S u v i |-kiui.

t>

character a t a n i n t r a m u r a l s k i r m i s h . I he t y n a g o g u r * a n d the eUtniM

('churcrtoT

• e r r b o t h c l a i m i n g t o be the r i g h t f u l heir* o f l i r a e l ' i t r a d i t i o n * , a n d the p o l e m i c resulted f r o m the t c n u o n * between c o m p e t i n g J c w i t h group*. 1 he d e n u n c i a t i o n * b r | o h n arc understandable i n that first c e n t u r y l e t t i n g where the churches were i m a l l a n d vulnerable to persecution*.. In later h i t t i rical set l i n g s - t h a t i t , w h e n c h u r c b e t became p o w e r f u l and d i s t i n c t l y n o n T e w i i h - v o c h d e n u n c i a t i o n * are n o longer excus­ able. They are n o w c i t r a i m i r a l a n d a n t i - S e m i l M .

SARCASM IN R E V E L A T I O N 2 - 3 : C H U R C H E S , C H R I S T I A N S , T R U E JEWS, AND SATANIC SYNAGOGUES

| l in a u l u t o r y develop m e n t that C h r i s t i a n a n l i - S c m i i i t i n « n t u l l v

beginning

a n i m p o r t a n t (ι·ρκ i n N e w T c v t a m r n i s i i t d i r * . a n d R r v r l i i t o n it t r r t a i n l v one p l i t r w h e r e i h e issue* need t o be aired- l l *ecrn« to m r , however, l h a l s t u d i o l i k r the t w o m e n t i o n e d above are t o n concerned w i t h m a k i n g J o h n * Revelation palatable. T h e elfort to r i o n e r a r c or rebahilitate the text h a * distracted u* f r o m the b g K a l t v p r i o r t a i k o t describing the text. I n o t h e r w o r d * , the p r i m a r y question should n o t be. 'Are the d e n u n c i a t i o n * a n t i - S e m i t i c ? ' M e should t u n b y asking. " W h a t k i n d o f d e n u n c i a ­ t i o n * are f o u n d i n the text?" O u r answer* to i h b q u e s t i o n m i g h t n o t be t o reassuring, b u t they t h o u l d b r i n g u t closer to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the text a n d the r u n c e n t u r y c o m m u r i u m that listened to i t . W h e n wc take t h i t approach, we t i n d the categories · iliri(.alu>n a n d polemic l o o • ague.' W c t a n he ramr prcvivc. H a r n Maier has t h o w n lhat the l e i l o f Revclaiiiiii at a w h o l e κ permeated bv
iron

T h e j u i h o i o f i h c Apocahpse can he t e i f i b l y offensive. V o i l e chit endears h i * text t o t o m e readers, scholars, l e n d to be p u i u H b* ( h e i b r a m e . li ι H I ; o l ιh :-.<- >i MM, I '• 11. 1. - are n o t M U M W I I i n ilie a c a d c i m u n l e t * llic t l a n d r t i t u . k i d r t i i . n i t . K r , a n d l u l l h i M i o g t a p h v . In (he . - * e u l Revelation, however, ihc d l t t o n i f u t l 1» n o i |u>l J mailer u f J * * d e m » u » l c . T h e r e .irr m o r e serious m u c i l l slake. T h e rhetors* u l " Revelation ha* hern w t r l d r d m a b e w i l d e r i n g array o f vetting* m f r the u r n w r K * . and a d m u r b i n e . l v h i g h penrentagr o f ihc*c ha*e been l e t h a l . C h m t i a n hostility t o w a r d }c*%, C h r i s t i a n i m p e n a l n m , a n d C h r i w i a n sectarian violence are a few o l the example* that s p r i n g to m i n d . Adcla Yatbru C o l l i n * w re t i l e d w i t h these top κ» by t r e a t i n g the aggressive chara t i e i o f Revelation u n d e r the rubric o f ' t i u h u r i o r u *
1

κ utratrgict. D e a l i n g w i t h i h r w h o l e t e n ( n o t |i«*l

the m r t u j n o f Res' 2—3). Majtrr defended R r t c l a i i o n n o t againtt the i h . i r g r o f an S e m i t i t m , b u t rather against ihc n u u t i o n t h a i John'* a m i - R o m a n v i s i o n * trafficked in the same ideologT o f d o m i n a t i o n that the text c l a i m e d t o oppose. Mater'* r e b u t t a l » a t that the dramatic irony i n |ohn't text W J I a d e i u b i l i i i n g strategy that u l t i m a t e ! ) u n d e r c u t all n o t i o n s o f power based o n conquest.* I h n d M . i e r ' t a r g u m e n t a b o u t i r o n y i n Revelation c o n v i n c i n g . I n regard to the messages to the seven c h u r c b e t , however. I t h i n k we can be even more precise. These iiicstagrt arc c c r i a i n l v i r o n n b u t the c l e m e n t ot u r v a t m ι» p a i t i t u l a r l v t i i o r i g ut these chapters. T h e distiivvlioit i t i m p o i t a n t lot t w o reasons. O n e it that the recognition o f -.ι -. ι >m In the l e t ! tend* l o under n o n e c l l o i i t to c i o n c r a t c R r > c l j ( i u i i t m l u t .ml h o i T h e author b l e n d e d s a n a t m a n d satire i n t o a volatile f o r m <if t i l i f i . a l i o n thai I w i l l not defend- S e c o n d , the d i s t i n c t i o n leads t o ihc
contluMon

V i l i f i c a t i o n i n Revelation can

b e offensive, t h e n o t e d , b u t it a l t o had p o t i t i t e f u n c t i o n s i n the e m e r g i n g C h m ­ tian m o v e m e n t . D e n u n c i a t i o n * o l other )ct*» l a o l i t a t r d b o u n d a o f o r n t a t k i n a* the i h u n . h r » t i i c d to d i v i m g i i i t h i l i c t i o c l t c t f r o m the vi nagi ·|..ο I he c o m i c m m turn o l R o m e a n d o f i m p e n d c u l l s hclpctl d e f i n e the t o n g r e g a t i u n * us groups that d i d n o i a> knowledge the d i v i m t v ••) i h c emperor or rhc r m | * r r u r ' » u n i v c r t a l « b u m t « k m l t t i i f i . V i l i f i c a t i o n o f m a l C h m t i a n leader*, o n the o t h e r h a n d , helped establish i h r b o u n d a n e * he tweeη ( h n t t i a n c r n n l r s and the r t o n - t . h m n a n gentile* o f m a i n i t r r a m c u l t u r e . The joy o f v i l i f i c a t i o n was r n o i i l y for that early p e r i o d in the history o f the m o v e m e n t , according to Y i r b r o C o l l i n t . N o w that C h r i s t i a n self-identity and power are w e l l established, the practice o l v i l i f i c a t i o n should be p u t away tor m o r e mature strategics. Pedrr ! · • Ί ι . ii addressed the tame tec o l usucs under the r u b r i c ot "polemic."'* a n d h i t a r g u m e n t t a m e t o a similar c o n c l u t j o n : the p o l e m i c o f Revelation had the I. Adeb Y i n W C o h W " V U i A c u m and M f D i f i n i i . m in rh* Book o f R«**l« Ρ Κ Ι , ' MT/t?v VM-ZO. 1 i c J n Hurgiii. Ί ' ι ί ι τ η » m the BcuL R c c l j i u n . ' in Ann-Srmir.it f * J/ ΛΙΊΊ<,Ι*Ι /mm IM Falmui jaj / jjrV> {«d. C u i [ A. F.vant »rd I) nil.) Λ. Hafjw. VI ιηηιιροΙ F n n m L IV**.). I«1 211.
1

