8—10.
a Ain , ἐτηβησάς µου τὸν λόγον, καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω τὸ ὄνομά µου. ν ral > “a a A a ο
διδῶ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τοῦ " Σατανᾶ, τῶν λεγόντων 3 , A
Ιουδαίους εἶναι, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ ψεύδονται" ἰδοὺ «ποιήσω
> ‘ χο a A a“ lal αὐτοὺς “iva Ἠξουσι καὶ 7 προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον τῶν ToS@v σου,
‘ καὶ γνῶσιν 1 ὅτι ἐγὼ " ἠγάπησά σε.
τα iv. 35, V. 42, etc., ἵνα =infin. of conseq. as ix. 20, xiii. 13. Ζ John xi. 36, cf. Ps. Ixii. 8, Zech, viii, 20 f., John xvii. 23. See on xxi. 9.
Dan. xii. 5.
1For γνωσιν ACPQ, etc., Syr., Arm., Aeth., Andr., Areth.
1Ο. Ὅτι ἐτήρησας τὸν "λόγον
367
9. ἰδοὺ ¥ Irreg. form,W Ἡ 174, Deissm. 192.
W ll. 9, = ““hypo- crites,” Did. viii. Xe
x Constr.
y Isa. xlix. 23, xlv. 14, Ix. 14.
ai.g, cf. Sir. ii. 14,
c a εαυτους
(edd.), the variant
γνωση(Ν, 14, Sah., Pr.) is preferred by Wellh. (cf. ii. 23 and Isa. xlix. 23).
Acts xv. 17)in N.T. In Enoch (xxxviii. 2, and passim) to deny the Lord of Spirits is the capital crime,’.as opposed to “‘ be- lieving in his name .
Ver. 9. διδῶ ἐκ (partit. gen., the con- struction being dropped and resumed in a rather harsh anacolouthon, ἵνα κ.τ.λ.). The absence of ἐκ before Ney. does not prevent it from being interpreted as in apposition to συναγωγῆς rather than as directly dependent on 886. On the forms of 8i8wp. in Apocalypse see Jannaris’ Hist. Gk. Gramm. 906, 51; the wide usage of the verb is carried on through the LXX from the equally extended employment of the Hebrew equivalent in the later stages of O.T. literature. The Jewish synagogue is denounced as Satanic, owing to its per- secuting habits (Satan being regarded as the final source of persecution as of error, cf. above ver. 8 and on ii. 9). Ignatius corroborates the malign acti- vity of Jews at Philadelphia, who were in the habit of molesting the church (ad Philad. 6); he also refers them to the malicious cunning of Satan. Appa- rently Judaizing tendencies were rife among Christians of Gentile birth at Philadelphia. As in writing to Smyrna, the prophet thereforeclaimed the ancestral title ‘‘Jew” for the Christian church. Faith in Christ, not mere nationality, constituted true Judaism; the succession had passed to Christianity. The promin- ence assigned to this phase of polemic is characteristic of the eriod, though already presaged by Paul (in Rom. ix. 6-7, ii. 28, 29). The supercilious con- tempt of these churchmen for all Chris- tian dissenters from Judaism was to be changed one day into humble respect. The former would find out their grievous mistake when it was too late. καὶ προσ- κυνήσουσιν, κ.τ.λ., in the spirit and realistic language of post-exilic Judaism (see reff.), denoting abject submission and
homage before the glory of the church in the future messianic reign (slightly other- wise in I Cor. xiv. 25). What they fondly expected from the Gentiles, they were themselves to render to Christians—such would be the grim irony of providence. Compare with what follows, the earlier expectation of Jub. i. 25: ‘‘and they shall all be called children of the living God, and every angel and spirit will know, yea they will know that these are my children, and that I love them”. καὶ γνῶσιν, κ.τ.λ., still Isaianic in col- ouring (from xliii. 4, xlix. 23). Christ’s love to his church (wy. =‘‘ I have loved ”’) will be proved by her triumphant survival of perils. Her final position, when the conditions of earth are reversed, will throw light upon the divine affection which underlay her previous persever- ance, and which meantime is a secret save to those who experience it. The promise of dominion over the Jews here corresponds to that of authority over the Gentiles in ii. 26, 27, except that the latter is definitely eschatological. The Jews tardily awaken to the privileges of the church as to the claims of Jesus (see on i. 7). Probably they scoffed at the claim of the Philadelphian Christians to be objects of the true God’s love. The answer is that faith in Jesus means a revelation of Divine love (the revelation of it), apart from which no Christian life can be accounted for.