Who Rides the Beast?: Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse

Who Rides the Beast? This page intentionally left blank Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of ...

Author: Paul B. Duff

26 downloads 469 Views 10MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Who Rides the Beast?

This page intentionally left blank

Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse

Paul B. Duff

OXJORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

2001

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

Copyright © 2001 by Paul B. Duff Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Duff, Paul Brooks, 1952Who rides the beast? : prophetic rivalry and the rhetoric of crisis in the churches of the apocalypse / Paul B. Duff p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBNO-19-513835-X 1. Bible. NT. Revelation—Socio-rhetorical criticism. I. Title. BS2825.2 .D792000 228'.06—dc21 00-025179

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

E\)%apicrc(B TCQ Geco ôv eni Ttdari rfi (a,veia t)|j.rov For Ann, Justin, Andy, and Sally


Preface

I began my investigation of the book of Revelation only relatively recently. I had started my professional career as a Pauline scholar and so I arrived at the doorstep of the Apocalypse in a rather roundabout way. Perhaps my greatest motivation for studying this work arose from the sense of ignorance that I experienced whenever I turned to it in my introductory courses. Somehow, I felt that this was a document that I could not "get a handle on." The fact that undergraduate students have typically shown great interest in the work further exacerbated my sense of distance from the text. They always wanted to talk about it, whereas I rarely did. Ultimately I decided that I had no choice but to look further into the work. In a sense then, I began studying the Apocalypse out of self-defense. I am very glad that I did. In the course of my time with this piece of literature, I have come to realize that it is not only a work of great rhetorical power but also a work of stark and sometimes chilling beauty. It portrays, on the one hand, a world gone terribly awry. On the other hand, it also offers the hope of a cosmos made whole. The breadth of the vision offers a depiction of humanity both at its best and worst. Perhaps it is this that makes the Apocalypse such a fascinating topic of study. Many people have helped me on this project. I would like to thank the members of the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar on Reading the Apocalypse who warmly welcomed me, a newcomer to their field, into their community of learning. They critiqued earlier versions of several of the chapters with great care and enthusiasm. I would especially

viii

Preface

like to thank David L. Barr, who chaired the seminar. I am also indebted to the members of the Colloquium on Violence and Religion, particularly Diana Culbertson and James G. Williams, who heard and commented on an earlier version of chapter 9. Other colleagues who assisted me in various ways include Jeffrey Carlson, Carolyn Dexter, Joseph Hallman, Alf Hiltebeitel, Margaret Mitchell, Richard Rosengarten, Dewey Wallace, and Harry Yeide. Ann Osborn offered valuable stylistic suggestions along the way. Heather Kauffman, Denise Mix, and Shiri Weinbaum helped me with the preparation of the manuscript. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the George Washington University for a summer grant that enabled me to begin research on this book. Most of the biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version. I have sometimes used my own translations, though, for the sake for clarity or in order to make a particular point. Classical quotations are from the Loeb Classical Library translations. Translations of the church fathers are from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1950).

Contents

Abbreviations

xi

1.

Was There a Crisis behind Revelation? An Introduction to the Problem 3

2.

Setting the Stage: Urban Christianity in Western Asia Minor 17

3.

The Issues: Evidence from the Letters to the Seven Churches 31

4.

The Actors: People and Parties behind the Book of Revelation 48

5.

Wealth, Commerce, and the Merchant Class

6.

The Rhetoric of Innuendo: Opposition, Equivalence, and Indirect Accusation 71

7.

The Women of Revelation: Binding "Jezebel" to "Babylon" 83

8.

The Out-of-Control Female: John's Use of Gender Stereotypes 97

9.

True and False Prophets: Binding "Jezebel" to the Beast from the Earth 113

10.

Conclusion: The Rhetoric of Exclusion Notes

135

Bibliography

169

Index of Biblical Passages Index of Subjects

181

111

126

61


Abbreviations

'Abod. Zar ABD ANRW Arist. Eth. Me. Arist. Gen. An. Arist. Pol. Arist. Rh. [Arist.J Rh. Al. Ascen. Is. Ath. BAG

BDF

BTB CBQ [Cic.] Ad. Her. Cic. Att. Cic. Cluent.

'Abodah Zarah Anchor Bible Dictionary Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea Aristotle, De Generations Animalium Aristotle, Politica Aristotle, Rhetorica [Aritotle], Rhetorica ad Alexandrum Ascension of Isaiah Athenaeus Walter Bauer, William Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) Friedrich Blass, Albert Debruner, and Robert Walter Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) Biblical Theology Bulletin Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Cicero], Ad Herennium Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum Cicero, Pro Cluentio xi

xii

Abbreviations Cic. Fam. Cic. Inv. Rhet. Cic. Off. Cic. Paradox. Stoic. CIL Clem. Al. Paed. Did. Dig. Dio. Cass. Ed.Diod. Bus. Hist. Eccl. HDR Hes. Op. Hes. Theog. Hippol. Haer. HNTC Horn. //. Hor. Sat. HTS HUT ICC IDE

1C Ign. Phld. Ign. Pol. ILS Iren. Adv. Haer. JBL Jer. Adv. Jov. Jos. AJ Jos. BJ JR JRS JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup Jub. Luc. Peregr. LXX NovTSup

Cicero, Epistulae adfamiliares Cicero, De Inventions Rhetorica Cicero, De Officiis Cicero, Paradoxa Stoicorum Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus Didache Digesta Dio Cassius Edict of Diocletian Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica Harvard Dissertations in Religion Hesiod, Opera et Dies Hesiod, Theogonia Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium Harper's New Testament Commentaries Homer, Iliad Horace, Satirae Harvard Theological Studies Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie International Critical Commentary Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. and supplementary volume, ed. George Buttrick and Keith Grim (New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1962-76) Inscriptions Graecae Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols. ed. Hermann Dessau (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892-1916) Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses Journal of Biblical Literature Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae Josephus, Bellum Judaicum Journal of Religion Journal of Roman Studies JSNT Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOT Supplement Series Jubilees Lucian, De Morte Peregrini Septuagint Version Novum Testamentum, Supplements

Abbreviations

NTS Philo Vit. Mas. Philo Spec. Leg. Philostrat, VA Pliny Ep. Pliny NH POxy. Plut. Ant. Plut. Coning. Praec. Plut. Demetr. Plut. De Is. et Os. Plut. Suav. Viv. Epic.

New Testament Studies Philo, De Vita Moses Philo, De Spetialibus Legibus Philostratus, Vita Apollonii Pliny the Younger, Epistulae Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia Oxyrhynchus Papyri Plutarch, Antony Plutarch, Coniugalia Praecepta Plutarch, Demetrius Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride Plutarch, Non Posse Suaviter Vivi Secundum Epicurum Plut. Quest. Con. Plutarch, Quaestionum Convivialium Tert. Praescr. Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum Quint. Inst. Quintilian, Instuitutio oratoria RB Revue biblique SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series SBT Studies in Biblical Theology Sen. Ben. Seneca, De Beneficiis Sen. Ep. Seneca, Epistulae Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Strab. Strabo Suet. lul. Suetonius, Divus lulius Suet. Ner. Suetonius, Nero Tac. Ann. Tacitus, Annals Tac. Hist. Tacitus, Historiae Test. Lev. Testament of Levi Test. Reub. Testament of Reuben Tert. De Praescr. Haeret. Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964-76) Xen. An. Xenophon, Anabasis Xen. Oec. Xenophon, Oeconomicus

xiii




1 Was There a Crisis behind Revelation? An Introduction to the Problem

The book of Revelation, in a series of powerful visions, presents the reader with a frightening narrative world in which the people of God are tormented, threatened, and sometimes killed by various agents of Satan.1 Throughout the work, the Apocalypse points to Rome as the predominant demonic agent. 2 The following vision (quoted in an abbreviated form) can serve as an example of one such scene: 17:1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great whore who is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the inhabitants of the earth have become drunk." 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; 5 and on her forehead was written a name, a mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth's abominations." 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. . . . And [the angel] said to me . . . 18 "The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."

In recent years, serious questions have been raised about the assumption that Rome persecuted Christians at the time the Apocalypse was written. Consequently, the relationship between the narrative world of 3

4


the book of Revelation and the real world in which Christians of the western Asian cities lived at the time has been called into question. In this chapter, I will examine briefly the traditional understanding of the Apocalypse and the academic tradition that grew out of it. I will then turn to the problems that have arisen with the traditional point of view in recent years, and I will look at several attempts to come to terms with these problems. Finally, building on these various theories, I will suggest a path that will lead to a historically responsible understanding of the circumstances behind the book of Revelation.

The Tradition According to the second-century church father Irenaeus, the book of Revelation was composed in the final years of Domitian's reign.3 About a century and a half after Irenaeus, the Christian historian Eusebius painted a portrait of Domitian as a tyrant so cruel and brutal in his persecution of Christians that he proved himself the true successor to Nero. 4 The tradition of the origin of the Apocalypse during Domitian's persecutions was taken for granted by subsequent Christian writers.5 As time passed, few found sufficient reason to doubt the tradition articulated by Eusebius. 6 Consequently, until recent times, most scholars interpreted the book of Revelation against the background of Domitianic persecution.7 The longstanding dominance of this portrait in academic circles is exemplified in the writings of the great historian William Ramsay. Ramsay, in the early years of the twentieth century, not only wrote about the so-called Flavian persecution (under Domitian) but went so far as to give us a behind-the-scenes look at Domitian's policy of persecution: [Domitian's persecution was] not a temporary flaming forth of cruelty; it was a steady uniform application of a deliberately chosen and unvarying policy, a policy arrived at after careful consideration, and settled for the permanent future conduct of the entire administration. It was to be independent of circumstances and the inclination of individuals. The Christians were to be annihilated, as the Druids had been. 8

What is truly startling about this and other such opinions is the fact that virtually no reliable external evidence supports them. 9 In the middle of the twentieth century this picture finally came under attack. Rigorous historical studies had by then shown that there was little or no substantial evidence for the belief that Domitian persecuted Christians for their religious beliefs. 10 Ultimately, New Testament scholars found themselves in an uncomfortable position. On the one hand, John's narrative—especially as regards persecution—is so strikingly vivid that it is hard to ignore. On the other hand, the findings of historians had to be taken into account. The famous English bishop John A. T. Robinson went so far as to intimate (tongue-in-cheek, of

Was There a Crisis behind Revelation?

5

course) that perhaps John was crazy and therefore we could dismiss his testimony.11 Short of that conclusion, though, scholars needed to reconcile the apparent tension between the history and the literature.

Some Attempts to Solve the Problem There have been various attempts to come to terms with the tension between the narrative and what we know of the history behind the text, some more imaginative than others. Although the survey in the next few pages is by no means exhaustive, it will serve to highlight the work of those who have, in one way or another, contributed to my thinking about a solution to the problem of the text's origin. Option One: Persecution Did Exist Even Though There Is No Evidence to Demonstrate It Some scholars have attempted to reduce the tension between the narrative world of the text and historical evidence by insisting that persecution was a problem, even if sufficient external evidence cannot be produced to prove it. In the introduction to a collection of essays published in 1985, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza 12 argued that the experience of persecution articulated in the book of Revelation should be taken seriously despite our lack of evidence for religious persecution at the time. 13 In fact, she argues that, given the perspective of ancient Roman historians, we should not expect to find any evidence. Schtissler Fiorenza draws a powerful analogy from twentieth-century American life to illustrate her point. One could argue from the point of view of well-to-do white Americans that no harassment, denigration, discrimination, or oppression of blacks existed at the time of Martin Luther King, Jr., although King was assassinated. The perspective of blacks would be quite different! Similarly, the author of [Revelation] has adopted the "perspective from below" and expressed the experiences of those who were powerless, poor, and in constant fear of denunciation. 14

Hence, according to Schiissler Fiorenza, the perspective of persecution presented by the text is just too strong to be ignored. 15 In a brief commentary on the Apocalypse published several years later (1991), Schiissler Fiorenza modified her position to some extent. In the later work—reflecting the scholarly debates of the late 1980s— she says, "Whether Revelation's theological world of vision was engendered by a situation of persecution and conflict or is the outcome of psychological resentment and of wishful projection by the author remains a debated question." 16 In addition, in this more recent publication, she tends to speak more in terms of "conflict" between Christians and the state rather than "full-fledged, legally sanctioned persecution."17

6


Schiissler Fiorenza's change of stance is symptomatic of recent scholarship on the Apocalypse. The majority of scholars are less and less inclined to point to full-fledged persecution as the impetus for the production of the book of Revelation. Option Two: The Book of Revelation Has Been Improperly Dated John A. T. Robinson, in the 1960s, tried to reconcile the apparent contradiction between external historical evidence and the persecution implied in the Apocalypse by suggesting an earlier date for the book of Revelation. He argued that the document was written not during the time of Domitian but in the years shortly following Nero's brutal assault on Christians in Rome (68-70 CE). I S Robinson buttressed his proposition with various elements, including some church traditions, some past voices in the academic tradition, and evidence from the text of Revelation itself. The advantage of Robinson's earlier date for the book of Revelation is obvious. By redating the text, he is able to overcome the apparent discrepancy between the picture of the Christian communities of Asia Minor implied in the text and the historical evidence. The background of persecution can be maintained by the suggestion that Christians living shortly after Nero's persecution would certainly have experienced the kind of trauma that John intimates in his work. Robinson begins his exposition by showing that not all early Christian traditions attributed the apocalypse to the time of Domitian. For example, one tradition (preserved in Tertullian and known to Jerome) 19 points to a Neronic date for John's banishment. Robinson also points to a tradition in Epiphanius, which certainly does not point to Domitian and might point to Nero.20 In addition, he cites several Syriac sources that suggest that the book of Revelation originated before Domitian's time. 21 In addition to church traditions, Robinson also appeals to earlier scholarly opinions, especially those of the nineteenth century; for instance, such distinguished biblical scholars as J. B. Lightfoot, B. F. Westcott, and F. J. A. Hort all favored a date between 68-70. Robinson also appeals to such noted twentieth-century classicists as A. Momigliano and B. W. Henderson. Finally, Robinson looks to the text of Revelation itself for support. His rather straightforward reading of 17:9-11 (the seven heads of the beast)—which he sees as suggesting a Neronic milieu for the Apocalypse—is most noteworthy, especially in light of the fact that 17:9-11 has caused severe problems for those who favor a Domitianic date for the Apocalypse.22 Robinson's argument has failed to convince many scholars, nevertheless it was revisited some thirty years later by J. Christian Wilson. In a series of papers and articles, Wilson once again suggested a pre-70 CE date for the book.23


7

In his magisterial three-volume commentary on the book of Revelation, David Aune has also weighed in on the question of redating the Apocalypse,24 suggesting that it was written in two different editions. The first edition (which consisted, for the most part, of the book of Revelation minus the letters of chapters 2 and 3) was produced by the author around 70 CE and articulated the trauma experienced by the author following the disastrous Roman-Jewish war (66-73 CE). The second edition was probably turned out in the last decade of the first century (or perhaps as late as the end of Trajan's reign in 117 CE). Aune argues that there are substantial stylistic and theological differences between the two editions. Option Three: The Community Perceived Great Hostility against Itself In an important work published in 1984, Adela Yarbro Collins tried to reconcile a Domitianic date for the Apocalypse while, at the same time, acknowledging the lack of persuasive historical evidence for persecution by that emperor. She maintains that John, when he alludes to persecution, does not, for the most part, refer to past persecutions. Rather, he anticipates future Roman action against the church. Hence the text of the Apocalypse does not depict history but portrays a vision of the future. 25 Despite the fact that she does not see persecution as the catalyst for the document, Yarbro Collins, like most other scholars, assumes the existence of some kind of trauma behind the work. But on the basis of her reading of the text, she concludes that the crisis that precipitated the writing of John's Apocalypse was a not an objectively observable crisis; instead it was a perceived crisis. The lack of supporting evidence for a Domitianic persecution has led at least one interpreter [i.e., Robinson] to revive the theory of an earlier date. Most interpreters seem to assume that the occasion of the book must have been an objectively intense and extensive crisis of which the author had personal experience. This axiom can be questioned from the perspective of recent psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies. Relative, not absolute or objective, deprivation is a common precondition of millenarian movements. In other words, the crucial element is not so much whether one is actually oppressed as whether one feels oppressed. 26

Yarbro Collins is certainly correct in her assumption that relative rather than absolute deprivation is the precondition for apocalyptic movements. Christians only had to feel oppressed in their communities. She contends that the cumulative weight of various past and present elements all contributed to the author's perception of a crisis situation. These elements include (1) the ostracism of the Christian communities by neighboring Jews and Gentiles, (2) poverty, (3) the social instability of Asia Minor, and (4) the lingering trauma resulting from both Nero's

8


persecution of Christians and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Yarbro Collins assumes that John's apocalypse, by clarifying the Christian society's heretofore unfocused anxiety, could provide some psychological aid to the community by projecting the perceived threat from Rome onto a "cosmic screen." Such a projection, she argues, "is cathartic in the sense that it clarifies and objectifies the conflict. Fearful feelings are vented by the very act of expressing them, especially in this larger-than-life and exaggerated way."27 In short, Yarbro Collins suggests that the author did not depict an objective portrait of the relations between Rome (or Greco-Roman society) and the churches; rather, he distorted the picture in order to provide a focus for the communities' fears. The very act of focusing them could provide some relief from the cumulative trauma the communities had experienced.

