Thomas Witulski (
Ladies and gentlemen,
The last book of the newtestamentical canon, the Apocalypse of John, poses as
many questions to exegetical scholars as before, which can neither
be discussed at length nor completely solved in our seminar group[1].
But it seems to be evident, that the writer of the Apocalypse especially tries
to admonish his addresses, the Christian communities and in the same way the
Christian individuals, to remain faithfully and steadfastly in their faith in
Christ. The Christian individuals are exhorted to keep their belief purely and
unadulterated, to restrict themselves to the worship of the God of the Old
Testament and of his PñÃßïà Christ and to avoid any participation
in cultic-religious worship of other, of pagan gods, in particular of the Roman
Emperor, reigning at the time of the composition of the Apc.
This becomes evident in the analysis
of the letters to the Pergamon community Apc 2,12-17 and Thyateira Apc 2,18-29. After at
first praising the community in Apc 2,13, John continues in Apc 2,14 in
a more critical tone. He more precisely accuses the Pergamon
Christians of tolerating false prophets in their midst. John at first, more
closely names their lectures and announcements in Apc
2,14 as äéäá÷x ÂáëáÜì, judging them by their characteristic context. Later he uses
comparative adverbs such as ïœôùò and ¿ìïßùò
in Apc
2,15 to identify them with äéäá÷x Ãéêïëáúô§Ã. This means that
the two terms äéäá÷x ÂáëáÜì and äéäá÷x Ãéêïëáúô§à in the end refer to the same
heretical doctrine. It seems that John wishes to spotlight the essential and
significant context of this current doctrine by referring to the prophet Bileam from the Old Testament.
This would lead to the assumption
that the followers of äéäá÷x ÂáëáÜì and äéäá÷x Ãéêïëáúô§à are identical. To verify this, in Apc 2,14 ÂáëáÜì is
used in singular terms, whereas in Apc 2,15 Ãéêïëáúô§Ã
is in plural. The conclusion drawn is that äéäá÷x ÂáëáÜì is referred exactly to the äéäá÷Þ which was intended as propaganda by
Bileam himself during the desert flight of the people
of
In the eyes of John this term äéäá÷x Ãéêïëáúô§à is despicable. According to Num 25,1–3; 31,16 the misconduct of Bileam
results in the fact that he entices the people of
Viewing the central gist of äéäá÷x Ãéêïëáúô§Ã, which is circling in the Pergamon community at the time of the Apc
and which John in Apc 2,15 paralyses with äéäá÷x ÂáëáÜì, one can conclude the following:
The located followers of the äéäá÷x Ãéêïëáúô§à within the Pergamon community have, so it
seems according to the accusation of John, tried to demolish the exclusiveness
of Christian worship of the one and only God of the Old Testament and his PñÃßïÃ
Christ and to achieve a broader understanding and participation of sacrifice to
pagan gods. To understand these terms öáãåsà åkäùëüèõôá and ðïñÃå™óáé as being headwords to characterize the current
circular in the Pergamon community äéäá÷x Ãéêïëáúô§à the following conclusion can be
made: The suggestion that John is using these terms to show an only indirect
and unconscious participation in cultic-religious worshiping of pagan gods, due
to the purchase of meat in the market scarified to them, is hardly likely. It
is more obvious that he means the conscious and immediate participation in the
corresponding cultural handlings. With the expression öáãåsà åkäùëüèõôá he either relates to the Christian
participation in pagan-religious cultural handlings, cultic meals and
festivities in general, or to their direct participation in such cultural
handlings, where openly distributed sacrificed meat is also eaten. With the
term ðïñÃå™óáé he wants to metaphorically point out to the
worship of pagan gods, practiced by the followers of äéäá÷x Ãéêïëáúô§Ã, which co-exist next to the worship of the God of the Old Testament and
his PñÃßïà Christ. This definitely also corresponds to the Oldtestamentical
language and the there metaphorically defined usage of the term ðïñÃåßá êôë. In the context of this explanation, the öáãåsà åkäùëüèõôá as participation in pagan-religious
cultic handlings, becomes a component of the
accusation of ðïñÃåßá, dealing with the practising of pagan worship
in total.
John demands that
the Pergamon Christians turn back, meaning to give up
the at this time evident toleration of the Nicolites
in the community and to fiercely fight the äéäá÷x Ãéêïëáúô§à and their representatives. He who does not follow this call, will be
punished with death, whereas the phrase ìåôE ášô§Ã
Apc 2,16 refers to the
followers as well as to the people who tolerate her äéäá÷x Ãéêïëáúô§Ã.
The writings to the Pergamon community close with the expressions „alarm call“ and „overcoming hurdles“. Those who are steadfast in their
belief in God and in PñÃßïà Christ and do not disown them will
be rewarded with Manna, which up to that time has been evidently concealed, and
a –Ãïìá êáéÃÂ’Ã on a øyöïò ëåõêÞ, which is only revealed to those
who conceive this stone.