that the a u t h o r d i d n o l

c l a i m that members o f his churches were true lew-* o r the t r u e Israel I n order to make this a r g u m e n t . I hrst need to define m y terms. 1 then review examples o f t a r t a i m f r o m Rev 2 - 3 , f o c u s i n g esfsccully o n the references to synagogue* o f Satan. I c o n c l u d e w u h o b t e r v a b o n t o n the relationship o f synagogues and churches i n Revelation.

> *l n*MK~hiarhaid>l*dli<ti<liir n f iu£f/*iing*a t r j u n n n i 11 ih« b*«l n f «ί.*· o v l p r i r - c - l " *V'ilitt.ii»n* 11 l « u alkHa* tV* ih> pn««>inl ι ι ι ι Λ ι in Rrseltmn. boc AtnniiMin* hir» jnd#U*wh«w <ii ihc piper, trc M t r i i t a - w c h x e i Online lhl(|>:i''*t>»in »^ι·,.Ίιι<ηκ himl.
>

4.

H i i r i O. Maier. Afittrypt
164-47.

JWauW.- Iht B—±

/ο.uttfnr

• * - i W

1

I Mmn.li<•

f.u««M.:ilu:i.

"7

i n p u b l i c statements. t a n n r . Af^tfyft Λ . I n c o n s i s t e n c i e s * ! the level o f words 0 1 clauses can seise the u n i t purpose.·.t ' . 24-al. Ben R.1 ' . In c i t h e r cade. W i t h o u t more c o n t e x t . I W | .1.. h JLlvi I p M j v t c c t o deal w i t h t h e irony.3 arc best described b y as irony. -irv«7 ut U i « r . ι . * n [like lf. H4.' B u t w h y d i d v o u |>l ι >-. * e « w * f a i H I . >/U. however. ' \~t.** A second.s. i t . •.i k u i g g r m o t h ­ erwise. « 1 . ' r ^ i / « / . " Your i n t o n a t i o n m i g h t suggest t o y o u r listener that s o u meant t o t o m m u n » j i r s o m e t h i n g o t h e r than the literal m e a n i n g o l the sentence. .ν . . * · * ilt. Satire al*o appears o f t e n t h i o u g b o o t R e v e U i . Structural i r o n y require* a narrative setting a n d c o m m u n i c a t e s an experience o t t h e w o r l d at para I I I I I K J I .jJ Tmm Inrt. ι . i i and K u i Μ L a n i Ί ) κ ι V i r u i m Ahv-4*l Vurn' iB-nrttkullrax the IniΙ · . after t r a d i n g t h i * chapter y o u m i g h t say t o s o m e o n e . I t * J n l u i I W l i i ( J m 1 r Fmnv M. Α ι li»er h .A I . I h i i double dcfen*e mechanism w o u l d n o t be available t o c i t h e r o f y o u i f y o u t i m p h ' v i l i f i e d m y paper.llui F*tccc f f I'iff I h r AUashwal IVcloiw TTbcoif <4 Ititc H K Imnr.u l n r .s. . E x p e r i m e n t a l t i u d i c t *ugget( t h a t ironic insults c u t deeper than p l a i n \ Foi * J i K u a k n ai the an b i l k m i ι ken utcd b» i p c i k i n t o »%nil i h m u i u m .' S p c r .wO-a I nn. Ritf/r I . · ' . l o . ' f r . « v i n M I (!««)): IKI h.lcr.usd M r u v n o f k t . V'ltT). · ul Inmk Insukiaad trunk Ciwip I interns. " F r i e v n ' i chapter •nicked. h i .2 . . \ .in . .' relations. 9mwm IfttlNY. anJ atUry*. M a y b e m y paper threatened y o u r o w n reading o f Revelation. A N I > S A R C A S M insults * O f perhaps m m dismissal o f m y paper was an attempt t o attract a t t e n t i o n t o y o u r o w n cleverness. I h l*m. thet exploit I be d e n u n c i a t i o n * i n Rev.* ravnstv/ t f i ' . T h e choice o l these terms n u k e s J i i a . I ZSiaW Sathi Kumnn-Sakafmira. ment t h a t M M lev* than is meant or even ί . Structural i r o n y allows t h e o n e c o m p o s i n g i h c narrative t o flatter t h e audience for t h e i r ability t o discern t h e t r u e state o f t h i n g s .. l o r ι lie p h e n o m e n o n . .·•. l o t John t r a l l i t t in u n f u l f i l l e d e x p e c t a t i o n * . T h . o w . ι • d .1 in be Kind and Kind m be C u d : u n i t m . t h e nt. however. . A h e m n u g l i i vet o u t t o accomplish α task only t o l e c o t i t o u n d c d by t h e actual course o f event*..! *J . l%-47. For e x a m p l e .3 .' At f i i t l glance t h i s divvonaiicc teems f r u i t f u l for the analyst* o f Rev 2 . .ι | | . p r i l r t creates an inconsistency rhat re*|uires t h e audience t o consider whether some m e a n i n g o t h e r than the literal m e a n i n g m i g h t hctier explain t h e Maicment. m s i d r r <hcm l o K r language p r s v t u r s i h a i v a n he manifested in persi'n. ι ι i* d i f f i c u l t i o be sure o l y o u r motive*. . I n b r e a d terms. . Are tlicvc liter J I V t e r m s ' Social strategies? P t v c l i o l o g i u l m a n e u s r r v i 1 i u g m t l K figures. ! i r c i i m n -.·. : π f t o . I ." By f r a m i n g * « u r c r i t i c i s m i r o n i c a l ! * . S * n » . Mans discipline* deal W i l l i ihese topics a n d I have t o decide boss they w i l l lie d e h n e d i n this studv. New Yeifc Ki. So they should c o m p l e m e n t each other. " F n e s c n w r o t e t h e h o t chapter o n sarcasm i n the w h o l e b o o k .