Ver. 7. A reminiscence and adaptation of Dan. vii. 13 (Theod.) and Zech. xii. 10-14. The substitution of ἐξεκέγτησαν (so John xix. 37, Justin’s Afol. i. 52, Dial. xxxii., cf. \xi., cxviii., adding eis) for κατωρχ- ήσαντο (LXX mistranslation in this
passage, though not elsewhere, of 1121)
—shows that the original text was used (though Liicke and Ewald hold that ἐξ. was the LXX reading till Origen), and that it was interpreted in some (Johannine? Abbott, Diatessarica, 1259-1262, 2317) circles as a prophecy of the crucifixion. Only, the reference is no longer to repent- ance (Zech.), but, by a turn of character- istic severity, to remorse and judgment. There is a remarkable parallel in Matt. xxiv. 30, where patristic tradition (cf. A. C. 233-36) early recognised in τὸ σημεῖον τ. ὑ. a. the cross itself, made visible on the day of judgment. The first of the three signs preceding Christ’s advent in the clouds, acc. to Did. xvi. 6 (cf. Zech. ii. 13 LXX), is σημεῖον ἐκπετά-
goo
ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν “ev τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ: 6. καὶ ἐποίησεν Hpdss v.9, 1 Pet.
~
540
b Ge Riedel (Seukke 1991,
205 {.). The patristic
reference of this verse to Jesus is defended by Abbott,
d Isa. xliv. 6, Amos iv. 13; except (Cit.) 2 Cor. vi.
17 f., in connection with retribution ; Charkeaile Dan. vii. 2, Ex. xii. 3, 4 Esd. 11. 42, etc.
σεως ἐν οὐρανῷ (Christ with outstretched arms, as crucified 2); and, acc. to Barn. vii. 9, ‘they shall see him on that day wearing about his flesh τὸν ποδήρη κόκκινον’.. Note (a) that the agreement with John xix. 37 is mainly verbal; the latter alludes to the crucifixion, this pas- sage to an eschatological crisis. (6) No such visible or victorious return of Christ is fulfilled in the Apocalypse, for visions like xiv. τά f., xix. 12 f., do not adequately correspond to i. 7, xxii. 12, etc. (c) No punishment of the Jews occurs at Christ’s return, for the vengeance of xix. 13 f. falls on pagans, while xi. 13 lies on an- other plane. καὶ, κ.τ.λ.: the monoto- nous collocation of clauses (Vit. i. 9-16) throughout the Apocalypse with καί, is not necessarily a Hebraism ; the syntax of Aristotle (e.g., cf. Thumb, 129), betrays a similar usage. καὶ ott. κ.τ.λ., Selected as a special class (καὶ τότε µετανοήσονυσιν, ὅτε οὐδὲν ὠφελήσουσι, Justin). The re- sponsibility of the Jews, as opposed to the Romans, for the judicial murder of Jesus is prominent in the Christian litera- ture of the period (Luke-Acts, cf. von Dobschiitz in Texte u. Unters. xi. I, pp. 61, 62), though the Apoc. is superior to passages like 2 Clem. xvii. πᾶσαι «.T.A.=the unbelieving pagans, who are still impenitent when surprised by the Lord’s descent (ἐπὶ--'' because of,” cf. xviii. 9 in diff. sense); a realistic state- ment of what is spiritually put in John xvi. 8, 9.—This forms an original element in the early Christian apologetic. To the Jewish taunt, “‘ Jesus is not messiah but a false claimant: he died,” the reply was, “ He will return in visible messianic authority ” (Mark xiv. 62 = Matt. xxvi. 64, significant change in Luke xxii. 69). In several circles this future was conceived not as areturn of Jesus, nor in connexion with his historical appearance, but as the first real manifestation of the true messi- anic character which he had gained at the resurrection (cf. Titius, 31, 32). See on xii. 4 f. val, ἁμήν: a double (Gk. Heb.) ratification of the previous oracle.
Ver. 8. Only here and in xxi. 5 f. is God introduced as the speaker, in the