Option Four: There Was No Crisis, Perceived or Otherwise Leonard Thompson, in his 1990 work The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, proposed another solution. Thompson, unlike virtually everyone before him, argues that no crisis lay beneath John's apocalypse, not even a perceived crisis.28 He even goes so far as to dismiss the traditional view that John was banished to Patmos for his Christian preaching activities.29 Thompson contends that Christians were not singled out for harassment or persecution by civic or imperial authorities. He also suggests that the alleged pressures on Christians resulting from the imperial cult have been grossly overstated and that the picture of Domitian that history has preserved is by no means a fair or balanced portrait. Most important and in direct contrast to Yarbro Collins, Thompson further argues that the communities of the Apocalypse likely lived in harmony with their neighbors. We can rule out any portrait of Asian Christians as a beleaguered, oppressed minority living as separatists in an isolated ghetto. Christians, for the most part, lived alongside their non-Christian neighbors, sharing peacefully in urban Asian life. There is not even much evidence in the Book of Revelation itself for persistent hostilities towards Christians by Roman officials or non-Christian neighbors. At the same time John is unequivocal in his negative attitude toward Asian society and the empire. This negative attitude is expressed through topics commonplace to the apocalyptic genre such as conflict, crisis, assurances of hope, and exhortations to steadfastness. As generic topoi they do not necessarily indicate anything about the circumstances in which the Book of Revelation arose. They are not, therefore appropriate clues to the social location of the Book of Revelation in the empire. 30

Thompson's conclusions concerning late-first-century Christians in urban Asia are striking. Just as earlier scholars have shown that no un-


9

equivocal evidence exists for persecution, Thompson suggests that there is no compelling reason to believe that Christians were singled out and harassed by their non-Christian neighbors. What then gave rise to the negative portrayal of Rome and GrecoRoman society in Revelation? Thompson argues that the book of Revelation represents the received knowledge or the "mythology" of a "cognitive minority" (i.e., a subculture with a different set of values from the larger society). This received knowledge (drawn from apocalyptic Judaism) was defiantly set against the "mythology" of the larger culture (the "cognitive majority"). 31 Hence, according to Thompson, suggestions of harassment and persecution in the book of Revelation appear because they are part and parcel of the genre "apocalypse." The seer used that genre, according to Thompson, to aid his communities in the "'laborious adjustment' by ... which humans adapt to their environment." 32 Thompson maintained that the seer could be best described as a kind of critic of the public order. As such, he "can be compared to philosophical aristocrats and to magicians, diviners, astrologers, and prophets who disturbed the public mind through private transmission of values and ideals that went against the order of the empire."33 In order to bolster his proposal, Thompson downplays what virtually all scholars have seen as dualism in Revelation. "If there was irreconcilable contradiction among religious, social, biological, and cultural dimensions of Christian existence, the seer would be affirming that at its most fundamental level of reality there is an eternal, fixed metaphysical dualism. Such a view is antithetical to John's." 34 Rather, he argues, [an] examination of the seer's vision of the world suggests that it does not contain fundamental conflicts. One element or dimension of the vision is not pitted against another; and terms such as conflict, tension, and crisis do not characterize his vision. . . . At all levels, signifiers, signifieds, deep structures, and surface structures form homologies, not contradictory oppositions. 35

As I understand his work, Thompson has argued that the absence of any kind of absolute dualism within Revelation would suggest to us that Revelation is not crisis literature. In crisis literature, we should expect a contradiction between "what ought to be" (or in apocalyptic terms, "what will be") and "what is." The boundaries in the book of Revelation, on the contrary, are not hard and fast but porous and soft. That which is central to Revelation, Thompson contends, is the theme not of opposition but of transformation. Thus, what he sees as the nondualistic world of Revelation (where transformation takes the place of that which is usually read as opposition) suggests to Thompson that the text resulted not from a crisis or even a perceived crisis within the communities. Instead, we should read

10


it as a kind of definitive mythological "charter" or map for late-firstcentury Asia Minor Christians. Option Five: The Crisis Resulted from Conflict within the Church In his recent book The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John, Robert Royalty suggested that the only crisis in the communities behind the book of Revelation lay within the churches. In his words, "the actual conflict that precipitated the 'crisis of the Apocalpypse' was not conflict with the Romans or the Jews. Rather, it was conflict within the Christian churches over the authority of John and his circle of prophets against the authority of other Christian teachers, apostles, and prophets."36 Royalty goes on to suggest that John wrote the book of Revelation to amplify the sense of crisis within the churches. He intended to enhance his own authority by intensifying the tension within the churches. Royalty is not the first to suggest that the "crisis" within the church was an internal one.37 Nevertheless, he has explored this line of inquiry more thoroughly than any previous scholar. Throughout his work, Royalty focuses on the language and ideology of wealth found throughout the Apocalypse. According to his analysis of the document, John appeals to a significant portion of those in the churches; specifically those concerned with their economic and social status.38 Royalty asserts that John portrays God and Christ as wealthy patrons of the Christian communities who could provide those communities with more status and power than could Caesar or Rome. John, according to Royalty, tells his communities that the wealth of Rome—characterized as low-status wealth because it derives from commerce—could not compete with the high-status wealth available to the Christian community in the New Jerusalem. Royalty's book draws on a number of important methodological sources. First, it is readily apparent that Yarbro Collins's work has strongly influenced his thinking. Second, he has drawn on the expanding field of early Christian social history.39 By focusing on the interplay of the social and economic aspects of the Apocalypse, he has helped to open a new line of inquiry into the communities behind the book of Revelation. Third, he has taken advantage of the burgeoning interest in the study of New Testament rhetoric. Ultimately, he sees the book of Revelation as a rhetorical document intended to persuade the churches to abandon their worldview and accept his. Strengths and Weaknesses of Recent Scholarship What is remarkable about all of these opinions, in their great diversity, is the fact that they each have something valuable to offer. Elements from each of the positions need to be taken seriously, even though, in my opinion, none of the arguments can stand on its own.


11

For instance, Schiissler Fiorenza reminds us that any rigorous theory about the situation behind the book of Revelation needs to take into account the experience articulated in Revelation. Despite what we may (or may not) find in external evidence, the experience articulated in the text suggests serious tension if not conflict of some kind. Nevertheless, as I will show later (and as Schiissler Fiorenza herself points out in her more recent work), a careful look at the early chapters of the Apocalypse does not necessarily point to persecution or harassment as the cause of the crisis. The positions of Robinson and Wilson are also important despite the ultimate failings of their scenario. I do not believe that their suggestion of a pre-70 date for the Apocalypse can be maintained in the face of the book of Revelation's internal evidence. For instance, within the book there are a number of elements that suggest a later date. These include the author's knowledge of Jerusalem's destruction40 and his familiarity with a legend that arose after Nero's death (68 CE)—a legend that narrated Nero's triumphant return to Rome at the head of the Parthian armies.41 Unfortunately, because Robinson and Wilson's suggestion for a pre-70 date for the Apocalypse has such serious problems, all of their points are frequently rejected out of hand by most scholars. Their work, nevertheless, stands as a reminder that we should not assume a Domitianic date for Revelation simply because we cannot come up with a better one. We must constantly keep in mind that the evidence for the Domitianic date is, as one scholar has put it, "far from overwhelming."42 Instead it is far more prudent to postulate a time somewhere in the last several decades of the first century. 43 Aune's solution to the problem of dating, if credible, would brilliantly solve many of the problems raised in dating the document. Since some portions of the Apocalypse recommend a date from around the time of Nero—as Wilson and Robinson point out—and others could fit a later date, Aune satisfies both by positing two separate editions. Unlike earlier intricate attempts to break down the document into its earlier components, the simplicity of Aune's suggestion also recommends it. Nevertheless, as I will show, many passages in the "first edition" as identified by Aune show the same concerns that dominate the letters of chapters 2 and 3, Aune's "second edition." Consequently, Aune's theory, unless it is altered somewhat, does not provide the panacea he might have hoped for. Yarbro Collins's work is extremely important because she attempts to face, without equivocation, the contradictory scenarios presented by the text and by recent historical research. Nevertheless, her suggestions are not without their problems. For instance, if there was no objective "crisis" such as persecution, was there a specific catalyst for Revelation or did the author just decide to sit down and write it? If there was a catalyst, should we not label that some kind of "crisis" and try to identify it, if possible?

12


In addition, her position rests on assumptions that have not been thoroughly examined. These include her assumption of (1) significant external harassment of John's communities by neighboring Jews and pagans, (2) precarious relations between Roman officials and Christians, and (3) a lingering trauma resulting from the persecutions of Nero in the sixties and the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70. A third problem with Yarbro Collins's position has to do with cathartic intentions that she attributes to the author of Revelation. She maintains that "his purpose was to create tension [between what was and what ought to have been] for readers unaware of it, to heighten it for those who felt it already, and then to overcome it in an act of literary imagination."44 Here Yarbro Collins has made a very astute suggestion—that the seer created (or heightened) anxiety in his readership— and I will return to this idea. Nevertheless, her proposal that the reason that John created (or even heightened) terror was ultimately to alleviate it strikes me as unlikely. Nonetheless, the strength of Yarbro Collins's position remains despite any objections to the details that I might make. Her proposal that the crisis might be a perceived crisis rather than an objectively observable event and that the perceived crisis might have been exaggerated by John is a provocative idea that deserves further attention. I will build on this suggestion later. Thompson's examination of the historical background of the book of Revelation has certainly forced scholars to rethink their assumptions about the circumstances from which the text arose. In my view, his most important contribution to the study of the Apocalypse is his suggestion that Christians in the communities of the Apocalypse lived in relative harmony with their neighbors. He has shown that many of the assumptions that scholars have made about persecution, the obligations to the emperor cult, or even informal harassment of Christians have little, if any, historical credence. But, although he has tried to pull the rug out from under Yarbro Collins and her perceived crisis theory, nevertheless, ultimately he has not succeeded. Although Thompson argues that there was no real "crisis" behind the book of Revelation, he does—in a very roundabout way—come back to the notion of community crisis. [SJocial location as cognitive minority is itself a powerful cause for distress, for encouraging steadfastness in the faith, and for comforting the faithful. I suppose that one could describe a cognitive minority as perpetually in a state of crisis because of its social/cognitive location. If so, it should be noted that the crisis stems from deviant knowledge, rather than vice-versa; that is, because of the character of revealed knowledge, those committed to that knowledge are located socially in a cognitive minority, and, therefore, in crisis.45

Hence, according to Thompson, there was a "crisis," but deviant knowledge was its sole cause. Extreme ill will by a minority toward the


13

majority, Thompson argues, can arise simply because the majority refuses to believe the "knowledge" of the minority. So at the same time that he argues that there is no crisis underlying the Apocalypse, Thompson is also forced to admit that the cognitive minority of Christians in Asia Minor might perceive a crisis between itself and the cognitive majority. As a result, I think Thompson's model is much closer to Yarbro Collins's than he might like to admit.46 There are other problems with Thompson's perspective. For instance, regarding his view that there is no absolute dualism in the book of Revelation, it should be pointed out that virtually no Jewish or Christian Apocalypse maintains an absolute dualism. 47 Furthermore, the doubles found throughout Revelation, which Thompson claims are "split images of some more fundamental wholeness," are, in fact, usually ironic doubles. Hence, instead of attenuating any potential opposition between the figures as Thompson suggests, the text—by employing irony—reinforces it. I explore this idea in more detail later. Perhaps, however, the most important problem with Thompson's model is the fact that he pays too little attention to the factionalism that underlies the Apocalypse. John's bitter antipathy toward Rome is only matched (and perhaps even surpassed) by his enmity toward "Jezebel" and her followers. Royalty, on the other hand, sees factionalism as the major determinant in the production of the Apocalypse. In this regard, he has significantly advanced the study of this work. Likewise his focus on social, economic, and rhetorical issues points us toward a productive avenue of exploration to further determine the situation behind the document. Despite all of this, his conclusions are unconvincing. Royalty suggests that John's audience would be swayed by the argument that God and Christ offer them high-status wealth (the heavenly Jerusalem) that is better than the low-status wealth offered them by Rome, a nation of merchants (a low-status occupation). But, as I will argue later, John's audience—or at least a substantial portion of them—are themselves striving for the "low status wealth" of merchants.48 Who does Royalty think that John is trying to sway? If it is the merchants, it is hard to believe that John would be naive enough to think that they would be swayed by a "pie-in-the-sky" promise of "high-status" wealth in the future when money from commerce is within their grasp. If, on the other hand, John is trying to convince those not involved in commerce, I also find it hard to believe that this argument would persuade them. From their perspective, at the bottom of the economic ladder, even the "lowclass" status of merchant wealth would represent a significant increase in their own status in society. Such people would hardly look down their noses at the "low-class" wealth of commerce. In sum, although these scholars have all made significant and valiant attempts to address the situation behind the book of Revelation in light of our current understanding of the historical evidence, none has

14


been fully successful. Yarbro Collins, Thompson, and Royalty have each succeeded in persuading us to look for something other than a crisis of persecution to explain the circumstances behind the book of Revelation. However, none has provided a fully adequate alternative explanation for the text's creation.

An Alternate Suggestion Although perhaps it is unwise to speak of a "crisis" lying behind the Apocalypse of John, it seems reasonable, on the basis of the evidence found in the book of Revelation and the preceding discussion, to assume that some kind of disturbance or conflict functioned as the catalyst for the book of Revelation. However, if we eliminate persecution (as many have suggested) and serious external harassment (as Thompson and Royalty recommend), we are left with the perplexing question: What was the specific issue to which John reacted? When we turn to the letters to the seven churches found in chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation, one particularly interesting fact emerges: virtually all of the issues raised by the seer in these letters are internal issues.49 The focus on internal matters in the letters is frequently overlooked because of the blatant anti-Roman polemic of the visions section (chs. 4-21). 50 But it is a fact to which we need to pay particular attention. Scholars can (and certainly will) continue to argue over the Domitianic dating of the book of Revelation. They will also undoubtedly persist in debating whether or not Domitian persecuted Christians. I suggest that, to a great extent, such arguments are beside the point. More important than the information that we could gain from answering either or both of these questions is the information that the texts of the letters (Revelation 2 and 3) themselves provide. And, as I will show in detail, the letters suggest that the focus of the book of Revelation lay on events inside the communities. If we couple this fact with recent advances in our understanding of the social world of early Christianity, as well as the social dynamics of groups in conflict, a very different picture of the situation behind the Apocalypse begins to emerge. In the remainder of this book, I will argue (to some extent along with Royalty) that the "crisis" facing the communities of the Apocalypse can be more accurately defined as a social conflict within the churches. This conflict was as much tied up with social position and economic mobility as with theological difference. One faction in the church (associated with the Christian prophet whom John names "Jezebel") took a more liberal stance toward the larger pagan society than did John and his followers. The popularity of this faction's view not only threatened John's worldview but also provided a significant challenge to his authority within the churches. In response to this conflict, John arranged the book of Revelation rhetorically so as to convince his readers that the church was in crisis. From John's perspective, this con-


15

flict represented a distinct threat both to the integrity of the church and to his own leadership. This study is divided into ten chapters. The second chapter begins with a social survey of the Roman city. In the second part of the chapter, I will show how early Christianity fits into that social world. I argue that following Paul's time, many Christians advanced both economically and socially within the larger pagan society. Not all Christians advanced, however, and some advanced more slowly than others. I further suggest that the increased economic stratification that resulted gave rise to tension within the communities that resembled the friction that appeared in the socially and economically stratified Corinthian church of Paul's time. The third chapter examines the evidence from the letters to the seven churches (found in chapters 2 and 3 of the book of Revelation). These letters give us a window (albeit a clouded one) into the life of the churches at John's time, and they give us our only source of information about the people and parties in the communities. Curiously, all of these letters deal almost exclusively with internal Christian issues. They provide no reliable evidence of pressure on the churches originating outside of the community. A common structure (with some variation) underlies the seven letters to the churches, and the variations in the structure of the letters enable them to be classified into different types. These types correspond to different situations in the churches to which the letters are addressed. For the purposes of this study, the letters to three churches stand out—Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira—and indicate, among other things, that these three churches are internally split. These churches represent the focal point of John's attention. In chapter 4, I examine the various people and parties mentioned or implied in the letters, with specific attention to those in the churches that are split into factions. I argue that the accusations made by John against rivals in the three factionalized churches point to activities that have social and economic ramifications. John exaggerates the accusations in order to strengthen the argument against his major (and probably only) rival "Jezebel." Evidence in the letters suggests that John's rhetorical efforts are directed not at the core following of "Jezebel" but that he lobbies the moderates in the churches, a group I call the invisible majority. Chapter 5 focuses more closely on the economic background of the dispute. Wealth is an issue that looms large in the Apocalypse, and it typically appears in a negative context. Despite this, John's overall attitude toward wealth is ambiguous. We see, for instance, that the seer does not argue against wealth per se. Nor does he mount a social justice argument, condemning Rome for unfairly exploiting her subjects economically. Instead, he argues primarily against commercial activity, suggesting that participation in the commerce of the empire ultimately supports Satan. Oddly enough, though, he does not directly condemn merchants. Since it is likely that many in the invisible majority are