After the opening of his writing to
the Christian community of Thyateira, using the
stereotype framework elements „writing order“ and „messenger phrase“, John
addresses the situation in the Thyateira community.
In Apc 2,19 he at first
praises the behaviour of the Christians of Thyateira,
more specifically their love to God and to their fellow man, their readiness to
help one another and their patience. Their behaviour, on the contrary to the
behaviour of the Christians in
Subsequent to this captatio benevolentiae,
John then makes massive accusations against the community. Most essentially
he criticizes that the Christians of Thyateira
tolerate a woman named ÉåæÜâåë, who calls herself a prophet and
seduces the community members to whoring (ðïñÃå™óáé) and the consumption of pagan meat.
Her behaviour evidently corresponds with the Pergamon
Nicolites. According to 1Kings 16,31-34; 21,25f.;
2Kings 9,22 the sin of the Israeli queen Isebel was
essentially that she introduced and supported in Israel the cult and worship of
the god l[b/Âááë and
other pagan gods. From this we can derive, as already shown in Apc 2,14, that also in Apc 2,20
the in their order evidently exchangeable terms ðïñÃå™óáé and öáãåsà åkäùëüèõôá are used more metaphorically and inclusive and interpreted as
„identical metaphors regarding the breaking away from the true faith“. The term
öáãåsà åkäùëüèõôá in this context refers to the
participation in pagan-religious cultic events, cultic meals and festivities.
With the term ðïñÃå™óáé, John hints at the worship of pagan gods,
being worshiped side-by-side with the God of the Old Testament and his PñÃßïÃ
Christ.
In Apc
2,24, PñÃßïà Christ speaking through John, turns to the Christians in Thyateira who have not (as yet) fallen under the spell of
the prophet EéåæÜâåë, who have (not yet) taken on the äéäá÷Þ, practiced and proclaimed by her. They are not to be punished by a new âÜñïò;
they should only secure what they have recognized as fundamental belief in the
past, and have expressed in the Apc at present, and
practiced in their lives, till the resurrection of Christ.
The term óáôáÃOò in the Apc
indicates that John, contrary to the general assumption, by using the term (ïšê) hãÃùóáà ôN
âáèÃá ôï™ óáôáÃO ©ò ëÃãïõóéà Apc 2,24, wishes to turn the positive
statement of EéåæÜâåë and her followers, that they have
seen the depths of God, into a negative one. Especially in Apc
12,8; 20,2.7-10 and further also in Apc 2,9.13; 3,9
this term is related so clearly to GodÂ’s and his PñÃßïà ChristÂ’s opponent, that there is no
chance John could have in Apc 2,24 used it as a
(possibly ironic) synonym for God. Especially in Apc
2,24 there is a term ©ò ëÃãïõóéà which rather marks the phrases hãÃùóáà ôN âáèÃá ôï™
óáôáÃO as headwords of the opponents. It can be concluded that with this phrase
in Apc 2,24 John refers to
the äéäá÷Þ, the false prophets opposed by him. They
evidently claim to have recognized the depths, the fundamental religious
relevance and the theological meaning of GodÂ’s opponent.
Based on this interpretation and in
view to the äéäá÷Þ , proclaimed by EéåæÜâåë and her followers and the behaviour
resulting from that, which John describes with the terms öáãåsà åkäùëüèõôá and ðïñÃå™óáé/ðïñÃåßá (Apc
2,20), two possible explanations result : (a) The prophetess EéåæÜâåë and her followers have recognized
the âáèÃá ôï™ óáôáÃO and have determined that the óáôáÃOò is a non-existing, powerless figure.
This would mean that participation in cultic-religious handlings cannot pose
any danger to oneÂ’s own Christian identity and faith.
b) The prophetess EéåæÜâåë and her followers have recognized
the âáèÃá ôï™ óáôáÃO and really were of the opinion that GodÂ’s opponent had indeed religious
and soteriological meaning. This led them to participate in events within the
religious-cultic worship of the óáôáÃOò. This explanation is unlikely,
given the fact of a postulate, far-reaching transformation of Christian faith,
which has to be added to a belief of a second saviour next to PñÃßïÃ
Christ. It would be more likely that the prophet EéåæÜâåë and her followers in the Christian
community of Thyateira were strongly of the opinion
that worshipping pagan gods was definitely allowed, given the fact that these
gods were non-existent and trivial and had no real meaning for Christians.
The letter to the community of
Thyatira ends with the stereotype framework elements „surmount“ (Apc 2,26-28) and „alarm call“ (Apc
2,29), whereas contrary to the Pergamon letter (Apc 2,17) the alarm call does not proceed the surmount, but
follows it. The Ãéê§Ã, which preserves the work of PñÃßïÃ
Christ till the end, will in the same way, just as has PñÃßïÃ
Christ from his Father received in the past the dîïõóßá (Apc
2,28a), will receive power and glorious authority over the people (Apc 2,26bf.) and a morning star (Apc
2,28b), according to Apc 22,16 the PñÃßïà Christ himself.
