς κρίσεως αὐτοῦ - ἕτερος int 
 Dan. viii. 
 13, etc. 
 t viii. 13. u a genuine gospel (cf, Gal. i. 8). να Pet. i. 25; for contr. John xvi. 12. w Cf 
 Luke xxi. 35. X X. I1, ΧΙ, 7, and (for καί epexeg,) xi. 18, xiii. 12. y cf. iv, 1, etc. z xi. 18, 
 
 Fear God, not the beast, cf. Xen. Mem. iv. 19. 
 
 a xi. 13. 
 
 1 αλλον is more likely to have been omitted (so $¥*Q, Orig., etc., Bs.), owing to 
 
 the difficulty of reference (x. 1, xi. 15) than to have been inserted. 
 
 Weiss conj. aetov. 
 
 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.—etSos. In view of 
 xxi. 8, 27, xxii. 15 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. 1xxxiii., cviii., etc.) in the 
 early church of the first century; 6.9.» 
 “the whole yoke of the Lord” in Did. 
 vi. may refer to celibacy (in which case 
 τέλειος would be equivalent to ἄμωμος 
 here). Cf. the discussion of reasons, in a 
 Babylonian incantation (Zimmern, die 
 Beschwirungstafeln 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- 
 Moat 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. V. 
 
 For ayyedov J. 
 
 (cf. xi. 3) a chance to repent (implicit, ef. 
 Mark i. 15). The sterner tone of viii. 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. ii. 5 f. 
 Ver. 6. πετόμενον : angels begin to 
 
 fly in the Jewish heaven about the be- 
 ginning of the first century B.c. (En. lxi. 
 I). 
 
 ie 7. ποιήσαντι K.T-A. 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- 
 Tati 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).—@v 
 
 has probably the double sense cane be 
 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 
 
438 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY XIV. 
 τ oa A - - 
 ype iene καὶ προσκυνήσατε TO ἢ" ποιήσαντι τὸν οὐρανὸν Kal THY γῆν καὶ 
 a 12, “ θάλασσαν Kal “ πηγὰς ὑδάτων.᾽᾽ 
 Store an 8. kai ἄλλος ἄγγελος δεύτερος } ἠκολούθησε λέγων, 
 X. 0, an 
 3 39 
 ne “Ἔπεσεν “ ἔπεσε " Βαβυλὼν ἡ ‘ μεγάλη: 
 5. CxIv1, 
 a ee es A A Ξ is 
 6, Deut, ξῇ ἐκ Tod οἴνου [τοῦ θυμοῦ] τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς πεπότικε 
 xxii. 3 3 
 with Acts πάντα τὰ Ov.” 
 iv. 24, xiv, : : r ᾿ 
 15. 9. καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος τρίτος ἠκολούθησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων ἐν φωνῇ 
 ΕΣ κῶν Ὁ Η Ε = 
 xvi. 4.'an μεγάλῃ, “Εἴ τις προσκυνεῖ “Td θηρίον καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ καὶ 
 irreg. rN , , ae δ᾽) a , > πὰ. 5 τὰ ‘ a h 3 a 2 
 omission λαμβάνει χάραγμα ἐπὶ ᾿ τοῦ μετώπου αὐτοῦ ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα ” αὐτοῦ, 
 of article, k κι 5 ὡς une > im uh Bias in A = a a 
 see Win, 10. “καὶ αὐτὸς ᾿πίεται ἐκ TOU οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ 
 § 18, ἃ, ΄ > , > n ΄ - > a > a ‘ 
 jaor. οἱ Κεκερασμένου “dkpdtou ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ 
 
 “ , 
 
 ἀρ ρα βασανισθήσεται ἐν πυρὶ καὶ " θείῳ ἐνώπιον ἀγγέλων " ἁγίων 
 
 pened” 
 
 (so xviii. 2), Moult. i. 135; cf. Isa. xxi. 9. eT Pet. v. x3. f Dan. iv. 27 (30), Jer. li. 58. 
 
 ¢ Seductive influence of idolatry (as in xiii. 2, Jer. 1. 2). h xiii. 12-17. i gen. as vii. 3, etc. 
 
 dc he, as well as Babylon; cf. on iii. 20. 1 Jer. xxv. 17-19, 27-29, xxxii. I, also Ps. ἰχχν. 9, Ps. Sol. 
 viii. 15. See below at xvi. 19, xix, 15. m cf. Jos. Ant. xvii. 6, 1, xvili. 9, 8, etc. n Cf. on 
 zx. 18. o As Mark viii. 38, Acts x. 22, etc. 
 
 1 The tautological Seutepos goes either before (AQ, 1, etc., Areth., Lach., Tr., Al., 
 ‘WH, Sw., Bj.) or after (pyccCP, min., Me., Pesh., Arm., etc., Ti., Ws.) ayyeAos. 
 τοῦ θυμου (om. fuld. 1, 96, Tic., Pr., Cassiod.) as at xviii. 3 (om. S., Pr.) a gloss [Bl., 
 9.35, 6]? Cp. xvii. 2. 
 
 24... avtov (om. S.) a gloss? 
 
 grimly writes, drawing on a 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” 
 
 (man OF ying, cf. Job xx. 16), and 
 
 r 
 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 
 
 nay 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. 
 to-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 Cesars. 
 The Apocalypse is silent upon agents 
 of torture; they are not the angels, much 
 less the devil (who is himself punished, 
 xx. 10). 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, xlviil. 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, 
 Ρ. 344; cof. 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 
 Tov apviov 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---τ3. 
 
 ὦ ΜΕ; a > , ‘ 
 [καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου]" τι. Kat 
 
 A A , 
 αὐτῶν “ εἰς αἰῶνας αἰώνων * ἀναβαίνει - 
 a , ate eer 
 ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς οἱ προσκυνοῦντες τὸ θηρίον Kal τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ, 
 \ t 7 , N , a ‘3 ἢ > ~ 
 καὶ “et τις λαμβάνει τὸ χάραγμα τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. 
 ἡ “ὑπομονὴ τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν - ot " τηροῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς “TOD θεοῦ 
 
 Ἀ A x , > fol 
 και τὴν “πίστιν ᾿Ιησοῦ. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ΙΏΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 439 
 
 ὃ καπνὸς τοῦ ἢ" βασανισμοῦ p by meto- 
 nymy = 
 βασάνον 
 (cf. xviii. 
 7, 10, 15). 
 q XX. 10. 
 12. Ὧδε; xviii. 9, 
 xix. 3, Isa. 
 XXXIV. 10, 
 s Grim con. 
 trast to 
 iv. 8. 
 
 ‘ > >» 8 , 
 καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν " ἀνάπαυσιν 
 
 -“ -“ - , 
 13. Kal ἤκουσα φωνῆς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ “λεγούσης “Γράψον, + = ὅστις 
 
 Μακάριοι ot νεκροὶ οἵ *év Κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες ἀπάρτι " 
 
 (ὃς ἄν), 
 Win. § 
 24, 16. 
 
 fe - , 
 Nai, "λέγει TO Πνεῦμα, Piva “ ἀναπαήσονται ἐκ τῶν κόπων ( τὴ, το. 
 
 αὐτῶν" 
 a 
 
 iv. 19). 
 ἃ. Urchrist. 167 f. 
 
 tative (Moult. i. 114). 
 etc.), XXil. 14. 
 1991. d Cf. Sir. xiv, 19. 
 
 y Contrast x. 4. 
 
 taken (Bs., Baljon) as a periphrasis for the 
 divine presence (Luke xii. 8, 9, xv, Io). 
 
 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 bea 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. Bar. xliv. 7). John’s words typ. 
 τ. ἐντολὰς τ. 8. 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, “Is 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. τι, 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 x. ἀποθ. (which is time- 
 less, like προσκ. t. θ. in ver. 11) denotes 
 
 all who die in the faith, loyal to their 
 
 Lord, i.e., primarily martyrs and con- 
 fessors (cf. xiii. 8, 15). They die ‘in 
 His fellowship, as it were in His arms” 
 {Beyschlag). Like Paul (in 1 Thess. iv. 
 
 a“ A fal ” 
 τὰ yap ἔργα αὐτῶν ἀκολουθεῖ pet αὐτῶν. 
 
 aii, 7, etc.; cf. xxii. 16-17. c ] 
 ς (Isa. lvii. 1-2) like sec. fut. pass. οὗ καίω. cf. Jannaris, Hist. Greek Gramm. 
 
 Vi ΧΙ χ᾽ 
 nom. 
 indep., as 
 i. 5, etc. 
 
 w not of 
 men (Acts 
 
 x ii. 13; cf. Rom. iii. 22, 26, Mark xi. 22, etc. (object. gen.), cf. Seeberg’s der Katech. 
 zi 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 κιτιλ. 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,-ili., 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., 19, 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 épya 
 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 
 
4. 40 
 
 e Cf. Abbott, 
 : 206 f. θή 
 LeeLee fe NRO €vov 
 Dalman i. ᾿ 
 § ix. 2. 
 
 AITOKAAYYVIZ IQANNOY 
 
 ΧΙν. 
 
 Ν ‘ 
 14. καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ νεφέλη “λευκή, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην 
 ᾿ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, © ἔχων ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ 
 
 Ε 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. x 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 
 life 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”’) ofus 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,” 
 é.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.—avaratw 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 οἵ  semi- 
 
 political movements (cf. xviii. after xvii.). 
 The strange picture of messiah (14 f., 
 contrast i. 10 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 city 
 (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 
 hj@ legions (not of an angelic judgment 
 an Israel, J. Weiss) in the vicinity of 
 
 cain (cf. xi. 13, xiv. 1 f., and xx. ἃ) 
 
 ‘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. 
 
 " στέφανον χρυσοῦν καὶ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ δρέπανον ὀξύ. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 441 
 
 15. καὶ h xix, 12. 
 x 
 
 ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ' ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ, κράζων ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ τῷ (heavenly 
 
 καθημένῳ * ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης, 
 
 “ Πέμψον ' τὸ δρέπανόν σου καὶ θέρισον, 
 
 ὅτι ἦλθε ἡ " ὥρα ™ θερίσαι, 
 
 ὅτι ἐξηράνθη ὁ θερισμὸς τῆς yas.” 
 16. καὶ ἔβαλεν ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης τὸ δρέπανον αὐτοῦ 
 
 ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐθερίσθη ἡ γῆ. 
 
 17. καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 
 
 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 parl. 
 
 >. N viii. 3-5: 
 ΕΚ prayers of 
 \ a martyrs ? 
 ἐπὶ TOU πυρός, καὶ Epuvyge , Anes of 
 snow, 
 hail, 
 thunder, 
 
 lightning, fire, etc., in Jub. ii. 2. Here = viii. 5, the angel of fire. 
 
 1 Before exwv Lach., Al., Tr. (marg.), Ws. [WH], [Sw.] add the o 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” (quon mn) 
 which might be the sense of the Greek 
 (cf. Od. i. 132, Clem. Protrept. 1x. 87. 3) 
 but is harsh, or (δ) 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 [7.6., 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. I). πέμψον κιτιλ. The double 
 
 figure of judgment (harvest and vintage) 
 is copied from the poetic parallelism of 
 Joel iii. 13 ; the independent rendering of 
 
 προ 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 ὗκον αὐτοῦ) is 
 represented as a living thing, probably 
 like the δρέπανον πετόμενον of Zech. 
 v. τ (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-scene recalls that of viii. 3-5. Unlike 
 the harvest-symbol, the vintage-symbol 
 is worked out vividly (cf. Gen. xlix. 11; 
 Isa. Ixiii. 1 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. F., 1904, 350)- 
 
442 
 
 p Lk. vi 
 
 44. 
 q xix. 15, cf. 
 Ezek. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ἸΏΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 XIV. 19g—20. 
 
 “ Πέμψον σου τὸ δρέπανον τὸ ὀξύ, 
 
 καὶ Ῥτρύγησον τοὺς βότρυας τῆς ἀμπέλου τῆς γῆς, 
 
 χχχν. 6. ὅτι ἤκμασαν αἱ σταφυλαὶ αὐτῆς." 
 
 “oblong 19. καὶ ἔβαλεν ὁ ἄγγελος τὸ δρέπανον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ 
 a la ἐτρύγησε τὴν ἄμπελον τῆς γῆς Kat ἔβαλεν εἰς “ τὴν "ληνὸν τοῦ 
 ΕΓ on θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μέγαν. 20. καὶ “ ἐπατήθη ἡ ληνὸς "ἔξωθεν τῆς 
 
 ΑΝ πόλεως, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ᾿αἷμα ἐκ τῆς ληνοῦ ἄχρι τῶν χαλινῶν τῶν 
 
 6, 3, Vi. 
 
 , , ε ΄ 
 2? vi 6, ἵππων, ἅ ἀπὸ σταδίων χιλίων ἑξακοσίων. 
 
 3, εἴς. 
 
 t The red ἢ 
 juice of the vine (Deut. xxxii. 14). 
 (only here in this sense in Apoc.). 
 
 1 
 
 u John xi. 18, xxi. 8 (cf. Blass, 95): at most a Latinism 
 
 1 And. (comm.), reading (with 79) χιλ. efax. εξ. [διακοσιων, $y, 26, 5.1, explains the 
 number symbolically as the perfection of wickedness; tooo 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 ὃ. 
 
 Ver. 19. The ungrammatical τὸν μέγαν 
 may be due to the fact that Anvds 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. c. 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 ἔ,; 4 Esd. xv. 35; Sil. Ital. iii. 704). 
 The place is to be a veritable Senlac 
 (sang lac).—amé x.t.X., 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 hypothesi impenitent, xiv. 
 6-8) is ripe for the traditional (Dan. ix. 
 26) judgment. The same sequence is 
 teproduced roughly and on a larger scale 
 in xVii.-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. 14- 
 16 is the ingathering of the saints (so 
 
 Alford, Milligan, Bruston, Briggs, Titius, 
 Gilbert, and Swete).—é§wOev x.t.A. 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; οἷ. 
 below on xvi. 16), i.¢., 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. 9) drench the 
 earth with plagues from seven bowls 
 which are brimming with the divine 
 anger. The vision is a poetical expan- 
 sion of Ley. 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. I 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. r 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 
 
SS a ὅν 
 
 XV. I—3. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 443 
 
 XV. 1. Kat εἶδον ἄλλο σημεῖον ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μέγα kala C/. Exod, 
 
 XV. II. 
 
 " θαυμαστόν, ἀγγέλους ἑπτὰ ἔχοντας πληγὰς ἑπτὰ τὰς ἐσχάτας, ὅτι " x. 7. 
 
 ΕἸ 3 Ὁ 
 εν QUTQLS 
 
 ἃ «αλί Ξ 
 θάλασσαν “ὑαλίνην μεμιγμένην πυρί, καὶ τοὺς νικῶντας ἐκ τοῦ 
 
 , 1 ~ A ~ ~ ~ 
 “ θηρίου καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ " ὀνόματος 
 
 ᾿ ἐτελέσθη ὁ “θυμὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 ΟὟ. 17, Xi. 
 2. Kal εἶδον ὧς 18, 
 div. 6, same 
 scene 
 (cf. ver, 7 
 substan. 
 tially. 
 
 a a 5... 
 αὐτοῦ ἑστῶτας ᾿Ἶ ἐπὶ τὴν ὅ θάλασσαν τὴν “ ὑαλίνην, ἔχοντας ἢ κιθάρας ε xiii. 17, 
 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 a ΓΙ 204 a eee: m\s 
 Θεοῦ καὶ Thy ὠδὴν τοῦ dpviou, ™ λέγοντες, 
 
 h ν. 8, xiv. 2. i Xiv. 3, 
 m From Song of Three Child. 4. 
 
 12 f., xix. Ig, xvii. 1). Like 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. 1 f. 
 The manifestation of divine judgment 
 (4) evokes reverence (contrast xvi. 11) 
 and praise from the saints in heaven. 
 
 Ver. 2. vex. ἐκ x.7.A., ‘those who 
 came off conquerors from ”—another 
 pregnant use of ἐκ (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 ?) ἢ 
 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.—rrupt, a truly 
 Red sea, red with the glow of God’s 
 wrath. Like Pharaoh and his host 
 (Exod. xv. 5, to=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 
 
 iv. 11. 
 
 yee te ‘ 204 k , ἀν} 1 , ~ Xx 
 3. καὶ ᾿ᾷδουσι τὴν ὠδὴν " Μωυσέως τοῦ ' δούλου τοῦ ες Elsewhere 
 
 in Apoc. 
 (Vv. 13, Vii. 
 I, X. 2, 5, 
 
 ; : 5 = ) ἐπὶ 
 g Cf. use of δρακόντων in Ps. Ixxiv. 14, LXX. (Apoc. xiii, 2, 11, and 1 Macc. i 
 i k On form, cf. Win. § 5, 20 c, Helbing, 59. sihee 9 
 For sequence of thought, see Jude, 5 f. 
 
 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 God’s will / Doubt 
 not the last word is still / victory” (Ὁ. α. 
 Rossetti). Here, as at xii. τὶ 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. 
 ἘΣ Οὗ χα 2: 
 
 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. Gfrérer, ii. 328 f. The song 
 on the Red Sea had already been adapted 
 to the worship of the Therapeutae (Philo, 
 de uit. contempl. § χὶ.)--- τὴν δὴν 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 (cf. E.Bi. 4954) 
 the benediction after the Shema of Juda- 
 ism (“ἃ 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 θεὸς ὁ ° παντοκράτωρ ° 
 
 Ρ δίκαιαι “ καὶ ἀληθιναὶ αἱ " ὁδοί σου, 
 
 ὃ " βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν. 
 
 μὴ , ue 
 OTL μονος οσιοξς᾿ 
 
 4 v , Q m” o A , 5.» , 
 ὅτι “πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἥξουσι καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν “evaTidy 3 
 
 σου: 
 
 α ὅτι τὰ δικαιώματά σου ἐφανερώθησαν.᾽᾽ 
 
 cf. Sam. A gon. 293 f. 
 of Col. iii. 16. 
 cf. Lk. xviii. 7). 
 8. exlv. 17. 
 xix. 8 (diff. sense). 
 
 v Ps. Ixxxvi. 9, Mic. vii. 15 f. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LTQANNOY 
 
 "τίς οὐ μὴ "φοβηθῇ, Κύριε, καὶ δοξάσει τὸ ὄνομά σου; 
 
 ΧΥ 
 
 mn ver. 1,1 
 Chron. 
 XVi. 8-12, 
 etc. 
 
 oi. 8. 
 
 p From Ps 
 cxlv. 17, 
 Zech. 
 viii. 8 
 LXx, 
 Dan. iii. 
 
 27-28, iv. 
 
 7. 
 q Cf. on xvi. 
 
 Cle 
 
 τ Deut. 
 XXXii. 4, 
 Isa. Xxvi. 
 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, 
 Ὁ only here and xvi. 5 (N.T.) of God; cf. Deut. xxxii. 4, Ps. Sol. χ 6. From 
 
 w iii. 5, xvi. 9. x = “Because. δικ. Ξξ 
 
 1 The ay.wv of the Textus Rec. represents a tr. of sctorum (a corruption of sclorum) 
 = εθνων of SycaAPQ, min., Me., Arm., Aeth., And., Areth., Cypr., Amb., Pr. (edd.), 
 which has been conformed, in a:wvwv (ΝΟ, vg., Syr., S., so Selwyn, WH), to 
 1 Tim. i. 17 (cf. En. ix. 4, Tob. xiii. 6, το, Clem. Rom. lv., Ixi.). 
 