16


themselves involved in commerce, he is unwilling to take a chance on alienating them. In chapters 6 through 9,1 examine John's rhetorical strategy of indirect accusation, what we can also call the rhetoric of innuendo. John had little substantive ammunition to use against his rival "Jezebel"; there is evidence that the communities tolerated her and her followers. As a result, John resorted to a less direct approach, indirectly accusing his rival. In chapter 6,1 explore the indirect rhetorical techniques of homology and irony that John employs throughout the Apocalypse to construct his dualistic narrative world. In chapter 7, I demonstrate how John, using these techniques, effectively binds his rival "Jezebel" to the evil character "Babylon" and contrasts her with the positive female figures (the unnamed woman "clothed with the sun" and "Jerusalem"). By doing this, John can attack and condemn "Babylon" ("Jezebel's" double) for crimes similar to those that he has previously accused "Jezebel" of committing. This strategy provides cover for John and effectively allows him to accuse "Jezebel" without doing so directly. Chapter 8 continues the investigation begun in chapter 7. In this chapter, I examine how John uses gender stereotypes in order to denigrate his opponent, tying her alleged "crimes" to the behavior of the cliched out-of-control female. The actions for which the seer condemns "Jezebel" concern food and sex. As I will show, in the Mediterranean world at John's time, women—according to the stereotype—were thought unable to control their appetites, particularly with regard to these two activities. Chapter 9, on the other hand, looks at the connections the author makes between his rival and another character in the Apocalypse, the Beast from the Earth (Rev. 13:11-18), a character John also identifies as the False Prophet in the later chapters of the text. By making these connections, John sets up a subtle yet significant contrast between himself, the true prophet of God, and his rival "Jezebel," the paradigmatic false prophet. In the final chapter, I briefly examine the viability of John's rhetorical strategy. Although some may find it difficult to imagine that John's strategy would have any chance of success in gaining adherents to his point of view, comparisons with some of the recent propaganda strategies in the Balkans indicate that strategies such as his can be quite successful. Finally, I try to make some judgments about the results of John's rhetorical tactics. Although we have no clear-cut evidence of the results of the disputes in the churches, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch allow us to make an educated guess. Ultimately, I suggest that John's rhetoric contributed to the demise of anything resembling mainstream Christianity in several of the Asian communities.

2 Setting the Stage Urban Christianity in Western Asia Minor

The origins of Christianity in the western cities of Asia Minor are obscure. Although we know that Christians lived in this area by Paul's time, it is likely that they were there even earlier.' Acts tells us that when Paul arrived at Ephesus, he found "disciples" (naGtyrcd). 19:2 [Paul] said to them, Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?" They replied, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3 Then he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They answered, "Into John's Baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied—7 altogether there were about twelve of them.

The fact that Luke calls the group "disciples" and "believers" in this passage tells us that he considered these predecessors of Paul in Ephesus to be bona fide Christians. The added detail that they were ignorant of a baptism other than John's prevents them from upstaging Paul, Luke's hero in the book of Acts. Unfortunately, virtually all of our first-century evidence about Christianity in western Asia Minor is sketchy and indirect. We have only the name of a community here or an individual there. 2 Does this mean that we have nothing against which to set the communities of the Apocalypse? Fortunately, because of other material, found both in17

18


side and outside the canon, we can reconstruct a picture of late-firstcentury Christianity in the region from which the Apocalypse originated. It is important to note that virtually all of our sources tell us that first-century Christianity in western Asia was an urban phenomena. As such, it took place against a previously established urban society. In this chapter, I will first look at the social world in which urban Christianity eventually took root and then at Christianity against that larger social background. This will make it possible to contextualize the information from the book of Revelation in the chapters that follow.

The Social World of the Eastern Roman Empire In the urban world of the first century, as in our contemporary urban society, wealth and status were bound together. Generally speaking, the more wealth one had, the more status one enjoyed. This was not an absolute rule, however, for the Greco-Roman status system was two tiered.3 It was virtually impossible for the self-made individual from the lower tier to break into the upper social ranks of the empire, regardless of the amount of wealth such a person had accumulated. The well-loved American saga of the individual born in poverty, self-educated, and finally achieving the presidency would have sounded strange indeed to first-century ears. Probably an accurate rule of thumb for that time would go something like: old money is better than new money, but of course new money is better than no money. The two tiers of Roman society were made up of the following two groups, the honestiores and the humiliores.4 For my purposes, it is sufficient to describe the honestiores as the landed gentry (or the "nobility") of the society, whereas the humiliores would constitute the working class of the empire. In western Asia Minor, the honestiores consisted of respected individuals from the old, moneyed families of Asia or the descendants of early Latin colonists.

Honestiores: The Orders The honestiores more or less corresponded to what was known as the orders of the empire, social groups strictly defined by the state. 5 The first group, the senatorial order, consisted of senators and their families as well as their descendants to the third generation.6 There was a property requirement that demanded each be worth of at least one million sesterces. Besides wealth, senators were expected to be high-born, of excellent moral character, and, of course, Roman citizens. Since the size of the senate was about six hundred, and since the population of the empire can be estimated at approximately fifty million, the senatorial

Setting the Stage

19

order comprised no more than a few thousandths of one percent of the population of the empire. Equestrians constituted the second order of the empire. Dio Cassius (52.19.4) tells us that they needed the same qualities as senators but to a somewhat lesser degree. Equestrians had to be of reputable birth (neither their parents nor grandparents could have been born in slavery), they had to be Roman citizens, and they had to possess a personal wealth of at least four hundred thousand sesterces. Although there were many more equestrians than senators, this order still made up no more than one tenth of one percent of the population of the empire. The third and lowest rank of the orders, the curial order, consisted, for the most part, of local government officials known as decurions. Although there were a number of requirements to qualify, including an age requirement and a property requirement, there was considerable flexibility in the application of these regulations. The age requirement of twenty-five was often waived, for instance, so that minors from wealthy families could serve. The property requirement seemed to vary from city to city, but it was considerably less than that required of equestrians. 7 Decurions were usually recruited from the leisure class. In some smaller towns and villages, this was not always possible. Depending on the size of the pool from which they could be recruited, the social and economic level of the various decurions could be quite diverse.8 Certain restrictions, however, could not be waived. For instance, freedpersons could not serve, nor could those of less respectable employment, such as undertakers. 9 But merchants or traders (negotiatores) could do in a pinch (see Dig. 50.2.12). In fact, in the smaller and younger cities merchants might, by necessity, make up the majority of the curial order.10 Despite their small numbers, the honestiores, or "nobility," of the empire controlled a great deal of its wealth. 11 There was one cardinal rule for honestiores: Do not work! In Cicero's words, opifices omnes in sordita arts versantur, "all workers are engaged in sordid professions" (Off. 1.42). Labor was only performed by those who were not respectable.12 The upper crust came by its wealth in other ways. Typically, members of the aristocracy owned vast tracts of land that provided them with lavish incomes. Pliny the Younger, for instance, was the son of a landowner in Comum, Italy, who only considered himself moderately wealthy.13 He was worth approximately twenty million sesterces, virtually all of it the result of income derived from land holdings.

Humiliores: Those Who Worked for a Living Among the majority of the empire's inhabitants, those who worked for a living, there was a great disparity of wealth. Some were astonishingly wealthy, whereas others dwelt in absolute poverty. In order to get some

20


sense of these working peoples' lives, we need to conceive of a great range of professions. Besides those in the orders who inherited money or made their living off vast land holdings, there were also those who accumulated a great deal of wealth from manufacturing and commercial enterprises.14 Although such folks could be worth as much (if not more) than those in the orders, they were not accorded the status and respect that attended the aristocracy. While successful capitalists could try to buy their way into the higher echelons of society, in most quarters, a wealthy merchant's or manufacturer's reputation would always remain tarnished by the stain of having once labored for a living.15 At times, though, a grudging respect was accorded to these successful capitalists.16 The early third century CE lawyer Callistratus, for instance, recommends that merchants not be dismissed as viles personae since they were not categorically excluded from the orders (Dig. 50.2. 12).17 However, lest we get the wrong idea, he later recommends that it is "unbecoming" (inhonestum) for such persons to be received into the decurionate in cities where there was an adequate supply of viri honesti (\. e., those who did not work for a living). Only where there were insufficient numbers of "honest men" should merchants have access to the council. There were a great number of commercial and manufacturing professions represented throughout the urban areas of western Asia Minor. Trading owed its existence to the great port cities of the coast (like Ephesus and Smyrna) and the road system that ran throughout western Asia.18 In addition, epigraphic and literary evidence of the area informs us that quite a number of manufacturing professions depended on the wool industry. For instance, in Thyatira and other parts of Lydia, there were wool-dealers, wool-workers, wool-washers, dyers, purple-dyers, fullers, makers of one-piece garments, and tapestry-makers. 19 Besides wool, other cloth was manufactured and worked in the cities of western Asia Minor. We know, for example of linen-workers in Thyatira, 20 tow-workers in Smyrna, and hemp-workers in Ephesus. The elder Pliny talks about Sardis in connection with its dyeing industry (NH 7.196), 21 and Athenaeus speaks of the "smooth-piled tapestries" of the same city (12.514c). Before the coming of Rome, the Pergamemes developed the technique of interweaving gold thread into cloth, and this industry continued in Pergamum during Roman times.22 Finally, the Edict of Diocletian mentions both woolen and linen garments named after the city of Laodicea (Ed. Diocl. 19; 20.3, 4, 13; 22.f 6-26; 26-28)." Several cities of western Asia Minor were also renowned for their leather work and for their work in precious metals. Pergamum was a notable center of leather-working. Since that city was credited with the invention of parchment (Pliny, NH 13.70), the product came to be known as Pergamena.24 Homer insists that the best workers of leather were from "Y5ri (i. e., Sardis), demonstrating the great age of the leather

Setting the Stage

21

industry in the area. 25 From inscriptional evidence, we have also learned of leather-working guilds in Thyatira, Ephesus, and Philadelphia.26 Although Phoenicia was the most important center for the manufacture of precious metal products, Asia Minor workers also excelled at this craft and exported their products throughout the Roman world. Inscriptions tell of gold and silversmiths at Smyrna. 27 And, of course, Acts informs us of a significant number of silversmiths in Ephesus in the late first century (Acts 19:24-41). Besides these craftspersons who exported their work from the cities of western Asia, obviously there had to have been many who produced products for their own cities and towns. These craftspersons can be lumped together with the small-time merchants who inhabited the ancient city. For instance, each town must have had scores of bakers and grocers of various sorts as well as wine dealers. Although by no means complete, a sample list of such workers drawn up by Ramsay MacMullen includes sailors, pilots, bargees, divers, longshoremen, caulkers, shipwrights, cordwainers; joiners, inlayers, ebonists, cabinetmakers, sawyers, millhands, coopers, carpenters; mosaicists, fresco-painters, floor-layers, plasterers; cleaners, weavers, dyers, clothiers, ragpickers, bag-makers, tailors, felterers; tanners, cobblers, bootmakers, hosiers; farriers, bronze-, silver-, gold, iron-, and nail-smiths; dancers, tragedians, comedians, singers, flutists, harpists, choristers and many, many other specialists quite untranslatably named according to what they did for a living.28

Besides merchants and craftspersons, the cities of western Asia Minor produced a substantial number of professionals such as physicians, lawyers, and academics.29 The Museum at Ephesus, for instance, produced physicians, as did the Asclepium in Pergamum. A medical school in Smyrna (perhaps attached to the Museum or perhaps connected with the temple of Asclepius) also turned out physicians.30 These three cities also attracted and produced many famous teachers, including some notable sophists.31 Furthermore, ancient records mention lawyers (at Smyrna, Sardis and Thyatira), entertainers, performers (in Ephesus, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Thyatira, and Pergamum), and architects (at Pergamum). 32 The Life of a Worker What was the life of a merchant, tradesperson, or professional like? How difficult was it for such individuals to support themselves and their families? Before we try to answer that question, we need to recognize that merchants, craftspersons, and professionals could fit virtually anywhere in the economic and social spectrum. A highly successful merchant, for instance, could live a life that easily rivaled those of the orders even though he could never attain their social status. On the other hand, a neighborhood vendor or craftsperson might make no more

22


than an unskilled laborer. What about someone who fit in between these extremes, the "average" craftsperson, for instance? Information from the papyri can give us some insight into the life of a first-century skilled laborer. A series of first-century papyri tell us about a certain weaver named Tryphon from the Egyptian town of Oxyrhynchus. 33 These papyri relate, among other things, that Tryphon began weaving—probably full-time—before he reached the age of fourteen. 34 He probably learned his profession at home from his father, and he himself passed it to his own son (who began his career at around the same age). Tryphon's wife, Saraeus, also worked, probably out of necessity (POxy. 37). Although he was by no means rich, Tryphon and his family were able to accumulate a bit of capital, for in 54 CE he bought a new loom—costing twenty silver drachmae (equivalent to eighty sesterces; POxy. 264)—probably for his son Apion. The next year he bought one-half of a three-storied house from his mother's cousin for 426 silver drachmae (1,708 sesterces; POxy. 99). If Tryphon represents a typical case, it would seem that skilled laborers or craftspersons could make a living that was relatively comfortable. They could—with the help of family members—feed and clothe their families and even, as in the case of Tryphon, provide better than adequate shelter for them. 35 But there were many in the cities whose lot did not match that of the weaver Trypho. There were many families that would never be able to afford even a modest home. Such folk typically lived in insulae, which were comparable to modern tenements. These insulae were usually jammed together in order to maximize space.36 The poet Martial sarcastically writes about his own room on one such block of crowded insulae in Rome: "Novius is my neighbor and can be touched by hand from my windows. Who would not envy me and think me happy as the day is long, when I can enjoy my chum at such close quarters?" (1.86) In the insulae, the lower stories had large rooms that served wealthier tenants, whereas rooms in the higher stories were less spacious. The top stories were divided into tiny rooms, often no more than ten meters square. Each room was usually occupied by three or more people, so that the tenants could afford the high (sometimes astronomical) rent that the landlords in the large cities demanded. 37 As bad as the conditions of the insulae might have been, there were many of the poor who could not afford even these lodgings. These, as in our time, lived on the streets.38 Slaves and Freedpersons One other class of people needs to be considered here: slaves, as well as former slaves, or "freedpersons." Slavery was a widespread phenomenon throughout the Roman world, and its impact can hardly be imagined by those living in our times. Based on a passage in Galen (5.49), it

Setting the Stage

23

has been estimated that there were as many as forty thousand slaves in the city of Pergamum alone.39 Nevertheless, besides noting its ubiquitous presence in GrecoRoman society, few statements can be made unequivocally about slavery in the Roman Empire.40 This is because the phenomenon displayed extraordinary variety. On one end of the spectrum were slaves who worked in mines (usually gold and silver) and whose life expectancy was consequently very short (see Strabo 12.3.40). On the other end were the domestic slaves of the very wealthy and the imperial slaves, some of whom were able to accumulate money of their own and even hold their own slaves.41 Domestic slavery existed on a huge scale in the empire; in fact, it is possible that this type of slavery accounted for the majority of slaves in this period.42 Cooking, cleaning, waiting at table, or watching the children of one's master occupied the domestic slave's time. Slaves in a wellto-do household could live decent lives and possibly even buy their own freedom eventually. On the other hand, many slaves belonged to members of the lower economic strata and, as a result, it is difficult to believe that their lives were anything but marginal. Imperial slaves, conversely, provide an entirely different picture of the institution of slavery. Imperial slaves often wielded great power, amassed considerable wealth, and, as noted, could even own slaves. An inscription from the reign of Tiberius tells us of an imperial slave named Musicus Scurranus who himself owned at least fifteen male slaves and one female slave (ILS 1514). Many slaves did not remain in bondage all of their lives, though. Some bought and some were given their freedom. These liberated slaves were known as libertini (freedpersons). To a great extent, a freedperson's status and economic position depended on the status of his or her former master. For instance, the freedperson of a Roman citizen would receive citizenship upon manumission, whereas the freedperson of a peregrinus ("resident alien") entered the free community with that status. 43 However, even though the status of a citizen libertinus might exceed that of a poor ingenuus ("freeborn person"), the latter still possessed a greater degree of actual liberty than the former, because the libertinus remained obliged to his or her former owner throughout the entirety of his or her life. The freed slave owed his or her former master both obsequium ("respect") 44 and operae (a set amount of labor to be performed each year). 45 Despite such hindrances, many freedpersons were quite successful upon manumission. According to Pliny the Elder (NH 33.134-35), C. Caecilius Isidorus, a freedperson who died in 8 BCE, left in his will 4,116 slaves, 3,600 yoke of oxen, 257,000 other cattle, and sixty million sesterces in cash. In addition, he requested that 1,100,000 sesterces be spent on his funeral. If this is not impressive enough, Pliny tells us that this particular individual had lost much of his fortune in the

24


civil wars!46 Although such was the exception rather than the rule, there is good evidence that quite a number of freedpersons amassed considerable fortunes during their lifetimes. 47 In the late first and early second centuries, freedpersons constituted the most economically upwardly mobile group of people in the empire. The reasons for this are not hard to imagine. Slaves were often well educated or schooled in a particular task that could be easily converted into a career upon manumission. Imperial slaves, who were really what we could call civil servants or bureaucrats, had a ready-made network to draw on when embarking on a business venture, and many had often accumulated a cache of cash while still enslaved. Nonetheless, as mentioned earlier, those freedpersons who did gain wealth did not usually gain status. It is difficult to imagine, for instance, that the wealthy freedperson mentioned by Pliny would have been able to socialize with any of his economic peers. Most people who had his kind of money would have been senators or equestrians. By and large, such "nobles" would have refused to associate with freedpersons (see Hor. Sat. 1.6); in fact, their financial success typically inspired resentment rather than respect among the aristocracy.48 Many Romans viewed libertini much as they viewed slaves, despite the fact that the status of the former had been legally changed. 49 Even though social respectability lay out of the reach of wealthy libertini, the successful freedperson could arrange things so that his or her children were accepted into polite society. A good example of such an arrangement can be seen in a Latin inscription from Pompeii (CIL 10.846) that tells of a child of six who was elected to the town council. The father was legally ineligible for the social position because he had once been a slave, but a bit of negotiating enabled him to have his young son elected to the decurionate. Such an arrangement benefited the town because it allowed the community to tap into the father's resources. At the same time, the father was able to buy his son the status that was denied to him.