*' O r y o u r hearer m i g h t calculate the actual n u m b e r o f sarcasm chapters in this b o o k and conclude thai what sounded like praise actually i m p l i e d disapprosal or c r i t i c i s m . b u t i i is n o t j o h n ' t preferred ttraiegy i n the messages o f Rev 2 . These t " ' . P n m . iron.. ι· . . N o r d o e * s t r u c t u r a l i r o n y describe accurately t h e heart o f t h e issue E x a m p l e * o f structural i r o n y c a n b e found i n ihe text. i r o n y i s n o r m a l l y treated at a statement i n w h i c h there is b o t h a surface m e a n i n g a n d another c o n t r a d i c t o r y m e a n i n g at m i n e o i h e t level. J < i i w t l i 1 4 » 70. b u r each desenhet a particular k i n d o l language practice thai can be isolated conceptually lor (he p u r p o s e o l analyus.g t . i w i ' i i theories f r o m l i t r r a t v studie* elscvvhere. ( o h n makes a clear c o n n e c t i o n between the choice* made I < people a n d t h e resulting consequences.c n t i c t / c d m y w m k A i t h e tame rime y o u gave y o u r hearer i h c o p p o r t u n i t y t o acknowledge the c r i t i c i s m o f t o ignore i t .r* (>»faJIh. a state­ c o f what ι* meant. . . t . O n e f o r m a ! •* verbal i r o n y . Banur. ft Fur a startler «I Itune— tt*nm thm U M I U I I U M U ! i M n u I I U U I I C M * M a u n ( .fori r o n y have a i least o n e feature i n c o m m o n . T h r e e o f its characteristic* make it particularly . n.*iJ.y.a l W . Simple serbal i r o t n does not lake u * far e n o u g h . between w o t d t o r e v e n t t and the c o n i c x i o l I b o t e w i i r t l * or events. ι ι N .~ !. C h i n tsakliv. contradictory m e a n i n g was actually i n ­ t e n d e d . These inconsiuencies i n y o u r statement a i i h c level o f i n i o n a i i o n a n d i o n i c s ! alerted y o u r c o n h d a n i lhat a second. I h c issue i n Revelation is not t h e paradoxical character o l existence.. n o r u opera let i n t h e spate Iteiwren ptetense a n d actual e i p e n e n t e .rt {FtifpuiK* tnJ H. l W I . i i w e treai the theories at a general level a n d pay a t t e n t i o n t o (heir particular d i s c i p U r u r y c o n t a u . as t h o u g h he w o u l d hide h i s true i n t e n t i o n * b e h i n d α facade o f subtlety. i n level ·ι . O n the I V * . Maybe y o u w a n t e d t o e n t e r t a i n . O t h e r m o u s e s f o r i r o n y b e y o n d dcniabiLity arc also p o t t i b l e . t w o · . ' .itirc.il p«\ l . brooder f o r m a l for irony is described at t i r u c i u i a l .--ι c t s i B f t * * - μ « Β Η . / * i r. T h e m o o d ot s t r u c t u r a l i m n v m i g h t h e h u m o r o u s o r tragic. I n VIM h catev. * .t h e o r i g i n a l • t a t c m e n l i n a way that said s o m e t h i n g i i l h e r i h a n what v o u m e a n t ' It w o u l d have I x e n l i m p l c r and cleatrr il n u i h a d t i m p h ' i l o .tnU. . The w o r l d it s h o w n t o be c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o h u m a n aspiration*. „ J Wtmrn Tnmbull. » · η . . 4 / ' t i u i c i r . a n d tarcaira.IV :-i •io sievi. 7. satire m a n i l c t t s a p a r m u l i r intolerance f o r personal : the . sass lautkilaec. T h e issue i t w h c i h c r h o t i i l c powers w i l l deceive h u m a n s i n t o n u k i n g eternally fatal choices.η. . ' I n general. These icrrns overlap.John d i t r * not divsemblc. i i ' · < ..-S .< o f • experience overcome i h r i n t e n t i o n s o r assumptions o f the actor.* i n verbal irony. " In either cave. . • ·| the gap between appearance a n d re . r l .14. an. l v t i t m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d .-·!Λορυρ -ι«ι' ΪΑ\ΛΙPi^tvifj ? ||<4lJH): l(J>-*. / . M i p a U .. III. . ^ # ^ e i w * r . you g a v e yourself plausible d c n i a b i l i t y because s o u never actually.Vltm. . . ! . t a d * * « u l K«laf kau.h~u^rfb*r*rr Tt*m> iNew Yniki O i t \ « d I'mwaail. j « * (μ. " I I ™ ahnaf Aitt. w h i l e simultaneously p r o m u l g a t i n g α view o f h u m a n experience thai h i g h l i g h t * i h e irKontistencies a n d f r u s t r a t i o n s o l life.ο Λ general I i . . S a l u r i t i n m i t in-. O r a r u r r a t o i might sei o u t to tell a s u m u v i n g a w o r l d s lew thai t h e a u d i c n t c k n o w s t o be c o n t r a r y t o f a c t . and M i r y (Winvr. . Kau.u i . Salite is n o r m a l l y contadeicd a sftrcial b u m o l irony. . d e p e n d i n g o n t h e way t h e a u t h o r shape* ihc narrative. i p p m p r i a l c f o r Λ discussion o f Revelation. I here is a g o o d deal o f s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e v a r t o u i d i s c i p l i n a r y discussion* o f these topics.cd. I I . First. .i m i l l r v n >II. the ttrategy i t n o t at defensive a." iiuravne / W r t i o 31 (2C02): 214-11. a n d i n w r i t t e n texts for a s-arsctv ·»! strategic purposesI h i .