 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 od. τ. ἃ. 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 wSat 
 (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. I0, etc. 
 As in xiv. 1, 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 ἢ). The absolute and unique 
 (note the prophet’s insertion of pévos) 
 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, ¢.g., the characteristic idea of 
 the author that the bowl-plagues, in- 
 stead of producing penitence and sub- 
 
 mission, gadded in defiant blasphemy.— 
 ἐνώπιόν Gov, here a reverential periphra- 
 sis, it beit# considered in the later O.T. 
 
 literature, the Targums, and the N.T. 
 (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. 1 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, (9) Solomon’s, and (10) 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 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 445 
 
 ‘ A A , - Lol A 
 
 5. ᾿ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, καὶ *Hvolyn ὁ ναὸς τῆς "σκηνῆς τοῦ y Fresh 
 
 , a it Η Ὦ stage in 
 
 “μαρτυρίου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ: 6. Kal ἐξῆλθον οἱ ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι ol vision, Ν 
 see on lV. 
 
 ἔχοντες τὰς ἑπτὰ πληγὰς " Ex τοῦ ναοῦ, “ ἐνδεδυμένοι Atvov! καθαρὸν ᾿. ; 
 ay pS 1 e , ‘ ᾿ 40 , ne z already in 
 αμπρὸν καὶ “ περιεζωσμένοι περὶ τὰ στήθη ζώνας χρυσᾶς. 7. xi. το. 
 , a > a ΄ , on a A 5 ᾿ , a See Acts 
 καὶ ἐν ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων ἔδωκε τοῖς ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλοις ἑπτὰ vii. 44 
 ᾿ a a κ᾿ a ie ae only). 
 ‘dudhas χρυσᾶς "γεμούσας τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ “tod ζῶντος εἰσ ἢ ΡΝ, 
 A a 5 A a 17. 
 τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 8. καὶ ' ἐγεμίσθη ὁ ναὸς καπνοῦ ἐκ THS cx. 8, τα. 
 κ d cf. Acts x. 
 30 (i. 10). 
 > “" ~ ~ 
 εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἄχρι τελεσθῶσιν at ἑπτὰ ᾿ πληγαὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ © S94 
 15. 75. 
 fv. 8f. 
 
 XVI. 1. Kal ἤκουσα μεγάλης " φωνῆς ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ λεγούσης ὅ HY. 10, 
 
 τοῖς ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλοις, “Ὑπάγετε καὶ " ἐκχέετε τὰς ἑπτὰ φιάλας Tod, ΧΙ: τῆς 
 γῆν. 42. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ὁ πρῶτος καὶ “fo vii. 
 ἐξέχεε τὴν φιάλην αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γῆν " καὶ ἐγένετο “ ἕλκος κακὸν καὶ i Isa. vi. 4. 
 πονηρὸν " ἐπὶ ᾿ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ἔχοντας τὸ χάραγμα τοῦ θηρίου Ξε ab at 
 i” S τ Kings 
 viii. ro-rr, also 2 Chron. vii. 2. (cf. 2 Chron. vii. 3 with ver. 2 above and iv. 10). I ver, 1 
 ἃ Of God (Isa. Ixvi. 6), cf. xv. 8. Ὁ For form, cf. Win. § 13, 23. ς viii. 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. Lukei. 
 65, iii. 2. f xiii, 15-17, xiv. 9-10. 
 
 δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ - “kal οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο 
 
 ἀγγέλων. 
 
 ϑυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ eis τὴν ° 
 
 1 For the λινον (λινους δῷ, 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 (AIOON for AINON) error AvBov AC, 38 mg., 48, go, etc. (from LXX of Ezek. 
 xxviii. 13 ?—Awov being commonly used of flax, not of flaxen garments. Cf. Nestle’s 
 
 Einj., 263). 
 
 XV. 5-xvi. I: 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; é.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- 
 jesty, whose intense holiness (ver. 4, as 
 
 ‘in O.T. theophanies) is breaking out in 
 
 ~judgments against human sin (δόξα =the 
 
 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.—VWv. 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 
 
XVI. 
 
 3. "καὶ ὁ δεύτερος 
 Bal ἐγένετο αἷμα ὡς. 
 τὰ ἐν τῇ θαλάσση. 4. 
 καὶ 
 
 εἰς τοὺς ποταμοὺς 
 
 5. καὶ ἤκουσα Tob: 
 
 446 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ [QANNOY 
 
 g ἄρα vii‘ καὶ ‘rods προσκυνοῦντας τῇ εἰκόνι αὐτοῦ. 
 ἫΝ oo ἐξέχεε τὴν φιάλην αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν " 
 
 h maths νεκροῦ, Kal πᾶσα ᾿ ψυχὴ ζωῆς ἀπέθανεν, * 
 ποῖα καὶ ὃ τρίτος ἐξέχεε τὴν φιάλην αὐτοῦ ᾿ 
 inv’ τὰς ἱ πηγὰς τῶν ὑδάτων - καὶ " ἐγένετο αἷμα. 
 
 iGen,i30 " ἀγγέλου τῶν " ὑδάτων λέγοντος, 
 7 Wik “ἐὁ Δίκαιος εἶ, 
 
 κ ἘΠΕ ΡΝ Ρὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἦν, 6 “ ὅσιος, 
 ρος 9 "ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας " 
 Qe 6. ὅτι," αἷμα 1 " ἁγίων καὶ "προφητῶν * ἐξέχεαν, 
 
 νη 1of., “apes sat ht οΝ u a 
 Exod. vii καὶ αἷμα αὐτοῖς ἔδωκας " πεῖν " 
 iene 3: * ἄξιοί εἰσιν.᾿ 
 
 en i 7. Kat ἤκουσα τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λέγοντος, 
 
 Ἂ eee ᾿ “ναί, Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ * παντοκράτωρ, 
 rhea 7 ἀληθιναὶ καὶ δίκαιαι αἱ κρίσεις cou.” 
 vii. 1) of 
 fire (xiv. 18). o Ps. cxix. 137 f. exlv. 17; cf. Job, xxxvii. 23. 
 
 cf. xv. 4; of Jesus, Heb. vii. 26. 
 Viii. 9 etc. 
 t xi. 18, xviii. 24. 
 
 V iii. 4; from Sap. xviii. 4 (of eee asyndeton = 
 y xix. 1-2, Ps. xix. 
 
 use of vocative in Apoc. X XV. 
 
 p xi. 17 _q (vocative), 
 
 τ God’ s rights, shown in judgments, Ps. ‘Sol. ii. 16 f., 38 f., 
 8 xvii. 6, xix. 2. Ps. Ixxix. 2-3, Is. xlix. 26, Sib, Or. iii. 212, Ps. Sol. viii. 23). 
 u Ch. John iv. 7, 9; for form in papyri, cf. Deissmann, 182-3, Helbing, 11. 
 
 “85 they deserve”. w Rare (xi. 17, xv. 3} 
 9: ἀληθ. = just, synonym for δικ. as 
 
 John viii. 16, Xen. Anad ii. 6, 26, So below, xix. 2, and Isa. lix. 4, LX 
 
 1The Hebraistic (= ὩΣ Ἴ) atpara of N, 36, 39 is preferred here and at xviii. 
 
 24 by T1., 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 ἢ). 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 ahi gat Pes Στ ΤΥ, παῖδ.) ἘΠΕ 
 sure and speedy approach of judgment. 
 
 Ver. 2. The sixth Egyptian plague, 
 “ἃ 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- 
 jésty (cf. vi. το, xv. 4) asserting itself on 
 bébalf of his people (xv. 3, xix. 2, cf. 111. 
 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. 10, xviii. 7; cf. 
 2 Tim. ii. 12, etc.) is not pushed, how- 
 ever, into the grotesque and elaborately 
 Dantesque details, e.g., of the Apocalypse : 
 of Peter. —é§éxeav (the verb runs all 
 through this chapter, and this chapter 
 only), cf. Dittenberger’s Sylloge Inscript. 
 Graec. 8167 (I cent. A.D.) ἐγχέαντας τὸ - 
 ἀναίτιον αἷμα aSixws.—ay. κ΄ πρ.» all 
 
3—14. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 44? 
 
 8. καὶ ὁ τέταρτος ἐξέχεε τὴν φιάλην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον - z Constr. vi 
 
 ‘ 
 
 ΓΕ a 
 καὶ “ ἐδόθη " αὐτῷ " καυματίσαι “τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐν πυρί: 
 
 ‘ 4, etc. 
 9. KGltaz.ec. the 
 
 ὦ ᾿ A sun, 
 ἐκαυματίσθησαν ot ἄνθρωποι “ καῦμα μέγα, καὶ " ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸ b Contrast 
 
 »” A A aA a 
 
 ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἔχοντος τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τᾶς πληγὰς ταύτας, 
 ‘A col ~ 
 
 καὶ οὐ μετενόησαν * δοῦναι αὐτῷ δόξαν. 
 
 ‘ , A 
 THY φιάλην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν *Opdvov τοῦ θηρίου - καὶ ἐγένετο ἡ 
 
 vil. 16 
 with this 
 scorch- 
 10. καὶ ὁ πέμπτος ἐξέχεε ing. 
 
 ε C generic, 
 or with 
 ref. to 
 
 , ~ “- - 
 βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ἢ ἐσκοτωμένη * καὶ ! ἐμασῶντο τὰς γλώσσας αὐτῶν 2 6, 
 
 κ 
 
 al , Ν A a 
 ἐκ τοῦ “πόνου IT. καὶ ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸν θεὸν ™Tod οὐρανοῦ ἐκ 
 
 > d vii. 16 
 am. dey. 
 is 
 
 a 1 , » A 4 a an 4 . 
 τῶν ' πόνων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἑλκῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐ " μετενόησαν “ex. ΚΠ, 
 
 ες 
 
 ~ » > ~ 
 των Epy@v αὐτων. 
 
 “τὸν ποταμὸν τὸν μέγαν “ Εὐφράτην - ἢ καὶ “ ἐξηράνθη τὸ ὕδωρ 
 
 Ῥ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ἑτοιμασθῇ 686s τῶν βασιλέων τῶν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς 
 
 ἡλίου. 
 
 στόματος τοῦ θηρίου καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ "ψευδοπροφήτου 
 πνεύματα “ τρία " ἀκάθαρτα, ὡς ἦ βάτραχοι - 14. εἰσὶ γὰρ πνεύματα 
 δαιμονίων ἥ“ ποιοῦντα σημεῖα ἃ ἐκπορεύεται ἐπὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς τῆς 
 
 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, 58, § 20, 96. 
 
 12. kat 6 ἕκτος ἐξέχεε τὴν φιάλην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ 
 
 Ν a “ A 
 13. καὶ εἶδον ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ ὃράκοντος καὶ ἐκ τοῦ 
 
 k = ἀπό Mt. xvi. 26. 
 o ix. 14; see Gen. xv. 18, Deut. i. 7, etc. On abs. of article, cf. 
 p Cf. Josh. iii. 17, Zech. x. 11. 
 
 \ f Inf. of 
 conceived 
 result or 
 tendency 
 (Burton, 
 371), cf. 
 ν. 5; 
 usually 
 with 
 ὥστε. 
 The hope 
 of xiv. 
 6f., xv. 4 
 is disap- 
 pointed. 
 
 i Se. 
 
 m Xi. 
 
 ἢ viii, 12, Ps. cv. 28, Exod. x. arf, 
 1 xxi. 4, Just. A pol. i. 8. 
 
 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. ὃ 
 
 Dragon here seen by seer for first time (οὐ, xii. 1, xiii. 1). 
 u Marki. 26, etc. 
 
 S xiii. 11. t Con- 
 v 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. 
 if 
 
 prophets are ἅγιοι, but all ἅγιοι are not 
 prophets. 
 
 Ver. 9. 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 rz ὦ, 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. τοι). 
 
 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. 
 10). ‘As the Lord sent his apostles to 
 all the nations, so shall he (t.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, 
 
ATIOKAAY¥VIZ ITQANNOY XVI. 
 
 448 
 
 xxvii.14, οἰκουμένης ὅλης, συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς " εἰς τὸν πόλεμον τῆς * ἡμέρας 
 Xix. Ig-21. Ὁ in ae 
 
 y ay here τῆς μεγάλης Tod θεοῦ τοῦ ἡ παντοκράτορος. [15. ““᾿Ιδοὺ * ἔρχομαι 
 ef 1: ΤΟΥ Δ ς 
 
 νί. τ7) ἰη ὡς " κλέπτης. μακάριος ὃ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, 
 
 Apoc. Ὁ Re π᾿ Δ κ᾿ , N > , ee te 
 zVer.7. ἵνα μὴ “ γυμνὸς περιπατῇ Kal βλέπωσι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτοῦ.᾽᾽] 
 8 lil. II, ν ἃ ’ > x > x , 4 , ec ” ‘ 
 
 xxii. 7,12, 16. καὶ “ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Εβραϊστὶ 
 
 20. ἊΝ tee Ν mL 
 biii.3,1 ‘ Appayeddv.2 17. καὶ ὁ ἕβδομος ἐξέχεε Thy φιάλην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν 
 ἘΠ ve. ε 32 Ν Pye! A , > ~ ἀν ΒᾺΝ - , 
 ciii. 18; of ἢ ἀέρα - καὶ ἐξῆλθε φωνὴ μεγάλη ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου 
 Lk. xii. 
 36-37 
 ἃ Sc. δαιμόνια. 
 
 e ix. 11. f Cf. SC 263f:= "TDD ΓΤ; Megiddo, a classic scene of 
 
 rout for Israel's foes (cf. xix. 11, 14 = Judg. v. 20), like the plain of Chaeronea, δὴ Ἄρεως ὀρχήστρα. 
 g ix. 2 (Encycl. Rel. and Ethics, i. 2521. and Rohde's Psyche, 415f., 548f., 609f.), haunt and home of 
 spirits, etc., Philo, de gig. ὃ 2, Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12, Yasht. xiii. 12-13, and Plut., de Istde 26. 
 
 1 The variant epxyerat (ἡ, 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, Schén, Volter, Rauch, Weyland, von Soden, Simcox, Briggs). Beza trans- 
 ferred it to precede iii. 18, Kénnecke (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 ($A, min., And., Ar.) is preferred by WH (313) and Swete. 
 
 xx. 7-10; after Ezek. xxxviii-xxxix.; Zev, 
 xiv. 2 f£.; En. lvi, xc.; Sib. Or. iii. JS 
 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. 1 ἕως τῆς κρίσεως 
 τῆς μεγάλης, Jub. x., Matt. viii. 29). 
 The three locusts which issne from the 
 mouth of the Beast in Hermas, Vis. iv. 
 1. 6, belong to the conception of Apoc. 
 ΙΧ Τὶ 
 
 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. 14, xix. 19) and (δ) 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.—‘Appayedav, 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, 6 at mount Hermon)— in which case 
 the phrase is a survival of some apoca- 
 lyptic myth no longer intelligible to John 
 (Gunkel, Bousset)—or (δ) to be taken as 
 an allusion to the hills near the plain (in 
 the light of Judges v. 18, 19, iv. 6, 12, 14; 
 Ezek. xxxviii. 8, 21, xxxix. 2, 17). By 
 gematria the name is equivalent to 
 
 soya m1 (Ewald, Hausrath), 
 but neither this nor the proposal to take 
 “J as a corruption of Ὁ) (city, so 
 Hitzig, Hilgenfeld, Forbes), much less of 
 
 NY (Aram. = yu: Volter), is natural. 
 
 Cf. for further etymological and mytho- 
 logical suggestions, Nestle (Hastings, 
 D. B. ii. 304, 305), Cheyne (E. Bz. i. 
 310, 311), and Legge and Cheyne in 
 Proc. Society of Bibl. Arch. 1900, ii. 2. 
 Bruston’s interpretation (Ερμα -- 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. 11. 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- 
 
15—2I. 
 
 ” 
 λέγουσα, ““" Γέγονε᾽᾽. 
 βρονταὶ καὶ * 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 3 * 
 σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας, ‘olos οὐκ ἐγένετο ἀφ᾽ οὗ 
 
 449 
 
 Ν ‘ . 
 18. καὶ ' ἐγένοντο ἀστραπαί καὶ φωναὶ Kath xxi. 6, cf. 
 Ζ 
 
 Χχχίχ. 8. 
 Liv. 5. 
 
 ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τηλικοῦτος σεισμὸς οὕτω μέγας. k viii. 5, xi. 
 
 10. καὶ ™ ἐγένετο ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη “eis τρία μέρη, καὶ al πόλεις 
 τῶν ἐθνῶν ἔπεσαν - καὶ ” Βαβυλὼν ἡ " μεγάλη " ἐμνήσϑη ἐνώπιον τοῦ 
 θεοῦ, δοῦναι αὐτῇ τὸ ἢ ποτήριον τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ “ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς 
 
 αὐτοῦ. 
 
 καὶ ᾿ χάλαζα μεγάλη ὡς " ταλαντιαία καταβαίνει ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ 
 τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ᾿ καὶ " ἐβλασφήμησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τῆς 
 
 20. "kal πᾶσα νῆσος ἔφυγε, καὶ " ὄρη οὐχ εὑρέθησαν. 
 
 13,10, Jer. 
 XXiil. 19. 
 ,« 1 From 
 
 Ass. Mos, 
 
 21. 
 χχῖν. 21 
 and 
 
 Shaks. 
 Jul. C. 
 
 πληγῆς τῆς χαλάζης " Ste” μεγάλη ἐστὶν ἣ πληγὴ αὐτῆς σφόδρα. ως. ὁ win. 
 
 n Jer. li. 58, Dan. iv. 30. 
 loose use of infin., cf. ver. 9. 
 8 Judith, xvi. 15, Sir. xvi. 19, etc. 
 N.T.; figur. = ‘ colossal”, 
 
 p Isa. li. 17, 
 
 Vv verr. 9-II. 
 
 geance is heralded by φωνὴ ἐκ ναοῦ, φωνὴ 
 Κυρίου ἀνταποδιδόντος ἀνταπόδοσιν τοῖς 
 ἀντικειμένοις. 
 
 Ver. 18. The conventional storm- 
 theophany brings on an 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 
 e.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 aspecial 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 O.T. eschatology (cf. Isa. 
 xiii. 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 ἔ---ὀδθμνήσθη : 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. Béklen, 131 f.) that 
 
 0 xviii. 5, Acts = 
 δῖ. XXV. 15. 
 
 t Exod. ix. 18-25, Ezek. xiii. 11, Sib. iii. 6ρο ἔ, 
 “ w μέγας for the fifth time in 17-21. 
 
 § 29, 2b. 
 
 1. The false concord éuv. δοῦναι is due to writer's 
 
 q Cf. xiv. 8, το. ἘΎΪ T4,/XXs Ti 
 
 ἃ am. dey. 
 
 mountains as the work of Ahriman would 
 disappear with him (S. B. 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 5 Tising, where his light first became 
 visible. 
 