The Social World of Early Christianity in Western Asia Minor Where did the early urban Christians fit into the larger society socially and economically? In recent years a number of studies have attempted to cull from Paul's letters (as well as Acts) information about the social location of the earliest Pauline churches. 50 Prior to these recent works, the conventional wisdom held that the earliest Christian communities were composed of individuals drawn from the lowest strata of society.51 Such an idea appears in the New Testament itself; for instance, 1 Corinthians 1:26 states, "for consider your call brothers; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were well-born."

Setting the Stage

25

Typically, readers of 1 Corinthians have understood this pericope to mean that virtually all early Christians were from the lowest social and economic ranks. However, the text itself—by saying that "not many" were wise, powerful, or well born—implies that some were. Recently, Wayne Meeks has suggested that the majority of Christians in the Pauline churches were at the social and economic level of what Mikhail Rostovtzeff called the petty bourgeoisie of the ancient world. Rostovtzeff defines this petty bourgeoisie as [t]he shopowners, the retail-traders, the money-changers, the artisans, the representatives of liberal professions, such as teachers, doctors, and the like . . . [as well as] the salaried clerks of the government and the minor municipal officers, a large and influential class, mostly slaves and [freedpersons] of the emperor—that is, of the state—and of the cities.52

Meeks points to several examples from Paul's letters that imply this economic level for the majority of Christians in Paul's communities. For instance, the apostle encourages those in Thessolonica each "to strive to lead a quiet life, to mind [one's] own business, and to work with [one's] own hands" (1 Thess. 4:11). This instruction suggests that Paul directs his comments to manual laborers ("working with [one's] own hands"), not unlike Paul himself. 53 In his first Corinthian missive, Paul suggests that each community member set aside, at the beginning of the week, whatever he or she can (1 Cor. 16:1-4). In the words of Meeks, "this bespeaks the economy of small people, not destitute, but not commanding capital either." 54 From these and other such examples it is reasonable to assume that the typical Christian community was made up primarily of artisans and tradespeople. But if artisans and tradespeople made up the majority of Christians in the first century, they were not the only Christians. 55 There were also those on the high and low ends of the economic spectrum. 56 But those on the high end of the spectrum typically carried what we might call a status liability.57 For instance, a wealthy Christian from an established family might be a single woman, as was probably the case with Phoebe, who appears in Romans 16.58 An extremely wealthy individual might be a freedperson like Erastus of Corinth (Rom. 16:23). 59 If, however, we concentrate on the typical Pauline Christian rather than the cases that lie at the extremes of the status scale, we find that [t]he "typical" [urban] Christian . . . the one who most often signals his presence in the letters by one or another small clue, is a free artisan or trader. Some even in those categories had houses, slaves, the ability to travel, and other signs of wealth. Some of the wealthy provided housing, meeting places, and other services for the individual Christians and for whole groups. 60

As already mentioned, though, most of the evidence for the studies done on the social world of the urban churches draw evidence from Paul's letters to Corinth, a city on the Greek peninsula. We would be

26


better off if we had some information from churches in western Asia, but unfortunately, specific evidence about first-century Christianity in that area is quite scarce, although it is not totally lacking. For instance, we at least get several names of Asian Christians from Paul's correspondence. The first is Epaenatus, who Paul describes as "the first convert in Asia for Christ" (Rom. 16:5). 61 Can we tell anything about this individual from his name alone? Meeks points out that "his name . . . suggests but does not prove servile origins."62 The other name identified with Asia is Luke. "Doctors were often slaves; we might speculate that Luke had been a medicus in some Roman familia, receiving the name of his master (Lucius, of which Luke is a hypocorism) on his manumission."63 Paul's letter to Philemon (probably addressed to the Asian city of Colossae) and the letter to the Colossians reveal a bit more helpful information about the social world of urban Asia Minor Christianity. Both letters tell of a certain Onesimus (Col. 4:9; Philem. 10), a slave who belonged to Philemon; the latter was clearly a leader of the church at Colossae. From the two letters we learn that Philemon was wealthy enough to own slaves and that he could afford a home large enough to accommodate the Colossian church. We also learn that his house had at least one guest room (Philem. 22).M So Philemon was probably at least as well off as the Egyptian weaver Tryphon. We also learn a bit about the social world of the Christian communities in Asia Minor from the Acts of the Apostles. The Christian convert Lydia, a native of Thyatira (Acts 16:11-15), 65 was a merchant of purple cloth and was obviously fairly well-to-do. Despite the fact that she was a resident of Philippi at the time of her conversion, it is likely that Lydia's business contacts in her home town would have been exploited to further the Christian mission there.66 And, of course, we can infer that Lydia's business associates in Thyatira would have been of the prosperous merchant class like she was.67 In short, what we see in the stories of Philemon and Lydia is what we might expect on the basis of what we know about Corinth. By the time of the Pastoral Epistles, the social world of Asian Christianity still bore some resemblance to the social world of Paul's time.68 For instance, the church still covered "the spectrum of urban social strata." 69 However, in the Pastoral Epistles we can begin to detect an upward shift in the economic (and probably social) composition of the urban churches. Although, as already shown, some wealthy individuals were members of the original Pauline churches, their numbers were small. The number of prosperous individuals in the Pastoral communities, on the other hand, appears to have increased significantly.70 Consider, for instance, 1 Timothy 6:17: "as for those in the present age who are rich, command them not to be haughty, or to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but rather on God who richly provides us with

Setting the Stage

27

everything for our enjoyment." The text of the same letter reads elsewhere, "I desire that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God" (2:8-10). The reference to those who are rich and the desire for nonextravagant dress articulated suggest that the churches of the Pastoral Epistles were peopled by more than a few well-off individuals. In an earlier time, the percentage of wealthy Christians who would have been able to adorn themselves with gold, pearls, and expensive clothing would probably have been quite small. By the time of the Pastoral Epistles, it seems to have grown considerably enough to provoke the concern of the leadership. Besides the wealthy, there were some (perhaps many) in the community who aspired to great wealth. In 1 Timothy 6, the author warns: 6:6 Of course, there is great gain in godliness combined with contentment; 7 for we brought nothing into the world, so that we can take nothing out of it; 8 but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. 9 But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.

Such warnings about haughtiness, ostentatious dress, and the dangers involved in the pursuit of wealth all suggest that a significant portion of the community had these things within its grasp.71 Who were these wealthy Christians? In all likelihood, these folks would have been the descendants of successful freedpersons. The economic rise of individual Christians from slavery to wealth and finally to social prominence in the second century typifies a pattern common throughout the Roman cities of the empire at that time. Tacitus, writing at the beginning of the second century, asserted that most equestrians and senators descended from families of freedpersons (Ann. 13.27). Was he accurately reporting the state of affairs of the empire at his time, or was he exaggerating the facts? In a well-known article from the earlier part of this century, Mary Gordon tested Tacitus's statement by investigating the names of the decurions of Italy.72 Of the names that are known, she found that between 15 and 33 percent suggest that those decurions were descended from slave families in the not-too-distant past. 73 Since many had obviously tried to cover up their lowly origins, the percentages cited by Gordon are obviously low (as she herself points out). 74 What we see in the churches of the Pastoral Epistles, then, is a pattern consistent with what we see in the larger society at the time. Slaves achieve their freedom. They then pursue careers in business and many amass considerable

28


wealth. The next generation is financially well off and socially more acceptable to the higher levels of the community, and the following generation even more so. Although Christians seemed to have made significant economic strides by the time of the Pastoral Epistles, not all Christians in the community of the Pastoral Epistles were necessarily well off. For instance, there are—as we would expect—references to slaves (1 Tim. 6:1, Titus 2:9-10). But the nature of these references, especially the latter, shows that the author has little understanding or concern for the position of the slave.75 So, despite the fact that there were still persons of lower economic strata in the community, it is evident that the Pastoral Epistles were written from the perspective of the top of the community's economic ladder. This conclusion is supported by the fact that there are no signs of freedpersons in the community.76 Obviously, this by itself does not mean that freedpersons no longer participated in the churches, but it does suggest that their presence was less significant than in earlier generations. The church of these letters was firmly in the hands of persons who were financially (and probably socially) well-to-do, the children or grandchildren of Christian freedpersons. Since Paul wrote in the middle of the first century, and the author of the Pastoral Epistles penned those documents in the early or middle second century, the Apocalypse falls roughly midway between those other writings. As a result, at the time of the Apocalypse, we can imagine a Christian population that was economically positioned somewhere between the populations of Paul's time and that of the Pastoral Epistles. Whereas Paul found no cause to warn his churches about the dangers of excessive wealth, extravagant living had become an issue by the time of the Pastoral Epistles. There are indications that wealth was a divisive issue in the churches of the Apocalypse. It is quite possible that traders and artisans (whether of servile or free birth) were accumulating significant amounts of wealth. Possibly, as a result of their social and economic aspirations, they were less interested in fellowship with those at the lower end of the economic scale. 77 If this were the case, it is easy to imagine that those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder could have become embittered toward and alienated from the more upwardly mobile members of the community. An interesting passage in Ignatius's letter to Polycarp may help shed some more light on the situation of the Apocalypse, since both documents were written in temporal and spatial proximity. In that letter, Ignatius advises: Do not despise slaves, male or female, but neither let them be puffed up; rather let them serve all the more to the glory of God, that they may attain a greater freedom from God; let them not desire to be set free out of the common fund, that they may not be found slaves of lust. (Ign. Pol. 4.3)

Setting the Stage

29

This passage indicates that there were still slaves in Ignatius's community and possibly freedpersons as well. Yet, the attitude exhibited in Ignatius's letter belongs to someone who has a status far above that of the slave. The fact that the bishop instructs Polycarp not to despise slaves suggests that this is a great temptation for those in the leadership of the Asian churches at his time. Here we can see how Ignatius attempts to lessen the tensions between the higher and lower strata of the Christian community. In his mediating attempts he is more disposed to the wealthy than the poor, for he ultimately strikes a patronizing stance toward the slave. Slaves should not only remain slaves, says Ignatius, they should act like slaves; they should not be "uppity" (dAlti (rnSe amen i>aioi)a6(Qaav).78 Do we see a similar set of community dynamics in the churches of the Apocalypse at John's time? Is this the reason for John's words of consolation to the poor and his admonitions to the wealthy? I will return to these questions in the next chapters.

Summary In this chapter we have briefly looked at the social world of the Roman Empire as well as the social world of early Christianity in the urban areas of the East, with particular attention to western Asia Minor. At the top of the social ladder in the empire were the honestiores, consisting of the senators, equestrians, and decurions. Beneath this group lay the working folk of the empire. Although the empire was rigidly stratified, it was possible to work one's way up over time (although it might have taken several generations). One could advance economically and one could also pave the way for one's children or grandchildren into the higher levels of society. This was an especially likely option for very successful merchants (or even craftsmen) many of whom were probably ex-slaves who had achieved manumission with a saleable skill or profession. First-century Christians were, for the most part, merchants and craftspersons, many of whom were probably ex-slaves. Paul's letters indicate that there were some, if not many, individuals who achieved considerable success (like Erastus of Corinth). By later times, as the Pastoral Epistles suggest, there were apparently many more of these well-off people. If the letters of Ignatius are any guide, by the turn of the century the leadership of the communities began to reflect the attitudes of the upper levels of Christian society. It is likely that the Asian churches at John's time witnessed a significant social and economic improvement of their members. Of course, there were many in the communities who did not share in this prosperity. The poor and the destitute still existed in the churches.79 Perhaps, in some cases, their poverty resulted from a determination to

30


resist assimilation into the larger culture at all costs. Perhaps, in others, poverty gave them a motive for resistance. It is not hard to imagine that economic stratification could have given rise to friction within the churches. It is significant to note that the religious issues the seer addresses in his Apocalypse are also tied to important social and economic issues within the communities.

3 The Issues Evidence from the Letters to the Seven Churches

Any study of the book of Revelation is severely limited by the fact that we know so little about the specifics of the author's situation. For instance, as discussed in chapter 1, we cannot confidently assign a date to the work with any precision and so we must content ourselves with a date somewhere in the last quarter of the first century. Furthermore, we are uncertain about the policies of the imperial and civic authorities toward Christians in the cities of Asia at the end of the first century. Although there is no hard and fast evidence of first-century persecution by any of the emperors following Nero, that does not totally exclude the possibility of such. Even if we knew for a fact that Rome directed no persecution, sporadic local persecution could have occurred. Consequently, the surest way of proceeding in this study is to look carefully at Revelation's internal evidence. The best place to look for this internal evidence is in the so-called letters to the seven churches in chapters 2 and 3.' These provide one of our clearest windows into the historical situation behind the communities. This chapter examines the structure and content of the seven letters to the Christian churches, first looking at the common framework underlying all of the letters and then categorizing each of them by type. A brief overview of the letters of each type will follow and will allow a determination—as accurate as possible—of the situation of each of the individual communities addressed.

31

32


Evidence from the Letters to the Seven Churches The Structure of the Letters The letters to the churches found in the book of Revelation are not actually letters per se but more closely resemble oracles or proclamations than Greco-Roman missives.2 This is especially apparent in light of the oracular formula (td5e êyev) found at the beginning of each of the seven documents. 3 Regardless of their precise genre, however, these "letters" give us our best picture of the situation of the various Christian communities. The seven letters show an overall similarity in structure. 4 However, within the confines of that similarity, some variations occur. The structural similarities in the letters, as well as the variations in detail, are illustrated in table 3.1.5 Not all of the components are found in every letter. In fact, only the letter to the church at Thyatira contains them all. Introductions. The introductions to each of the seven letters are virtually identical. Each has a fourfold organization that can be outlined as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Name of addressee: "To the angel of the church in . . . " Command to write: ypd\|/ov. Oracular formula: ra5e taiyet ("thus says"). Identification of the speaker (usually reflecting elements from the initial epiphany scene; 1:12-20).