·. ' M ' h i r d . TW auibaira n l t n . Satire'* r e l u m e o n a r m u a l o a m i a n l can also lead to a c o r m t i s e ( u n c i i o n I t can also hate great e n t r r t a m m r n t value.'•' t . A /AwAwwarr tfl. and sarcasm i s that all o f 11..h i t thtnluttlf ·. I ' l . 1*o«r It C'#wi/\ 2<»: cnwhitii m ι · ι ι ι < > · Ι . r. 214.. w h i c h can be defined as "a sharp a n d o f t e n satirical or ironic uttciaiiLC designed to cut o l g i t e p a i n . lUto). m i competence. I V I U I I D a model ai t u n . " I am l u g g e s t i n g here. but nnb/ people tan be u n a a i i Sevnnd. arrogance.nnrai firm. natirc.. I l w w i .>rs>l<*ir t l l V J M * fmm ihr l . . lan­ guage ibat is usaialh d i r e c t e d against an i n d i v i d u a l . satire. it that it i i a b i t t e r . we are not d e a l i n g w i t h α satirical genre o t literature. « may n. I h c a u t h o r embraces an i m p l i c i t or overt m o r a l standard a n d uses it i n h i s " v i l i f i c a t i o n o f the v i c t i m .V *n.unfJimania. • . John Hiamaa. The salient t h a r a c t e r n n c o f sarcasm. 2. i m i irw N u l l Ruad. *l~hc audience is n o t left 1 0 wonder a b o u t the values o f the t f i r o k c r or about w h i c h level o f m e a n i n g to lake *crsoutlv. and cttiidescentum. " " ' A c a d e m i c i a n * argue whether or n o i tart 1 asm should be ι Ussiltrd a* a f o r m o f irony. 'rtt-itnatdiip afftvt'.. or injustice to r i d i c u l e f o r the purpose o f exposing unacceptable practice o r even c h a n g i n g i t . ' or "a m o d e ot V I I I I U J I w i l d e p e n d i n g f o r its effect o n bitter.nj[ iheiii the put-on. T h e o t h e r c r u c i a l aspect o f J o h n * v i l i f i c a t i o n is . **J tfV / W * a * » o/VjHfw/r (Saw Vorki Oiford Urine nary West.• . i m i i l Μ • ΜΙ^ΙΓΙΙ — jr. Onljrt. l . . I n general. 21. tatetw iht veff btudei uf tbe Μ · .. 1444). u i . i h r l i n r i l mnniitc* of Μ Μ Ι Π Ι Κ arc anal found to liitbacntc obacttert' c-. XIis-ί ι» B* K i n d . caustic. t h o u g h . m .is-teMii-. . τ . |ι·. however. i d . fwrnr /laa-rs* IPnmduii: I'rintelun UnotiBif I ' m * . tmt 17X H i n u n . td. b u i you m i g h t still choose 1 0 ignore m y teal message i n a way t h a i w o u l d not b e possible i l I t c n o u n c c d saicasm and simply d e m e a n e d your f a m i l y lineage.• • d e n i a b i l i l t n o i m a l l t di*."" Fsif e x a m p l e .m a i l b y saving. for ι )')>. we need to he a w a i t . A i t isiry it unnecessary. j k m i and tee i f you can deter­ mine Mbrtlio the m i l l . Here's h o w H a i m a n contrasted i r o n y a n d sarcasm. t h o u g h . direct insults. O« as 1 ssnasis gtslsis. (New York: I W I o h j c . caustic. t u u p c r a t » n . ' .value m i g h t be e m p l o m l t o de*a. · . E N j i m t w d ifwnly at ajtirk I » · " .terio lt*w<ie*. sou m i g h i c m p k i y s a n r i i a l sarsasni h i r-Mi. A. I i n · ι. IKIWVTWI. m y gratitude 11 actually iniincere a n d I consider y o u r o p i n i o n t o be o l n o m o r e value than u n s o l i c i t e d . ' „ . r u j g u t g . ' ./srvtrrejfon IManiini c* I hXTJtttrt.if three i r L t r d language practices as wc trod Revelation: i m n i ..b. a l l h o i i g h i h r hearer t a n still chouse to i g u o i c ihc t . 17. Saicasm is s e l d o m a m b i g u o u s . that satire a n d tar casra describe many o f the i m p o r t a n t features o f John's d e n u n c i a t i o n s . . Riinun U I I M . c l e m e n t o h e n results f r o m satire demands a fantastic or even grotesque d e m e n t is it display* tbc absurdity ot p e o p l e .ithet af/itssi<c tpcrxh acts. T h e i r o n i c element srttrrres m y arrogance i n c l a i m i n g to be an a u t h o n r y o n Revelation.ip|*r. we need to m < at a limitwu.<>· tanast* feature 11 tail aic miewdcd ι·· attack. ITSaniahilay K H i n a t i n x t i K j i n a d . AaVaay: Sine L ' n m r u r ol New York Pr-w. . .! . Ι η ι η ν is i h e h n u d r u t e r m .rot an o p p o n e n t . i n d n a t i n g a t t a t e m c n t or narrative lhal e x p l o i t * the gap between a p p c a r a m r a n d reality.m a i l a* spam signals that the entire message means s o m e t h i n g different f r o m w h a t the words sav. an cxenaHaiy test ι ι ' Κ . m a m w u lor ilw w i y > i n w h . Taw λ Omft Xawan."