nd,
generally, of those who keep the words of this revelation. For these
reasons in the following remarks I take _vv._ 10 and 11 as spoken by
Jesus Christ.

The words addressed by the speaker to John are (_vv._ 10, 11): "Seal
not the sayings of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.
He who is unrighteous, let him commit injustice still; and he who is
filthy, let him be filthy still; and he who is righteous, let him do
righteousness still; and he who is holy, let him be holy still. Lo, I
come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each as his work
is." This passage has been interpreted as meaning that in the world to
come the conditions of the righteous and the wicked are irrevocably
fixed.

I would rather say, having regard to the precise opposition of the
clauses of which it is composed, that the passage declares that in the
end unrighteousness and filthiness are irrevocably separate from their
opposites righteousness and holiness; and to account for the terms in
which this statement is made, it may suffice to refer to the principle
that according to the concrete, or objective, teaching of the
Apocalypse, holiness and filthiness would not be spoken of
abstractedly, that is, apart from holy and _filthy_ persons, and in
like manner righteousness and unrighteousness would not be mentioned
apart from their necessary {117} antecedents, _personal_ righteous and
unrighteous _deeds_. The expressions "commit injustice" and "do
righteousness," which do not occur in the English version, are exact
renderings of the Greek.

Another passage which, as bearing on our argument, requires to be taken
into account, is _v._ 15 of the same chapter, which asserts that
"without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and
idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie." This is
expressing in concrete language, such as is constantly employed in
Scripture, that there is no unrighteousness in the city of God. Such
language, being concerned only with _objective_ realities, cannot
express a _negation_, and, consequently, cannot assert that
unrighteousness is _not_ within the city. Hence it is not possible,
except by means of such terms as those actually employed, to express
concretely that the city of God is free from all unrighteousness. By
comparing Rev. xxi. 8 with the interpretation here given of Rev. xxii.
15, it will be seen that the exclusion from the city of God of all
things sinful