Description of the Situation of the Community. After the introduction, each of the seven letters carries a brief description of the situation in the community (B: 2:2-3; 9; 13; 19; 3:lb; 8; 15,17). 6 All of these descriptions begin with the word ol5a ("I know"). Usually the formula is "I know your works" (ol8a id epya ooi)). However, in the letter to

Table 3.1. Components of the Letter Structure Found in the Seven Letters A B B(e) C D D(v) E F G

Introduction Description of the situation in the community Elaboration of the problems in the community Call for repentance Threat or Threat variation Exhortation and encouragement Traditional aphorism Eschatological promise

The Issues

33

Smyrna, we find the variant of the formula: "I know your tribulation and your poverty," and in the letter to Pergamum we find: "I know where you dwell." Elaboration on the Problems in the Community. In the letters to the churches at Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira, an elaboration of the specific problems of the churches (B[e]: 2:4; 2:14-15; 2:20) follows the initial description. The phrase dA,A,[a] e/ro Kcari oou ("But I have against you . . .") begins this section in all three of these letters. 7 In letters to other communities where John clearly perceives problems (Sardis and Laodicea), there is no elaboration on the problems; in these letters he is content to give a brief, albeit negative, judgment of the community. The letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia have no section elaborating the problems in these communities. This is not surprising in light of the fact that these letters show us that John was satisfied with the behavior of these two communities. Call for Repentance, Eschatological Threat, and Threat Variation. In the case of the five churches where John perceives difficulties (Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea), he follows the description of each church's situation (with or without the elaboration on the problems) with a call for repentance (C: 2:5a; 2:16a; 2:22b; 3:2-3a; 3:1820). The call for repentance in these letters is, in turn, followed by a threat (D) from the speaker (i.e., the risen Jesus), to be carried out if the call to repentance is ignored. 8 In the case of the letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia, where there is no call for repentance, the threat is understandably absent. However, in these two letters there is a variation on the threat motif (D[v]). In the case of the letter to the Smyrnan church (2:10a), the risen Jesus announces a threat to the Christian community from evil forces (i.e., "[the church] will be tested and suffer affliction [TieipaaBfiTe Kai eêxe 9A,i\jnv]"). In the case of the Philadelphia church (3:11), the risen Jesus directs an eschatological threat to the church's opponents, the "synagogue of Satan." Exhortation and Encouragement. In the letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia a statement of exhortation and encouragement follows the variation on the threat (E: 2:10b; 3:11). Similarly, in the letters to Thyatira and Sardis, this section follows the threat and is delivered to a portion of the community only (i. e., those who adhere to John's brand of Christianity). In the letter to the Ephesians, the statement of encouragement is a bit different. In this letter, it merely tells the community what they as a group have done correctly: "Yet this you have [in your favor] (aXka. TOIJTO e/etc;), that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans which I also hate" (2:6).

Table 3.2. Variations in the Structure of Each Letter

u>

Ephesus

Smyrna

Pergamum

Thyatira

A B

2:1 2:2-3

2:8 2:9

2:12 2:13

2:18 2:19

3:la 3:lb

B(e) C

2:4 2:5a

2:14-15 2:16a

2:20 2:22b

3:2-3a

D

2:5b

2:16b

2:2122a, 23

3:3b

D(v) E F G

2:6 2:7a 2:7b

2:24-25 2:29 2:26-28

3:4 3:6 3:5

Sardis

Philidelphia 3:7 3:8

2:17b 2:17a

3:14 3:15, 3:17 3:183:20 3:16

*>

2:10a 2:10b 2:lla 2:llb

Laodicea

3:9-10 3:11 3:13 3:12

3:22 3:21

35

The Issues

Traditional Aphorism and Eschatological Promise. All of the letters conclude with a traditional Christian aphorism: "let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches."9 This is accompanied by the promise of an eschatological reward to the one "who conquers" (G: 2:7b; 2:1 Ib; 2:17a; 2:26-28; 3:5; 3:12; 3:21). I0 As table 3.2 shows, sometimes the order of the aphorism and the eschatological promise is reversed.

A Typology of Letter Structures As we can easily see by looking at the breakdown of the letters in the preceding section and in table 3.2, there are two basic types of letters to the churches. Representing the first type (type 1) are the letters to five churches (Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea). This first type can be further divided into two subcategories. The first of these subcategories (type la) is characterized by an elaboration of the problems within the respective community (B[e]) while the second subcategory (type Ib) has no elaboration of problems (B[e]) and little, if any, encouragement. 11 The letters of type 2 differ significantly from those of type 1 because they contain no call for repentance (C). Nor do they carry a threat (D). The breakdown of the letters into these categories and subcategories appears in table 3.3. Those churches addressed by type la include the letters to the churches at Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira. These three communities seem to be the primary focus of John's rhetorical efforts throughout the Apocalypse. The populations of these churches are clearly split into factions, one faction siding with John and another (or possibly others) with another leader (or possibly other leaders). However, even among the type la letters we see distinctions. There is more hostility directed against the communities at Pergamum and Thyatira (especially in the threat sections) than Ephesus. The communities addressed by letter type Ib (Sardis and Laodicea), on the other hand, seem to be communities that John has, for all intents and purposes, given up on. There is virtually no encouragement (E) to these communities.12 The lack of an elaboration of problems (B[e]) also suggests that John sees little point in trying to persuade Table 3.3. Types of Letters in Revelation 2 and 3 Type 1 a b Ephesus Sardis Pergamum Laodicea Thyatira

Type 2 Smyrna Philadelphia

36


these communities to his point of view, even though he acknowledges serious problems in the churches. The structure of the type 2 letters (written to Smyrna and Philadelphia), on the other hand, suggest that these two communities are sympathetic to John. The seer clearly views them as allies in his struggle against variant forms of Christianity. The simple fact that these letters contain no call for repentance (C) and no threat (D) demonstrates John's good opinion of these churches. An examination of the individual letters according to their types highlights the situation of these communities as perceived and articulated by John, as follows. The Letters of Type la: Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira The Letter to Ephesus. In the description of the community (B) and elaboration of the problems of the community (B[e]) in the Ephesian letter, John lists what appear to be a number of different issues. 2:2 I know your works, your toil, and your patient endurance. I know that you cannot tolerate evildoers; you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false. 3 I also know that you are enduring patiently and bearing up for the sake of my name, and that you have not grown weary. 4 But I have this against you, that you abandoned the love you had at first. . . . 6 Yet this is to your credit: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

It is important to note that none of these issues can be shown unequivocally to have anything to do with pressure on Christians by those outside the Christian community. The phrases that have been sometimes read as referring to persecution or external harassment are vague, and without other evidence we cannot assume that they are pointing to either harassment or persecution. Other causes could be responsible for John's remarks. 13 On the other hand, there are clear indications of intra-Christian problems in this letter. The individual problems concern: 1. "those who claim to be apostles but are . . . false" (2:2), 2. the charge that the Ephesians have abandoned the love that they had at first (2:4), and 3. the works of the Nicolaitans (2:6). Concerning the first issue, what does John mean by "false apostles"? By apostles, he probably means itinerant Christian missionaries like those mentioned in the Didache (11-13). However, he gives us no specifics about them. It is probable that these individuals were Christians who merely preached a different Christian message from the seer.14 We might compare his labeling such as "false apostles" with the passage in Paul's letter to the Galatians where Paul refers to those who disagree with him as "false brothers" (NRSV: "false believers").

The Issues

37

Some scholars have posited a link between the false apostles in Revelation 2:2 and the Nicolaitans mentioned in 2:6 and elsewhere in Revelation 2 and 3. 15 This is possible and perhaps even likely, although it is also conceivable that the "false apostles" represent a different group. Virtually all scholars read Revelation 2:2 as an indication that the Ephesian community rejected advances by an early Christian group known as Nicolaitans. We encounter this group again in other letters to the churches; I will discuss it later. Finally, the letter raises a third issue. The seer points out that the community has abandoned the love that it had at first. What could he mean by this? It could suggest that hostilities had erupted in the Ephesian church. Perhaps the community had fragmented into factions pitted against one another. 16 It could also indicate that the community was not as receptive to John as it had been previously, a suggestion supported by the fact that John elsewhere uses the word "love" (aya.m\) as a virtual synonym for nicnc, ("faith" or "faithfulness"). 17 A combination of the two suggestions points us to perhaps the most likely scenario: the phrase probably indicates that the community was no longer as receptive to John because it had fragmented into factions, not all of which were open to John's leadership. In sum, although the evidence from the letter to the Ephesian church gives us some information about the church, there is much that is—as yet—not entirely clear. Obviously, there is no evidence of persecution of Christians by those outside the community. There is also no clear indication of anything like harassment by external forces in this letter. There are, on the other hand, clear indications of internal problems with other Christians, specifically "false apostles" and "Nicolaitans." The Letter to Pergamum. The next type la letter, the letter to Pergamum, appears—on the surface at least—to imply a situation in which Christians were harassed and possibly even persecuted by hostile imperial or civic forces. 2: 13 I know where you are living, where Satan's throne is. Yet you are holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you where Satan lives. f4 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to idols [((jayeiv ei5(oX68uTa) and practice fornication [Tiopve-Oaai]. 15 So [oikcoc;] you also have some who hold to the teaching [Kpaio-uviat;] of the Nicolaitans.

The description of the situation of the community (B) begins with the statement: "I know where you are living, where Satan's throne is." Scholars have made much of this short remark, typically seeing in it a reference to the imperial cult.18 Next comes John's positive assessment of the community's faithfulness (maiiq). Here John relates a story of an

38


individual named Antipas, labeling him a "witness" ((icxp-cuc;).19 The text states that Antipas "was killed among you, where Satan lives." If one reads into the dwelling of Satan here and earlier a reference to the imperial cult, one can hardly help but get the impression that Antipas was martyred (n.b. his "title" (j.dpfuq)20 as a result of his refusal to participate in the imperial cult. What seems obvious is that the seer wants the reader to believe that Antipas was martyred, and he also wants the reader to see Antipas's death as symbolic of the relations between those in the church and those outside. 21 Nevertheless, on closer observation, it is striking that no specific information is given about Antipas's death; there is, for instance, no notice of who killed him. Consequently, some scholars— rejecting the notion that Antipas was a victim of violent persecution by the government—have suggested instead that Antipas might have been lynched by a mob because he was a Christian.22 But it is also important to consider other possibilities. Unfortunately, we will never know what Antipas did (if anything), nor will we know how he died. The text is too begrudging of details. But it is conceivable, for instance, that Antipas was executed by the state for reasons other than simply being a Christian. 23 Is it not possible that he was executed by the state for a crime such as defacing a local shrine or even robbing a pagan temple? Perhaps he was killed by a mob for a similar reason.24 Or perhaps he died under other circumstances— in a fight perhaps—and John blamed his death on his pagan adversary. It seems to me, given John's view of a hostile universe controlled by Satan, that any number of scenarios could be assumed as easily as the traditional view that Antipas was "martyred" for his refusal to denounce his faith. Possibly even more significant than the text's equivocation on the reasons behind Antipas's death is the fact that his demise occurred in the past and possibly the relatively distant past ("you are holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas"). 25 If we couple this fact with the preceding uncertainties, we can only conclude that there is nothing specific in this text that justifies the assumption of hostility or persecution in the Pergamum community at the time of Revelation. On the contrary, the details of the text suggest the opposite. If we turn to the section B(e) that usually elaborates the problems in the community (2:14-15), we are confronted with another surprise. The scenario presented here could cause us to wonder if John is addressing the same community as in the previous section. This section, unlike the section (B: 2:13) that heaps praise on the community, severely chastises it. This suggests that the description of the "situation" (i.e., the faithfulness of the Pergamum Christians) as just outlined is less a statement of fact than a declaration of hope. That is, John's praise

The Issues

39

for the faithfulness of the church could really be a call for faithfulness. And by "faithfulness" (TUOTK;), here as elsewhere, the seer clearly means adherence to his vision of Christianity. 26 In this section of the letter to the Pergamum community, John accuses the church of having "there [some] people who hold to the teaching of Balaam" (exevq EKEI KpaTO-uviai; Trvv 5i5axr|V BaXad)j,). It is interesting to note that John does not label the "some" who hold to the teaching more precisely. He does not say, for instance, "few" (compare 3:4). 27 As a result, it is conceivable that the "some" represents a sizeable group in Pergamum, maybe even the majority. What do these people believe? 28 Given what the text says about the crimes of Balaam, there can be little doubt that the teachings of the Nicolaitans are those that the seer connects with Balaam, specifically "eating eiScoXoG'UTa" (meat sacrificed to idols) and committing Tcopveia (usually translated "fornication"). 29 It is apparent from the threat section of the letter (D) that John considers these teachings to be a significant danger to the faithful. As opposed to the rather mild warning delivered in the Ephesian letter, here the Son of Man threatens violence.30 The blatant hostility of the threat might suggest that "those who hold the teachings of the Nicolaitan" comprise a significant number of Christians in Pergamum. Regardless, it certainly indicates that the controversy between the "faithful" and "those holding the teachings of the Nicolaitans" is particularly bitter in this community. This quick survey of the Pergamum letter has demonstrated a number of things. First, there is no compelling reason to view this document against a backdrop of severe external harassment or persecution. The seer's statement about Antipas is equivocal. In fact, his appeal to the past in the case of Antipas suggests that whatever the exact circumstances surrounding Antipas's death, they were matters of the past relationship between the community and the outside, not the present. Second, there is evidence of internal dissent that consists of a disagreement over eiScoôSuia ("meat sacrificed to idols") and Ttopveia ("fornication"). Third, it is quite possible that the group John opposes constitutes a large number (possibly even the majority) of Christians in Pergamum. Fourth, the violence of the threat by the one "who has the sharp two-edged sword" suggests that the struggle within the Pergamum community is intense. The Letter to Thyatira. In the final letter of type la, the letter to Thyatira, as in the Pergamum letter, the description of the situation in the community (B) begins with strong praise for the Thyatiran church. Likewise, the elaboration of the situation (B[e]) suggests a less idyllic scenario than the initial description anticipates. 2:19 I know your works—your love, faith [TROTH;], service, and patient endurance. I know that your last works are greater than the first. 20 But I

40

Who Rides the Beast? have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication [Tiopve-uoai] and to eat food sacrificed to idols [el5(oA,69\)Ta].

John's opponent "Jezebel" seems to be the leader of a faction in Thyatira connected with those John condemns in the Pergamum letter. We can reasonably infer this from the accusation leveled against her, for the charges that John brings against "Jezebel" in the Thyatira letter are identical to those leveled against those John disapproves of in the Pergamum letter. 31 The threat section in the Thyatira letter is striking because of its complexity. In fact, this threat is more complex than any of those in the other letters. 2:21 I gave ["Jezebel"] time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication [Tcopveia]. 22 Beware, I am throwing her on a bed, and those who commit adultery [TOTJI; (IOIXEIJOVTCK;] with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings; 23 and I will strike her children dead.

In this section, a number of warnings are directed against specific individuals or groups. First, "Jezebel," the leader of the opposition, is threatened with some type of wasting disease, a disease the reader expects will eventually end in death. 32 Second, her "children" are threatened with death. Third, those who "commit adultery with her" are warned of "great affliction" if they do not repent. As in the Pergamum letter, the threats articulated in this letter are particularly harsh, and that harshness suggests a struggle in Thyatira as bitter as that in Pergamum. I will return to this threat in the next chapter. Summary. This preliminary examination of the letters of type la to the churches of Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira shows, on the one hand, no definitive evidence of either persecution or harassment of the members of the churches by anyone outside the Christian communities at the time of John's writing. On the other hand, the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira give definite evidence of serious intra-Christian problems. The letter to the Ephesians also suggests factionalism, but John's tone recommends that he had a better footing in that community than in the other two. From these letters, we also learn that John has a major Christian rival in Thyatira, a prophet who differs from him on certain issues. It is likely that she also contributed to the factionalism in Pergamum, since the "crimes" of each community are the same. The implicit connection John suggests between "Jezebel" and the Nicolaitans suggests that she has played a part in the Ephesian problems as well. The violence that appears in the threats aimed against the communities of Pergamum and Thyatira suggests that the factional struggles in these two communities are fierce.

The Issues

41

The Letters of Type Ib: Sardis and Laodicea The Letter to Sardis. As has been the case with the other letters discussed thus far, there is nothing in the Sardis letter to suggest that Christians in that city were harassed or persecuted by outside forces. On the contrary, the letter indicates that there were internal problems in the Christian community. However, identifying the problems with any precision is difficult. In his description of the situation in the community (B), the seer merely says: "you have a name of being alive, but you are dead" (3:2b). Although he suggests that there are some loyal to him and to his version of Christianity, the number must be small in Sardis, since he specifically says that there are only a "few" fcdlci eêit; oXiya 6v6|i(rua). Unlike the other letters, this letter does not give the church at Sardis any specific reasons for his condemnation. He only says: "I have not found your works perfect [7re7tA.r|pto(ieva] before my God." Although we cannot be sure, it is possible (and perhaps even likely) that the problems that John perceives in this church are related to those in Pergamum and Thyatira. Of all the letters, this one gives us the least information. What it does tell us suggests that the seer views the Sardis church as a community that he has little hope of influencing. The Letter to Laodicea. As with most of the other type 1 letters, there is no suggestion in the letter to the church at Laodicea of external harassment or persecution directed against the Laodicean Christians. Surprisingly, there is also no internal dissent suggested by the letter. The description of the community (B) simply begins: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot" (3:14). The description continues in 3:17, where John explains the cold/hot reference of verse 15: "For you say, 'I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.' You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked." The meaning of verse 17 is critical for our understanding of this letter. Is the seer accusing the Laodiceans of relying on the security of their wealth, or he accusing them of flaunting a kind of spiritual wealth? Both options have been suggested by scholars. At first glance, either interpretation appears acceptable. On the one hand—as virtually all of the commentaries have pointed out—there are good reasons to understand the wealth of the Laodiceans literally. The city of Laodicea was well known as a prosperous trade center primarily because of its textile industry (Strab. 12.578) and its banks (Cic. Fam. 3.5; Cic. Att. 5.15). It demonstrated its prosperous self-sufficiency by its rapid recovery after it endured serious damage from an earthquake in 62 CE. In fact, the city even refused the aid of an imperial subsidy to help it rebuild (Tac. Ann. 14.29). On the other hand, as pointed out earlier, physical wealth need not be the issue. One scholar's comments may serve as an example.

