Ver. 5. πόθεν, from what a height. Contrast Cic, ad Attic. iv. 17: ‘nom
3---6.
351
, ἔργα ‘moincov: εἰ δὲ py, ἔρχομαί “oor καὶ | κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν ΚΙ. 16, iii. 3. Ε
σου ἐκ τοῦ }
tecordor unde ceciderim, sed unde re- surrexerim”. To realise that a decline has taken place, or to admit a lapse, is the first step and stimulus to amendment (see the fine passage in Bunyan’s pre- face to Grace Abounding, and the κ Hymn of the Soul,” 44, 45, in Acts of Thomas). Once this is brought home to the mind (µνηµόνενε, a prolonged effort), repentance quick and sharp (µετανόησον, aor.) will follow, issuing in a return to the first level of excellence (καὶ τὰ πρῶτα ἔργα ποίησον), i.e., to the initial charity (2 John 6, 8; love shown in deeds). The way to regain this warmth of affection is neither by working up spasmodic emotion nor by theorising about it (Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 4), but by doing its duties. (“The two paracletes of man are repentance and good works,” Sanhed. 32). Itis taken for granted that man possesses the power of turning and returning; the relation of Christ’s redeeming death to the forgive- ness of sins throughout the Christian life, although implied, is never explicitly argued (as in Hebrews) by this writer. The present (€px.) emphasises the nearness of the approach, while the future (κιν.) denotes a result to follow from it. σοι either a dat. incommodi or (more probably) a local dat. (rare in clas- sical literature, cf. Aesch. Pr. V. 360) with ‘the sense of motion to a place” (Simcox, Lang. N. T. 81), if not an in-
correct reproduction of Heb. J> (as
Matt. xxi. 5, Blass). Cf. fourn. Theol. St. iii. 516. Kwyow κ.τ.λ., (“ efficiam ut ecclesia esse desinas,” Areth.) ; not degradation but destruction is the threat, brotherly love being the articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae. So, ina remark- able parallel from Paul (Phil. ii. 14-16), quarrelsomeness forfeits the privileges of Christ’s care and service, since the func- tion of being φωστῆρες ἐν κόσµῳ, λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες depends upon concord and charity in the church (πάντα ποιεῖτε χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν καὶ διαλογισμῶν). A slackened senseof the obligation to mutual love formed the cardinal sin at Ephesus; to repent of this was the condition of continued existence as a church; utility or extinction is the alternative held out to her. The nature of the visitation is left unexplained; the threat is vague, but probably eschatological. The Apo- calypse, however, knows nothing of the
τόπου αὐτῆς, ἐαν μὴ µετανοήσῃς.
Pe Τ 6. ᾽Αλλὰ τοῦτο phrase see vi. 14.
Jewish idea that Israel’s repentance would bring the advent of messiah (cf. Schtirer’s Hist. Il. ii. 163, 164), as though the transgressions of the people hindered his appearance.
Ver. 6. The message ends with a tardy echo of 2 b. The prophet admits that one redeeming feature in the church is the detestation of the N. Not all the spirit of animosity at Ephesus is amiss. When directed, as moral antipathy, against these detestable Nikolaitans (cor- responding to the Greek quality of µισοπονηρία), it is a healthy feature of their Christian consciousness. The Nikolaitans have been identified by patristic tradition, from Irenzeus down- wards, with the followers of the proselyte Nikolaos (Acts vi. 5, where see note), who is alleged, especially by Tertullian and Epiphanius, to have lapsed into anti- nomian license, as the result of an over- strained asceticism, and to have given his name to a sect which practised religious sensuality in the days before Cerinthus. The tenets of the latter are in fact de- clared by Irenzus to have been antici- pated by the Nicolaitans, who represented the spirit of libertinism which, like the opposite extreme of legalism at an earlier period, threatened the church’s moral health. But if the comment of Vict. were reliable, that the N. principle was merely ut delibatum exorcizaretur et manducari posset et ut quicumque fornicatus esset octauo die pacem ac- ciperet, the representation of John would become vigorously polemical rather than historically accurate. The tradition of the N.’s origin may of course be simply due to the play of later imagination upon the present narrative taken with the isolated reference to Nikolaos in Acts vi. 6. On the other hand it was not in the interest of later tradition to propagate ideas derogatory to the character of an apostolic Christian; indeed, as early as Clem. Alex. (Strom. ii. 20, iii. 4; of. Constit. Ap. vi. 8), a disposition (shared by Vict.) to clear his character is evident.’ Whatever was the precise relation of the sect to Nikolaos, whether some tenet of his was exploited immorally or whether he was himself a dangerously lax teacher, there is no reason to doubt the original connexion of the party with him. Its accommodating principles are luminously indicated by the comment of Hippolytus