 Ver. 21. Even an abnormal hail- 
 shower (cf. the fourth Egyptian plague) 
 fails to bring pagans to their senses. 
 ὡς TaX., 7.¢., literally about sixty times 
 the weight of even the enormous hail- 
 stones (μνααῖαι) which Diodorus Siculus 
 (xix. 45) records. In En. lx. 17 the 
 ‘spirit of the hail is a good angel,” i.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=g, historical=1o), 
 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 
 Tsaia, pp. |x.-lxi.) is not merely the Im- 
 perial power (as in xiii. 3) but incarnate 
 
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 XVII. 
 
 XVII. 1. Kat ἦλθεν εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς 
 
 ἑπτὰ φιάλας, καὶ "ἐλάλησε pet ἐμοῦ λέγων “Δεῦρο, δείξω σοι τὸ 
 
 450 
 a xxi. 9. 
 
 4 
 in an Imperial personality of infernal 
 and supernatural character, which 
 
 attacks not only the Christian messiah 
 (x4) 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 e.g., 
 Vischer, Charles, Briggs, von Soden). 
 Other traces of this editor might be 
 found in 6 ὁ, 8 (9 @?), 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 SchGn), ver. rr would 
 be an addition inserted under Domitian 
 to bring it up to date (so Harnack, Texte 
 u. Unters. 11. 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 
 =9g-1I, 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, 
 Xviii. 3, 9, and great in 18, xvili. 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. Ig δ) is probably thrown in at this 
 point, to contrast dramatically the re- 
 
 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, 50 
 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, 10, 
 B=11-13, 16 b-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 
 K. τ. γ. 2, and the construction BA. τ. 6. 
 ὅτι ἦν, 8) afford some basis. The 
 main problem is to explain how the 
 various strata of tradition overlap; ¢.g., 
 in 8, 12f., the beast is Nero redivivus, 
 an infernal power of evil, whereas in Ir 
 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 Ir as a 
 Domitianic gloss by the Christian editor, 
 who has also added 6 6 (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. 
 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. 
 
 It is impossible to determine how © 
 
ATIOKAAYYVIZ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 
 
 I—4. 
 
 451 
 
 κρίμα τῆς " πόρνης τῆς μεγάλης, “τῆς καθημένης ἐπὶ “ ὑδάτων b C/. on xiv. 
 
 “πολλῶν - 
 
 ς From Jer, 
 1. 13. 
 2. μεθ᾽ ἧς ἐπόρνευσαν die.” 
 ea “ nA a peoples 
 ot βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς, (ver. 15). 
 ν ἃ , cg a ~ e Visits of 
 καὶ ἐμεθύσθησαν * ot © κατοικοῦντες Thy γῆν Herod, 
 a a a Tiri- 
 ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς. dates, 
 
 ‘ a etc. 
 3. καὶ ἢ ἀπήνεγκέ pe εἰς ἔρημον ‘év πνεύματι " καὶ εἶδον γυναῖκα s Note 
 ‘ ΄ irreg. 
 καθημένην ἐπὶ θηρίον * κόκκινον, γέμοντα ὀνόματα βλασφημίας, Chanve of 
 
 ἔχον κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ κέρατα δέκα. 4. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἦν ' περι- Wins, 
 , τὰ a κ , \m , , ὃ 
 βεβλημένη "᾿ πορφυροῦν καὶ κόκκινον, καὶ "᾿ κεχρυσωμένη χρυσίῳ, xi, 8: 
 omitting 
 usual ἐπί. 
 
 Cf. on xxi. 10. 
 
 ii. 10, iv. 2, xxi. 10. k xviii. 12, 16; cf. Matt. xxvii. 28 (colour of Roman 
 soldier’s mantle). ii 
 
 1 χίϊ. α. m xviii. 16, ἅπ. λεγ. N.T. 
 
 1 γεμον ονοματων (min., Hipp., S., And., Areth.) and yepov ονοματα (S¥cQ, min., 
 Bj.) seem corrections of the unusual (in this book) and harsh constr. ad sensum 
 Ὑεμοντα ovopata SQ*AP, Lach., Ti., WH, Sw., Bs. [yepov ta ονοματα, as in ver. 4, 
 Tr., Al., Diist., Ws.]: for the exov of Q, 1, etc., Syr., And., Areth. (Lach., Al., Bj., 
 
 Ws.), Ti., WH marg., Bs. read exovta (δ ΒΡ) and WH εχων (A, min.). 
 
 The double object of the oracle is (a), 
 by a re-editing of the tradition of xiii. to 
 represent Rome 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 (by 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. A _ 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. iii. 46-92, before 80 A.D.) 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’scommercial 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 
 4ntoxicating and godless suzerainty. 
 
 Ver. 3. The wilderness was the tradi- 
 tional site of visions, but there may be an 
 allusion here to Isa. xxi. I 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. 
 I 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 
 papyapitats; “with ornaments of gold 
 and precious stones and pearls’ (like 
 
452 
 
 N Xviii. 12, 
 
 καὶ "λίθῳ τιμίῳ καὶ 
 16, Ezek. 
 
 AITOKAAY¥VIZ IQANNOY 
 
 n 4 3, © Ψ 
 μάργαριταις, aii ποτήριον 
 
 XVII. 
 
 ° χρυσοῦν ev 
 
 aad 13° TH χειρὶ αὐτῆς γέμον ἢ βδελυγμάτων kal τὰ ἀκάθαρτα ae 4 πορνείας 
 
 ojer.li.7; αὐτῆς, 5. καὶ ἐπὶ 
 
 τὸ μέτωπον 
 
 re ὄνομα 
 
 SS asd apes ai ΟΣ 
 
 ἐπέσανε (* Μυστήριον),} “ pains ἡ μεγάλη; ἡ ᾿μήτηρ τῶν πορνῶν καὶ τῶν 
 
 Comus 
 
 67f. | βδελυγμάτων τῆς yis.” 
 Pp xxi. 27, a 
 
 cf. Lev, TOU 
 
 Xviii. 
 
 26-29, 
 
 Sap. xii. 
 
 6. καὶ εἶδα τὴν γυναῖκα ἣ“ μεθύουσαν ἐκ 
 ᾿ αἵματος τῶν ἁγίων καὶ ἐκ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν μαρτύρων ᾿Ιησοῦ. 
 καὶ " ἐθαύμασα ἰδὼν αὐτὴν “ θαῦμα μέγα. 7. καὶ εἶπέ μοι ὁ ἄγγελος, 
 
 . (ς Διατί ἐθαύμασας ; ἐγὼ ἐρῶ σοι τὸ μυστήριον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ 
 23-24 xiv. μ ; ἐγ ρ μυστήριον τῆς Ὑ 
 
 ri 
 customs 
 of idol- 
 atry). 
 
 q Cf. Sap. 
 aa : 
 
 τ Sc. ἦν. 
 
 s2 Th. ἢ )ὲ <% 
 
 ἐπ (πα ἃ 
 11-12. 
 
 u Cf. Isa. 
 Xxxiv. 17, xlix. 26. ν XViii. 24. 
 
 x Diabolic antithesis to divine figure of iv. 8. 
 
 b xiii. 8. 
 
 καὶ τὰ δέκα κέρατα. ὃ. 
 
 τὸ ὄνομα ἐπὶ τὸ " βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς " ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, 
 
 τοῦ θηρίου τοῦ βαστάζοντος αὐτὴν τοῦ ἔχοντος τὰς ἑπτὰ κεφαλὰς 
 
 , 
 τὸ θηρίον "ὃ εἶδες ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν" 
 
 καὶ μέλλει ἀναβαίνειν ἐκ τῆς " ἀβύσσου καὶ εἰς ἀπώλειαν " ὑπάγει. 
 ὶ “θαυμασθήσονται οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὧν οὐ γέγραπταν 
 
 © βλε- 
 
 w am. Aey. N.T. (contrast xiii. 3); for Attic ἐθαυμάσθην. 
 
 y ix. 1. Zz xiii. 3 (Blass, § 18, 3). 8. 111: 5e 
 
 ς Irreg. gen. absol. or appos. to ὧν, as weAA. Acts xxvi. 22. 
 
 1 μυστήριον = 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). μυστήριον (which hardly belongs 
 ‘to the title itself) indicates that the name 
 is to be taken πνευματικῶς (xi. 8), not 
 literally; ‘‘a name written which is a 
 symbol,” or a mysteriously significant 
 title—pytyp K.T.A., Rome, the natural 
 focus of Oriental cults in general, is 
 charged with fostering all the supersti- 
 tious and vicious practices of her sub- 
 jects.—B8eX. (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 atrocia aut pudenda 
 which disgraced the capital (Tacit. Ann. 
 xv. 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, 
 
 Kal... Ἰησοῦ 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! beasts in 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. Afol. iv. 38: “ Regarding 
 this wild beast,”’ t.e., Nero, ‘‘I know not 
 how many heads he has”’), embodied the 
 empire. The Beast is a sort of revenant.. 
 To rise from the abyss was the conven- 
 
 me 
 
5—12 
 
 πόντων» τὸ θηρίον ὅτι ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστι Kal παρέσται. 
 ε 
 ὃ ἔχων σοφίαν. αἱ ἑπτὰ κεφαλαὶ ἑπτὰ “ὄρη εἰσίν, ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ 
 
 κάθηται ᾿ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν. το. καὶ βασιλεῖς 
 
 ὁ εἷς ἔστιν, ὁ ἄλλος οὔπω ἦλθε - καὶ ὅταν ἔλθῃ, © ὀλίγον αὐτὸν " δεῖ; 
 
 μεῖναι. 
 A 4 
 ἐστι, καὶ "ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστι, καὶ εἰς 
 
 τὰ δέκα "' κέρατα ἃ εἶδες δέκα "" βασιλεῖς εἰσίν, οἵτινες βασιλείαν α 
 
 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 (Jj. Weiss). 
 
 Ver. 9. ὄρη; cf. Prop. iii. 11, 57 (‘‘ Sep- 
 tem urbs alta iugis, quae praesidet orbi”’), 
 Verg. Georg. ii. 534. 
 
 Ver. 11. Bruston takes καὶ ἐκ τῶν 
 
 ἑπτὰ ἐστιν as a translation of 7) 
 
 NWT ΓΖ ΩΓ, in the sense that the 
 
 eighth was more (or greater) than the 
 seven, 1.é., 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 eis 
 ἀπ. ὑπάγει is, simply the conventional 
 VOL. V. 
 
 2 
 
 < 
 
 AITOKAAY¥IZ IQANNOY 
 
 eae Perce ah | Asta ‘ ἈΡΧῊ , 
 II. καὶ τὸ θηρίον ὃ ἦν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι, καὶ αὐτὸς | dydods 
 
 k Iu and after them, so Dan. vii. 8, 24. 
 
 453 
 
 9. 9 ὧδε ὁ νοῦς d xiii. 18 
 Cf. Sib. 
 τ, ii. 18, 
 
 ‘Pans 
 επτα- 
 λόφοιο. 
 Cf iii. 8 
 and xii. 6 
 also 1 
 Kings 
 xiii, 25 
 (LXX). 
 vi. II. 
 
 Ὦ χχ. 3. 
 
 i Cf. 2 Pet. 
 m Dan. vii. 20, 24. 
 
 ἑπτά εἰσιν - ot πέντε ἔπεσαν, 
 
 4 
 
 'dmddevavy ὑπάγει. 12. καὶ 
 
 1 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. τι, 
 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. II 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 
 
 9 
 
454 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 XVII. 
 
 13. οὗτοι μίαν γνώμην ἔχουσι, kal Thy δύναμιν 
 
 ” - 
 b= Ἐπ: οὕπω " ἔλαβον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξουσίαν ὡς " βασιλεῖς μίαν ὥραν λαμβάνουσι 
 perfec 
 Burton, Ber τοῦ θηρίου. 
 52. a A , , 
 o Like καὶ ἐξουσίαν αὐτῶν τῷ θηρίῳ διδόασιν. 
 Sargon's ae ae Aires, x 
 allies, 14. ὃ οὗτοι μετὰ τοῦ ἀρνίου πολεμήσουσι, 
 Isa. x. 8 
 (cf. xxiii. καὶ TO ἀρνίον νικήσει αὐτούς, 
 δ). , 
 p Cf.on xiv. ὅτι *Kuptos κυρίων ἐστὶ καὶ βασιλεὺς βασιλέων---- 
 ae " " 
 q See on καὶ ot μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ " κλητοὶ καὶ * ἐκλεκτοὶ καὶ πιστοί. 
 Xix. 16; 
 Deut: ὦ, 15. kat λέγει μοι, “Τὰ 
 
 TES; 
 
 λ Ν a ” λ 9. 4 ‘x €6 ‘ ~ 
 cxxxvi. 9, λαοὶ καὶ ὄχλοι εἰσὶν Kat ἔθνη καὶ γλῶσσαι. 
 
 "ὕδατα ἃ εἶδες, οὗ ἡ πόρνη κάθηται, 
 
 16. καὶ τὰ δέκα 
 
 Dan. ii. ΄, a 5 Ν 5 Η a , 8 4 ‘ 
 
 37,47,2 κέρατα ἃ εἶδες Kat τὸ θηρίον οὗτοι μισήσουσι τὴν πόρνην, καὶ 
 
 acc. 
 
 xiii. 4, ἠρημωμένην ποιήσουσιν αὐτὴν Kal ᾿ γυμνήν, Kal τὰς “σάρκας 
 
 ass ~ , 
 
 Eni 4, αὐτῆς " φάγονται, καὶ αὐτὴν “Katakatcouow ἐν πυρί. 17. ὃ yap 
 τος Pet. θεὸς ἔδωκεν εἰς τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν ποιῆσαι τὴν γνώμην αὐτοῦ, 
 BOVE: τ. x = ἢ , ‘ Ν᾿ κ᾿ , 9. α a 
 t Cj. Ezek, καὶ "ποιῆσαι μίαν γνώμην, καὶ δοῦναι τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτῶν τῷ 
 
 Xvi. 37-39, 
 
 etc. 
 
 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, eg., 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 ”’]), unless it is to be left asa 
 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 
 xiii. 48 ; the favourite description of the 
 saints in Enoch as ‘‘ chosen [and] right 
 eous”’; and Passio Perpetuae, xxi., “ὁ 
 fortissimi martyres! o 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. 
 1111. 12). 
 
 Ver. 15. The woman impiously rivais 
 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 διουπάς. A divine overruling 
 controls all political movements (cf. xi. 
 2, xiii 5, 2), according to the determia- 
 
13—18. 
 
 θηρίῳ, ἄχρι " τελεσθήσονται οἱ λόγοι τοῦ θεοῦ. 
 ἣν εἶδες ἔστιν ἡ πόλις ἡ "μεγάλη, ἡ 
 
 βασιλέων τῆς yas.” 
 
 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 κιτιλ. 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. 9 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 (9 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. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ I[QANNOY 
 
 455 
 
 ‘ 
 
 18. καὶ ἡ yuvipyx.7. 
 
 Ζ xvi. 19, 
 XViil. 10, 
 Verg. 
 Eclog. 
 
 i. 19, 24. 
 
 a Ps. ii. 2, lxxxix. 28. 
 
 ” , 329% - 
 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. v. 17, 
 otTpyy. 7 and g, σιρικοῦ, ἐλεφ.,σιδήρου, 
 μαρμάρου and θύϊνον in 12, κινν.» 
 ἄμωμον, σεμίδ., ῥεδῶν, and σωμάτων, 
 [in this sense] in 13, ἀπώλετο (14), ἐργά- 
 ἵονται [in this sense in Apoc.] in 17, 
 τιμ. το, Spe. 21, pove., σαλπιστῶν, 
 κιθαρῳδῶν fonly 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. g f. is out of line 
 with xvii. 17 and xvi. 13 f., xviii. 1-3 
 (Rome long desolate) hardly tallies with 
 xviii. g 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 ATIOKAAYVIZ LQANNOY XVILL. 
 gee ἐν 1} τ a Mera ταῦτα εἶδον ἄλχον Ἤν καταβαίνοντα 
 fy Ἧι ps sila exniae isp Hayenty cal καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐφωτίσθη ° ἐκ 
 pet, THIS δόξης αὐτοῦ. 2. καὶ ἔκραξεν ἐν ἰσχυρᾷ φωνῇ λέγων, 
 « ἄμα, a, hi Ἐπεσεν ° ἔπεσε Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη, 
 13, χνΐ. καὶ ἐγένετο ‘ κατοικητήριον δαιμονίων, 
 ἃ Οὐ Acts καὶ φυλακὴ παντὸς πνεύματος ἀκαθάρτου, 
 ay em καὶ φυλακὴ παντὸς " ὀρνέου © ἀκαθάρτου καὶ μεμισημένου ᾿ 
 εὐ ΩΣ 3. ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ " οἴνου [τοῦ ᾿ θυμοῦ] τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς πέπωκαν 
 f From Isa. πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, 
 contin καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς " ἐπόρνευσαν, 
 ἀδάμας oy καὶ οἱ ἔμποροι τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς “δυνάμεως τοῦ στρήνους. 
 hoy αὐτῆς ἐπλούτησαν.᾽" 
 Β ee 4. καὶ ἤκουσα ἄλλην φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγουσαν, 
 δε Deut. “««᾿ἘἘξέλθατε, ὁ "λαός μου, “ ἐξ αὐτῆς, 
 A Shag. τὸ on μὴ ἐν ραν AT paige Bs 
 ee καὶ “ ἐκ τῶν πληγῶν αὐτῆς ἵνα μὴ “ λάβητε 
 Ws ee 7. δ. ὅτι * ἐκολλήθησαν αὐτῆς ai ἁμαρτίαι ἄχρι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, 
 geal! καὶ "ἐμνημόνευσεν ὃ Θεὸς TA ἀδικήματα αὐτῆς. 
 Isa. xxiii. 
 
 17, cf. Sib. Or. iii. 357£. 
 
 26; from Isa. xlviii. 20, Jer. 1. 8, li. 45, etc. 
 sharing her fate. q Cf. 1 Jo. iv. 13. 
 peruenerunt (Bgl.). 5 xvi. 10. 
 
 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. 
 
 CuaPTER XVIII.—1-3: an angelic 
 proclamation of Babylon’s fate (cf. xiv. 
 8) in terms of Isa. xiii. 19-22, xxxiv. 14 
 (demons of the desert, the Mazzikin of 
 Jewish demonology, familiar to Baby- 
 lonian magic), Jer. 1. 30, li. 37, Zeph. ti. 
 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. ν 
 n Acts xviii. 10: collect. subst. hence plur. vb. cf. Jo. vi. 22, etc. 
 
 τ Cf. Bar. i. 20. 
 
 τῇ Jos. Ant. iii. 2, 4, = ‘‘money, means”. 
 o Gen. xix. 14-15, Num. xvi. 
 p By succumbing to her fascinations, and thus 
 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 «.t.A. “by (cf. ver. 19) the wealth of 
 her wantonness”’ traders profited; i.e., 
 by the enormous supplies which the 
 capital required to satisfy her demands. 
 (στρῆνος, -tdw from the New comedy 
 and colloquial usage).—80o&a 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. II, 23, xxil. 
 5); see the valuable paragraphs in 
 Grill, pp. 259-271. 
 