< H i ining a / r n r r i 4 /lM*w#«v»itn.' These features o l satire lend t h c i i i t c l t r t to vrveial k i n d s o f *t raicgscs. l o r w i t h o u t u r a r i m n i c d i m e n s i o n a d e n u n c i a t i o n is s i m p l y abusive I he element c o m m o n to irony. * W n Sanrv I Londrtn: Password. a n d argue b c k i w . XL Κ t f l . U. 1979). unnpccird cc*rr£aiinata SSSS**XfJih* r e l a i n n t n ·• · aruhk-. h naturalohswwtni iniwapro ·\«·ΜΜΐν|Μΐ i n i i l n and . ·. p . 1 "he subtle ii**. au|ST*vl i h n . Afrt*i)f*t ΛaUmi leaS-711. \* | u .i Lunlum Andu I V u i w h .n m . Μ·ι>ιιιτι Τ ι Ι . tmka. * >:·: J). personal. or o r g a n i z a t i o n s .il m g me >· 1I1 the a d i t x c . ' For instance. /tvw/r rJp Tie /'-• . "S«i«k t o a n h a o i l n g y and I r a t e Revelation i n the ex­ perts. c o m i i n tbe Mh—inc.224. " T h a n k s l o t i h c advice hutunatrlv. | | c o m r s i n t w o m a j o r f o r m a l * : verbal i r o n y l u t t r r a m c s that mean «>mr- d e n u n c i a t i o n . l*vT|. folk*." Such a i t a t e m r n t w o u l d be sarcastic i t n c e it iscaustK and personal. however.r. r^aisaulalwd' ISIssjswki and Tuotbull. Brc-»e and I . satd 11 n u t i h u t be tuatiraiied with . 22. I m i g h t reply t o t o u r r .ontiiiencies o f irony a i r usualb replaced by a f r o n t a l attack thai it i r a n s p a r c i i l to i h r audience. people miy be iininrentionaJh/ ironic. after f i n i s h i n g this chapter. 21 -22 IK. l i m i t Hwtvnccti. .in )xa~. In oilier winds. «ddautaiy a . 12-1». 1 he sat­ ire f u n c t i o n i at a t e c o n d a r y level.* tfI«my.at | tu>< l o J a ι·υι hen. . Satire d o e * not p r o v i d e a u n i f y i n g aspect f o r the visions o f R e v e l a t i o n . T o s u m Up. I 1 is R i v t u i t o N 1-1 HI M s v i ikis-skk M distance b e t w e e n i n t e r n and practice foims the basis for t h e m deal w i t h u n a t t a i n e d aspirations. I hate re n o u n c e d plausible d c n i a b i l i i y i n order to strike back w i t h sarcasm.^iiaiov i r y t e t m i i h i i n i t f ibe itiaaKWthip beimxn t o r i lei and h u r i r . ' Second. a m i n a n .1. N o t w o u l d anyone mistake the Seer ' ι Juvenal or H o r a c e ..ir*.-n .1-iv. 14. urtdaninod *« * ( ι η ι · ce" Innanna u n aMum|uti J urstty ot p r j . . however.-• it that it is osen inray inrew/ittwnOi ami ty the uvtire*-« 4fmrm »f i f M aggmxr—t." T h e satirist's i f i i lantasiK the to p o r t i a i some aspect o l lite as an absurdity. c o m p u t e r generated advertising. t . . a m i ritai hr. ' Thus ihc ·\<. "Sirvasm »t r t t c i m .ν ι ι ι * titue fPialii H K I U J C «·•*•.. a n d o f t e n n u m . Javwv. a n d p a i n f u l h u m ot verbal aggresiion. 4««iv«t».d ir. / n « s 27-2Ί. s i t u a t i o n * . 1 I side w i t h those w h o d e f i n r sarcasm as a special f o r m o f ί π ' η · . . curses.ι » . saaia* ipp-aoinha ««*p*«ially t mala I O I K J mntr that* ait inimrwi»*«mpU*ia*t"»—aW) •an­ i l * * ! ). . " I n R e v e l a t i o n . p r o v i d i n g the i r o n y f o r what 11 essentially a tare as I K rejection o f m y w r i t i n g . . T h e choice to use t a r c a i m c a l l * c e r t a i n features i n t o play t h a i are m u s i n g i n ver­ b a l a n d s t r u c t u r a l irony. W .·.. » .4 Λ « ο η . oitertain. . and indeed m y l o c a t i o n . t .Π W i l l i (. I define t h e m a* f o l l o w s . I V NuKhrup rvv*r... . l . I-'MHI.i l l t i 1/iront. Ί η · • • m p i r u l m * J > oi iruntt u i o a n i o J b i n l n . hut sirtasan rrquirrt inteniinn VX'hae itestcntul >•> >. 2D. 1 Hi r o a i v c an i d d i i n n i l itsWinawhippafimat-r. ' ΙΟΙ). 14. an». m y spam filter d i d n ' t prevent y o u r note f r o m reaching m c " * The characterisation o f y o u r e . " I *fiil> «τ» do η.« . o m . W . a satirical strategy subject* wee.4ntA«» aU* Cnttmm.fanaaw or i n s t i t u t i o n a l folly. .-· Ί ΐ κ η : · ι lhal it Ι Ι Β Ι known ι ι "pirody': Main.u ή« M M M I .. . t i i u n i i i t n mat be i m n i i . 16-17. . ..avn wah u u m l l l i a u n . ttft. Barb*. first. . i t:i> i i t d t i r i i t s l k i ifM* bcyxid the cV-f ηΚιο» of sarin. satire does n o t require the suppression o f the values o f tbe i e d a u t h o r as Η the case w i t h m o s t o t h e r f o r m s o f irony. Fee example.u a n r . CwddW.SwuYf Afflra /vsi/sna/rvliMOci a rMngnuam Ivy nW jiidwftot of lb* barturiry <·* hit pntpnaali annum io oimmunicari huvali**.