42

Who Rides the Beast? It seems here that the issue is not so much material satisfaction as it is the proud boasting about an ostensible spiritual possession (cf. 2:9), for it corresponds to the manner of thinking of an enthusiasm influenced by Gnosticism (cf. 1 Cor 4:8); it is an enthusiasm that lives in the conviction that a final profound knowledge and perfection has already been achieved. 33

Faced with these two alternatives, we need to decide which is more likely. The second part of the seer's characterization of the community at first seems to support the metaphorical reading of the community's wealth (i.e., the text refers to spiritual wealth). This second phrase ("but you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked" [3:17b]) suggests a metaphorical meaning, because the passage—especially the last two attributes—can hardly be intended literally. One could argue that since the seer speaks metaphorically at the end of the verse, it follows that he is also speaking metaphorically at the beginning of the same verse. But is consistency a sufficient basis for a decision? One thing that argues against a consistently literal or metaphorical interpretation is the fact that such would be rather uninteresting (as well as rhetorically ineffective). It merely amounts to a denial of the original statement. A paraphrase of the seer's line so understood would read something like: "You say you have money but you do not" or "You say you are spiritually advanced but you are not." If John is intent on persuading the Laodiceans, then this would seem a fairly futile strategy, since it represents nothing more than a straight denial of their claims.34 Turning to the letter to Smyrna, it is apparent that the seer—in similar circumstances—speaks both literally and metaphorically in his description of the community: "I know your poverty (but you are rich!)." This passage can be best understood if the initial description of the community is taken literally while the second is understood metaphorically. In fact, it would be difficult to read it otherwise, unless the seer were to qualify the sentence something like: "I know your poverty (but you are rich compared to the people in Scythia)." Clearly, the text of the letter to Smyrna indicates that the members of that church are literally poor; John sympathetically acknowledges this fact and then consoles them with his appraisal of their spiritual wealth. If John is following the pattern of the Smyrnan letter (i.e., a literal statement followed by a metaphorical one), then we would expect him to refer to the literal wealth of the Laodiceans and to the spiritual poverty of the group in the latter part of the same verse. There are several other reasons to accept this suggestion. First, as just noted, the issue of wealth (or its lack) is raised in another letter in the book of Revelation (as well as the visions section of the Apocalypse, as I will show later). Second, since John frequently arranges scenes so that they reflect one another,35 it is reasonable to suppose that the seer consciously sets a community he admires (i.e., Smyrna, which seems poor but is actually rich) in contrast to a community he does not (i.e.,

The Issues

43

Laodicea, which seems rich but is actually poor). Third, there is no conclusive evidence from elsewhere in the Apocalypse that the seer is opposing any kind of Gnosticism or proto-Gnosticism in the seven communities that he addresses. 36 Hence it seems likely that material wealth is the primary issue in Laodicea. John chastises the church members because they are lukewarm, and he blames their lukewarm attitude on their wealth. Summary. The letters to the churches of Sardis and Laodicea are each distinguished by a negative description of the communities (B). The community at Sardis is described as dead (despite its name of being alive) and the community at Laodicea is described as lukewarm, an intolerable condition. It is likely that John has some allies and potential allies in each of these churches, although their numbers are probably not significant. What is apparent from these letters is that these two communities are those where John has the least influence. Consequently, his tone is less conciliatory in these letters than in the other five. Type 2: The Letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia The Letter to Smyrna. In the first type 2 letter, to the church at Smyrna, John expresses his satisfaction with the Smyrnan church's "faithfulness." Translated into more value-neutral terminology, the Smyrnan church appears to share John's vision of Christianity and to revere him as a leader. As opposed to the letters to Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, this letter has no evidence of internal strife in the community. 37 Consequently, John includes no elaboration on problems within the community (B[e]>, and he calls for no repentance (C). Likewise, the Son of Man directs no threat (D) against the community. Instead of the type of threat that has appeared in the letters to the five communities already discussed, John substitutes a variation. The community in this case is threatened, but not by the risen Jesus. Rather, an outside force threatens it (D[v]). In the case of the Smyrna letter, the threat comes from either civic or imperial forces. 38 It is important to note that this is a future threat and, as such, does not necessarily indicate any previous or current harassment or persecution by governmental forces. Despite the fact that John is untroubled by the faithfulness of the church at Smyrna and despite the fact that there is no good reason to take his prediction as referring to anything happening during his time, the text does indicate that the community is not without problems. According to John, the members of the church suffer "affliction" (6A,i.\|m;), poverty (TiTcoêia), and slander (pXaarmia). It is tempting to associate the first term, 9M.v|nq, with external persecution or harassment, for, of course, the word can have this meaning. However, it need not; it can simply indicate unspecified suffering.

44


In fact, John himself uses the word in this manner in the letter to Thyatira community (2:22). That the next word, Trumêta ("poverty"), refers to actual poverty in the community is evident since it is followed by the parenthetical statement "But you are rich!" Unless he is intentionally contradicting himself, we should understand that here the author comforts the community for its actual poverty by reminding them that they are rich in other ways. Some have suggested that the poverty of the community must have been due to mob violence and looting. For instance, G. B. Caird cites Hebrews 10: 10:32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to abuse and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on the prisoners, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew you had a better possession and an abiding one.39

There is no compelling reason, however, to connect Hebrews with the cities of western Asia Minor at the time of Revelation, so it is unwise to jump to such a conclusion without further evidence. It seems more likely that a large number of the members of the church at Smyrna simply came from the lower socioeconomic strata of society. Finally, the community is described as enduring "slander" (pA.a(7(|>r||ua). The slander, according to John comes EK TOW êyovifflv 'louo'cdcnx; eivat eamo-uc; iced OIJK eicdv dAlci a-uvaycoyri iov> craiova ("from those who say that they are Jews but are not but [they are] a synagogue of Satan"). In the LXX and the New Testament literature, the word pXaor|nta he mentions? Is it language spoken against the beliefs of those in the community, or is it simply derogatory language aimed at the community?42 Concerning the identity of the blasphemers, John simply states that they are individuals who "call themselves Jews but are not." Such an identification is ambiguous. On the one hand, John might be referring to actual Jews whose claim to such a self-identification he disputes. On the other hand, he might be referring to some who call themselves Jews but in reality are what we would call Christians. I discuss these alternatives in the next chapter. What is the content of this p/\.aar|uici? A number of scholars have tied the term to persecution. For example, Colin Hemer says: "Probably, in Smyrna, the unbelieving Jews had become active in instigating persecution of the church or denouncing to the authorities those Jews who were also Christians." 43 There is absolutely nothing in the text,

The Issues

45

though, to support this suggestion. 44 Others have suggested harassment by Jews and possibly synagogue expulsion. Although this is possible, we need not infer these or any serious crisis from this text. The text could just as easily suggest two rival groups taking "pot shots" at each other. 45 To summarize, the letter to Smyrna gives no strong indication of any factionalism in that community, nor is there evidence of persecution or harassment by the imperial or local authorities, of Jews "turning in" Christians to the authorities, or of any regular or sporadic violence against Christians by Jews. The Letter to Philadelphia. The second type 2 letter, to the church at Philadelphia, as we would expect, has many similarities to the Smyrna letter. For instance, there is no suggestion of factionalism, nor is there any criticism of the faith of the community (apparently because the seer was satisfied that his version of Christianity was flourishing there). And there is no threat (D) in this letter. Here, as in the case of the Smyrna letter, the seer substitutes a variation on the threat (D[v]). In the Smyrna letter the variation took the form of a prediction of hostile action from government forces; in the Philadelphia letter, there is an eschatological threat and it is directed away from the community and against the synagogue of Satan. "I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but are lying—I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you" (3:9). Finally, the group the Son of Man threatens in the Philadelphia letter looks like the same group he refers to in the letter to Smyrna. 46 The description of the situation in the community (B) gives us some information about the social location of the Christians in the Philadelphia church. "I know your works. Look, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able [6\)vaiai, "is powerful enough"] to shut. I know that you have but little power [8\>va|iiv], and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name" (3:8). The phrase "but little power" probably indicates that the members of the Christian community in Philadelphia had little social or economic influence. 47 The word play on the root Suva- highlights the issue of power by implying that the eschatological action of the risen Jesus (i.e., setting before the community an open door) cannot be undone, even by those "with power." The text implies that some in the city of Philadelphia have asserted their power over the "faithful" in the church. Given the manner in which the letter is structured, it is reasonable to assume that those with power are the "false Jews." I will return to this point in the next chapter. In sum, there is no evidence in the Philadelphian church of any of the factionalism other letters reveal in the communities of Pergamum, Thyatira, and possibly Ephesus. Nor is there evidence of imperial or

46


local persecution of the Philadelphia!! community, although the possibility of harassment is raised, perhaps originating with the group that John labels "false Jews." Summary: The Letters of Type 2. Neither of the letters of type 2, to the communities in Smyrna and Philadelphia, gives any evidence of current harassment or persecution of Christians by imperial or local authorities. In each case, a group of Jews (identified by John as "false Jews") is portrayed in tension with communities, but there is no evidence of any persecution by them. Nor do the texts necessarily suggest that Jews are turning Christians in to the authorities. Unlike some of the other communities, the Christian communities of Smyrna and Philadelphia appear to be devoid of factionalism. Both communities receive high praise from John, and he directs no criticism at these churches. This suggests that the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia are the most receptive to John's form of Christianity and the most receptive to his leadership. It is probably significant that these communities are described as "poor" (Smyrna) and "powerless" (Philadelphia). This might indicate that John's type of Christianity finds its strongest support among the economically and socially disenfranchised. I will return to this point in the chapters that follow. Conclusions In the seven letters to the churches in western Asia Minor, one rather surprising finding, given the traditional reading of the Apocalypse, is the fact that most of the issues enumerated (and certainly the most pressing ones) are internal, intra-Christian issues. There are a few exceptions. The first is the mention of Antipas in the letter to Pergamum. But this episode clearly comes from the community's past (and perhaps its distant past), so there is no reason to assume that it reflects anything like the contemporary situation of the church. The second exception is the imperial or civic threat mentioned in the letter to Smyrna. Again, though, this is a prediction, not a contemporary fact, and we are given no reason to suppose that there is any sound basis for that prediction. Third, the letters from Smyrna and Philadelphia attest to what looks like friction between the "false Jews" and the faithful in these two communities. It is possible that there is strong hostility between the Christians and the Jews in Philadelphia and Smyrna. Nevertheless, the text offers no compelling reason to assume that such hostility ever resulted in any physical harm to the members of the Christian communities. The internal, intra-Christian issues in the letters are as follows. There seem to be opposing factions in two of the churches, Pergamum and Thyatira, and probably in the Ephesian church as well. In all of these churches, one faction sides with John. In two of the churches,

The Issues

47

Pergamum and Thyatira, the opposing faction is tied to ei8o)A,69ma and Tcopveia. The issues of wealth and poverty also make themselves heard in two of the letters, Smyrna and Laodicea. As I will show in the next few chapters, it is likely that the factionalism in the churches is related to the wealth/poverty issue. First, however, the important players in the drama of the churches must be examined.

4 The Actors People and Parties behind the Book of Revelation

In this chapter, I examine the people and parties described in or implied by the letters to the churches: first, the group that John would consider the "faithful" in the churches, that is, those whose vision of Christianity most closely resembles his own; second, "those who call themselves Jews," mentioned in the letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia; third, the faction that John connects with his rival "Jezebel" and the Nicolatians; finally, the group we might call "the invisible majority," the group that represents John's primary audience.

The "Faithful" in the Seven Churches Although John does not say much directly about those Christians most sympathetic to his position, we can glean a number of things about them from the text. First and foremost, the strongholds of the Johannine loyalists are the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia. In these churches, competing factions seem not to have taken root, so John's vision of Christianity is flourishing. 1 He also appears to have a significant following in Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira, although his influence in the latter two may be on the wane. Second, it is clear that John's followers shun the eating of ei5(oX66uta ("meat offered to idols") and Tiopvelcc ("fornication"). I explore the meaning of these actions when I consider John's rivals in a later section. 48

The Actors

49

Third, John's followers accept his leadership to the exclusion of any other person vying for that status in the community. For instance, he praises the Ephesian community for two specific reasons: (1) because they have "tested those calling themselves apostles but are not and have found them to be false" and (2) because they "hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which [John] also hates." At least the first of these statements concerns the leadership of the community and seems to indicate that, when confronted with rival leaders, the Ephesian community was faithful to John exclusively. Likewise, in the church at Thyatira, John praises the "faithful" for rejecting the teachings of "Jezebel," a rival Christian prophet. In the Pergamum church, he condemns those who adhere to "the teaching of the Nicolaitans" (2:15). Both of these churches clearly had factions in them loyal to John (2:13; 2:24). Nevertheless, as John's phrasing suggests, these factions were not as large or influential as John would have liked. What else can we know about the Johannine Christians? Concerning their social status, John describes the "faithful" Christians of Smyrna as both poor and powerless.2 We should probably understand the latter term as a reference to their lack of social standing or influence. 3 These descriptions, as well as other evidence, recommend that one of the important issues in these communities is the economic and social positions of the Christians in those communities. I will return to this issue later.

"Those Who Call Themselves Jews" The letter to Smyrna and the letter to Philadelphia both mention a group of antagonists who "call themselves Jews." In each case, John adds, "but [they] are not," and instead calls them a "synagogue of Satan." He thereby denies the label "Jew" to those claiming it. Who are these people who "call themselves Jews"? Although the seer gives us no other direct information about this group, it is most likely that this group represents non-Christian Jews of Smyrna and Philadelphia.4 The reason for what seems to be antagonism between the Jews and Christians of Smyrna and Philadelphia does not appear explicitly in the Apocalypse. Scholars have suggested various causes. Some have suggested that there was general Jewish hostility against Christians at the end of the first century—sufficient to explain the passages under consideration. Swete's comments on the situation in Smyrna can serve as an example of this approach. The Jews at Smyrna were both numerous and aggressively hostile. In the martyrdom of Polycarp they took a leading part, even surpassing the heathen in their zeal, and this, it is added, was their wont. At present they contented themselves with blaspheming, railing at Christ and Christians . . . as they had done from the first days of St. Paul's synagogue

50

Who Rides the Beast? preaching in Asia Minor (Acts 13:45). Against their sharp tongues the Christians are fortified by the [reflection] that these blasphemers are Jews in name only.5

How likely is the scenario envisioned by Swete (and others)? The suggestion that there was "aggressive hostility" on the part of Jews toward Christians has very little support based upon first- or even secondcentury evidence.6 Although it is possible that the Jews at Smyrna took an active role in the death of Polycarp later in the second century, it is more likely that the account of Polycarp's martyrdom was a highly stylized account and does not accurately reflect Jewish-Christian relations of the mid-second century.7 In fact, if we consider all of the evidence concerning Jewish-Christian relations in Asia Minor during the first few centuries of the common era, there is as much (and maybe more) historical support for cordial relations between Jews and Christians in the first few centuries as for hostility between the groups.8 A second option has been put forward by Colin Hemer. Hemer argues that Christians, and specifically gentile Christians of Asia, fled to the synagogue to avoid the obligations of the imperial cult (something from which Jews were exempt due to their traditional rights). 9 This, in turn, put Roman pressure on the synagogues; as a result, individual Jews may have informed on individual Christians, or perhaps synagogues provided lists of their bona fide members to the Romans.10 If Christians who had been trying to avoid the obligations of the cult of the emperor by claiming to be Jews were thereby exposed to Roman persecution, it would be easy for such people to feel betrayed by the Jews of the synagogues. Unfortunately, Hemer's scenario is built on several presuppositions, not the least of which is the assumption that many Christians of John's time were forced to participate in the imperial cult. This presupposition, however, lacks solid historical evidence.11 And even if we were to assume it, Hemer's solution would still be highly speculative. Yet another suggestion has been made by Thompson. He has argued that the issue surrounding "those who call themselves Jews" was one of self-identity. He asserts that the alleged friction between the groups arose from the desire of one group to define itself against the other. He surprisingly suggests that the impetus to draw a hard and fast distinction between the two groups came not from the Jews (as we might expect) but from John himself. Just as the various churches were encouraged to keep strong boundaries between the world and themselves, so too the seer encouraged the Smyrna and Philadelphia Christians to maintain high walls between the church and synagogue. Thompson's approach is clearly the most radical suggestion articulated thus far. It raises the possibility that there was no serious friction between Jews and Christians in the cities of Smyrna and Philadelphia. As he rightly points out, the letter to Philadelphia does not mention or

The Actors

51

even necessarily imply persecution, and even the letter to the church in Smyrna need not presuppose it. Consequently, I do not think that we should take the innuendoes of Jewish hostility that John makes all that seriously. It is noteworthy that the letters suggesting JewishChristian tension are those addressed to the communities where John seems to have the most sympathy. It is possible that the seer attempts to rally those heretofore sympathetic Christian communities by exaggerating tension between those in his community and "those who call themselves Jews." 12 Regardless of how we might reconstruct the circumstances around the Christians and the "false Jews" of Smyrna and Philadelphia, it is apparent that the "hostility" between the two is, at best, a minor issue in the Apocalypse. It is only mentioned in these two letters, and the seer avoids any direct language about a crisis between the groups. He is content merely to imply a crisis. Likewise, in the visions section of the Apocalypse, there are few unambiguously hostile polemics against Judaism. 13 On the basis of these findings, we cannot assume any serious hostility between the Christian communities of Smyrna and Philadelphia and the synagogues in those cities.