 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 wuéndict- 
 
I—9. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 457 
 6. "ἀπόδοτε αὐτῇ ὡς καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέδωκεν, t Jer. κυ. 
 a a 18, 1. 15 
 καὶ διπλώσατε τὰ " διπλᾶ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῆς " 29. Ps. 
 shag by DT eis CXxxvii. 8. 
 ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ “w ἐκέρασε, u Aisch., 
 ως he Ag. : 
 kepdoate αὐτῇ διπλοῦν. mney 
 ly suffi- 
 7. ὅσα ” ἐδόξασεν αὐτὴν καὶ " ἐστρηνίασε, cient," 
 a , 59. αὶ x κ Isa. xl. 2, 
 τοσοῦτον δότε αὐτῇ βασανισμὸν καὶ πένθος. Ixi. 7 ἢν, 
 a a Zech. ix. 
 "Ore ἐν TH καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς λέγει ἡ ὅτι “ Κάθημαι βασίλισσα, Hae 
 καὶ χήρα οὐκ εἰμί καὶ πένθος οὐ μὴ ἴδω, ὡ ae in 
 8. διὰ τοῦτο " ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ " ἥξουσιν at πληγαὶ αὐτῆς, roe, 
 “θάνατος καὶ πένθος Kat λιμός " ane cf. 
 καὶ ἐν πυρὶ ὅ κατακαυθήσεται. ae pte 
 “ 93᾽ Q , € x ε , eer 35, iv. 28. 
 ὅτι "ἰσχυρὸς Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς 6 κρίνας αὐτήν. Ἐπ ΘΟ δ 
 9. καὶ κλαύσουσιν καὶ κόψονται ἐπ᾽ * αὐτὴν οἱ © βασιλεῖς ΤῊ γῆ 8) cause” 
 οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτῆς πορνεύσαντες καὶ στρηνιάσαντες, ὅταν βλέπωσι τὸν be 
 z From 
 Zeph. ii. 
 
 15, of. Ovid., Met. vi. 193-195 (Niobe), 4 Esd. xi. 43. 
 509-510, Hec. 285, Ovid, Fasti, ii. 235; cf. Job i. 13-19, Isa. x. 17. 
 e Jer. 
 
 c Cf. on vi. 8. d xvii. 16, Jer. 1. 31-32. 
 XViii. 3; cf. Isa. xxiii. 5. 
 
 15) is strong upon the solidarity of a 
 city, which is liable to be punished at 
 any time for past offences.—koAAGoOat 
 (‘‘ 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, KoAA. 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 «.T.A., is a rhetorical apostro- 
 phe) are invited to serve her with the 
 retribution promised to the first Babylon 
 (see reff.).—8:mddoate, cf. Oxyrh. Pap. 
 iii. 520°. Ἔν τῷ ποτηρίῳ, κιτιλ. Cf. 
 Apoc. Bar. 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. 
 
 1. 34. f Diff. sense, i. 7. g 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. v. 173, where the impious 
 and doomed city is upbraided for vaunt- 
 ing “1 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. Io, 
 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 (10, 16, 19). 
 
 e Vv. g-20: the wailing on earth, by 
 kings (9, 10), merchants (at length, r1- 
 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. 
 16. 
 
 1 xvi. 19. 
 
 τὰ Ῥώμη 
 robur 
 (Bgl.); 
 see 
 below, 
 ver. 21. 
 
 n Isa. xvii. 
 15: 
 ““merch- 
 
 , 
 “ἐρὐαΐ, οὐαί, 
 
 AIIOKAAYY¥IZ ΙΏΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 XVII}. 
 
 καπνὸν τῆς πυρώσεως αὐτῆς, το. ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἑστηκότες διὰ τὸν 
 i A A a 
 φόβον τοῦ βασανισμοῦ αὐτῆς, λέγοντες, 
 ᾿ ἡ πόλις ἡ | μεγάλη, 
 Βαβυλὼν ἡ πόλις ἡ "ἰσχυρά, 
 4 a oo 3 ς , ” 
 ὅτι μιᾷ ὥρᾳ ἦλθεν ἡ κρίσις σου. 
 ὟΣ ae a a , . a 9. 9 δ εν 
 II. καὶ οἱ " ἔμποροι τῆς γῆς κλαίουσι καὶ πενθοῦσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν, 
 ὅτι τὸν “ γόμον αὐτῶν οὐδεὶς ἀγοράζει οὐκ ἔτι" 12. γόμον χρυσοῦ 
 καὶ ἀργύρου καὶ "λίθου ἢ τιμίου καὶ μαργαριτῶν καὶ βυσσίνου καὶ 
 
 ς = , ft, A u Η 
 ants," not? πορφύρας καὶ " σιρικοῦ καὶ " κοκκίνου ᾿ καὶ πᾶν ξύλον θύϊνον καὶ 
 
 ἱπὴλ bs B Ἂ Η - 
 “pedlars πᾶν σκεῦος ἐλεφάντινον καὶ πᾶν σκεῦος ἐκ ξύλου τιμιωτάτου και 
 = A . Ny 
 
 or huck- yaAKod καὶ σιδήρου Kal" μαρμάρου ᾿ 13. καὶ " κιννάμωμον καὶ ἄμω- 
 
 εἰν “*XVI μον καὶ θυμιάματα καὶ “ μύρον καὶ "λίβανον καὶ οἶνον καὶ ἔλαιον 
 
 ὃ Plots 8 καὶ σεμίδαλιν Kal σῖτον Kat κτήνη Kal πρόβατα καὶ “ἵππων καὶ 
 (Ac. xxi. Ν i ἐξ 
 
 3), ‘‘ wares”’. p See xvii. 4; cf. Plin., H. N. xxxvii. 12. q Friedlander, iii. 46f. r Tac., 
 
 Ain. ii. 33, Verge, Georg. ii. 121. SXvil.4. ἀἔἋἔ =‘‘article”. Ὁ 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. 19). 
 
 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 ἢ); 
 πᾶν ξύλον Ovivoy=‘‘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; 
 ἄμωμον, 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, cf. Levy’s 
 die Semit. Fremdworter im Griech. (1895), 
 P- 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 
 
 M30, of. Deut. xxxti. 14; Ps. Ixxxi. 
 16) of the choicest kind; wine, flour, 
 and incense were all used in sacrifices. 
 pedov, a Gallic word = four - wheeled 
 “‘carriages’’ used by the well-to-do 
 (cf. Jerome on Isa. Ixvi.). σωμάτων -- 
 ‘‘slaves” (later Greek, dropping the 
 qualifying adj. δούλων or οἰκετικῶν, cf. 
 Deissm. 160, Dittenberger’s Sylloge,? 
 845, etc.). Kat 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. ν. 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 ‘4 
 ῥεδῶν καὶ ἡ σωμάτων καὶ ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 459 
 
 15. οἱ ἔμποροι " τούτων z (LXX), 
 
 οἱ πλουτήσαντες ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ἀπὸ μακρόθεν " στήσονται διὰ τὸν φόβον vee 29, 
 
 τοῦ βασανισμοῦ αὐτῆς κλαίοντες Kal πενθοῦντες, τό. λέγοντες, a Ὡς 
 ““Οὐαί, οὐαί, " ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη, vila, 
 ἡ περιβεβλημένη * βύσσινον καὶ πορφυροῦν Kal κόκκινον, Take. 
 
 καὶ e € , > , ‘ ty 6 , ‘ , τ 2 
 ι κεχρυσωμένη ἐν χρυσίῳ καὶ ᾿λιθῳ τιμίῳ καὶ μαργαρίτῃ a i.e. 
 
 i. 10, 
 
 o fal - A ” Wares 
 ὅτι μιᾷ ὥρᾳ ἠρημώθη 6 τοσοῦτος πλοῦτος. men- 
 ‘ mee ok ι a ‘ tioned in 
 17. "kat πᾶς “κυβερνήτης Kal πᾶς 6 ἐπὶ movtov! πλέων καὶ 14-15, 
 
 Ver. 10, 
 
 ναῦται καὶ ὅσοι τὴν θάλασσαν ἐργάζονται, ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ' ἔστη- ἢ τ 
 
 ‘ μι , A a ~ , > ~ 
 σαν 18. καὶ ἔκραξαν βλέποντες τὸν καπνὸν τῆς πυρώσεως αὐτῆς, δ᾿ 
 ame 
 
 λέγοντες, * “ 
 
 a κ᾿ - ᾿ τὰ 
 χοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν καὶ ἔκραξαν κλαίοντες καὶ πενθοῦντες, 
 
 λέγοντες, 
 
 ““Οὐαΐ, οὐαί, ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη, 
 
 > 2 
 
 XXVvii. 30- 
 
 Nom. for 
 
 ’ , a a ? 
 Tis ὁμοία τῇ πόλει TH μεγάλῃ; 19. Kat ' ἔβαλον “ YOM: for 
 
 οὐαί 
 (accus. 
 Vill. 13, 
 xii. 12), 
 cf. το, 19. 
 Here only 
 
 ἐν y “ ἐπλούτησαν πάντες οἱ ἔχοντες τὰ πλοῖα ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Z in Apoc, 
 
 ἐκ τῆς " τιμιότητος αὐτῆς, 
 ὅτι μιᾷ ὥρᾳ ἠρημώθη." 
 
 20. “Εὐφραίνου ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ, " οὐρανέ, 
 ‘ a 
 καὶ ot " ἅγιοι καὶ ot “ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται, 
 , - ~ 
 ὅτι ἔκρινεν ὁ Θεὸς " τὸ κρίμα ὑμῶν " ἐξ αὐτῆς. 
 
 XXVii, II. 
 1 From Ezek. xxvii. 30, (Heb.), Jos. vii. 6 (LXX). 
 “‘her costly treasures"’ (see on ver. 3). 
 p Xil. 12, cf. xvi. 8. 
 cxix. 84. 
 
 i Note change to aor. from future (9, 11, 15). 
 
 Ver. 12, 
 xix. 8, 14, 
 (pecul. 
 to Apoc. 
 in N.T.). 
 
 6 xvii. 4. 
 
 f Ver. 12. 
 
 g Isa. xxiii. 
 14, Ezek. 
 XXVii. 
 
 27, 29. 
 
 ah h Acts 
 
 _. _k xiii. 4 (ironical contrast). 
 
 m Ezek. xxvii. 33. n Abstr. for concrete, 
 
 o Deut. xxxii. 43, Isa. xliv. 23, Ass. Mos. x. 10, 
 q Only here and xxi. 14, in Joh. lit. 
 
 Ir XVii. I, Xix. 2. S vi. 10, Ps. 
 
 1 For the unexampled TONON (cf. Ac. xxvii. 2) read MOTON (Nestle, Theol. 
 Ltzg., 18, 97, 274, Einfihr., 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 kata 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 (ἴπποι καὶ 
 ἱππεῖς, Ezek. xxvii. 14) have been more 
 or less convincingly suggested as its 
 meaning. Slave-dealing (Friedlander, 
 iii. 87 ἔ; 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 «.7.A.=‘‘ 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. τοι, 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 downfail 
 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 
 
XVIII. 
 
 21. καὶ ἦρεν ets ἄγγελος ἰσχυρὸς λίθον ὡς μῦλον μέγαν καὶ 
 “Οὕτως "ὁρμήματι βληθήσεται Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη πόλις, 
 
 22. καὶ φωνὴ “' κιθαρῳδῶν καὶ μουσικῶν καὶ αὐλητῶν καὶ * σαλ- 
 
 y Fr. Jer. xxv. 10 (Heb.), cf. Aen. i. gp. 
 
 460 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ILQANNOY 
 tv. 2; see 
 above, zB λ = θάλ λέ 
 ver.10. εβάαλεν EL ν ασσαν Λεγων 
 u Neh. ix. smh γον 
 Ὑχ ἃ 
 Macc. iv. 
 8 (cf. Isa. "kal od μὴ εὑρεθῇ ἔτι. 
 XXViii. 2): Ὁ 
 “with 
 sudden in 
 onset or πιστων 
 impetus,” > a‘ > - 3 A ον 
 suiting οὐ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι, 
 action to Ry din ’ , , 
 word. και πᾶς τεχνίτης πάσης τέχνης 
 v Ezek. 2 8 ς a \ o>» 
 xxvi. 21. οὐ μὴ εὑρεθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι, 
 w xiv. 2,158. 
 ei ὦ καὶ φωνὴ 7 μύλου 
 Eze > AY ἀ 64 2 \ om” 
 XXVi. 13; ou μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν σοὶ ETL, 
 cf. 
 Macc. iii. ᾿ 
 45, Suet. Nevo, 40-41, Doms#t. 4. x Win. § 13, 4. 
 Bar. ii. 22 f. 
 Kat ot ἀπόστολοι. The voice from 
 
 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 and_ confessors. 
 ‘* Apostles,” omitted in ver. 24, has here 
 (asin ii. 2) its wider sense (otherwise 
 xxi. 14), but it must include Peter and 
 Paul (Zahn, Einleit. § 39, n. 4).---ὅτι 
 x.t.A.=‘' for God has judged her with 
 your judgment,” i.e., vindicated you 
 (done you justice, given you your due) 
 by lexacting vengeance upon her. She 
 who once doomed you is now doomed 
 herself (cf. xvi. 6).—etgpatvov. 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 ya un Dieu”’. 
 
 Vv. 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), 
 
 tended to a conventional exaggeration 
 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. μουσικῶν “minstrels or 
 musicians’? (1 Macc. ix. 41); the oc- 
 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. Nero, 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. 
 
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 2I—24. 46 I 
 23. καὶ φῶς “λύχνου z viii. 12. 
 a Jer. vii. 
 οὐ μὴ φάνῃ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι, ag 9, 
 XXXxiii. τας 
 καὶ φωνὴ 7 νυμφίου καὶ "νύμφης b Jer. xivii. 
 ~ Io, = 
 οὐ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι " “ἴῃς ripe 
 " ἊΣ Ξ fruit " 
 14. καὶ ἡ " ὀπώρα σου τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς " ψυχῆς alae 
 ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ σοῦ, Beet 
 καὶ πάντα τὰ “ λιπαρὰ καὶ τὰ "λαμπρὰ nee 
 f> , a A c Ch. Win ’ 
 ἀπώλετο ἀπὸ σοῦ, § 22, 185, 
 καὶ obkéte! οὐ μὴ αὐτὰ εὑρήσουσιν. cast, 
 2 sé hi¢ » , > at “- - a thid, § 30, 
 3. " ὅτι “" Ob ἔμποροι σου ἦσαν ol ᾿ μεγιστᾶνες τῆς γῆς, 19g." 
 ἌΝ , Bry a 
 ὅτι ἐν TH “ φαρμακίᾳ cou ἐπλανήθησαν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. pa ca 
 24. ' καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ “᾿ αἷμα προφητῶν καὶ ἁγίων εὑρέθη, ἡ iy 
 Α - > , - ~ ~ ” 1 d); 
 ντων TOV ἐσφαγμένων ἐπὶ T ὃ pond 
 καὶ πά φ ὟΝ oo) alae ns Isa, xxx. 
 ᾿ ὃ - A Nt δὲ 23, Neh. 
 ix. 35. e “ All things rich and radiant,” cf. Jas. ii. 2-3. f Ps. cxli. 5 Did. xvi. 5. Only here 
 in Apoc. g From Ezek. xxvii. 21, Isa. xxiii. 8. ἢ 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. τὴ xvii. 
 
 8, Ezek. xxiv.7-9. On sing. here and xvi. 12 (v.1, 
 
 atwara), cf. Win. § 27. 4c. 
 
 1« Possibly S. [ovxert avta βλεψεις και avra] here preserves the true text, and 
 the rest” [ἐ.6.») αὐτὰ ευρησουσι = SACP, vg., Syr., evpns = Q, min., ευρησεις = 
 I, 37, 96, etc., avra 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 ort ἐβμποροι σον with 
 
 .a voice against bridegrooms and brides, 
 and a voice against the whole people ”’. 
 
 Ver. 23. Contrast the εὑρέθη of 24 
 -with the εὑρήσουσιν of ver. 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 Rome 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 10).—émAav. “ Commerce, 
 as having regard to purely worldly in- 
 ‘terests, is called harlotry’’ [Cheyne on 
 Isa. xxiii. 17]. Sorcery, witchcraft, 
 ** fornication,’” and the persecution of 
 ‘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 
 
 OL ELTOPOL TOUTWY. 
 
 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. ro) 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 
 evat mortuus Christus, sed martyres eos 
 fecit moriturus Christus (Heb. xi.-xii. 
 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 
 
462 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ITQANNOY Xie 
 a Ver. 6, XIX. 1. Μετὰ ταῦτα ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν " μεγάλην ὄχλου πολλοῦ 
 Vil. 9. 
 b Cf. er.li. ἐν τῷ " οὐρανῷ “ λεγόντων, 
 40. ε Py 
 c Irreg. i Αλληλουϊά ᾿ 
 appos. to τ Ρ 3 epg biG be 
 collective ἃ ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ ° θεοῦ ° ἡμῶν " 
 ὄχλου. ao Ups x ,fo7 ef , renee 
 dvil.to,xi. 2. ὅτι GAnOwai καὶ *Sikarar αἱ ‘ κρίσεις αὐτοῦ - 
 15, Xii. 10 e 5 , . , 
 (see ὅτι ἔκρινε τὴν πόρνην τὴν μεγάλην, 
 note). 
 e Cf. Joh. ᾿ 
 
 ΧΧ. 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. H. 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. g 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 τὸ 
 (ἣ 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 éx. 
 τ. μ- Ἰησοῦ alone would mean Christians 
 in general. The presence of 9 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. 9 δ) Such technical disloca- 
 tions and derangements are common 
 enough in primitive literature (cf. my 
 
 f xv. 3; οἷ. 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 as a divine saying 
 (cf. xxi. 5) but as angelic (xxii. 6, cf. i. 
 IO, II, 19, and note on xxii. ro), and 
 sought to harmonise the same order as 
 in xiv. 13 (command to write, beatitude, 
 asseverance). Otherwise I-10 iS a unity 
 as it stands. The change of situation in 
 I-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, ὃ is a proleptic hint which 
 is not developed till later (xxi.), while 
 the supper (g) is only mentioned to be 
 dropped—unless the grim vision of 17-21 
 (for whichef. Gressmann’s Ursprung d. 
 Isy.-jiid. Eschatologie, 136 f.) is meant 
 to be a foil to it (so Sabatier and Schon). 
 
 CuHaPpTeR 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 TO διεφθαρμένον τὸ διαφθεῖρον 
 πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. The impatient cry of 
 vi. τὸ has now been answered. God 
 “has avenged the blood (i.e., the murder) 
 of his servants at her hand (7.e., on her),” 
 the LXX rendering (e.g., in 2 Kings ix. 7, 
 καὶ ἐκδικήσεις τὰ αἵματα τῶν δούλων. 
 Κυρίον ἐκ χειρὸς “leLaBed) of the Heb. 
 idiom J OF Ὁ) - ἴο exact punish- 
 ment from a murderer. The idea is sub- 
 
 stantially that of Ps. Sol. iv. 9, vili. 29- 
 31. As ἄληθ. καὶ Sux. are a characteris- 
 
 —— νῷ 
 
 = 
 ΝΜ." 
 