hn\u\ Thm nngiml i w n u m may h o c been t h u they ln«» * t h e d i t f (tunes·>ίύο%1. * in " ' « >ΗΊ. Ι**·.**t 11 RrviL«ti»N : . according m 2 1 2 4 2 7 . t h e bphesian c o n g r e g a t i o n . the Phoenician queen w h o p r o m o t e d C a n a a m r r w o r s h i p i n Israel d u r i n g the reign o t her husband k i n g A h a b v ' I h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h ihis imagery i n ­ f o r m s o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the 1 π van tan s i t u a t i o n is unclear.3—6.νχοι. π a ι I.' or strsply "mc depths. " w a k e o p a n d s l r e n g i b r n i h e rett of t h e t h i n g s that are a b o u t I n d i e ! " T h e angel o f (he c h u r c h i n I j o d u e a . N o t e that Jk^avSrl's c t a t u s i s a p r o p h e t is n o t rejected like the s u t u i o f the to-called apostles o f R e * 2 : 2 .O I and Ρ-.' a n d y o u d o not realize that you are w r e t c h e d a n d p i t i f u l and p o o r and b l i n d and naked" (3:17). I hrec groups bear the b r u n t o f t h i s verbal aggression in t h i s section: congregations.d a y Jezebel. o f course.iin ι ι • ih* f..se. I he ancient H i b a m was a foreign p n t p h r t credited w i t h causing the Israelites to w o r s h i p foreign gods and w i t h c o n v i n c i n g the Israellie m e n to have i l l i c i t i c x u a l relations w i t h M o a b i t e w o m e n i N u m 22:1 2 5 : 3 1 . Jezebel it n o t person­ ally d e m o n r r e d : rather. then comes the revelation o f the angel's mistaken o p i n i o n .p r o c U i r n c d apoitles. ' m . T h e satirical c l e m e n l is vinuiger than the v i r c a i l u i o t i n t i m t a n c e ." t t h c h j u h n hat turned MM a . H I J I t i n a u d i o · " I l . and there tea h i n t o f reserve i n t h e t a t i r e . u l < '. 2 4 ) . I l dues n o l allow us l o t p c t u l a t e a b o u t what i n f l u ­ ence i h e m i g h t have h a d i n the w t d e i c o m m u n i t y . o f events Irustrate the i n t e n t i o n s o f characters).. Ί a m w e a l t h v and base e n r i c h e d myself a n d I have n o need.Iced. the c o m p a r i s o n w i t h Balaam suggests that be was male a n d was p r o m o t i n g a m o r e lenicnc a t t i t u d e than [ o h n to­ w a r d polytheistic sacrificial practices. rcia-ittf. I t h o l d s i t i o p p o n e n t ! u p t o a m o r a l standard o l some sort a n d highlights t h e i r s h o r t c o m i n g s .*M. 1 9 9 7 1 . I ' . d ihr <.ι· .V Ί ι. I n this case ihere is n o discernible satirical m o n t regarding the t e l l .). i Lluft'igrcei lhal the i-pfninl* • I N mem Ken n f ihr local trwua.i I » 1 1 I Srxvi I u t t i K t h i n g o t h e r ( k i n w h a t is h t r r a l l v stated): and s t r u c t u r a l i r o n y (narratives in w h i c h the covin*. b u t i t characterized especially by b i t t e r personal attack. SaltrASTir C H R I C I a c o n t e m p o r a r y c h u r c h p n i p h e t .« ( W « ι I>tJLt M . bul a a prubibb · u n a « κ tatine <**' the cltiiTi. K i r a She ι» satirtrcd as a b t t e r . T h e w h o l e purpose ot lhe»e messages is. Chita-.'AtiiiMWi.ι i . w h i c h m i g h t not necessarily refer d i r e c t l y t o . t t i . Satire can be viewed as J letv obtuse tarrn o f i r o n y that ridicules s u e or t o l l y . 207-JJ. I n the message i o Sardis.M 2 Km * . l 1 K«a Itii. o n the o t h e r h a n d . Sarcasm is often satirical o r i r o n i c .S e n «. and also e m p l o y i r o n y at certain i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s .ir ikiean in>m ihuw « Κ ."ιίνη Λ ·# 1'·* r. Aa. at I r . > a.!.. i i M i i n i i i N i l aagurt thu Win w i t π rata. i l fp<m the congregation m I h v . f r r r i . 2t~ Fm turiefv of tnh«f aJa"i i>.1 a n d h i g h l i g h t c e i t a i n a i p e c u o f the let I . The satire w o u l d b e a p p r o p r i a t e i f used against a gentile w o m a n w h o was an i n f l u e n t i a l leader i n the congregation. T h e messages o f the rv*en C h r i s t t o the seven churches i n Rev 2 . N o t so w i t h certain prophets i n i h e churches. at t h o u g h C h r i s t were p u l l i n g his punches.fi. . I ' h i i brings u t to the harshest sarcasm f r o m the risen C h r i s t . sit* I indkaie* ilea* we are .t h r o u g h the angel o f the c h u r c h was c o m m e n d e d for testing these alleged apostles and f o r d i s c e r n i n g (hat they were liars 12:2)." M I A J 1 I 1 Yiibiu Callinm.3 make e x t r u ­ sive u i e o f satire a n d sarcasm.ΙΊ». ι • . first comes a c o n d e m n a t i o n f o r lukewarmness U r l o ) . " " T h e satire is a c c o m p a n i e d by threats againtt those w h o d o n o t repent a n d exhortations t o the i n n o c e n t . the verbal abute ends u p as α d e n u n c i a t i o n o l . and synagogues.i d I . c h u r c h leaders.: Vhulart Crew.h * . jp-sjurt ol Sinn. n π since the mcvxigr let h n n a l l y o h t r t t * to "tbo*e w h o h o l d to the t e a c h i n g o f Balaam* 12:14). a n d appeal t o . >r -. the c u i u s . . Moreover. the church's angel is t o l d that it h a i the r e p u t a t i o n o f b e i n g alive b u t i t is actually dead I v_2-. " 2110. T h e r k i s i c n e r o l the first v i c t i m •t actually q u e s t i o n a b l e : the name Balaam m i g h t lefet to a p a r l K i i l . maV. I. people w h o c a l l themselves lews b u l are l u n g (I:": j e w i k h c o m m u n i t i e s o l S r n i r n a a n d P h i l a d e l p h i a . O n e or rwo i n p a i t i c u l a i take the b i u n i o f c a n s t i n να I ire that i t bated o n scripture. b u t this ι» isot t c r i . I f ihe phrase does n o i r e l t r t o a c o n t e m p o r a r y c h u r c h p r o p h e t . n u n . ."*' o n e w h o used her influence to m o v e the c o n g r e g a t i o n closer t o w a r d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n v a c i i l i c u l activity. oinw u l i>l J cutn»i) . ( 2 : 2 3 . o n l y c i . scriptural alluvion b r x o m c t i h e means by w h i c h preiensc is exposed. Ai lain w i m o l inn u i m i linn i t u Thyaairanci^igrttjiiain freer ate* nt tt^rvxnani w * h «·τ. Ihc misattw ul "ihc Jeep ι hi t i p iff Saian* nt uitckn. <_cl fifth N'-timr and I nnvi S. I n the messages to Smyrna a n d Philadelphia he refers t o synagogues o f Satan. a n d I agree w i t h t h e m . The u l t i m a t e recipients o t the itirical sarcasm directed at the angels are actualry 1 he second p n » p h r t n example it clearly an i m l i t t . i r p r o p h e t f r o m t V r g a m i i m .ί. rhar a l l the churches should k n o w that C h r i s t is i h e o n e w h o searches their hearts *rsd m i n d s . I f a c o n t e m p o r a r y i n d i v i d u a l prophet is meant i n Rev 2 : 1 4 . \ V i i h these overlap p i n g p h e n o m e n a d e f i n e d . i j . after a l l . Calif. 2 0 1 . rhc plita*c mat simply be a w a t o l s a t i r i s i n g c e r t a i n m e m b e r s o f the c h i n c h t h r o u g h b i h l n a l a l l u t i o n . /*»·-. l n . " Aune ninrd thai iht nhiaac c*i UiycasSii' !*»• ihe. T h e bphcsians had encountered i n d i v i d u a l s w h o called themselves apostles These were abb' i n n e r a n t saints s i m i l a r t o those discussed i n Didache 11 ". . . a n d the satirical aspect it i t l o n g . . a n d i h c o n e w h o tcpavt t o all a c c o r d i n g I n t h e n . V i n V i i i ' m luu 1»t*f<r. ' l. c o m e * i n for a stronger d o t e of sarcasm.it. T h e sarcasm is moderate I h i the t t a n d a r d t o l the A p o c a K p s e l . ( e r t a i n c h u r c h leaders q u a l i f y for special sarcastic a t t e n t i o n i n ihe text. iniha r u r r i i i t t . r. T h r o u g h ihe logic o f apocalyptic s y m b o l i s m . d e n u n c i a t i o n against t h e m i n a t h i i d person rclcrcnce.n u liivcrt-n I ' . 1 he sarcasm directed at congregations is n o r m a l l y expressed as c r i t i c i s m o f the angel o f the c h u r c h . her tevefntig i t rejected a n d equated w i t h k n o w i n g the "deep t h i n g s o f Satan" ( 2 : 2 0 . ι " k i r b e l . T h e basis t o r the sanre it the B i b l i c a l re o t Jezebel. Mftatuita ( t l i J«Wri n / tiaatf'/W/Wiiii lYitcii-/ i W » * » 4 . lliey p a i t i c i p a l c d i n g c i i l i l c u « t o t o m e ex ten I. S-Wf/twa / . I n Rev 2. we can r e t u r n to Res 2-. M o x i vcTuiLars c o n c l u d e l h a l the "»» nagogue o f Satan" epithet was a i m e d a i the mainstream tbe congregations. ι ς ι ι . i t t by John't d e l i n i l tori. " h o r you say. " M c t n i t .. w h i c h requires more extensive c o m m e n t .J 7 . . T h e salite suggests. T h e t l i o c k i u g revelation l h a l ihc congregations actual status i t the o|>ptiti(c of i t t r e p u t a t i o n i* f o l l o w e d by imperatives a i m e d at r e l o r m i n g the l i t u a l t o n . a m i u i w r r c unfa it h t o l I n l -od In Til" nfic rt either case. grnrrnr Knaon • ah ihjm r u t u r ih»n rrapondirif.