Conclusion: In the letter to the
community of Thyateria, a group of community members
are violently criticized, because they have evidently supported a woman acting
as a false prophet. This prophet teaches them, that due to the insignificance
of pagan gods, there is no harm to also participate in their corresponding
religious-cultic worship and to practise this in their everyday life. Opposed
to this view, John through PñÃßïà Christ demands them to distance
themselves from pagan worship and to exclusively and without compromise worship
the one and only God, his Father, and himself.
From all this results in view to the
question of integration and separation in the Apocalypse of John: Especially in
his letters to the Christian communities in Pergamon
(Apc 2,12–17) and Thyatira (Apc 2,18–29), John fights against inner groups of these
communities, whose members join in the cultic-religious Emperor worship in
their cities and, above all, justify their participation by pointing to theological
reasons. In Apc 2,24, the Thyateiric prophetess EÉåæÜâåë and her followers were described as
such, who hãÃùóáà ôN
âáèÃá ôï™ óáôáÃO ©ò ëÃãïõóéÃ, as such, who have, according to
their own testimony, “recognized the depths of Satan”. In my opinion, this
formulation seems to indicate, that the Christian followers of EÉåæÜâåë are of the opinion, that the óáôáÃOò and the pagan gods and goddesses
including the Roman principes,
which all depend on him, are finally only helpless and powerless figures,
insignificant for the salvation or the fate of the Christians. But the
theological conclusion, which is drawn by EÉåæÜâåë and her followers from this knowledge,
is as follows: The participation in the cultic-religious worship of pagan gods
and goddesses and of the Roman Emperors cannot harm the Christians in their
past and present status of salvation, cannot result in loosing their right to
salvation for now and for the future.
Contrary to this opinion, which
tries to interpose and to integrate the Christian faith and the participation
in the cultic-religious worship of pagan gods and goddesses, also by pointing
out to theological reasons, John opposes this in his Apc
very fiercely and sharply: These Christians, who, founded by theological reasons
or not, participate in the cultic-religious worship of pagan gods and
goddesses, are called to account by the PñÃßïà Christ already in present times (Apc 2,16.22f.) and will be excluded from salvation in the
future, described in Apc 21f. (Apc
2,17.26ff.). Against this theological position, which
tries to interpose between the pagan environment and the individual existence
as a Christian, John himself polemizes and develops a
separating, respectively separatistic statement: Only
the Christian individual, who stays faithfully and steadfastly in his faith in
Christ, who keeps his belief purely and unadulterated, will participate in the
present and also in the future salvation.
From this exegetical thesis results,
the in my view exciting question, if and in which way John could work as a
Christian missionary in his pagan environment, in the presence of his separating
respectively separatistic statement. In my opinion,
the theological statement of John implies the following basic principles of a
theory of Christian mission: (a) Christian mission has to be practised on
condition that present and future salvation can be created, granted and obtained
only by the grace of the God of the Old Testament and its PñÃßïÃ
Christ. (b) Christian mission has to be practised in clear and distinct
delimitation and distinction from other, non-Christian religions, from other,
non-Christian cultic-religious worship. (c) Christian mission has to be
practised by clearly characterizing other, non-Christian gods and goddesses as
evil forces, whose worship and positive evaluation leads Christians to the loss
of their salvation, which they have already experienced in Christ. Summa:
Christian mission cannot be seen as an interposing or integrative dialogue
between different religions and cultures, but only in a sharp and also polemical
distance and distinction of them.
But now, what shall we, Christians,
Christian theologians, priests, pastors and missionaries
in the year 2004, do with this non-integrative, separating respectively separatisting statement of John? Here are some short
remarks concerning this question: (a) At first, we have to realize, that the Apc of John, like all other writings of the New Testaments,
was written in a specific historical situation, and reflects, at least for the
present, the theological position of only one appointed historical person. The
voice of this person, whose writing has been taken into the newtestamentical
canon, is, at least for this reason, to be heard and also to be considered, but
in every case also to be referred to in relation to the other voices and
positions within the newtestamentical canon. This may
lead to a new and different valuation of the theological position of John. (b)
As a historically grown theological position within the early Christianity, the
theological statement of John cannot be immediately fully accepted and adopted
in our present times, but should be interpreted at first. Nevertheless, we are
admonished by John, that in our work within the Christian mission, we have to
keep and hold out as a central aspect of Christian proclamation, that present
and future salvation can be created, granted and obtained only by the grace of
the God of the Old Testament and its PñÃßïà Christ. In my opinion, we have
again and again to keep this aspect very clearly in mind, especially within our
mutual work and in our dialogue with representatives of other religions and
with non-Christian individuals. If we want to follow the statement of John,
Christian mission can take place intergratively, also
in our times, only by having a mutual belief in the God of the Old Testament
and his PñÃßïÃ
Christ.
Thank you very much for your
attention.
[1] I hope to clear in my Habilitationsschrift „Hadrian oder Christus? Untersuchungen zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Johannesapokalypse“ the problem of the dating of the Apc.