εϑ h» x ~ > a , ofa 
 ἥτις “ ἔφθειρε τὴν γῆν ἐν τῇ πορνείᾳ αὐτῆς, 
 Ἅ ἢ , ~ ~ a“ 
 καὶ ᾿ἐξεδίκησε τὸ αἷμα τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτῆς. 
 
 3. καὶ δεύτερον * εἴρηκαν, 
 “᾿Αλληλουϊά - 
 
 Wert “- A “- , 
 καὶ ὃ “ καπνὸς αὐτῆς ἀναβαίνει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας TOV αἰώνων. 
 
 4. καὶ ᾿ 
 
 λέγοντες, “ ““᾿Αμήν - ᾿Αλληλουϊά.᾽᾽ 
 ἐξῆλθε λέγουσα, 
 
 “4 Αἰνεῖτε τῷ θεῷ ? ἡμῶν πάντες οἱ " δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ, 
 καὶ " οἱ φοβούμενοι αὐτὸν ‘ οἱ μικροὶ καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι. 
 6. καὶ ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν “ ὄχλου πολλοῦ καὶ ὡς φωνὴν " ὑδάτων 
 πολλῶν καὶ ὡς φωνὴν " βροντῶν ἰσχυρῶν, λέγοντες, 1 
 
 “᾿Αλληλουϊά " 
 
 ὅτι " ἐβασίλευσε Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ὁ * παντοκράτωρ. 
 
 Isa. xxxiv. 9-10. cf. Nah. i. 9. 
 0 Vii. 12, xxii. 20, From Ps. evi. 48 (Heb.). 
 
 1, Ps. Sol. ii. 47. 
 Ezek. i. 24. 
 
 λέγοντες (as iv. 1) Q, min., Ande, Tic. (WH marg., Al., Ws., 
 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, Rechtf. 
 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 ζῷα (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. 17) passes almost wholly 
 out of sight.—Auyv: the initial (and 
 primitive) use of ἀμήν, social (e.g., 1 
 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 (R. 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- 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 n> c , ε δ , ‘ ‘ 
 ἔπεσαν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες, Kal τὰ 
 , ~ \ , - ~ a n , re - , 
 
 τέσσαρα ζῷα, καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θεῷ τῷ " καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ i a 
 
 5. καὶ ᾿ φωνὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου 
 
 m v. 8, 14, on form cf. Helbing, 63-64. 
 
 Ρ 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. xciii., xcv.-xcix. 
 
 463 
 
 g “" For that 
 she” 
 (i. 7, xii. 
 13, e¢tc.). 
 h xi. 18, 
 XVlii. 23. 
 i vi. 10, 
 XViii. 20, 
 Deut. 
 XXXii. 43, 
 Ps. Ixxix. 
 10. 
 oristic 
 pf. (as v. 
 7, Vil. 14. 
 xix. 3), 
 of past 
 action 
 with no 
 thought 
 of 
 existing 
 result 
 (Burton, 
 80, Blass, 
 
 § 59, 4). 
 
 1 xiv. 11, 
 
 XViii. 9, 
 
 18, Ps. 
 
 Civ. 35, 
 Nn v. 13, Isa. vi. 1 
 q Fr. Jer. xx. 
 r Ps. cxxxiv. I, Cxxxv 
 
 t xi. 18, u Ver.1. Vv xiv. 2, 
 
 ΣᾺ. ΕΒ: 
 
 Bs.) [λεγόντων 
 
 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, 7.e., 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 ‘‘4allelujah,”’ connecting 
 ét.k.T.A., with the subsequent χαίρωμεν. 
 —éBacirevoe κιτιλ. A sublimated ver- 
 sion of the old watchword ΚΥΡΙΟΣ AY- 
 ΤΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕῪΣ HMQN 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 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ [QANNOY XIX. 
 y Ps, ae ἡ. ᾿χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν, 
 24; Cj. 
 Mt. ν. 12. καὶ ἡ ϑώσομεν τὴν δόξαν atta: 
 ZiXle 13... a i eae a ON 
 aProleptic, ὅτι "ἦλθεν ὁ " γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου, 
 as xi. 18. sieeve A ἪΡ a eae ε , 
 b xxi. 2, 9. καὶ ἡ “ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ * ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτήν. 
 c “ Bride” δὶ 
 (Με. 1.59. 8. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῇ ἵνα “ περιβάληται “ βύσσινον " λαμπρὸν 
 ἃ Ver. 14, , CN Q , BY ξ ὃ , A eke ΕἸ , 73 
 ΕΖ. xvi. καθαρόν [: ᾿ τὸ γὰρ βύσσινον τὰ ὅ δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν]. 
 10. i a A 
 e xv. 6, ΕἾ. g. καὶ " λέγει μοι, “*Tpdwov, ᾿ Μακάριοι οἱ εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον τοῦ 
 Bar. v. I- a 
 3 and γάμου τοῦ ἀρνίου “KexAnpévor.”” Kai λέγει μοι, ““' Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι 
 for conn. 
 of light 
 
 and right —2 Cor. vi. 14. 
 XViii. 5. hi.e., the angel of xvii. τ; 
 
 k Matt. xxii. 2-3; cf. Dalm. i. § 1, c. 50. 
 Lk. xxi. 22. 
 
 the Lamb, absent since xvii. 14 from his 
 pages, and absent again till xxi. 9. 
 
 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 (i.e., 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 τ 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. 10). ‘‘ 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 Sux. 
 τῶν πατέρων) and by an incidental em- 
 ployment of the sing. in this sense by 
 Paul (see on Kom. 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 8 ὃ 
 
 f Cf. Matt. xxii. 11-12, vii. 12, = xxii. 37 f. 
 implied, asin Zech. i. 7, 9 (LXX)? 
 1 xxi. 5, xxii. 6; cf. Dan. viii. 26, x. 1, xi. 2, xii. 7. Also 
 
 g Contrast ἀδικ. 
 i xiv. 13, Lk. xiv. 15. 
 
 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.g. 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. II 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. xxxviii, 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, 4.9.» 
 Herm. Vis, iii 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—II1. 
 
 ἀληθινοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ 1 εἰσίν." 
 
 AITIOKAAY¥IZ ITQANNOY 
 
 405 
 
 ‘ » μι ~ ~ --: 
 IO, καὶ ἔπεσα ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν m (xxii. 9), 
 > A “" Sm ia 
 αὐτοῦ προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ - καὶ λέγει μοι, “ἡ Ὅρα " μή σύνδουλός 
 
 , > ‘ -“ ~ A A 
 σού εἰμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν " ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿ἸΙησοῦ - 
 
 SC. ποίη- 
 ons, cf. 
 Eur., 
 Phen. 
 
 a - , a a a 293. 
 “ τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον [- ἢ ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς n xiv 17. 
 
 προφητείας]. 
 
 ΝΥ δι 
 II. καὶ εἶδον τὸν οὐρανὸν ἠνεῳγμένον, 
 
 A 
 καὶ ἰδοὺ “ ἵππος λευκός, 
 
 o 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 25. 
 
 p 1 Cor. 
 25, 
 
 q Cf. vi. 2 
 for 
 language. 
 
 - Bousset and Konnecke om. του θεου, but if the grammatical harshness of the 
 text is an insuperable difficulty, the solution is to read (Beng., Lachm., Ws.) ot 
 
 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. τι 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 4), due 
 to the Oriental love of emphasis by 
 reduplication, is significant in a book 
 where angels swarm (cf. Dan. ii. 11).— 
 H γὰρ κιτιλ., “for the testimony or 
 witness of (i.2., borne by) Jesus is (i.¢., 
 constitutes) the spirit of prophecy’’. 
 This prose marginal comment (see 
 above) specifically defines the brethren 
 
 ᾽ 
 
 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/. 
 iii. 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. rr; Barn. v. 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: 
 
XIX. 
 
 A 
 ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν "καλούμενος "πιστὸς καὶ 
 
 466 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 r iii. 14. ὶ ὁ Ί 
 che καὶ ὃ ΚΑΡηβεδν 
 of Deut. "ἀληθινός, 
 vii. 9, ᾿ ᾿ Ν᾿ 
 πεν καὶ " ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κρίνει καὶ πολεμεῖ " 
 (Le ; ε ‘ > > “A ‘ 
 cf. Ps. 12. ot δὲ " ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ φλὸξ πυρός, 
 Sol. xvii. 
 4-5, and 
 
 Isa. xlii. 3 (LX X). vi 
 function of Semitic king (1 Sam. villi. 20). 
 
 the marriage of the warrior-messiah (cf. 
 En. lx. 2; 4 Esd. xii. 32, xill. 38; Apoc. 
 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. I-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 (i,¢., 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 inthis 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); (δ) 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 ¢.g., Vischer, Sabatier, 
 de Faye, Weyland, Spitta, von Soden) 
 underlies it. The sequence of the pas- 
 
 t Cf. on xvi. 7, Dan. ii. 45, iii. 27f. (LXX). 
 ν ii. 18. 
 
 u Ps, xevi. 13: twofold 
 
 sage with xvi. 13-16, 18-20 is due to a 
 common cycle of tradition, rather than 
 to any literary source (Schén). 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. ver. 13 with Isa. lxiii. 1-6). On the 
 connexion of this celestial Rider with 
 the Rider in 2 Macc. iii., cf. Nestle in 
 Zeits. f. alt. Wiss. 1905, pp. 203f. 
 
 Ver. rr. The military function of the 
 messiah is known even to the philosophic 
 Philo, who (de praem. et poen. chee | 
 represents him incidentally as κα 
 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 Asia.(t Macc. xi. 13); 
 

 
 42—13. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 467 
 καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ ” διαδήματα ” πολλά’ w Contrast 
 ad > x > δ ey Zul. 8, 
 ἡ ἔχων 7 ὄνομα γεγραμμένον ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ αὐτός - xiit. t, 
 ἃ Σ y ἧς x Loosely 
 13. καὶ * περιβεβλημένος ἱμάτιον βεβαμμένον | * αἵματι - resuming 
 , » > A ε τῆς con- 
 καὶ κέκληται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, "“΄Ὃ AOTOC TOY OEOY.” struction 
 of ver. 
 Ὕ Cf. on ii. 17. z Dat. cf. Joh. xxi. 8. a Art. with pred. irreg. after ὄνομα (as vi. 8, viii. 21, etc.) 
 
 | BeBappevov (AQ, min., Ar., edd.) is preferable to pepappevov (Hort, Swete)— 
 the conjectural origin of the variants wepipepappevov (δ) eppapevov, ρεραντισ- 
 pevov, etc.—which is probably a corruption of it or due to dittography with γεγραμ- 
 
 μενον. 
 
 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. 10). 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 
 κιτιλ., 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 ὃ οὐδεὶς x.T.X., 
 with Matt. xi. 27. The earlier words, 
 πιστ. K. ἄληθ., are a description of the 
 messiah’s character and function, rather 
 than atitle. 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 ἄληθ. assigned its 
 occasional meaning of ‘‘real’’, Evenin 
 the latter case, to be real would mean to 
 be trustworthy. 
 
 Ver. 13. ‘‘ Dipped in blood”? (ἰ.6., the 
 blood of his foes): from the ‘‘crimsoned 
 garments”’ of Yahveh in Isa. Ixiii.; cf. 
 also ver. 15 with “1 have trodden the 
 wine-press. . . . Yea, I trod them in 
 mine anger (κατεπάτησα αὐτοὺς ἐν θυμῷ 
 pov), and trampled them in my fury,” 
 
 etc. Add Targ. Palest. on Gen. xlix. σὰ, 
 ‘‘ 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 
 
468 
 
 b xvi. 14-16: 
 c As in xiv. 
 
 4? differ- ἵπποις λευκοῖς, 
 
 ently xvii. 
 14 (cf. 
 Yasht 
 xiii. 12- 
 19 for 
 heavenly 
 aid of 
 certain 
 Fra- 
 vashis), 
 cf. Par. 
 wate vi. 
 884. 
 
 d nce Oe 16. 
 
 e Constr. , 
 ad γεγράμμενον, 
 sensum. 
 
 f Ver. 8. 
 
 g From 
 Dan. ix. 25; see i. 16, ii. 12. 
 10, 27f. i ii. 27, xii. 5. 
 = “sword-belt ” (Spitta). 
 
 rs. 
 
 1A om. emt To ιματιον Kar (S. = “ 
 
 thigh”). Wellh. conj. ἐπὶ tov ἱππον. 
 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 Ε. B. ἢ. 
 94, “1 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. 15. aités—The victory of the 
 messiah is single-handed (“1 have trod- 
 den the wine-press alone”) ; cf. on ver. 13, 
 and Sap. xviii. 22, Ps. Sol. xvii. 24-27, 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΎΨΙΣ IOQANNOY 
 
 καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται 
 
 1 
 καὶ ἔχει ἐπὶ TO ἱμάτιον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν 
 
 ΧΙᾺ. 
 
 4 s Ὁ , δλιν ~ > A ¢2 , Bee), Se 
 14. καὶ τὰ " στρατεύματα τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ “ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐφ 
 
 * ἐνδεδυμένοι * βύσσινον λευκὸν καὶ καθαρόν. 
 
 * ῥομφαία ὀξεῖα, ἵνα. 
 
 ἐν αὐτῇ " πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη " 
 καὶ αὐτὸς ᾿ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ " 
 ‘ > ἧς ee ES. λ Oar | a ον ~ a a a 
 καὶ αὐτὸς πατεῖ “ τὴν ληνὸν " τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς 
 τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος. 
 
 m a > δι᾿ ἮΝ 
 μηρον αὐτου ονομα. 
 
 “πὶ BACIAEYC BACIAEQN ΚΑΙ KYPIOC KYPIQN”’. 
 
 h Isa. xi. 4, (quoted Ps. Sol. xvii. 39), En. Ixii. 2, cf. 4 Esd. xiii. 
 k xiv. 20, Jud. iii. 13. 
 n Kup. κυρ. a Babylonian title of Marduk. 
 
 τῇ ἅπ. Aey- N.1.; 
 
 1 xiv. το, xvi. 19. 
 xvii. 14, 1 Ti. vi. 15. 
 
 written on garments which were on his: 
 Cf. E. Bi., 2517. 
 
 where the word of messiah’s mouth 15. 
 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, 
 i.e., 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. τὶ (Clem. Alex. 
 Stron. i. 23), and by apocalyptists (2 
 Thess. ii. 8; Ap. Bar. xxxvi. f., liii. f.; 4 
 Esd. x. 60 f., and here) who assigned an 
 active role to the messiah in the latter 
 days. The meaning 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. το), 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 
 (i.e., 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 a double name. King of kings, a 
 Persian (Aisch. Pers@, 24; Ezra vii. 12) 
 and Parthian title of royalty, which i= 
 
| 
 
 14—20. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 409 
 
 17. Καὶ εἶδον “ ἕνα ἄγγελον ἑστῶτα ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ - καὶ ἔκραξε φωνῇ ο nit 8 
 μεγάλῃ λέγων πᾶσι τοῖς ἢ ὀρνέοις τοῖς πετομένοις ἐν μεσουρανήματι, a me 
 
 a Ἕ ae — n 
 “Δεῦτε συνάχθητε εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον τὸ μέγα τοῦ Θεοῦ, 18. Asc. Is. 
 . aad , “ ᾿ , ἦν. 18. 
 iva “φάγητε σάρκας βασιλέων καὶ σάρκας χιλιάρχων καὶ p xvii. 2 
 . q xvii. 16. 
 
 , > ~ 4 ~ ἐν ᾿ . 
 σάρκας "ἰσχυρῶν καὶ σάρκας ἵππων Kal τῶν καθημένων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ τ Cf. on vi. 
 
 α yo TS 
 σάρκας πάντων " ἐλευϑέρων τὲ καὶ δούλων Kal μικρῶν Kal μεγάλων.᾽᾿ s xiii, 16, 
 
 19. καὶ εἶδον τὸ ἱ θηρίον καὶ τοὺς 
 
 u δ᾽ a a rai ὶ τὰ t xiii. I. 
 2 AY . κι 
 
 βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς κα ἃ xvii.g2 
 5.11, 2. 
 
 στρατεύματα αὐτῶν συνηγμένα ποιῆσαι "τὸν πόλεμον μετὰ TOD y xvi. ty 
 
 s “~ ~ “ΕἾ 
 καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου, καὶ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος αὐτοῦ. 
 
 καὶ “ ἐπιάσθη τὸ θηρίον, καὶ per 
 
 6” ποιήσας τὰ σημεῖα ἢ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, ἐν οἷς ἐπλάνησε τοὺς λαβόντας 
 τὸ χάραγμα τοῦ θηρίου καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας τῇ εἰκόνι αὐτοῦ» fF 
 
 (the final 
 struggle 
 of xvi. 
 12-16). 
 
 w Cant. il. 
 15, Doric 
 
 20: 
 αὐτοῦ “ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης 
 
 ἐπιέσθη. 
 
 ζῶντες ἐβλήθησαν οἱ δύο εἰς τὴν "λίμνην τοῦ “ὁ πυρὸς τῆς καιομένης * Χυΐ- 13. 
 
 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, 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 ἢ) and 
 the false prophet (i.¢c., the Imperial 
 priesthood=second beast of xiii. τὰ f.) 
 and their allies (the kings of the earth, 
 Gf Χ15 0, 18; xiv. 8; XV. 14, XVil.| 12. ἢ), 
 
 VOL. V. 3 
 
 y xiii. 11-17. 
 4 ZiLE0 LO; OA, 
 Isa. xxx. 33, Dan. vii. 11; cf. Par. Lost, i. 62-69. 
 
 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. 9. 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 hypothest opponents of 
 God’s people (cf. ii. 26, 27, xi. g f., xii. 
 Q, xiv. 14 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, 252-253, 
 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. 
 Gfrorer ii., 232 f.), e.g., in Targ. Jerus. 
 on Gen. xlix. rr and Sohar on Leyvy.- 
 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 
 
470 
 a From Sib. ἐν θείω. 
 Or. iii, ξ ΠΥ ΑΗ 
 696-7. καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου, 
 αὐτοῦ : " καὶ ὰ ὅ 
 
 inflicted on the opponents of Zoroas- 
 trianism is that their corpses are given 
 over to the corpse-eating birds, i.e., 
 Pan (Vend. iii. 20, ix. 49). Cf. Introd. 
 
 4 ὃ. 
 
 The messiah who forms “ the central 
 figure of this bloodthirsty scene,’ written 
 like the preceding out of the presbyter’s 
 κε 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 
 “in 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, (Ὁ) the other 
 sketching (7-10) a desperate but un- 
 availing recrudescence of the devil’s 
 
 ATIOKAAYYVIZ [TQANNOY 
 
 XIX. 
 
