C. To The Church Of Pergamum (2:12-17)
C. TO THE CHURCH OF PERGAMUM (2:12-17)
Pergamum was never important until it became the capital of the independent kingdom of the Attalids after Alexander the Great. Its last king willed it to Rome in 133 BC, when it apparently became the capital of the Roman province of Asia. About 15 miles inland, it did not have a good trading position. But, apart from its administrative importance, it was significant for its great library, said to have contained more than 200,000 parchment scrolls. Indeed, our word ‘parchment’ is derived from this name ’Pergamum’.77 It was an important religious centre. People came from all over the world to be healed by the god Asclepius, and Pergamum has been described as ’the Lourdes of the ancient world’. Zeus, Dionysos and Athene also had notable temples in the city. Pergamum was a centre of Caesar-worship, and it had a temple dedicated to Rome as early as 29 BC. It attained the coveted title ne
koros, ’Temple-sweeper’, before either Smyrna or Ephesus, and took its devotion to emperor-worship seriously. In due course it added a second and a third temple in honour of the emperor. It was the principal centre of the imperial cult in this part of the world. But emperor-worship was not its sole religious activity. Behind the city was a great conical hill, the site of a multitude of heathen temples.
koros, ’Temple-sweeper’, before either Smyrna or Ephesus, and took its devotion to emperor-worship seriously. In due course it added a second and a third temple in honour of the emperor. It was the principal centre of the imperial cult in this part of the world. But emperor-worship was not its sole religious activity. Behind the city was a great conical hill, the site of a multitude of heathen temples.12. The greeting is from him who has the sharp, double-edged sword (cf.1:16), a sword which will be used (v.16). In a city as devoted to the Romans as Pergamum, and the place of residence of the proconsul who possessed the power to put people to death and whose very symbol may be taken to be a sword (Rom. 13:4), it was a salutary reminder that there is a power greater than that of any earthly governor.
13. The verb live (katoikeis) means that the Christians were not simply passing through Pergamum. It was their home and they had to face their difficulties to the end. Satan exercised sway there (he had a throne). Some see an allusion to the serpent, the symbol of Asclepius, which was everywhere in Pergamum. While this emblem symbolized healing to the Pergamenes, it stood for evil for biblically instructed Christians (cf.12:9; 20:2). But Beckwith objects that this kind of worship was very prominent in centres like Epidaurus; Pergamum had no mortgage on it. A similar objection is urged against the suggestion that the great altar to Zeus is meant. This stood high on the Acropolis and dominated the city. But Zeus too was highly honoured elsewhere. We have, however, already noticed that Pergamum did have pre-eminence in emperor-worship. Charles cites an inscription from Mytilene which shows that the city was the centre of the emperor cult for the whole province. And, as this was a constant source of persecution to the Christians, we need not doubt that it was primarily in mind.
But the opposition had not led to any slackening of Christian zeal, and the exalted Lord can say, you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me. The reference to one martyrdom, that of Antipas, and the aorist tense in the verb renounce point to one definite crisis rather than a continuing persecution. Nothing more is known of Antipas (though legend has it that he was roasted in a brazen bull). But clearly he had remained firm; he was my faithful witness (in time this term came to mean ‘martyr’, one who witnessed by his death). The addition where Satan lives stresses the significance of the activity of the evil one. Persecution does not take place simply at the behest of wicked people.
14. We come now to a few things that were wrong. They refer to false teaching, the enemy within. We cannot identify the error with certainty, but Balaam (see on v.6) was the man who, after being prevented from cursing Israel, apparently advised Balak, king of Moab, that the Israelites would forfeit God’s protection if he could induce them to worship idols (Nu. 31:16).
The incident at Baal-peor made a deep impression on subsequent generations. It became proverbial for spiritual declension. The allusion here is spelled out with the reference to Balaam’s teaching of Balak to entice the Israelites to sin. JB has ‘set a trap for’, which preserves something of the original reference to the bait stick which triggered off the trapping mechanism when a bird perched on it. It is a vivid metaphor for what entraps or troubles. Two points are singled out, the eating of food sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality. It is possible that the former refers to meat which had first been offered to idols and was then sold on the open market (see TNTC on 1 Cor. 8), and the latter to sexual sin in general. But it is more likely that both refer to idolatrous practices. Feasting on sacrificial meat and licentious conduct were usual accompaniments of the worship of idols, both in Old and New Testament times.
15. Likewise means ‘like that in verse 14’. You also is emphatic (kai su). In addition to other things you have these false teachers. For the Nicolaitans see note on verse 6. From the way this verse is connected with the preceding we should probably draw the inference that the Balaamite error was akin to that of the Nicolaitans. But the language shows that they were not identical.
16. Repent is a sharp command and therefore means this should be done because of God’s hatred for this kind of practice. Evil must not be countenanced. I will come is another of John’s vivid present tenses. He sees it happening. The alternative to repentance is to have Christ fight against them. The verb is confined to Revelation in the New Testament (apart from Jas. 4:2). The sword of my mouth clearly means the words Christ speaks. This saying is either a comfort and a strength, or else it destroys us.
17. For He who has an ear . . . , see note on verse 7. He who overcomes is this time promised as food the hidden manna. There may be an allusion to the Jewish idea that when the Temple was destroyed the prophet Jeremiah hid the pot with the manna that was in the Holy of Holies, and that when the Messiah came it would reappear. But more probably the meaning is simply that the believer who overcomes will receive celestial food not available to the world (cf. Jn. 4:31-34).
With this is linked a white stone inscribed with a new name. This has puzzled commentators for centuries. At least seven suggestions have been made with some confidence. One arises from legal practice, where a member of a jury who was for acquittal handed in a white stone. A second view sees a reference to reckoning, since white stones were often used in calculations. A third idea is that the white stone is the symbol of a happy day (like our ‘red-letter day’). Along somewhat the same lines is that which sees the stone as an amulet bringing good luck. A more prosaic suggestion is that the white stone represented a ticket to bread and circuses. A sixth suggestion arises from a rabbinic speculation that when the manna fell from heaven it was accompanied by precious stones (note that manna has just been mentioned). The seventh view is that the reference is to a stone in the breastplate of the high priest with the name of one of the tribes written on it. A variant sees a reference to the Urim (Ex. 28:30). Some of these may legitimately be criticized on the ground that either the stone is not white or it has no inscription. But none of them carries complete conviction. We simply do not know what the white stone signified, though clearly it did convey some assurance of blessing.
On the stone will be a new name written, known only to him who receives it. For new (kainon) see note on 5:9. Some have thought that the new name is that of God or Christ. And indeed there is a reference to Christ as having a new name (3:12). But there is no indication that his name is secret and it is the secret that is distinctive here. This must be understood in the light of ideas held in antiquity about the function of a name. With us a name is no more than a distinguishing mark, a label. But in antiquity the name was widely held to sum up what the man stood for. It represented his character. It stood for the whole man. Here then the new name represents a new character. The fact that no-one knows it would be a crippling disadvantage for us. In the modern world what is the use of a name that nobody knows? But for people of antiquity the hidden name was precious. It meant that God had given the overcomer a new character which no-one knew except himself. It was not public property. It was a little secret between him and his God.