24.
Ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς λοιποῖς τοῖς ἐν Θυατείροις, ὅσοι οὐκ ἔχουσι τὴν διδαχὴν ταύτην, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰ Ίβαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ὡς λέγουσιν, "Od βάλλω ef ὑμᾶς ἄλλο βάρος: 25. πλὴν ὃ ἔχετε
q 1 Cor. ii. ro. r Cf. 1 John ν. 3.
the immature orthodox called immorality. Devil-study, or even devil-worship (xiii. 4 is quite different) was not uncommon in some of the Gnostic sects throughout Asia Minor, e.g., the Cainites, the Naas- senes, and the Ophites (the earliest Gnostics, φάσκοντες µόνοι τὰ βάθη γινώσκειν, Hipp. adv. Haer. ν. 6). The idea was that as the principle of evil would ultimately be redeemed, it might be used meantime for the advantage of the initiated. Compare Mansel’s Gnostic Heresies. pp. 73, 96, 105. In En. Ixv. 6 the unrighteous are punished for their acquaintance with ‘all the secrets of the angels and all the violence of the Satans and all their hidden power and all the power of those that practise sorcery, and the power of witchcraft.” The influence of a movement like Gnosticism, whose motto was eritis sicut deus scientes bonum et mdlum, gave wide opportunities to immorality, in its more popular applica- tions. It produced the same sort of union between subtlety and sensualism which can sometimes be traced within Hindu- ism. In contrast to this unwholesome temper of speculation, the prophet substi- tutes for speculative flights the obedience of the normal Christian praxis (cf. Parad. Lost, viii. 170-197, xii. 561-589), with a plain allusion to the Jerusalem concordat of the early church which is recommended tacitly as a safe, wise rule of conduct. In the case of the βαθέα τοῦ σατανᾶ, ignorance is bliss. John is totally un- sympathetic to the local liberals. He does not combat the theoretical prin- ciples at the root of their movement. Like the prophets who wrote Jude and 2 Peter, he attacks instead of arguing, quite content to judge it by its moral fruits of libertinism. He bitterly declares that such occasional results are the deliberate object of the party. The strange collocation of this error with the habit of partaking of sacrificial food is probably due to the prophet’s stern con- viction that the latter, with its friendly and liberal attitude to pagan customs, fostered the former, in the case of people who took an ultra-spiritual view of Paul’s principle of Christian freedom.