 - , “ 
 21. καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ 
 
 τῇ ἐξελθούσῃ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος 
 
 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.-xxii., 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 ἃ satisfaire celle 
 du lecteur’’ (Reuss). Ingenious attempts 
 have been made (eé.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, Vélter, 120 f, Briggs, 
 etc.). The conception of messiah’s 
 reign as preliminary and limited on earth 
 was not unknown to Judaism (Encycl. 
 Relig. and Ethics, i. 203 f.) or even to 
 primitive Christianity (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 21- 
 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 
 
 i οὐ νων 
 
σι. XX. I—4. 
 
 ATIOKAAYYVIS IQANNOY 471 
 
 Ν ” ~ -“ . . 
 KX. 1. Kat εἶδον ἄγγελον καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἔχοντα a i. 18, ix. 
 
 τὴν * κλεῖν τῆς " ἀβύσσου καὶ > ἅλυσιν μεγάλην ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ. 
 
 ἜΣ Oke 
 Rom. x. 
 74 Esd. 
 
 2. καὶ “expdtyoe Tov δράκοντα, 6 ὄφις ὃ ἀρχαῖος, 20g ἐστι διάβολος iv. 8. 
 
 b Mk. v. 34, 
 
 Ae a \ 2 Ἀπ ΓῚ 4 4 nee ! ae 
 καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς, kat ἔδησεν αὐτὸν "χίλια ἔτη, 3. καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν ς Mk. vivi7. 
 
 d xii. 9. 
 
 > a »” ἐν Ὁ] eS 3 4 > a ¢ δ 
 εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον καὶ ᾽ ἔκλεισεν καὶ ἐσφράγισεν ἐπάνω αὕτου, LVG μὴ ε =a Day 
 
 of God, 
 
 πλανήσῃ ἔτι TA ἔθνη, ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη peTa ταῦτα δεῖ 1, iv. 
 
 29, 2 Pet. 
 
 λυθῆναι αὐτὸν ἢ μικρὸν χρόνον. 4. Kal εἶδον ' θρόνους---καὶ ἐκάθισαν 7? §. 
 
 cf. Ε. Bt. 
 
 ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, " καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη adtois—xat τὰς ' ψυχὰς τῶν ἢ πεπελ- {Γ΄ ΞΟ5Ε. 
 
 εκισμένων "Sid τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, Dan. vi. 
 
 Dragon (Theod.) 14. 
 
 = “persons,” sc. εἶδον. 
 N.T.). 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., 
 ει f.).—With the realistic episode of 
 I-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. I represents 
 ‘an 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.—Vvy. 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 (Huibschmann, 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. 
 in Apoc. = “angels”; cf. Matt. xix. 28 = Luke xxii. 30. 
 m Mt. xiv. 10, Acts xii. 2, Rom. viii. 35, Clem. Rom. v.-vi. (ἄπ. Aey. 
 
 f From 
 17 and 
 Bel and 
 h xvii. 10, i Never 
 Κι Cor. vi. 2, Sap. iii. 8. lvi.g 
 
 The Iranian view was that Fredun could 
 not kill the serpent, whose slaughter was 
 reserved for for Same (Bund. xxix. 9). 
 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 δεῖ 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, 
 t.e., 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.—€0vy. 
 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. 0). 
 
 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 Ὑψίστου) which 
 constituted a large part of Oriental gov- 
 ernment. But no stress is laid on this 
 incidental remark, and the subjects of 
 
472 
 
 o Defining 
 or ex- 
 
 AITOKAAYYVIZ IQANNOY 
 
 XX, 
 
 ° ‘ j ’ ~ 
 καὶ “ οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν τὸ θηρίον οὐδὲ Thy εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ 
 
 5 A - “- 
 panding, καὶ οὐκ ἔλαβον τὸ χάραγμα ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτῶν " 
 
 NOt SPECI Vrs X 
 
 fying (as καὶ ἢ ἔζησαν καὶ 
 
 i. 7) some 
 
 of the 
 
 previous . 
 
 class. y 
 p ‘‘Camet 
 
 ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη. 
 
 “ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ "τοῦ Χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη 5. 
 οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν " οὐκ ἔζησαν * ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη 
 6. Μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὃ ἔχων “ μέρος ἐν 
 
 A O TRS , a , > , ve ὃ , ΄ 3 3» 
 life,’as τῇ ἀναστάσει ΤῊ πρώτῃ " ἐπὶ TOUTWY O DEUTEPOS θάνατος οὐκ EXEL 
 
 11. 8. 
 
 “ Con- 
 stative 
 aor. 
 Moult. i. 130. 
 xiii. 8; cof. Mt. xxiv. 51. 
 
 r xi. 15, Xii. 10. 5 
 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.—tretehextopevev, 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 kal 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 emperor).—yiMta 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.; 
 E. Bi. iii. 3095-3097 ; Encycl. of Religion 
 and Ethics, i. 204 f., 209). 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 οἱ λ. τ. νεκρῶν (5) 
 
 s Isa, xxvi. 14. 
 
 c AES & εἢ A 
 ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔσονται ™ ἱερεῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ Kal τοῦ Χριστοῦ - καὶ * βασι- 
 
 t Cf. Blass, ὃ 65, το. u xxi. 8, Joh. 
 
 wi. 6. x v. 10, Isa. lxi. 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. “Aytos, if a con- 
 tinuation of pak., must almost be taken 
 in its archaic sense of ‘‘ belonging to 
 God’’. 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 corfratulation (cf. Jub. ii. 23).—é 
 δεύτ. θάνατος κιτιλ. 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 ἀλλ᾽ 
 - - - 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 Baor- 
 λεύσουσι K.T.A. 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 ἱερεῖς τοῦ 
 θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (elsewhere τῷ θεῷ) 
 that the occupation of these saints is. 
 the mediation of divine knowledge to the 
 
5—8. 
 
 λεύσουσι pet αὐτοῦ χίλια ἔτη. 
 
 Ξ - a Ἐν ἂν A 2 , 
 
 ἔτη, "λυθήσεται ὃ Σατανᾶς * ἐκ τῆς φυλακῆς αὐτοῦ, 8. καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ἃ 
 
 πλανῆσαι τὰ ἔθνη τὰ " ἐν ταῖς τέσσαρσι γωνίαις τῆς γῆς, τὸν " Γὼγ 
 Ν - 
 
 καὶ τὸν Μαγώγ, συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν πόλεμον, ὧν ὁ ἀριθμὸς υ 
 
 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 v. 10, 
 where again the refrain of xxii. 5 (x. B. 
 εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων) would be 
 more δρρτορτίδίε.---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 
 
 AITOKAAY¥IZ ILQANNOY 
 
 A ~ 
 7. καὶ ὅταν τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ν Ver. 3. 
 2 Uf... 5. 
 vii. I, cf. 
 Isa. xi. 12, 
 Ezek. 
 Vii. 2. 
 Cf. 
 W inck- 
 ‘ ler’s Alt- 
 Orient. Forsch. ii. 160 f., 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, to δ) to 
 aorist (9-10 a) the latter (cf. xi. 11) 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 (ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου ἐτῶν 
 Ezek. xxxviii. 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. In the 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 
 
 c Pleon- © αὐτῶν ὡς 6 2 
 
 astic (cf. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 
 
 ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης. 
 
 XX. 
 
 9. καὶ ἀνέβησαν ἐπὶ τὸ 
 
 iii. 8, εἴς). “ πλάτος τῆς γῆς, καὶ ᾿ ἐκύκλευσαν τὴν παρεμβολὴν τῶν ἁγίων καὶ 
 
 d Gen. xxii. , 7 . 5 r 
 17, xxxii. THY πόλιν τὴν © ἠγαπημένην - 
 12, Heb. 
 xi. I2, on 
 form (omitting initial wy) cf. Helbing, 22. 
 g See iii. 9, and on xxi. 7; Ps. Ixxviii. 68, Ixxxvii. 
 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. 
 XXXViii.-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., eg., 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. 9) to the claim 
 of contemporary Judaism which held to 
 the title of ‘‘God’s beloved” as its 
 monopoly (Apoc. Bar. v. 1, xxi. 21, εἴ. 
 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. 14-20) was drawn; Jerusalem, freed 
 from her foes and purified within, forms 
 the headquarters of messiah’s tem- 
 
 e Hab. i. 6, Ezek. xxxviii. 11. 
 
 ΗΝ Ὁ ΄ a > ~ > a x 
 και κατέβη πυρ εκ του oupavou και 
 
 f 2 Kings vi. 14. 
 
 2, Jer. pxi, 15. 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. τὸ 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 ifso facto tenanted by holy 
 citizens, the siege is ineffective (contrast 
 xi. 1 ἢ). 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 
 
ie i eee 
 
 g—12. 
 
 κατέφαγεν αὐτούς - το. καὶ 6 διάβολος ὁ ᾿ πλανῶν αὐτοὺς ἐβλήθη i -- ὃς 
 
 2 Ν EX “ Ν ‘ 6 , a ‘ ‘ θ , 
 εἰς Τὴν ἱβνὴν TOU πυρος και €lou, ὁπου KGL TO σηρίον και ὁ 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΛΛΥΨΙΣ [QANNOY 
 
 475 
 
 5 , 
 
 ἐπλάνα 
 (cf. Eph. 
 
 iv. 28). 
 
 ἂν ἁ 
 
 , δι) ὁ , ε , ‘ ‘ > 
 ψευδοπροφήτης - καὶ ᾿βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς k xix. 20, 
 
 αἰῶνας τῶ» αἰώνων. 
 
 ix. Καὶ εἶδον ™ θρόνον " μέγαν ° λευκὸν 
 
 Ν Ν , ἥν ns 
 καὶ Tov καθήμενον ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν, 
 
 a οἱ Ν Le] ’ Pp 2 ε “ we > , 
 οὗ ἀπὸ τοῦ προσώπου ἢ ἔφυγεν ἡ γῆ καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς, 
 
 καὶ ᾿ τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη “ αὐτοῖς. 
 
 En. χε. 
 cf. Mt. 
 ΧΙ]. 41-42, 
 XXV, 41 
 (No 
 mention 
 of fate of 
 devil's 
 angels, ig 
 Apoc.). 
 
 12. Kat εἶδον τοὺς νεκρούς, τοὺς μεγάλους Kai τοὺς μικρούς, ib) 
 
 ἑστῶτας ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου, a der 
 \r , > , F 9. 
 καὶ * βιβλία ἠνοίχθησαν ἜΡΤΗΙ 
 tinct from 
 Rp RAL: ὡς ἃ 5 those of 
 iV. 4, 2X. 4. o = unsullied justice? p xvi. 20, xxi. 1, Isa. xiii. 13, xxiv. 19-20. q From 
 Dan. 11. 35. τ Dan. vii. 10, Mal. iii. 16, Jer. xvii. 5. 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. 
 714. 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 
 put it 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. 
 
 XX. II-xxii. 5. The connexion of 
 thought depends upon the traditional 
 Jewish scheme outlined, e.g., in Apoc. 
 Bar. xxix.-xxx. (cf. 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. II-1s), (ii.) the new heaven and earth 
 (xx#- 1-8), centring round (iii.) the new 
 Jerusalem as the final seat of bliss (xxi. 
 g-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, 18o 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. 
 
 Vv. 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. 11. 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 ὁ 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 re- 
 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, Ixix. 27 
 etc.; Ap. Bar. lxxii. 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 
 
 S iii. 5, xiii. 
 8, xvii. 8, 
 En. xvii. 
 3, ΟἿ. 3, 
 cf. Eurip. 
 Fragm. 
 488. 
 
 t 2 Cor.v. 
 το, Rom. 
 li. 2:11. 
 Jo. v. 28- 
 
 » 
 
 13. 
 
 auTots° 
 
 u For anc. 
 Gk. idea 
 of sea 
 preven- 
 ting dead 
 
 from passing into Hades, cf. Radermacher’s Das Jenseits im Mythos d. Hellenen (1903) 74. 
 w vi. 8, cf. Charles on En. Ixiii. 10. 
 
 18, Isa, xxvi. 10. 
 
 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. Ixxxix.-xc.; Dan. vii. 
 ro, etc.) after the exile. ‘‘ And in these 
 lays 1 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; cf. 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, vii. 32; Test. Jud. 25; Test. Benj. 
 10; Apoc. Bar. 7, etc.; cf. 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. lvi. 8, etc.), nor 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.). 
 γεγρᾶμμ., 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 
 
 ΑἸΙΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ LQANNOY 
 
 καὶ ἄλλο " βιβλίον ἠνοίχθη, 6 
 
 NES) ’ μὴ 
 καὶ ἐκρίθησαν ἕκαστος 
 
 a 
 
 ἐστιν τῆς ζωῆς " 
 
 καὶ ἐκρίϑησαν οἱ νεκροὶ ἐκ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις, 
 ἱ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν. 
 
 Καὶ ἔδωκεν ἡ “ θάλασσα τοὺς νεκροὺς τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ, 
 
 καὶ ὃ “θάνατος καὶ 6 “adns ἔδωκαν τοὺς νεκροὺς τοὺς ἐν 
 
 By , 7 2A 
 κατὰ τὰ cpya αὐτων. 
 
 vi. 
 
 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.) 13. See! Pirke -Aboth, ἀν 32): 
 ‘“« 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, 45 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. Ixi. 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 eis ἅδου 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 be- 
 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. 
 -- ἄδης «.t.d., cf Plutarch’s (de Iside, 
 
AITOKAAY¥VIZ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 
 
 I3—I5. 
 
 477 
 
 14. Kat 6 “θάνατος καὶ ὃ adns ἐβλήθησαν εἰς τὴν λίμνην Tod x τ Cor. xv. 
 20, 1Sa 
 
 πυρός * xxv. 8, 
 a ς 5 , ins ΠΡ A δ 7 4 Ἐ 84. vil 
 [οὗτος ὁ θάνατος " δεύτερός ἐστιν, ἡ λίμνη τοῦ πυρός] 31. 
 Zi a a y Cf. on 
 15. καὶ εἴ τις οὐχ εὑρέθη ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῆς ζωῆς γεγραμμένος, Luke xii, 
 4:5. 
 
 ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός. 
 
 1 Om. ovtos... πυρος with eight minn., Me., Arm. (Aug.), Andbav, Pr., Haym. 
 as a marginal gloss [so, ¢.g., Kriiger, (Gott. Gel. Anz., 1897, 34), von Soden, Bous- 
 set (?), 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. Ixv. 6 and 
 ‘the later Iranian Bundehesh (5. 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. Io), 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.). 
 
 Ver. 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. 10). 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- 
 ter, 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. (“1 will not mourn over 
 “the multitude of the perishing . . . they 
 
 are set on fire and burn hotly and are 
 quenched”’). 1f John betrays no pity for 
 the doomed, he exhibits no callous scorn 
 for their fate. The order of xx. 13-15 
 and xxi. 1 ἢ, is the same as in the hag- 
 gadic pseudo-Philonic De Biblic. 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 
 (εἰ exstinguetur mors et infernus 
 claudet os suum... et erit terra alia 
 et caelum aliud habitaculum sempi- 
 ternum’’). 
 
 So much for the doomed. 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 hope- 
 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 fai! 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 m-sea 
 
478 
 
 a Cf. xx. 11, 
 En. xlv. 
 4°59, 
 xxii. I. 
 
 lyptic attitude towards nature seldom 
 had anything of the tenderness and 
 pathos, e.g., of 4 Esd. viii. 42-48 (cf. vii. 
 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 tinal 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.— he 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 ὃ, 10 (in its present 
 position) does to xix. 1-8. When xix. 
 9 ὃ, Io 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. 9-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 so 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 ὃ, 23 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 ΧΧΙ. 
 
 . 5 > N x ee Reus 
 XXI. τ. Καὶ εἶδον οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν 
 c BY a ~ > Ἂς πω , A 3 “ 
 6 yap " πρῶτος οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ πρώτη γῆ ἀπῆλθαν, 
 nA els > ” 3 
 καὶ 7 θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι. 
 
 (cf. xxii. 5), 25 6 (=xxii. 5 a), and 27 
 (=xx. 15, xxi. 8, xxii. 3 a). Another set 
 of features (xxi. 12, 16, 24-27 a, Xxil. 2 Cc, 
 3 4, 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, e.g., by” 
 Erbes (A=xxi. I-4, χα 3-17, 20, 21, 
 B=xxi. 5-27, xxii. I, 2, 18, 19) and Sel- 
 wyn (xxii. 16-21, the conclusion of A= 
 xxi. 2, XXii. 3=5, ΧΧΙ. 5.6 ὮΝ αὶ 7, ‘ox 
 6 b-8, or of B=xxi. οὐ 2, xxii. 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. 9, 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. 
 
 CHsapTER XXI.—Vv. 1-8; the prelude 
 to the last vision. 
 
 Vv. 1-2, the title: 
 
 τ Je abe ep ut 
 
“nan, 449). 
 
 1—3. AIIOKAAYYVIZ LQANNOY 
 
 2. καὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἢ 
 
 , > A > Aa > Ν A A ἃ ε , ς , 
 βαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἡτοιμασμένην ὡς νύμφην 
 
 " κεκοσμημένην τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς. 3. καὶ ἤκουσα φωνῆς ᾽ μεγάλης "ex 22. 
 
 τοῦ θρόνου λεγούσης, 
 
 3 A ~ 
 “1800 ἡ ἢ" σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 
 
 A A 
 καὶ σκηνώσει μετ᾽ αὐτῶν" 
 
 “full of people” (Isa. xlix. 18). 
 XXxXvli. 27, Zech. ii. 10, viii. 8, cf. Isa. lvii. 15. 
 
 I 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 (xili. 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 δ᾽ 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- 
 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 περίττωμα), 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 Evol. of Mes- 
 sianic Idea, 79 f., ἃ. A. Smith’s Feru- 
 salem, i. 71 f., and Hastings’ D. B. iv. 
 194, 105). 
 
 Ver. 2. ék=origin, ἀπὸ -- οτἱ σ᾽ πδίοσ. 
 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 400 years of bliss, at 
 
 f xi. 12, Xvi. I. 
 
 479 
 
 , . 
 ἁγίαν ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ, “ καινὴν εἶδον κατα- Ὁ xi. 2, Isa. 
 
 Lit ty 
 Heb. xi. 
 16, Xii. 
 
 e Ezek. xvi. 
 ΤΥ — 
 
 ἘΞ 51 Cf. RX. τῆν 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.). Fora 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. r1= Tobit xiii. 
 16-17, Ezek. xl.-xlviii., En. x. 16-19, xxv. 
 1, Ps. Sol: xvii. 25, 33, Ap: Bars xxix 
 xxxix.-xL, Ixxii., Ixxiv., 4 Esd. vii. 27¢30, 
 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. 
 Bare xxxit. 3, 4, lest. Dan ἘΠ δρῦν 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. oknyv. (chosen on account of 
 its ‘‘assonance with the Hebrew to ex- 
 press the Shekinah,”’ Dr. Taylor on Pirke 
 
ΧΧΙ, 
 
 4δο ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ΙΩΏΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 i Gen. xvii. καὶ ' αὐτοὶ " λαοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσονται, 
 8, Jer. x ΕΝ Ἢ ς θ Η 3 ret ae 
 χχχὶ. 334 καὶ αὐτὸς 6 θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔσται. 
 2 Cor. vi. z A Η 4 s 
 16. From 4. καὶ ᾿ ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν, 
 Lev. 
 χχνΐ. 11+ καὶ ™6 θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι - 
 12. 
 
 k On plur. ἃ οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε ° πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι" 
 see Acts ° a a ” 
 iv. 27. Ρ ὅτι τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθον. 
 