. W I U .· ni as a n i n t r a m u r a l Jewish i k u m u h between i h e svnagoguci a n d i h r ." d ta-arrr«*ah. a n d that John'* o w n h a b i t h κ p t a c t j c c t c o u l d be characterired at a form o f h y p e r p u r i t v w h i l e tr is true that [•-•hns iW o p p o n e n t * c o u l d have shared f a u l t view o n sacrificial meat.*a*-r rWtras*.A: Osl-. Moreover.. W ahon .y n i p ς ι * · .ν ί Ι . harm mac t i w w r t s .iU thurvho " t l h (he red l i n t lendi in v.ιο· Nt. considered tbe churches to be the (rue hraxrl. a n d capahle o : d i l u t i n g t h e c o m m i t m e n t o f the c h u r c h e s . alternative p o s i t i o n was c h a m p i o n e d b y H c i n r i c h Kral't. "synagogue" and A'aia-. a c o i r d i n g t o YanSro C o l l i n s .V-lu. ' - Mfl-avi w/CVv.. Ι ω Itllandr-rsnkfurier ('famrtMSIca. K r a f t i n s o k e d a hs'pothetical scenario in w h i c h C h r i s t i a n s m i g h t base abandoned the churches t o seek refuge in the legal i t a t u i o f the Jewish c o m m u n i t y . I • y .2 3 . a*** Hffmkin-ng • ' " /•'u»wv IllardbuoS lum Scwcri TcsuaHoil Kwi ΙϋΙ-ΐΓ. ton I n i t am tttlJ n f irony.7 0 C I L ) to define themselves as loyal. Ii ι . .2 J . I I C\'. however.id Uaversiiy Γtew. 3 Λ ) i n a broader c o n t e x t o f Jewish i n t r a m u r a l a r g u m e n t * .*W t a W s . a n d the l i s t tsso cannot be supported b o m R o r l a i n . . I ^ . I. Sr-rftan C. ..t t . •ValaWannn.*>'.·. ν » * Μ ^ Μ · . ' Univeisatr Press.(. or i n (he s y n a g o g u e . Nineteen ccnturset b t e r . He agreed t h a i the ' q u e s t i o n be h i n d the phrase 'synagogue o f Saun* is: whete are the i r u c Jews ( o be f o u n d .d wlui t h o u g h t o f themselves a* i h e true Jew* |cf. H O .i Hiirwdifar i h u r c U * i n d dairrW iW a.o p i n i o n o n ibis m a n e r the synagogue o f S a u n references were d i r e c t e d at some m e m b e r s o l the lewish c o m m u n i t i e s i n Smyrna a n d Philadelphia. tl. 1 .A " ' U at. i ι bey could aUi he Ccntrfc church member* WhatfcaJtm-t-td tcntaiJ lha .<si-Pauline gentile saints w h o t o l k i w e d Paul's i n s t r u c t i o n s u« ι-*:-·- I t is m u c h r a n e r t o accept the rruionrs. ¥<lrrt»ii. CM*.Af^-^x (Sew .l nm Itrgi a i\ii in ihc lecoiistriicmnvitf first crntury rensui* in Smrrna hct*>etn crnaaih-* »-J iriiiU.. i n (be /'• ίύ-.'' B o r g c n argued the case s o m e w h a t dilrercnilv. w i t h a I m p hiiiors.i Prru. u . i ... I o | o h n they* w o u l d have been a syncrctistic g r o u p .i n d m nl ihr t M.in. John seems c o m p l e t e l y u n c o n c e r n e d a b o u t Sab­ b a t h observance. b l .raliMMial I m g i i t p h i r a b n a t a riw praaril anj i m n n J o i . The synagogues may have been under great pressure after the Jewish MtJr w i t h Rome ( 6 6 . 4$-47aasd 4 9 Μ I: alto swr eaV 7*1 thu mmm 24.Γ Miiagoguc* T h e p i o t t l e r n w i t h the Conclusion lhat J o h n was L a l l i n g uUntc. TaV r U 4 a/fJ>*ltntm. 19741.iad have l e l c i i e d to pi. · . tnl . lha «yrtip>C™* >4 Sjian »>ra ginlJr t .. N o n e ol tbrse .nlain ..o f C h r i s t u η oppre*vH>n o f Jews t o take i n t o a c c o u n t . 4}Λ. In fact.inj.hr Sachet k. " a n d it is m o r e l i k c b that t o m e m e m b e r s o f the lew ish c o m m u n i t y (rather than f o r m e r c h u r c h members) w o u l d be i n a p o s i t i o n to carry o u t such aciiviiies against I• • .u . I h e message I D i h e S m y r n i o t e c h u r c h suggctts that the synagogue o f Satan w o u l d be responsible for t e n d o n s w i t h the authorities. Λ·η«ιάτ— Kitr^a r r * a / « r M l (Pntabrnaaicw Cntsusuniar•n.mJ. nf tmm might trier 1» r»:« t ' h n a n n ( i o i r i l r * " h o had lavitird l b * tyrMfw-wr* and were harat.» thai lha .1 fie a ai mi I ir aia πι ifk Ι Ι Ι H I . · «ι Nt-? Rnun-aisning theOilst*. u n c d the "synagogue o f Satan* n t u p r r a t s i n as an a r g u m e n t between v o m p e t i n g g r o u p w h o b o t h c l a i m e d the exclusive right to call themselves "Jew-s " . Hm ι i f an m i t u w d no« itm yti*: allrprd habkhic CMwrna hut riaho »n a airasr>i>W*ird.*lirrs Thru potrtt is " t i l taken Ν > ' Moniich Kiafi. * * . " M o r e recendy. Ma'taall AiMlwv rf'Vf Λ Μ / Ύ A S S W I fwJAf*\*)ip>f jSludut In O l .iinm.11 μ ι i n i r n u i* t n m i m i n g : i h r first t o o k ! I*c true of Jews or o f a n v o n c esse-.. . such α statement canrsoi p a w w i t h o u t l o m m r n t V>me have p o i n t e d to m i t i ­ g a t i n g circumstances.ι. m ) tin tr^umon ι I'm i h n pinadm.S t U U M IH RrVII«t|i>N l-J m 11» SlttVl !ιι. it thai it makes John's meu-igr c t t r c m c l i i l i v t a t t r l u l nowsxlaw.119. o f sacrificial n t e a i ) . b u t t h r n argued that J o h n * sectarian c n n c i s m had to be d i r e c t e d at inerden within the |e*u» m o s e m e n t . H e asserted that i h r vvrugogue ol' S a u n had to i c i e r to c h u r c h m e m b e r * w h o had adopted a synagogal i d e n t i t y lor three reasons: because ' t i t a n i c * in Revel . a r h r o I « Ι Ι ι η * focused o n the social f u n c t i o n o f John's d e n u n c i a t i o n ... are not attetied as p o p u l a r self-designations in Pauline or post-Pauline churches. YaibmCnBaiM.h S.ι: i. wit ... 2001). I M . : c t phuar Kill ·*» M i l l » . I Hi in-If and |uJaofn III.· • a»ar f~f»r INaw Vrel: · • . «4.hu-lci F « t « « « . u . 1'he d o u ­ ble relerence t o Satan a n d i h e devil makes the c o n n e c t i o n . I x i i h o f w h i c h w c r e c b i m i n g the tight t o he sailed ihc i r u c Israel.». " A T * ·« | Ι Ί 1 · | M .•.mntcJiitciy •hilsed to specatcm-nt i h . l o u d r e g u b t r o n t (beyond (he t o p i .·ΡΛτη^·204. . Minnaup.'. Ά Ι!<*ρη. f r a n k f u r t e r rightb p o i n t o l mil t h e diversity a m o n g Jews o f the D i ­ aspora i n western Asia M i n o r . i t is highly unlike I ν that J o h n was s c r u p u l o u t l y concerned w i i h p u r i t y o r Jewish halakhic practice. J o h n . A tutvev o f relevant test* fn>m Phiki and t m m the D e a d Sea S t r o l l s led cautious f i e e d o i n i n eating meat Ii.171 >>'. 19901. ready t o c o m p r o m i s e w i t h polytheistic a n d i m p e r i a l cult i n s t i t u t i o n s .i · / ***.. u i nr.( ' b u i nSiy las mil"I i n n p n i in 'ihaaa svttn call ihama-n-n |a-*a.. . n h u h κ lha p. DavUFrankivure.1 4 ) . 2001 J .n Nevertheless. n t m n l o l • a j . ' ' " H e placed t h i s t p c v i h i .." \\4.r . . ι describes someone w h o entices others away f r o m f a i l h a n d confession: because one . : i m a g i n e .. r .. I h c studies by Varbro C o l l i n * and fcirgen m r n l t o n r d at i h r b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s paper e i p l . I I .mp*. ' · ic t heoiuaitin ASiun and ifevil m Rev Ι 2 ι .Hc. D a v i d f r a n k f u r t e r has made the case that the synagogue o f Satan ii>.· O n e ether alternative to this i J c n i i r K J i i o n i n recent scholarship is t h a i the syna­ gogue of S i u n referred n o t to |ew» b u t rather to c h u r t h m e m b e r * w h o had m u s e d back t o w a r d * c w i t h synagogue practice. . he—ι-ια. I asmard Th. .! Io other deities ι1 C o r 1 0 .'* rfTK^A I2QU1): 4Q}-2\ ' I n ' \ l . T o the lews these w o u l d have appeared as God-fearer*. » r . " I n order t o make his case. ' A consensus a b o appears t o b e forming t h a i i h e synagogue o l Satan references s h o u l d he . stable i n s t i t u t i o n s in the R o m a n w o r l d a n d may have been more aggressive toward the c h u r c b e t for ihr* r e a s o n . I ." 1 do nc< i g m • ban <aa I I . or c i r c u m c i t i o n .ii! ir . a b l u t i o n s . and sarcasm M.-·•. |vilcniic a b o u t those w h o falsely c l a i m to b e J e w t (Rev 2 : 9 .r.* VHil foini ι·ι* i h n tha laaiind-ianiury M i i i r r J u m U mlyiarp losplao. describing it as an a t t e m p t t o c l a i m the t e t m " l e w * for the churches..:.r<ι| bttala-ai i w ifwrrvwlv*-* f j i n t n W. R o m 2 : 2 H . 1 K t i l l . i o n . Ontarai: Walltvd laursfl U t a i .-" Τ hit.' i n d e n y i n g that the Jewish c o m m u n i t i e s wete ' ·i • p c i p l c : aisd t i r u u t c J o h n was l o i H c l l i c d about Christians and not about Jews. . " O r perhaps the d e n u n c i a t i o n o f these particular i v n a g u g u e i was a p a r i o f | o h n * b r g c r bias against anyone w i t h h i g h social s t a n d i n g i n tbe cities o f A s i a .

