The context of the seven letters of Revelation

Introduction

Can we state with any confidence that the letters to the seven churches of Revelation have been removed from any explicitly Jewish context and placed solely within a Christian context? In other words, should we say that the symbolism and warnings of the OT should be viewed as warnings against apostate Christianity and not as a warning against reverting to Judaism?

Such a view goes along with a late (post-70) date for Revelation—i.e. when the Temple was already destroyed, the Jewish nation dissolved, and the apostles (with the exception of John) were already dead. In order to explore this position, we will accept the premise of a late date (although we believe internal Scriptural evidence demonstrates the opposite) and adopt the premise ad hominem to demonstrate the weakness of the argument that in Revelation OT symbols are ‘Christianized’.

This argument pre-supposes that the Jewish nation no longer exits—therefore there is no danger of Jewish-Christians reverting to Judaism. Judaism and Christianity have parted ways—first-century Christianity is vindicated and the threat from Judaists has disappeared. Therefore, the use of OT symbol holds no direct reference to the Jews but should be understood in the sense of a contrast such as ‘the Jews played the harlot with the Old Covenant/Christians are now playing the harlot with the New Covenant’.  The language and symbol of the OT has therefore been reconfigured and adapted to address the new threat—false Christianity.

‘The blasphemy of those who say they are Jews’

This is a strange turn of phrase to use against false Christians at Smyrna especially when we add the observation that they belong to the ‘Synagogue of Satan’.  Interestingly, the same writer (the apostle John) notes that the ‘Jews’ made similar claims in John 8:39, “Abraham is our father” (i.e., we are real Jews and you {Jesus/Christians} are not) and Jesus replies (v. 44), “You are of your father the devil” (i.e., the Synagogue of Satan).  It is hardly credible that John echoes the same polemic against two different groups, especially as Christians were already familiar with his Gospel which was a polemic against the ‘Jews’.

‘Which say they are Jews but are not, and do lie’

These ‘Jews’ were antagonistic towards the church at Philadelphia, they were ‘liars’ or ‘deceivers’, who practised guile (note John 8:44, where Jesus says to the Jews who claim Abraham as father; “…your father the devil… he is a liar and the father of it”). However, the New Israel consists of those in whose “mouth was no guile” (Rev 14:5), a play on the name of Jacob and a reference to Nathaniel in the Fourth Gospel, “Behold an Israelite in whom is no guile” (John 1:47). Faithful Jews were those who (like Nathaniel) acknowledged Christ as the messiah—the twelve tribes of the New Israel follow the Lamb (Rev 14:4; cf. John 1:24, 36-37, 43); they are protected/sealed (Rev 14:1; cf. Rev 3:10) and bear the Father’s name (Rev 14:1; cf. Rev 3:12). Note the time frame, “I come quickly” (Rev 3:11). This is hardly a message against ‘false Christians’ particularly considering how much of Revelation echoes the polemic of the Fourth Gospel (by the same writer) where false Jews are the enemy.

The church at Ephesus

It is accepted by most scholars that at some stage John lived in Ephesus and had close contact with the church there. In previous EJournal articles the case has been made that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written to the church at Ephesus and has been demonstrated that the warnings in Revelation are echoed throughout Hebrews.[1]  Let us accept the premise (for the sake of argument) that Hebrews was written before Revelation (i.e., that Revelation was written post-70 and is ‘echoing Hebrews’). To what was the church at Ephesus in danger of falling away?   They had lost their first love (Christianity) and were in danger of reverting back to Judaism: “If they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame” (Heb 6:6). They were warned not to do this because they had not come to Mt. Sinai but to Mt. Zion (Heb 12:18-23) and to “better” things.  Why warn the church at Ephesus (here we think particularly of the Jewish-Christian element) against reverting to Judaism if the Temple was already destroyed and the nation dissolved?

The Doctrine of Balaam

Pergamum is warned against the doctrine of Balaam which specifically involved “eating things sacrificed to idols and committing fornication”.  However, this was not a new doctrine, as it is already condemned by Peter as “following the way of Balaam” (2 Pet 2:15), and by Jude as “the error of Balaam” (Jude v. 11).  The prophetess Jezebel at Thyatira obviously taught the doctrine of Balaam, “to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed unto idols” (Rev 2:20).  So the doctrine of Balaam was pervasive (found in more than one church) and early (found in pre-70 epistles).  It was also a deliberate wresting of the apostle Paul’s teaching about liberty in Christ: “And why not say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come? (as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say). ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” (Rom 3:8).

These opponents of the Gospel were Jews (Gal 2:4) who followed the strategy of Balaam in promoting promiscuity with the ultimate aim of encouraging pious Jewish-Christian converts back to Judaism; “And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage).” Idol worship and fornication were an abomination to the Jews, and Jewish-Christians would soon revert back to Judaism.  Of course, Paul preached no such thing!

However, the point needs emphasising that the doctrine of Balaam (also preached by Jezebel) was not a heresy promoted by Christians but a heresy promoted by ‘Jews’ (false brethren) in order to damage early Christianity and discredit Christianity in the eyes of Jewish-Christian converts and pious Jews.  Such a strategy was underway long before 70 and would not have been necessary after 70—after all, once God had removed the Temple and the nation, the Jews could hardly claim to be the chosen ones by right of their heritage (and they were too busy trying to preserve Judaism to bother with Jewish-Christian converts).

Conclusion

While it is true that the messages to the seven churches contain local elements such as warnings (to gentile converts) against reverting to paganism, or the danger of materialism, they also embrace an overarching theme, namely, warning Jewish-Christians that Judaists would soon get their just rewards (so don’t go back to Judaism like a dog to vomit). Even if we accept a late date for Revelation (which I do not) there are no specific warnings in Revelation against a systematic false teaching of Christianity (such as we find in the Catholic Church). In the Epistle of John we have a warning against docetic Christianity, but here is the rub—those false prophets left the true church (“they went out from us”).

The situation in Revelation is one of enmity and persecution by those who lay claim to a Jewish heritage. It is not Christian-on-Christian persecution such as we find in later centuries but problems between Jews and Christians.  All this would become largely irrelevant if Revelation were written after 70. Advocates of a late post-70 date and a ‘false Christianity’ agenda must not only explain Revelation’s obsession with Jews but also why this continued after 70.  Advocates of an early date do not need to do this; Revelation continues the theme of the whole NT where the Jews stirred up trouble all over Asia Minor, so much so that Paul despaired; “….that all those in Asia have turned away from me” (2 Tim 1:15), nor do early date advocates need to reconfigure OT symbols—the meaning is consistent across the Testaments.