 1 vii. 17, xx. ἀνάγει 2 a 
 aie ey 5. καὶ “εἶπεν ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ, ““᾿Ιδοὺ, *kawd ποιῶ 
 xxv. 8 ε \ ‘ 
 xxxv. ro, πάντα. "καὶ λέγει ““ Γράψον - ὅτι οὗτοι ot λόγοι ᾿ἣ πιστοὶ Kat 
 
 m . - 
 ce hore ἀληϑινοί ctor.” 6. καὶ εἶπέ μοι, “΄΄ Γέγοναν. "ἐγὼ τὸ ἄλφα 
 xlv. 14; By AEN, ED Rebs Ν x ΄ SNS a - ᾽ S02 ΜΠ a 
 Voiz, 48; Kal τὸ ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ TO τέλος. ἐγὼ TH διψῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ ἐκ τῆς 
 
 i a A ~ A ε - , 
 Rei" anys "Tod ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς " δωρεάν. 7. ὃ " νικῶν κληρονομήσει 
 (Hiibsch- 
 mann, 2 ; ; 
 
 232). n Isa. Ixv. 19, Jer. xxxi. 16, Ass.-Mos, x, I. o = pain, only in Apoc. in N.T. p Isa 
 
 Ixv. 17. q By itself, only here in ρος. r Isa. xliii. 19, 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. i, 8, xxii. 
 13, Isa. xli. 4, xliv. 6, xlviii. 12. w Cf. John vii. 37f., Just. Dial. lxix. etc. x xxii. 17, Jobs 
 iv. 10-14. y ii. 7; emphatic (αὐτῷ, av Tos). 
 
 1The unusual aoristic (cf. Helbing, 67) termination of yeyovav (sycA, S., Iren., 
 edd.) has started the variants yeyovacw (38), yeyove (41, 94: “no doubt a conj. of 
 Erasmus based on vg., his MS. 1 reading yeyova,” Gwynn), and yeyova (δ ΡΟ, 
 Syr., Arm., And., Areth., etc.; = εἰμι, so Buresch in Rhein. Museum, 1891, 206). 
 
 Aboth iii. 3) is the real tabernacle (Heb. 
 viii. 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, kal 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. Ixi. 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. 9). 
 
 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 οἵ 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. Compare 
 the fontal passage in Philo, de migrat 
 Abr. ὃ 6 πηγὴ δὲ, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ὀμβρεῖ τὲ 
 ἀγαθά, ἣ τοῦ φιλοδώρου Θεοῦ σύνοδός 
 ἐστιν. οὗ χάριν ἐπισφραγιζόμενος τὰ 
 τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν φησιν, ἔσομαι μετὰ σοῦ. 
 The promise implies (like Isa. xliv. 3, not 
 lv. 1) 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 Chk:z!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. I1-12). 
 
 Ver. 7. These boons (3-7), however, 
 are reserved for the loyal; the third (son 
 
4—8. 
 
 ταῦτα, καὶ ἡ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ θεὸς, “kal αὐτὸς ἔσται por υἱός. 
 δὲ " δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἐβδελυγμένοις καὶ " φονεῦσι καὶ πόρνοις 
 καὶ φαρμακοῖς Kal “ εἰδωλολάτραις καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς > ψευδέσι, τὸ 
 μέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ τῇ “καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ, " ὅ ἐστιν 
 
 ὃ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος. 
 
 Xxii. 15, 1 Pet. iv. 15, Jas. ν. 6. Rom.i. 29, Mk. vii. 21 = Mt. xv. 19. 
 
 ἃ 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. κληρο- 
 γνομήσει (here only in Apoc.) in general 
 sense=“‘ enter into possession of,”’ *‘ par- 
 take of”. (‘‘This place” of bliss ‘is 
 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 iii. 9, 
 10, 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 evAaBeva’’ (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).—amtorous 
 not =incredulous (so e.g., Dittenberger’s 
 Sylloge, 8025), 3 cent. B.c.) but, as in 
 Luke xii. 46 (cf. Sir. ii. 12 ἢ), =‘ faith- 
 
 ANOKAAY¥IZ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 
 
 481 
 
 8. tots z2Sam. vii 
 14, Ps. 
 
 c Eph. v. 5; ver. 27. 
 6 xx. 14; constr. Win. § 24. 8). 
 
 less,’’ untrustworthy, those who are not 
 πιστός (i. 5, ii. 10, 13, 2 Ti. ii. 13). All 
 δειλοί are ἄπιστοι (cf. Introd. ὃ 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- 
 vows for βδελυκτοῖς (as 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.—dappaxois 
 =‘ poisoners’’ or ‘‘ sorcerers ” (xxii. 15), 
 cf. Dan. ii. 27 LXX, and above on ix. 21, 
 where (as here and in Gal. v. 21) witch- 
 craft or magic is bracketed with idolatry. 
 Idolaters, in Apoc. Pet. 18, have a 
 special place πλείστου πυρὸς γέμων- 
 ψευδέσιν -- ‘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. 9, cf. Apoc. xiv. 5); further perhaps 
 to be taken in its general ethical sense 
 (Slav. En. xlii. 13; cf. Did. v. 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 
 
482 
 
 Cf. xv. 1, 
 
 XVii. I. 
 
 ἈΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 
 
 SAL. 
 
 9. καὶ ἦλθεν ‘eis ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων Tas ἑπτὰ 
 
 iv. 1, xvii. φιάλας, τῶν γεμόντων τῶν ἑπτὰ πληγῶν τῶν ἐσχάτων, καὶ ἐλάλησε 
 
 xix, 7, μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ λέγων ““Δεῦρο, ὅ δείξω σοι τὴν " νύμφην τὴν γυναῖκα] 
 
 xvii. 33 ε΄. τοῦ Gpviou.” το. καὶ ᾿ἀπήνεγκέ με ἐν πνεύματι ἐπ᾽ “dpos μέγα 
 Ber pen ὑψηλόν, καὶ ἔδειξε por τὴν πόλιν, τὴν ᾿᾿ ἁγίαν ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ, 
 bah ᾿καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ "“ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, 11. ἔχουσαν τὴν 
 3). From" S6§ay τοῦ θεοῦ" ὁ φωστὴρ αὐτῆς “ ὅμοιος "λίθῳ τιμιωτάτῳ, ὡς 
 ΖΕΚ. xl. 
 
 2 
 
 Contrast xi. 8. M Xx. 9, xxi. 2. 
 
 1 τὴν γυναικα a gloss from xix. 
 
 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 50-8 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. v. in put- 
 ting theft after πορνεία (cf. Heb. xiii. 
 4-5, Eph. v. 5, etc.). Paul, again, in- 
 variably starts with the blighting touch 
 of πορνεία or ἀκαθαρσία (cf. Seeberg’s 
 Catechismus d. Ure. g-29, and von 
 Dobschutz, pp. 406 f.) 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. Ir. The κύνες of xxii. 15 roughly 
 answer to the ‘‘abominable ”’ of xxi. 8. 
 xxi. 1-8 are a summary of what fol- 
 lows?) χαὶ. ὦ, 02— 9-21, xxi. 3, 4 — ext. 
 22-xxil. 5, xxi. 5-8=xxii. 16-21. 
 
 xxi. Q-xxil. 5: the new Jerusalem (re- 
 suming the thought of ver. 2, cf. xix. 
 7), corresponding to the new universe 
 (ver. τὴ. 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- 
 
 n xv. 8, ver. 23. 
 
 © Sc. ἦν. Pp xvii. 4. 
 
 7? (Bousset, Konnecke, 39-40). 
 
 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. ti.) 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 kal κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον καρποφο- 
 ροῦσιν. Vv. 11-21 describe the exterior, 
 vv. 22-27 the interior. 
 
 Ver. 10: a fresh vision, marked by a 
 new transport of ecstasy (cf. Ezek. iii. 14, 
 xi, I, etc.).—8pos, 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 1 xu 635 Ὁ) one 
 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). 
 
 Ver. 11, ‘‘ With the dazzling splen- 
 dour of God,” cf. on ver. 3, Ezek. xliii. 5, 
 Isa. lx, 1,2. Uxor splendet radtis 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 ὁ 
 φωστήρ K.T.A. (asyndeton); ‘her bril- 
 liance is like a very precious stone, a 
 jasper, crystal-clear” (f.¢e., transparent 
 and gleaming as rock-crystal}, The 
 
Q—I7. 
 
 - ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 483 
 
 λίθῳ «ἰάσπιδι κρυσταλλίζοντι 12. ἔχουσα τεῖχος μέγα καὶ ὑψηλόν, a iv. 3. 
 
 ΣΟΙ. 2 
 
 ἔχουσα πυλῶνας δώδεκα, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν "ἀγγέλους δώδεκα, Chron. 
 
 καὶ ὀνόματα ἐπιγεγραμμένα ἅ ἐστι "τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν υἱῶν 
 
 ᾿Ισραήλ. 
 
 Vili. 14 
 From Isa, 
 Ixii. 6. 
 
 13. ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῆς, πυλῶνες τρεῖς: καὶ ἀπὸ “βορρᾶ, s vii. 4-8. 
 
 From 
 
 XO apa RS κιςΝ , A A ‘ - ee Ὁ ὃ - a 
 TTUAWVES TPELS και ἀπὸ νότου, πυλῶνες Tpelts* και ATO ὀυσμὼν, Ezek. 
 
 πυλῶνες τρεῖς. 
 
 τοῦ ἀρνίου. 
 
 A a , xl viii. 31f. 
 14. καὶ τὸ τεῖχος τῆς πόλεως ἔχων “θεμελίους Gy. En. 
 Ps τὸ . χχχῖν.- 
 δώδεκα, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν δώδεκα ὀνόματα “τῶν δώδεκα ἡ ἀποστόλων yx xv.). 
 \ a a For form 
 15. καὶ ὁ λαλῶν per ἐμοῦ εἶχε μέτρον κάλαμον“ rel 
 a i] , Ν , Ν ‘ a 2 ante ‘ D bing, 33, 
 χρυσοῦν, ἵνα μετρήσῃ τὴν πόλιν καὶ τοὺς πυλῶνας αὐτῆς Kal τὸ Wir ey 
 ὶ ἡ πόλις “ τετράγωνος κεῖται, καὶ τὸ μῆκος 2: More 
 
 τεῖχος αὐτῆς. τό. καὶ ἣ 
 
 αὐτῆς ὅσον τὸ πλάτος. 
 
 σταδίους δώδεκα χιλιάδων τὸ μῆκος καὶ τὸ πλάτος καὶ τὸ ὕψος 
 αὐτῆς ἴσα ἐστί: 17. καὶ ἐμέτρησε τὸ τεῖχος αὐτῆς ἑκατὸν τεσσερά- 
 κοντὰ τεσσάρων * πηχῶν, ἢ 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 cov ἴασπιν καὶ 
 τὰς πύλας σου λίθους κρυστάλλου), the 
 writer regarded both clauses as comple- 
 mentary (Cheyne); hence ὡς A. it. x. 
 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, ἣ 
 πόλις, sugg. by ὁ 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. 
 ---θεμελίους x.T.A., a symbolical and cor- 
 
 v Asin Asc. Isa. iii. 17, ix. 17, Xi. 21. 
 figurative Hellen. term = “ perfect " (Plato, Protag. 3444, Arist., Eth. Νίκ. I. x. 11). 
 tracted, Hellenistic genit. for πήχεων (Win. § 9, 6, Deissm. 153, Helbing, 44-45). 
 
 καὶ ἐμέτρησε Thy πόλιν τῷ καλάμῳ ἐπὶ ines 
 
 Bopeas 
 (Thumb, 
 
 65, 67, 56)» 
 u Eph. il. 
 20, Heb. 
 xi. 10% 
 cf. Isa. 
 w Like orig. Babylon, Herod. i. 178; 
 x Com 
 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 8. Foundation-stones in an ancient 
 building were invested with high, sacred 
 significance. Here the twelve apostles 
 correspond roughly to the twelve dvAap- 
 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 torun a wall as far as Joppa. 
 Further measurements in Baba-Bathra 
 ft. 75, 2 (cf. Gfrorer, ii. 245 f.; Bacher, 
 
484 
 
 z Poetical 18. κα 
 form, (cf. 
 Jos. Ant. κα 
 XV. 9, 6) 
 = “ fab- 
 tic”’ or 
 “ mat- 
 erial”’. 
 
 a Ver. II. 
 
 b Cf. on 
 iv. 6, ὑ. 
 like 
 φιάλη, a 
 genuine 
 form of 
 the κοινὴ 
 (Thumb, 
 18, 75): 
 
 c From Isa. 
 liv. 11-12. 
 
 d iv. 3. 
 
 e Here only 
 (N.T.). 
 
 Five sey. 
 fragm. in Epiph., Haer. xxxi. 9. 
 
 \ 
 ι 
 κ , 
 ι 
 ε 
 
 καὶ ἡ “ πλατεῖα τῆς 
 διαυγής. 
 
 i Pale sea-green felspar, sometimes aquamarine in colour, 
 lix. 17; jacinth or sapphire. 
 
 cf. Job xxviii. 19. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ 
 
 19. “οἱ θεμέλιοι τοῦ τείχους τῆς πόλεως παντὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ 
 
 ὁ τρίτος “χαλκηδών - 6 τέταρτος 
 ἐσαρδόνυξ - ὃ ἕκτος ἢ σάρδιον: ὁ ἕβδομος χρυσόλιθος - ὁ ὄγδοος 
 *Bnpuddos: ὃ ἔνατος " τοπάζιον - ὁ δέκατος χρυσόπρασος " ὃ ἑνδέ- 
 κατος ᾿ὑάκινθος - ὃ δωδέκατος, ™ ἀμέθυστος. 
 21. καὶ οἱ δώδεκα πυλῶνες δώδεκα μαργαρῖται " 
 "ava els ἕκαστος τῶν πυλώνων ἦν ἐξ ἑνὸς μαργαρίτου " 
 
 g Red and white onyx (Lxx = ob), 
 
 Cs A} la ~ ’ 7A ay 
 
 ἡ " ἐνδώμησις τοῦ τείχους αὐτῆς "ἴασπις " 
 
 ς , Ἀ ΠῚ be rT 
 ἡ πόλις χρυσίον καθαρὸν ὅμοιον " ὑάλῳ καθαρῷ. 
 
 ‘ 
 
 κεκοσμημένοι * ὁ θεμέλιος ὃ πρῶτος “ ἴασπις “ ὁ δεύτερος σάπφειρος " 
 
 ft 
 
 σμάραγδος - 20. ὁ πέμπτος 
 
 πόλεως χρυσίον καθαρὸν, ὡς ὕαλος 
 
 h iv. 3. 
 k Greenish-yellow gem (periodot ?) 
 m Violet or purple. n Late and 
 
 irregular idiom = καθ᾽ εἷς (Blass, ὃ 39, 2, ὃ 45, 3); ο΄. Win., καὶ 26, 9, ava adverbial, like ἕως 
 
 (Deissm. 139). © 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, 
 xxii, 2, it has no allegorical significance 
 whatever. Cf. Slav. En. Ixv. 10: ‘‘and 
 there shall be to them”? (i.e., to the just 
 in eternity) ‘“‘a great wall which cannot 
 be broken down’’.—pérpov «.1.A., an- 
 other naive reminder (cf. xix. 9, 10, 
 xxii. 8, 9) 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.* 
 58351), where the orthography is pro- 
 nounced ‘‘ nova”? (see reff.). 
 
 While the city itself (or its streets, 
 ver. 21) is supposed to be constructed of 
 transparent gold like the house of Zeus 
 πολύχρυσον (Hipfol. 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 
 
 zikkuvats 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 
 xiii. 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. —oamderpos =lapis lazuli (sap- 
 
18—23. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ LQANNOY 485 
 22. καὶ " ναὸν οὐκ εἶδον ἐν αὐτῇ - ΜΗ 
 XXIV. 2». 
 ὁ γὰρ “ Κύριος 6 θεὸς ὁ “ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς ἐστί, καὶ John, iv. 
 21; also 
 τὸ ἀρνίον. Jer. if. 
 I . 
 23. “kal ἡ πόλις οὐ χρείαν ἔχει Tod ἡλίου οὐδὲ τῆς σελήνης tag From 
 mos lV. 
 φαίνωσιν αὐτῇ " 13:. 
 ε Ν᾿ ἌΡ = I xxii. 5, 
 ἡ γὰρ "δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐφώτισεν αὐτήν, from Isa. 
 Renn ἢ ΠΕΡῚ Η , XXiv. 23, 
 καὶ ὁ λύχνος αὐτῆς τὸ ἀρνίον. Ἰχ 
 Zech. xiv. 
 
 7. 
 s 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” (Ε. Bz. 2710).— 
 xadxyndov=either a variety of dioptase 
 or emerald gathered on a mountain in 
 Chalcedon (Pliny), or more probably an 
 
 agate (karkedra Pesh. rendering of AY) 
 =LXX ἀχάτης Ex. xxviii. 19), 7.2, a 
 variegated stone, whose base is chalce- 
 dony. The modern chalcedony is merely 
 a translucent (grey) quartz, with a 
 milky tinge. χρυσόλιθος =a gem of 
 some (sparkling?) golden hue (LXX= 
 
 ὩΣ), 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. μαργαρῖται x.7.A. (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”’. ἡἣ 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 
 
 VOL. V. 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 (οὔ. 
 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 O.T. 
 ideal (Isa. Ix. 19, 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 sun 
 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. 
 
486 ATIOKAAYVIS ITQANNOY XXI. 24—27. XXII 
 
 t Ps.ilxxii, 24, kal περιπατήσουσι * τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτῆς, 
 Is. Ix. 
 ha ἼΩΝ καὶ of “ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς φέρουσι τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν εἰς αὐτήν---- 
 «Εν, 25: “Kal οἱ πυλῶνες αὐτῆς οὐ μὴ κλεισθῶσιν ἡμέρας " 
 
 29 ital Υ νὺξ γὰρ οὐκ ἔσται ἐκεῖ--- 
 
 ; Tepro- x x 
 
 Aes in 426. " καὶ οἴσουσι τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰς αὐτήν. 
 
 4 See y Ν 3 ‘ 3 £ > 3 cal Ν Ἂν ε la’ 
 XV. 20. 27. "καὶ οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς αὐτὴν πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ὁ ποιῶν 
 
 ν Isa. lx. 11, 
 Jos. B.J., 
 Vil. 10, 4. 
 
 w Zech. xiv. 
 7, En. 
 Iviii. 3 f., 
 
 7 βδέλυγμα Kat 7 ψεῦδος - 
 εἰ μὴ οἱ " γεγραμμένοι ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου. 
 XXII. τ. καὶ " ἔδειξέν μοι ποταμὸν " ὕδατος ζωῆς, λαμπρὸν ὡς 
 
 A A A a , 
 χχχί. 5. “ κρύσταλλον, ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ “ καὶ τοῦ dpviou 
 
 Slav. En. 
 
 x From. 
 Isa. Ix. 5, Εν J 
 Tob. xiii. 11, Sib. iii. 772. y Isa. lii. 1, Ezek. xliv. 9. 
 iii. 278. a Cf. xiii. 8. a xxi. Io. b vil. 17. 
 