"Jezebel," Her Followers, and the Nicolaitans In the letter to Ephesus, John speaks of the "works of the Nicolaitans" and praises the Ephesian church for hating them.14 In the letter to Pergamum, he associates the Nicolaitans with two "crimes" that he also ties to the ancient figure of Balaam. He describes these acts as "eating eiScotaJema" and "committing nopveia" (Ttopve-uco). John also associates a woman whom he refers to as "Jezebel" with the same "crimes" (2:20). Although some scholars have assumed "Jezebel" to be the leader of a Nicolaitan faction because of the associations that the text makes, we need to remember that the text only implies the connection. As I will show hereafter, we need to be careful of the connections that John merely implies in his text.15 For the purposes of this inquiry, it matters little whether or not "Jezebel" is the leader of a group identified as Nicolaitans, since we have such a limited knowledge of this group otherwise.16 What is important is the set of actions John associates with this group and with "Jezebel." Eating ei5co^,66ma The first issue John raises concerns food, specifically food offered to gods other than YHWH. Like all those in the monotheistic tradition, he pejoratively refers to such food as ei5co>.60in:a ("meat sacrificed to an idol"). 17 The correct "pagan" terminology for such meat would be iepoGDTCI ("that which is offered in sacrifice;" see 1 Cor. 10:28) or, more rarely, 9e60ma ("that which is sacrificed to a god"). 18 The Christian ob-

52


jection to eating such meat was the same objection as that of most of their Jewish contemporaries. Many Christians (and Jews) considered the eating of such sacrificial meat to be an idolatrous action. Ei8coA,66ma could have been encountered by the average person in a variety of contexts. One would find it in the temple of a deity or in the context of a public festival; one might encounter it in the home of a nonmonotheistic neighbor; or one might find it at the (j,ciiKeXXov (Latin mace Hum), the ancient meat market (see 1 Cor. 10:25). 19 The first occasion concerns either individual sacrifices at a shrine or a public festival, which might focus, for instance, on the patron deity of a city or area. In a public festival, prominent citizens were expected to participate in the banquet, and sometimes very elaborate feasts were given to the general population. For example, at the festival of the Egyptian ruler Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) described by Kallixeinos of Rhodes,20 two thousand oxen were sacrificed. 21 This many animals could easily have fed tens of thousands of people, and the subsequent banquet must have included most of the members of the general populace of Alexandria.22 According to Greco-Roman authors, sacrificial meat was also distributed freely to all of the people in connection with such events as a significant military victory (Plut. Demetr, 11; Suet. lul. 38) or an important funeral (Liv. 8.22.2; 8.22.4; 39.4.2; 41.28.11). Sometimes a ruler who was trying to curry favor among the people would also make a large sacrifice in order to distribute such meat (Cic. Off. 2.52-58). Probably the most famous festival at which sacrificial meat was regularly distributed was the Athenian Panathenaia. 23 For a resident of Athens to ignore such a festival would seem at best unpatriotic and at worst impious.24 The closest Roman equivalent to the Greek Panathenaia was the lectisternium, a festival in which deities (represented by their images) were served as guests at a meal. The Roman historian Livy gives us a description of the original feast in the fourth century BCE: Unable to discover what caused the incurable ravages of [inclement weather] . . . the senate voted to consult the Sibylline Books. The Duumvirs in charge of the sacred rites then celebrated the first lectisternium ever held in Rome, and for the space of eight days sacrificed to Apollo, to Latona and Diana, to Hercules, to Mercury and to Neptune, spreading couches for them with all the splendor then attainable. They also observed the rite in their homes. All through the city, they say, doors stood wide open, all kinds of viands were set out for general consumption, all comers were welcomed, whether known or not, and men even exchanged kind and courteous words with personal enemies; there was a truce to quarreling and litigation. 25

If this account of the first lectisternium resembles, in even the faintest way, Livy's contemporary experience of the festival, one can easily imagine the kind of offense a Christian might give if he or she refused to participate. For instance, consider the following papyrus invitation to dine at a lectisternium: "Serapion, ex-gymnasiarch, requests you to

The Actors

53

dine at his house on the occasion of the lectisternium of the Lord Sarapis tomorrow, which is the 15th, at the 8th hour."26 This text indicates that Serapion was a man of some influence, specifically an ex-gymnasiarch. 27 A Jew or Christian receiving such an invitation would find him or herself in a difficult position. One might cause offense by turning down the invitation, and a refusal could hinder one's social, political, or business prospects. On the other hand, if one were to attend, one would almost certainly be faced with the prospect of eating ei^coôGma. Since the occasion was in honor of the god Sarapis, the dinner would undoubtedly consist of animals sacrificed to the deity. Even at a private dinner (unconnected to a festival) at the home of a friend or acquaintance one could still encounter sacrificial meat. This would be meat that one's host had bought at the ndKeAAov,28 a market whose primary commodity was meat (although the ancient (idiceM-ov could also include among its wares fish, fruits, or grain). 29 Much of the meat sold at the |idKeA.A.ov was provided by local temples. These temples sold their sacrificial victims to local vendors at the ndiceAlov, and these vendors, in turn, sold the meat to the public.30 Hence when shopping for meat, one might well purchase iep60ina (or et5a)>.60ma, depending on one's perspective). 31 Other places one would encounter ei5(o^60\)ia would be in clubs or voluntary associations, 32 which served a number of purposes in the Greco-Roman world. For instance, they could exist for the common worship of a particular deity, especially a foreign deity. Or they could take the form of a trade or business association where, for example, carpenters could gather with other carpenters or merchants with other merchants. 33 Since there were many public festivals in each of the major cities of first-century Asia Minor,34 we can envision the bind economically successful Christians could often find themselves in. (We can also imagine the kind of stumbling block this could have raised in Christian efforts to convert pagans). A Jew in such circumstances would be better off because the Romans in Asia Minor had consistently guarded Jewish rights.35 Hence what would be seen as the peculiarity of Jewish practice vis-a-vis the state cults would have been known and (at least to some degree) accepted by the citizenry of the Asia Minor city.36 What could be construed as Christian animosity toward the state and civic cults would be more difficult for the average person to understand, since Judaism and Christianity (at least in most places) would probably have separated by this time. As a result, Christians faced the prospect of social isolation and perhaps even ostracism if they eschewed such events. At private dinners the situation could be even more precarious. Of course, such a situation would probably only affect the merchants and the traders in the churches, for only these groups would have had the

54


resources at their disposal for such entertainment. Two Egyptian papyri illuminate the problem. The first reads: "Apollonius requests you to dine at the table of the Lord Sarapis on the occasion of the coming of age of his [brothers?]37 in the temple of Thoeris."38 The second is similar: "Diogenes invites you to dinner for the first birthday of his daughter in the Sarapeum tomorrow which is Pachon 26 from the eighth hour onward."39 In both of these dinner invitations, the occasion is social rather than specifically cultic. In the first instance, the host celebrates the coming of age of his brothers. In the second, the host observes the first birthday of his baby daughter. However, despite the social character of the occasion, the celebration in each case takes place in a temple.40 In such a setting, a sacrifice followed by a meal of the sacrificial victim would be the rule. Consequently, a Christian might wonder if he or she could attend. What was a Christian to do? As Paul's letters from the middle of the first century attest, different groups had different practices; it seems that there were no hard and fast answers.41 According to 1 Corinthians, some members of the Christian congregation in Corinth opted to avoid eiSroA.oG'uia at all costs.42 Others argued that "food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we [eat ei5coA,69uia] and no better of if we do [not]."43 Paul's opinion on the matter was balanced somewhere in between. He offers a compromise based less on the inherent Tightness or wrongness of the act itself than on how others might perceive that act.44 Ultimately, he advises the Christian dining at the home of a pagan neighbor to eat whatever is served (1 Cor. 10:27) unless someone points out that Iep69wa is being served. In that case, the Christian should not eat it (10:29). He says: "But take care that this liberty of yours [to eat ei5coX.60-UTa] does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak" (8:9). Hence he affirms in principle the "liberty" of Christians to eat ei5coA,60ma as their conscience allows,45 but in practice he significantly restricts the dining behavior of upwardly mobile Christians. Although Christian bureaucrats or business people could dine with clients or patrons, they could no longer participate in public festal meals. Nor could they participate in a guild banquet (of fellow carpenters, for instance) if there would be a possibility of being seen by other "weaker" Christians who would be scandalized. "For if anyone sees you, a person of knowledge, at table in an idol's temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols [eiSo)A,66ma]?" (8:11) The book of Revelation appears to portray a situation similar to that in the Corinthian correspondence, a situation in which there was no consensus on the issue.46 It is noteworthy that John does not accuse his opponents of any unambiguous idolatrous practices. He simply accuses them of eating sacrificial meat. It is quite possible that "Jezebel" was merely allowing Christians to eat sacrificial meats in certain circumstances (much as Paul had done several decades earlier). Such a move

The Actors

55

would be much more likely to benefit those who were socially and economically better off, since the poor rarely, if ever, had the opportunity to eat meat.47 Given the political or business aspirations of individual Christians like Erastus of Corinth (Rom. 16:23) or Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:1140), the issue of ei8coA.69ma could take on a level of importance it might not have had otherwise. For instance, a city official like Erastus could be under great pressure to attend an official city function, complete with its sacrifices and ei8coA.66\)i:a. Likewise, he would have a difficult time turning down an invitation to dine with other city bureaucrats. Such a refusal might be read as a snub and could have negative repercussions on his political career. A merchant like Lydia, on the other hand, could probably bypass public festivals, but she could hardly avoid dining with clients or potential suppliers. A refusal to share a meal could severely hinder such a person's livelihood. Committing rcopveia (nopveiJoat) The second charge that John levels against his rivals is the committing of Ttopveta. The Greek verbrcopve-uraand the associated noun nopveict (Rev. 2:21) are both related to the noun Tropvri, the Greek word for prostitute, which in turn comes from the verb Ttepvruii, "to sell." Hence, •q TtopvT) is literally a "harlot for sale," and Tiopve-uoo would literally mean "to visit a prostitute," while rcopveia would stand for whatever action one had hired a prostitute to perform. 48 In common parlance, however, Tcopveia stood for virtually any extramarital sexual activity. Of course, "Jezebel" might have been guilty of promoting or practicing promiscuous sexual behavior. Some scholars have suggested that since such libertinism characterized certain types of Gnosticism, then the group or groups that John opposed were Gnostic in their orientation. Neither of these suggestions is viable. If "Jezebel" were promoting sexual promiscuity, we should expect to see some other evidence of sexual libertinism within John's churches, but we do not. Similarly, we should expect to see strong evidence of Gnosticism elsewhere in the Apocalypse, but again we do not.49 How, then, do we explain the charge?50 In the Jewish tradition, the word Tiopveta covered a broad semantic range. In the LXX, the word group Tcopveia/Ttopvexjco is frequently used to translate the Hebrew root znh',5} it typically refers to a woman's unfaithfulness to her husband (Hos. 1:2, Ezek. 16:23). 52 On the basis of the metaphorical notion that the covenant represents a marriage between God and Israel, Tropveia/Tiopvexxn came to carry the metaphorical meaning "unfaithfulness to God." The classic expression of this metaphor is found in the early chapters of Hosea, where Israel is depicted as a promiscuous woman, unfaithful to her husband, YHWH. On the basis

56


of this concept, later Jewish thinking came to assume the same about the Gentile nations, to a greater extreme.53 Curiously, in the Jewish apologetic material, the metaphorical Tiopveia of the Gentile peoples was eventually understood literally, and Gentiles came to be seen as sexually perverse. 54 By the Hellenistic period, the connection between idolatry (or idolaters) and Tiopveia (in this context meaning "sexual perversion") was a commonplace in the Jewish literature. For instance, the Wisdom of Solomon argues: "For the idea of making idols was the beginning of Tiopveia (14:12);" and the Letter of Aristeas says: "The majority of other men [i.e., gentiles] defile themselves in their relationships. . . . [TJhey not only procure the males, they also defile mothers and daughters (152)." The Testament of Reuben contends that "Tiopveia is the destruction of one's life [yuîl], drawing it away from God and toward the idols (4:6)," and Paul connects the fall into idolatry with the sexual perversion of the gentiles (Rom. 1:18-32). 55 Such a polemic continues into the Rabbinic period, as the legislation of the Mishna attests:, "Cattle may not be left in inns of idolaters because they are suspected [of using beasts] for carnal connection [7 hrby^h]; and a [Jewish] woman may not remain alone with them since they are suspected of lechery" (*Abod. Zar. 2:1). 56 Given such a metaphorical understanding of Tcopveia/Tiopve-ura in the Jewish (and early Christian) 57 milieu, we need to ask if the words Tiopvri, Tiopveia, or Tcopvexxo are meant similarly in John's Apocalypse. Since John does not attribute any specific sexual activity to "Jezebel" or her followers, and since he uses a similar sexual term, jj.oixe'ueiv ("to commit adultery"), metaphorically in the text (2:22), it is reasonable to assume that he speaks metaphorically when he refers to TiopvT|/7iopveia/Tiopve'U(o in connection with his rival.58 Accordingly, Tiopveia would be nothing more here than a metaphorical reiteration of eiSco/ôGma.59 There are two other possible options to consider, the first having to do with marriage practices and the second with symbols. According to rabbinic literature, the word znwt (the Hebrew counterpart to the Greek word Tiopveia) could apply to a marriage between a Jew and a gentile (as well as any marriage that ran counter to rabbinic pronouncement). 60 In Tobit 4:17, the Greek word rcopveia is used in the same way (see Test. Lev. 14:6; Jub. 25:1; 30:1-17). We could have an analogous situation here. In John's churches, the seer could be accusing "Jezebel" of Tiopveia for tolerating "mixed" marriages between Christians and pagans (see 1 Cor. 7:12 — 13). Finally, a third option is to posit the word nopveia as a symbol that refers to no specific act but rather the whole enterprise of assimilation into the pagan world. From John's vantage point, such assimilation involves the compromising of uncompromisable principles. Consequently, for John, the word Tcopveia would function as a kind of symbolic slur directed not only against pagans but also against any people who would tolerate non-Christians in their midst.

The Actors

57

Unfortunately, there is no way to decide which option is best. All we can say with any confidence is that Ttopveia should probably not be understood literally in the letters to the churches at Pergamum and Thyatira. It is much more likely that the charge is either a metaphorical reiteration of the idolatry charge implicit in the earlier accusation (of eating ei.5a)A,66in:a);61 that John has included something like "mixed marriages" in the list of offenses included under the rubric rtopveta; or that Tiopveia functions as a symbol representing the calamity of assimilation.

