Ver. 7. These boons (3-7), however, are reserved for the loyal; the third (son
4—8. ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 481 ταῦτα, καὶ ΄ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ Beds, ” καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται µοι vids. 8. τοῖς z2Sam. vii ο A ή 145,25 δὲ "δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἐβδελυγμένοις καὶ ” φονεῦσι καὶ πόρνοις — Ixxxix Ν a Nien gee ‘ A a b , 9 26-27, καὶ Φαρμακαῖς καὶ "εἰδωλολάτραις καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς "ψευδέσι, τὸ Zech. μα ae 2 a / awd , \ . , sates vill. 8, 2 µέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνη TH “καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ Oeiw, °O ἐστιν Cor. vi. ς 18. ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος. a Heb. x 38-39 b 1x. 21
xxii. 15, 1 Pet. iv. 15, Jas. v. 6. Rom.i. 29, Mk. vii. 21 = Mt. xv. 19.
d 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. «Anpo- νοµήσει (here only in Apoc.) in general sense = ‘‘ enter into possession of,”’ 6 par- takevor 7. (* (his place” of Ῥπαα ες 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 ili. 9, το, 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 evAdBera’”’ (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).—amlorous not =incredulous (so ε.σ., Dittenberger’s Sylloge, 802°", 3 cent. B.c.) but, as in Luke xii. 46 (cf. Sir. ii. 12 f.), =‘ faith-
e xx. 14; constr. Win, § 24. 80.
less,’”’ untrustworthy, those who are not πιστός (i. 5, ii. 1ο, 13, 2 Ti. ii. 13). All δειλοί are ἄπιστοι (cf. Introd. § 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- vous for βδελυκτοῖς (45 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.—dappaxots = ‘* poisoners”’ or ‘‘ sorcerers ”’ (xxii. 15), cf. Dan. ii. 27 LXX, and above on ix. 21, where (as here and in Gal. ν. 21) witch- craft or magic is bracketed with idolatry. Idolaters, in Apoc. Pet. 18, have a special place πλείστου πυρὸς γέμων. Wevdéo.v=“‘ 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. g, cf. Apoc. xiv. 5); further perhaps to be taken in its general ethical sense (Slav. En. xlii. 13; cf. Did. ν. 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).