 6, 13; cf. En. Ixii. 14. 
 
 Vv. 24-26 further traits borrowed from 
 Isa. Ix. (see reff.). 
 
 Ver. 25. νὺξ «7A. “for no night 
 (when even in peace they would be shut, 
 Neh. xiii. 19) shall be there’’. 
 
 Ver. 26. From the tradition of En. 
 liii. r and Ps. Sol. xvii. 34-35 (where the 
 Gentile nations seek Jerusalem φέροντες 
 Sapa... καὶ ἰδεῖν τὴν δόξαν κυρίου, ἣν 
 ἐδόξασεν αὐτὴν ὁ θεός) : cf. Apoc. Bar. 
 Ixviii. 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, 
 
 z xxi. 8, xxii. 15; cf. Hom. Iliad 
 civ. 6, am. Acy. N.T. d iii. 21, v., 
 
 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 (Ε. 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 fir 
 Relig. Wiss. 1899, 170 f. Unlike the 
 
 
 
 ᾿ 
 Ἷ 
 ' 
 
 ee ———————— μιν νεύων 
 
I—4. 
 
 2. ἐν μέσῳ τῆς πλατείας αὐτῆς - καὶ 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ [QANNOY 
 
 487 
 
 τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐντεῦθεν Kale From 
 Ezek. 
 
 A A n a @ Ph 
 ἐκεῖθεν " ξύλον ζωῆς, ποιοῦν καρποὺς ᾿δώϑεκα, κατὰ μῆνα ὅ ἕκαστον χινίϊ. 12, 
 ἣν ΝΣ atte and Slav 
 ἢ ἀποδιδοὺς 1 τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ - καὶ τὰ φύλλα τοῦ ξύλου εἰς “Gepa- En. viii. 
 , A I-4. 
 πείαν τῶν ἐθνῶν. f = δωδε- 
 rae ees κάκις (cf. 
 3: Kal πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ETL’ Matt. 
 k Sy ie , “- A ‘ A > , > | i 8 ὃ ‘vill. 22). 
 καὶ ὁ θρόνος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Tod ἀρνίου ἐν αὐτῇ ἔσται ε Win., §20 
 ‘ c 5 ch > A Wy , i ΝΣ 12b. 
 καὶ ot δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ ᾿ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ h For ἵν 
 \ ΕΣ a ( ο 
 4. καὶ ™ ὄψονται τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, Ἔα 
 ᾽ 
 ‘ A “- a im- 
 καὶ “Td ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων αὐτῶν. ae 
 ’ 
 Lang. 
 Ν.Τ. 40. i From Zech. xiv. 21; on futures, see iv. 8.11. Κ΄" 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 SQ, 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 év... 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. 9, combining it with 
 the representation of Ezekiel (yet note 
 sing. in xlvii. 12); hethus 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”.—r. μῆνα, 
 the poetic imagination soars over the 
 prosaic objection that months are im- 
 possible without a moon (xxi. 22).— 
 καρπὸν, κιτιλ. 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 σὰρξ 
 ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ἅψασθαι αὐτοῦ). ‘ Then 
 the righteous and the holy shall have it 
 given them; it shall be as food for the 
 elect unto life.”” So in contemporary 
 Judaism; ¢.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 (E. B. D., ch. clxxxiii. : 
 «1 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 karavd@eya=anything accursed 
 (lit. a curse itself, Did. xvi. 8), z.e., ab- 
 stract for concrete, here=“‘ a cursed per- 
 son,’’so Ps. Sol. xvii. 2g f—Aatpevoovor, 
 unfettered and unspoiled devotion. The 
 interruption of the daily service and 
 sacrifice in Jerusalem on 17th July, 70 
 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 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY XXII. 
 O xxi. 25. 5. καὶ “ νὺξ οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, 
 Ρ xxi. 23; a 
 
 with καὶ οὐχ ἕξουσι 1 ἢ χρείαν φωτὸς λύχνου καὶ φῶς ἡλίου, 
 
 accus. 
 
 iii ἀγὸς ὅτι Κύριος ὁ θεὸς φωτίσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς - 
 q Dan. vii. 5 A r.? 5 2A a 9.» 
 
 27, cf. kai βασιλεύσουσιν * εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 
 
 ap. vi. 
 21 (= 
 
 nearness to God). 
 
 τ Not merely for 1000 years (xx. 4). 
 
 1 εξουσι (A, vg., Syr., S., gig., Tic.) Bentley, Lach., Al., Bj., is preferable to 
 exovor (SVP, And.), and the context, with its futures and personal pronouns, tells 
 against the ov χρεια κιτιλ. 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. Ixiv. of E. B. D. (papyrus 
 of Nu) the “triumphant Nu saith, “1 
 have come to see him that dwelleth in 
 his divine uraeus, face to face, and eye 
 to eye... . Thou art in me, and I 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,—6Wovtar, In Chag.5 ὃ there 
 is a story of a blind rabbi who blessed 
 some departing visitors with the words, 
 ‘“ Ye 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, 
 
 νυκτὸς Kal 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. Ireneus (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 ὃ Σωτὴρ ὁρασθή- 
 σεται, καθὼς ἄξιοι ἔσονται οἱδρῶντες 
 αὐτόν, K.TA. 
 
 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 
 righteousness 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, 10) 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 
 
 Oe 
 
5—9.- 
 
 ” 
 
 8. "κἀγὼ ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ ᾿ βλέπων καὶ ἀκούων ταῦτα - καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσα § 
 Ν aA ~ - fol 
 καὶ ἔβλεψα, ἔπεσα προσκυνῆσαι ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν τοῦ ἀγγέλου, 
 
 τοῦ “ δεικνύοντός μοι ταῦτα. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ΙΩΏΩΑΝΝΟΥ 
 
 9. καὶ λέγει μοι, ‘dpa μή ὦ 
 
 489 
 
 As ini.9 
 (cf. Dan, 
 X11. 5). 
 
 2 Cor. xii. 
 
 2. 
 Win. § 14, 
 
 σύνδουλός σού εἶμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν 18 
 
 , , =~ , , “- a , ? 
 τηρούντων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου - τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον. 
 6. καὶ εἶπέν μοι, “Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι “ πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί: καὶ 
 
 ὃ 
 3, 
 a 
 7. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ. 
 "μακάριος ὃ τηρῶν τοὺς 
 βιβλίου τούτου. 
 
 for they are faithful and true”). 
 
 (cf. i. τὸ f., iv. 1), or may be inferred 
 from the context to be that of an angel 
 (e.g., xvii. 15, cf. I and xix. 9), 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, 
 ΤΠ tO, Xiv, 2, XVi. τὶ of. 17). 0 Inthe 
 epilogue, as it stands, it is impossible 
 _and irrelevant to determine whether 
 Jesus (16) begins to speak at ver. 10 (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. μοι 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 τὸ 
 (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 g (contrast xix. 10 
 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. το), 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 7a 
 as an interpolation (Kénnecke). But 12- 
 13 probably have been displaced from 
 their original order (13, 12) and position 
 after 16 (K6nnecke), where 17 echoes 12 
 
 “kuUptos ὁ θεὸς τῶν " πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν ἀπέστειλε * τὸν 
 γγελον αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι τοῖς 7 δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει. 
 
 λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ 
 
 v 4 Esd. xv. 
 1-2 
 (“Speak 
 thou in 
 the ears 
 of my 
 people 
 the words 
 of pro- 
 phecy, 
 and cause 
 thou 
 them to 
 be written 
 on paper, 
 
 h )e w Cf. for phrase, partial analogies in Num. xxvii. 16 (LX), 
 Jub. x. 3, Dan. ii. 28, 2 Macc. iii. 24, Heb. xii. 9, x Cor. xiv. 32. i 
 Christian prophets (i. 1), cf. Dan. ix. 10, 4 Esd. viii. 62. 
 
 x Cf. i. 1-2. y 1.e., the 
 z Cf. Luke xi. 28, En. ς. 6, civ. 12-13. 
 
 a, and 14, 15 carries on the thought of 11. 
 Vv. 18, 19 are plainly editorial, inter- 
 rupting the connexion of 17 and 20. In 
 11 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. g. 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.—zvevup. 
 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 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ po 8) 
 , ~ = 
 τ IO. καὶ λέγει μοι, “Μὴ σφραγίσῃς τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας 
 From ᾿ 
 Baek. iti τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου - ὁ * καιρὸς yap ἐγγύς ἐστιν. 
 ὩΣ, an. ε 9 A > 
 xii. 10 11. " ὁ ἀδικῶν ἀδικησάτω ἔτι - 
 (LXX), Ai εἰ @e Ν ε , Ξ 
 cf. Par. καὶ 6 “ ῥυπαρὸς ῥυπανθήτω ἔτι" 
 Lost, ili. Sse , , 3 
 τοϑ ἢ, καὶ ὁ δίκαιος δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω ἔτι" 
 εὐ" Filthy” Sk Mer ε Ud dl 
 (cf. καὶ 6 ἅγιος ἁγιασθήτω ἔτι. 
 Mayor on , Coa, , 4 a 9. A e° ” ε 
 Jas. i.21): 14. Μακάριοι οἱ “πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν, "ἵνα ἔσται ἢ 
 moral ft 
 
 5 a ΝΥ a A > 
 ctains ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ‘éml 5 τὸ * ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς Kal τοῖς ἢ πυλῶσιν εἰσέλ- 
 
 v. i ‘ 4 ‘ 
 i Qwow εἰς Thy πόλιν. 15. ᾿ἔξω οἱ " κύνες καὶ οἱ ᾿' φαρμακοὶ καὶ 
 mere > - - . . - - eee = . 
 ceremonial impurity (ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι, in votive inscriptions). d iii. 4, vii. 14. e Mixed 
 
 f Accus. here and vi. 8, xiii. 7, xvi. 9; genit. ii. 26, xi. 6, xiv. 18. 
 
 g Cf. ver. 2. Loose extension of dat. instrum. i‘ Out with the (or, out ye)": so Dist., 
 Benson, J. Weiss, Wellh., cf. xxi. 8, 27, 1 Cor. vi. 9-10, Introd. § 6. k Matt. vii. 6, Phil. iti. 2: 
 ='praua concupiscentia " (Gfrorer, i. 404). lix, 21, cf. Deut. xxiii. 18. On their punishment 
 in the Hellenic world, cf. Rohde's Psyche, 366 f. 
 
 construction (cf. xiv. 13). 
 
 1The 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. 0 avopos ανομησατω kato δικαιος δικαιωθητω ετι; the rest being glossematic. 
 The v. 1. δικαιωθητω (38, 79, vg.) has been mechanically conformed to αγιασθητω. 
 
 2Instead of the well-supported OINOIOYNTECTACETOAACAYTOY (Q, min., 
 Syr., S., Arm., Me., Areth., And., Tert., Tic., Cyp., cf. 1 Jo. v. 21; so de Wette, 
 Diist., Bs.), OIMNAYNONTECTACCTOAACAYTOQN (NA, 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. v. 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 ὃ. y. ἐν τ. is 
 (i. τ) an ἀποκ. of Jesus, he (or a word of 
 his) naturally breaks in (7 αἹ.---τηρῶν 
 «.T-A., 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, xlvii. 2, 3, etc.). 
 
 Ver. το. The book of Daniel, the 
 great classic of apocalyptic literature, 
 is represented (cf. Slav. En. xxxiii. 
 ΒΡ Ux: ἢ εν ΟΣ. EDN ἘΠ᾿ ὁ" ke, 
 etc.) as having been 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. 10, 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, 
 
1o—16. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙΣ IQANNOY 
 
 491 
 
 “-“ ~ ~ 4 . 
 οἱ πόρνοι καὶ οἱ φονεῖς καὶ οἱ εἰδωλολάτραι Kal πᾶς ™ φιλῶν καὶ m xxi. 27, 
 
 ποιῶν ψεῦδος. 
 
 16. “᾿Εγὼ Ἰησοῦς " ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ° ὑμῖν 
 
 ταῦτα ἢ ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις " 
 
 4 
 ἐγώ εἶμι ἡ “ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος Δαυείδ, 
 er x ε x Nec oo 
 6 "ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὁ πρωϊνός. 
 
 prophets,” as in ver. 6. p =“‘for”\(x., 11). 
 
 Levi 18, En, xxxviii. 2, Isa. xiv. 12, and Ign. Ep 
 
 coloured by the nomad’s hatred of hounds; 
 cf. Arabia Deserta, i. 337, 339 (“only 
 the dog has no citizenship in the nomad 
 life”. ‘‘It 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. 
 r Tim. i. 10; 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 eftect 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 
 tnterpres (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).— 
 Δαυείδ. 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- 
 
 cf. Asc. 
 Isa. (Gk.), 
 iii. 3, 
 Dan. viii. 
 25. See 
 Win. 8 20. 
 Itc. 
 n Cf, xxii. 
 6 (God). 
 o (Dat. = 
 Heb. x. 
 15) “the 
 
 v. 5: (the scion). r ii. 28, Sir. 1, 6, Test. 
 
 qv. 5 eee 
 h. xix, with Luke i. 78 (Dalman, i. viii. 10). 
 
 rate the new and eternal day of God. 
 As ἀνατολή (the dawn = maz) 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, Afol. 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 toilérs 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 ATIOKAAY¥VIZ IQANNOY XXII. 
 s Goes Ls. ee t ahaa ee τὸ ὦ, 
 
 Christ (i. 0 TPWTOS και ὁ ETXATOS, 
 
 17, ii. 8). 
 
 t Cf. Jos. ἡ τἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. 
 nt. viii. 
 
 τι, 2, 4ῤ. 12. ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ, 
 
 11: 22; why ; See ees 
 
 Philo: de kat 6 “μισθός μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, 
 
 Ss 5 > a 
 
 620 (of Y ἀποδοῦναι ” ἑκάστῳ ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ. 
 L Lol 
 
 Peay τῇ. καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν, ““Ἔρχου ᾿᾽" 
 wa καὶ *6 ἀκούων εἰπάτω, ““Ἔρχου "᾿. 
 
 MRE καὶ 6 7 διψῶν ἐρχέσθω, 
 
 haga ὃ "θέλων λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν. 
 (Gfrorer, 
 
 i. 285 f.). 
 
 u xi. 18, Isa. {τὺ a , , Ἶ 
 xl. Io, TELAS TOU βιβλίου τούτου 
 
 Sap. v.15, 
 2 Pet. ii. 
 
 [18. Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφη- 
 
 ἐάν τις " ἐπιτιθῇ ἐπ᾽ αὐτά, 
 
 18, cf. ἐπιθήσει 6 θεὸς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν Tas ἢ πληγὰς τὰς yeypap- 
 
 Clem. 
 Rom. 
 XXXiv. 
 
 v Rom. ii. 
 5-6. 
 
 w Cf. i. 7 
 (πᾶς ὀφθ.). 
 
 31.23, etc. ἥ 
 
 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. 
 
 19. καὶ ἐάν ἀέελῃ ἀπὸ 
 
 Ver. 13 gathers up the double thought 
 of 16 and of τῶ. As the Christian ἔργα 
 (ii. 2, 5, 19, 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 a 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.—kal 6 ἀκούων 
 k.T.X., a liturgical note, like Mark xiii. 14 
 (cf. Weinel, 84, 85).—Kal ὁ διψῶν «.7.A., 
 
 μένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ 
 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 O.T. 
 (cf. Jos. Ant. xx. II. 2, τοσούτου yap 
 αἰῶνος ἤδη παρῳχηκότος οὔτε προσθεῖ- 
 ναί τις οὔτε ἀφελεῖν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν οὔτε μετα- 
 
13—21 
 
 ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου 
 τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως 
 τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμ- 
 ένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.] 
 20. Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα "“’ Ναὶ - ἔρχομαι ταχύ ".. 
 
 ᾿ ἀμήν - ἔρχου, κύριε Ἰησοῦ. 
 
 21. ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ μετὰ πάντων. 
 
 third time (7, 12): “ Most assuredly, I am coming speedily”. 
 
 AIIOKAAY¥IZ IQANNOY 
 
 493 
 
 ἃ 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. 
 
 10m. Pr.—Of the variants for παντων upev (vg., Aeth.), either πάντων των αγιων 
 (Ὁ, min., Me., Syr., S., Arm., And., Areth., Bs.) or preferably παντων (A, am., 
 Lach., Ti., Diist., Ws.) seems more original than tev αγιων (δ, gig., Tr., Al., Sim- 
 cox, WH, Bj., J. Weiss, Sw.): for a textual discussion see Nestle’s Einfiihrung, 
 125f. (E. Tr., 157 f.) and Hastings’ ἢ. B., iv. 733.—After Inoov, Χριστου is added 
 by Ὁ, min., vg., gig., Syr., Arm., Aeth., Andr. 
 
 θεῖναι τετόλμηκεν). They are adapted 
 from Enoch civ. τὸ 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. H. E. v. 20), 
 and Rufin. pref. to Origen’s περὶ ἀρχῶν 
 (cf. Nestle’s Einfithrung, 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 ἢ, 
 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; Vv; 
 
 The prayer of ver. 17 is answered in 
 ver. 20, which repeats the assurance of 
 the messiah’s speedy advent. This pap- 
 tupta ᾿Ιησοῦ, in the prophetic conscious- 
 ness (xix. το), 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, bit 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 “Ἢ 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.). Ἔρχου, 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, 2936). 
 
 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 
 
 AITOKAAY¥IZ IQANNOY 
 
 public reading, and were indeed designed 
 for that end. They were not to be re- 
 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 LN GREAT BRITAIN BY 
 THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
᾿ ᾽ Te σὰς 
 CP PML Dl ΠΣ 
 re 4 Loe 
 ἣΣ my δ γγ 
 
 i ; ᾿ " 
 
 
 
᾿ ἢ iv Ι zi wat 
 ᾿ a 7 
 " ar Ae 1} 
 ee) 
 
 
 
eat 35 teary 
 a ᾿ 
 
 κὰν 
 
 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 ic 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 [ 
 Φ 
 z 
 ie) 
 Ww 
 F 
 z 
 ce 
 a 
 Q 
 [4 
 ο 
 - 
 » 
 « 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TM 
 
 ' ¥ 
 
 ee en ei an 
 ‘ ᾿ ; 
 
 ’ 
 
 
 
Sp φϑφύψος Pree ® sa 7 
 OE vHevopt τ Ἐν λψαηέψτ οῳνφννα at ate sips κε, . 
 > » ν " Φ. nt σφε ἢ 
 ν᾿ > ee ee 
 ἜΝ “ it See Ὁ 
 es per ee Φθι ὄσνοος 
 enue ies jar ἐφ ντ 
 
 ‘ 
 ene οἱ 
 * τ ας om 
 
 ἀῴ τῶτν pte oe