Did "Jezebel" Promote or Merely Tolerate ei5o)A.60\)Ta and Ttopveia? Whether "Jezebel" actually promoted or merely tolerated the eating of ei8G)A,69ma and the practice of Tropveta (whatever that involved) is an important distinction. A very different picture of John's rival emerges from each. In order to resolve the question, I will examine the language John uses when discussing these issues. Unfortunately, since we cannot be sure of what precisely John means when he refers to Tiopveia (other than the fact that his rival probably is not encouraging sexual promiscuity), we can only usefully examine the eating of eiS(jA69ma. In the accusations against John's rivals in the letters to the churches at Pergamum and Thyatira a situation is portrayed that, at first glance, looks similar to one that occurred in Corinth a generation earlier. In both cases, there is a dispute over the acceptability of eating of etScoXoOina. However, when we look more closely, the similarity fades somewhat. According to Paul's letter to the Corinthians, the Corinthian community was divided over the issue of ei6o)X69ma. The "strong" ate it, and the "weak" were offended by it.62 In contrast, neither of the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira in Revelation give any indication that eating ei8o)A,69-UTa disturbed anyone in those communities, although it clearly disturbed John. 63 In other words, his phrasing indicates that the issue probably did not provoke controversy within the community; rather, it seems he was the one interested in provoking the controversy. In the two letters that specifically mention the act (Pergamum and Thyatira), John's language is carefully phrased. He is quite cautious when he raises the matter, and he never directly accuses the addressees of the activity. For example, in the Pergamum letter, he says: But I have a few things against you. You have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat eiStoloGuia and practice Tiopveia. So you also have people there who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. (2:f4-15)

Notice that John does not say "some of you hold to the teaching of Balaam" but instead says "you have [some] there who hold to the teaching of Balaam." In addition, only the ancient Israelites in this text

58


are specifically charged with eating et8co?i60ma (and practicing Tiopveia) and not the Christians of Pergamum, though it is obvious that some Christians there are eating it (since later in the letter they are admonished to repent). Why is John so judicious in his language?64 I suggest that John is afraid of alienating the community (or some portion of the community) from himself because the people of the community do not have strong feelings against the eating of eiSwôGma. In short, his language suggests that the eating of el8co^60TJTa was tolerated by the majority in the communities of Pergamum and Thyatira (and perhaps some of the other churches as well). 65 As a result, it seems much more likely that "Jezebel" tolerated rather than encouraged the act (perhaps like Paul, only in certain circumstances). If she strongly encouraged it for its own sake, I would expect to see signs of controversy in the community. Her reasoning may have been similar to Paul's and may even have been directly based on his writings.66

The Invisible Majority Although this survey has addressed the various people and parties mentioned in the letters to the churches, it has not dealt with all of the Christians in the churches. It is probable that the visible characters and parties who appear in the letters represent not the mainstream of the churches but the liberal ("Jezebel" and her followers) and conservative (John and his followers) minority groups. Hence we must be careful not to assume that the churches were solely constituted by these two factions who were at odds with one another. The majority of the churches were probably composed of Christians who stood between these factions. Although they are not named specifically in any of the letters, I will refer to this group as the invisible majority.67 We can detect the presence of this group in the letter to the church at Thyatira, which presupposes two different leaders having influence in the community (John and "Jezebel") and three distinct groups of people. Two of the three groups are represented metaphorically. The first is the children of "Jezebel." According to the threat section in the Thyatira letter, the speaker, who is identified as the Son of God, "will strike them dead" (2:23). John describes the second group as those committing adultery with "Jezebel." According to the threat, the Son of God will throw these people (iSou paAAco . . . loiic, [ioiêvioviac, (iet' ca>Tf|.60ma). Such a person seemed to John a dangerous traitor. He saw her openness to pagan society as nothing less than the attempt to convince the besieged community to throw open the fortress gates to the enemy. He then encouraged his communities to see "Jezebel" in light of the gender stereotypes of the time, using those stereotypes to condemn her (implicitly) for her lack of oco^poowri. By appealing to "Babylon's" weakness for wine and her sexual promiscuity, John implicitly paints "Jezebel" as an undisciplined woman, unfit to lead. Ultimately, he intimates that "Babylon," or any other woman acting like a male in the public sphere (like "Jezebel"), should be avoided at all costs. He reinforces this implicit condemnation by depicting his positive women as passive figures, shut away from the world (whether in the wilderness or in heaven).

9 True and False Prophets Binding "Jezebel" to the Beast from the Earth

In this chapter I will show that John continues his indirect polemic against his rival in Revelation by painting her with the same colors he uses to draw the character commonly known as the Beast from Earth (13:11-18). By comparing his rival to the Beast from the Earth, John ties her at the same time to the character known elsewhere in the Apocalypse as the False Prophet (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10), who, as I will show, is nothing more than a second incarnation of the Beast from the Earth in John's narrative world. Comparing his rival "Jezebel" to the Beast from the Earth results in a twofold rhetorical advantage for John. First, the comparison also implicitly associates her with the Beast from the Sea (who represents Rome) and the Dragon (who represents Satan). This connection effectively reinforces John's strategy of linking "Jezebel" to "Babylon." Second, and perhaps more important, by coupling "Jezebel" with the Beast from the Earth who is also the False Prophet, John focuses on the contrast between true and false prophecy, an issue of vital importance to the seer. Of course, if "Jezebel" is connected with false prophecy in the reader's mind, then the mantle of genuine eschatological prophecy descends, by default, onto John's shoulders.

Binding "Jezebel" and the Beast from the Earth Revelation 13:11-18 presents a vision depicting a strange, speaking beast. This beast serves the beast that had risen up from the sea in the passage immediately preceding (13:1-10). 173

114

Who Rides the Beast? 13:11 Then I saw another beast that rose out of the earth; it had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed. 13 It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all; 14 and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the beast, it deceives the inhabitants of earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet lived; 15 and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six.

This so-called Beast from the Earth is the third monster that has appeared in the series of visions beginning in chapter 12. In that chapter John identifies the first monster, the Dragon (12:3), as the Devil and Satan (12:9). The second monster (13:1), whose attributes consist of the combined traits of the four beasts of Daniel 7:1-8, clearly points to Rome (as virtually all commentators have noted). 1 The third monster, the Beast from the Earth, labors on behalf of the second monster (Rev. 13:12). But who or what does this third monster represent? The key to answering this question seems to lie in 13:12: "It [i. e., the Beast from the Earth] exercises all the authority of the first beast [i. e., the Beast from the Sea] on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast." Interpreters have attempted to solve this problem in a variety of ways. The best suggestions are that the beast in 13:11-18 represents (1) the state officials of the province;2 (2) the imperial cult;3 or (3) the overall pagan religious milieu of the empire.4 Of these options, the first is the least credible, given the obvious references to cultic practices in 12:13-15. Many scholars have favored the second option, the identification of the beast with the imperial cult, and this suggestion has much to recommend it. However, the particular signs and wonders described in 12:13-15 are not specifically attested in connection with the imperial cult (although it is quite likely that they could have been performed in this connection). 5 We know, however, that these particular phenomena were associated with some pagan shrines of the time and are also found in the magical literature. Overall, the third option seems to be the strongest, since it would include, but not limit itself to, the imperial cult. As a result, the Beast from the Earth on the most obvious level stands for Greco-Roman culture and, more specifically, the pagan substructure supporting that culture. John binds "Jezebel" to the Beast from the Earth, in brief, in three specific ways. First, he focuses on the verb TiXavdo), a term he associates

True and False Prophets

115

with both characters. Second, he emphasizes the prophetic (or, from his vantage point, pseudoprophetic) abilities of each. He strengthens this second link by highlighting the ironic nature of one of the beast's magical acts (13:13), the calling down of fire from heaven. Third, having connected these figures in these two ways, John reinforces that connection by describing the appearance of the beast in a manner that calls to mind John's rival (13:11). I will explore these connections in the sections that follow. Connecting the Activities of "Jezebel" with the Activities of the Beast from the Earth In Revelation 2:20, John introduces "Jezebel" as follows. "I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman 'Jezebel/ who calls herself a prophet and is teaching (5i5daKEi) and beguiling (nKava.) my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols." In this verse, John highlights three specific activities of his rival "Jezebel." First, she claims prophetic status (falsely, according to John), an activity I will discuss later in this chapter. Second, she "teaches" (5i8daKei), an act that also subtly ties her to false prophecy, given the associations this verb carries elsewhere in the document.6 Third, she "beguiles" or "leads astray" (Tilavd), with the result that Christians commit abominable acts (from John's vantage point). In this section, I will examine how John connects the third of these activities—leading astray—with the activities of all of the evil figures but most especially with the Beast from the Earth. He does this by describing the activities of each with the verb 7iA,avd(fl ("to lead astray"). nXavda). The verb 7iA.avdo) (usually translated "to deceive," to beguile," or "to lead astray") appears in a number of places in the Apocalypse. It should come as no surprise to learn that in practically every place that it appears in the Apocalypse, the verb is unequivocally tied to the major forces of evil that appear in that work. In the vision of chapter 12, for instance, John connects TtXavdro with the Dragon, identified in the same passage as Satan (12:9). It is noteworthy that the participial form of the verb functions in this passage as the defining characteristic of Satan. He is the "deceiver."7 In the vision of the great whore "Babylon" of chapters 17 and 18, John connects the verb TuAavdw with that figure as well.8 The Beast from the Earth and the False Prophet (two manifestations of the same figure) are also joined to the verb Titaxvdw. In the case of the Beast from the Earth the connection is made in 13:14, whereas at the end of Revelation 19, the False Prophet is accused of having "deceived" those who had received the mark of the beast. From these four passages, it is clear that John views 7iA,avdo> as a term that describes the primary activity of most of the major evil forces in the Apocalypse: Satan, "Babylon," and the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet.9

116


Of course, all of this raises questions about John's use of the term 7rA,avti(o in Revelation 2:20, where he applies it to his Christian rival "Jezebel's" activities. Since elsewhere in the Apocalypse, John consistently and exclusively uses the verb 7cA,avdo) to refer to the activities of the forces of evil, the fact that he employs the verb in connection with "Jezebel" suggests that he wants the readers to see "Jezebel" as they have viewed those outside figures. There is more, however, to John's use of TtA-avdco than simply the connection between the forces of evil and "Jezebel"; the verb itself suggests sorcery. In an important article that appeared in 1938, P. Samain presented what one scholar has called "an ironclad case" 10 that the charges involving the terms 7iWivr|c/7iXdvoc;/7iA,avd(fl are frequently accusations of sorcery.11 Is this what John is suggesting about his rival? Is he hinting that she is a sorceress? I suggest that he is implying just that. In order to bolster this suggestion, we can look at the way he uses the verb nhavaia elsewhere. Does he suggest sorcery in his other uses of the verb? In Revelation 13:13-14 John uses the verb in connection with the activities of the Beast from the Earth. 13:13 [The Beast from the Earth] performs great signs [crnneia p,eydXa], even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all; 14 and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the [Beast from the Sea], it deceives [jiXavq] the inhabitants of earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet lived.

According to these verses, the activity of deceiving the inhabitants of the earth, an activity described with the verb TiXavdco, is the focus of the actions of Beast from the Earth. The Beast from the Earth deceives (rcXavg) the inhabitants of the earth by the great signs (cm|j.eta ueydla); in fact, the "great signs" the beast performs are mere tools in service of that deception. The way these wonders are described certainly suggests that they represent acts of sorcery. The two "great wonders" performed by the beast are the bringing down of fire from heaven to earth (13:13) and the animation of the image of the beast so that it could speak (13:15). The first act, bringing down fire from heaven, is attested in mainstream pagan cultic contexts (in connection with a particular deity's shrine, for instance). 12 But similar acts were also seen in subcultural magical settings. The Christian writer Hippolytus gives us an example of a trick performed by a sorcerer in which "fire [is] borne through the air." According to Hippolytus, the trick is set up beforehand and it works by means of a hidden accomplice. The [concealed] accomplice . . . when he hears the incantation [of the sorcerer] ceasing, holding a kite or hawk enveloped with tow, sets fire to it and releases it. The bird, however, frightened by the flame, is borne aloft, and makes a (proportionally) quicker flight, which these deluded persons


117

beholding, conceal themselves, as if they had seen something divine. The winged creature, however, being whirled round by the fire, is borne whithersoever chance may have it, and burns now the houses, and now the courtyards. (Hippol. Haer. 4. 36) The next phenomenon to which John refers is the animation of the image of a deity so that it could speak. Again, this practice appeared in mainstream pagan religious experience but was also associated with "magicians." In fact, it seems that the mechanical animation of statues was a relatively common occurrence in the Greco-Roman milieu, as was the practice of making them speak. 13 Probably our best example comes from Lucian, in his work on Alexander of Abonoteichus. In this essay, Lucian tells us how Alexander managed to make a serpent (representing the god Glycon) speak. Of course, from Lucian's perspective, Alexander's activities functioned solely to deceive the populace. [He] had long [before] prepared and fitted up a serpent's head of linen, which had something of a human look, was all painted up, and appeared very lifelike. It would open and close its mouth by means of horsehairs, and a forked black tongue like a snake's, also controlled by horsehairs, would dart out. (12) Alexander took this snake's head and combined it with the body of a living serpent to further the deception: Coiling [the live snake] about his neck, and letting the tail, which was long, stream over his lap and drag part of its length on the floor, he concealed only the head by holding it under his arm . . . and showed the linen head at the side of his own beard, as if it certainly belonged to the creature that was in view. (15) Finally, Alexander arranged for the serpent to speak: It was no difficult matter for him to fasten cranes' windpipes together and pass them through the head, which he had fastened to be so lifelike. Then he answered the questions through someone else, who spoke into the tube from the outside, so that the voice issued from his canvas Asclepius. (26) 14 Although the example of Alexander comes from the mid-second century, speaking oracles and speaking statues apparently existed long before. For instance, in a Corinthian temple from the fifth century BCE, a megaphone-like funnel was bored through a stone block. The hole, invisible from inside the temple, was presumably used to transmit sounds—most likely oracles—from a space below the temple. 15 Numerous speaking statues have also been found by archaeologists16 and discussed by early Christian writers.17 As I have already mentioned, these two "great signs" (arnieta u.eydtax) are attested in both the mainstream polytheistic culture as well as in countercultural magical contexts. Although the latter context certainly recommends sorcery, what about the former? Do we have to de-

118


ride whether John specifically alludes to one or the other context in order to determine whether or not he would consider the acts of the beast to represent acts of sorcery? Clearly we do not, for John, like many of his contemporaries in the Jewish and Christian traditions, considered idolatry to be trafficking in the demonic (see Rev. 9:20). 18 To recap, John connects the activities of "Jezebel" with those of the Beast from the Earth in his readers' minds by describing the activity of each with the important term Titaxvdcfl. The fact that this verb can imply sorcery, coupled with the description of the magical acts of the Beast from the Earth, subtly recommends that "Jezebel" has bewitched her followers into commiting their "abominations."19 She has bewitched her followers, John implies, just as the Beast from the Earth has bewitched the people of the earth so that they will worship the Beast from the Sea. In the next section I will examine how the seer reinforces the connection between "Jezebel" and the Beast from the Earth by comparing another of their activities, false prophecy. False Prophecy, the Beast from the Earth, and "Jezebel" The idea of false prophecy provides a strong literary link between "Jezebel" and the Beast from the Earth. 20 On the one hand, John impugns "Jezebel's" prophetic calling when he introduces her in 2:20 (where he says that she "calls herself a prophet"). 21 On the other hand, he identifies the Beast from the Earth with a figure known only as the "false prophet" in a number of places in Revelation. It is clear that the False Prophet in the later chapters of Revelation is none other than the Beast from the Earth.22 For instance, in 19:19-20, John mentions both the Beast from the Sea as well as the False Prophet. 19:19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed in its presence the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.

When he mentions the False Prophet here, it is beyond dispute that he uses language intended to recall Revelation 13:12-17 and that passage's discussion of the Beast from the Earth: 13:12 [The beast] exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast. . . . 13 It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all; and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the beast, 14 it deceives the inhabitants of earth. . . . Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.


119

Since in Revelation John only makes reference to illegitimate or false prophecy in connection with two characters, his rival "Jezebel" and the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet, it is hard to imagine that he does not intend the reader to compare the two.23 The End-Time Prophet and the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet. In the apocalyptic tradition of early Christianity, false prophets (especially those performing magical acts) were depicted as harbingers of the eschaton.24 Of course, it is significant that, in the early Christian texts that highlight these figures, the verb Titaxvaco (or words derived from it) is typically associated with their miraculous acts. For instance, in the "little Apocalypse" of Mark 13 (corresponding to Matthew 24, Luke 21), Jesus warns the disciples of false prophets immediately preceding the end. Note that Mark also uses the verb rcJiavdco in this passage, a verb that clearly suggests sorcery in this context. Early in the chapter, Jesus admonishes his disciples: "Beware that no one leads you astray [7tXavf)crr|]. Many will come in my name and say, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray [7iA.avfiooixnv]" (13:5-6). He continues later: And if anyone says to you at that time, "Look! Here is the Christ! "or "Look! There he is!"—do not believe it. False Christs and false prophets [\|/eu8oTipocjiTiTai] will appear and produce signs and omens [crrnieia KOI xepata], to lead astray [itpoc; TO cmoitAavav], if possible, the elect (13:21-22).

The use of the verb 7iA,avdco (as well as anon'kav6.

Who Rides the Beast?: Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse

Who Rides the Tiger

Who Rides the Tiger

Who Rides the Tiger

Secrets of the Prophetic

The Prophetic Pulpit: Clergy, Churches, and Communities in American Politics

The presidency and the rhetoric of foreign crisis

The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America

The Beasts of the Apocalypse

Apocalypse of the Dead

APOCALYPSE of the DEAD

The Heart of The Beast

The Heart of The Beast

The Book of the Beast

The Taming of the Beast

The Belly Of The Beast

The Belly of the Beast

The Mark of the Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Day of the Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Image of the Beast

The Number Of The Beast

The Belly of the Beast

The Mark Of The Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Heart of The Beast

The Vault of the Beast

Who Rides the Beast?: Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse

Who Rides the Tiger

Who Rides the Tiger

Who Rides the Tiger

Secrets of the Prophetic

The Prophetic Pulpit: Clergy, Churches, and Communities in American Politics

The presidency and the rhetoric of foreign crisis

The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America

The Beasts of the Apocalypse

Apocalypse of the Dead

APOCALYPSE of the DEAD

The Heart of The Beast

The Heart of The Beast

The Book of the Beast

The Taming of the Beast

The Belly Of The Beast

The Belly of the Beast

The Mark of the Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Day of the Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Image of the Beast

The Number Of The Beast

The Belly of the Beast

The Mark Of The Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Number of the Beast

The Heart of The Beast

The Vault of the Beast

Recommend Documents