H-irv-is/IVtLmk. the D e v i l is a b o u t to c a n some o f y ' a l l i n t o p r i s o n that r ' a l l m i g h t he t e t i e d . Vmiun I'weruiniwv llterkdiy Unitfrtai.t u . Hehuld..1 1 ) . η a nun. rhe rrue one. u d an |·. " w i t h i n t h i s general context ut o n g o i n g oppression. - 40 Thu it hated «ft Shaft Cohrx't argument asVuui "to" ON -aniuldhivr been 11 M i n e d a ι J*" o h art a rina ccmuir uissae d l n o . T h e wa.n i . (ohn's i m p l i e d audience is mostly gentile. IX» isot fear ihe ihings which vuu are ahum to iiilTrr Biraokl. . i t l » W l ιιιΙιιΓι \-ffmwiaCt. the o n * . f-»r yuu hate little power. o f t a l l f u m w I Ί * » . and you wtll have oppression h i t ren days. Br lairhlul until drain and I w i l l grre you rh* W. And to the angel . y r l ilcsLireal r i c h . And in the iivgel o f ihe church in Smyrna write* Thus sars the first a«sd the b i t . n a t i o n a l p r i e s t h o o d .Satan. what yuu haac • (hat no tine takes aimi tmwn. l e w o r i u n g these t r a d i t i o n s t o support i h r idea thai the c h u r c h was i h r true Israel t o u n d e d o n the salvinc death ol" Irsus. l i o n l y becomes evident o n c e we are a t t u n e d to the sarcastic tendency o f the t e n and begin n o t i c i n g its presence i n the messages i o Smyrna a n d i o P h i b d c l p h u . cauwn u f bfe. These ttarements i m p l y a s t r u c t u r a l i r o n y i n w h i c h present "reality" it decersme. a n d physical death are n o t what they seem to be. rhe une whn oprtss and no ot-se shall d o t * . irrae/i'ad aiwutly »hh n i h r r Wai c re par (zoning Jraritk nftaab and palate. l a . B u i he d i d n o t d o t o . 1 he lynagogue o f Satan references w i l l n o t s u p p o r t such a n elaborate hypothesis. I hate placed an opened duel before you "bach nu une it able to close. o . hur what p r r c r n i a g e o l the sain is t a m e I n n o Jewish parents* O r w h a i p c n e n i a g e o f the saints kept Torah to the extent th. 1 e s i r a p o b t e . After a l l . b u l ( a i c | a synagogue o f Satan" (2:""1.. T h e message to the c o n g r e g a i i o n i n Philadelphia (Res' 3 : 7 .. p i r s l m n w h o c o u l d c l a i m Io be Jewidi*. N o r does Revelation p o r t r a y d v i l o i e d h u m a n i t y i n terms o f Jews and Creeks or j e w s a n d gentiles as i n Acts or the Pauline letlers.1 3 ) t*j*>nJurai a n d extends this i n i e r p i e u t i o n .•. ' " Resetatii'n is a l o n g t r i t w u h a m p l e tpace for J o h n to describe i h e c h u r c h c t b y calling t h e m Jewt or i h e t r u e Israel. t r l ' i h r r i r a g e .Ίι n i a u d i t I M C . it alentcil the u p p i r i e n l * ' allegiance to C o d . T h i s i t what we w o u l d expect f r o m the earlier history* o f churches i n western A l i a M i n o r . A simpler s o l u t i o n is available.u John never h i u h c r e d to w r i t e such a t h i n g . ihe eschaiohigical m m units' i n w h i c h were f o u n d the Hue J e w s . * · . MU 4». washings. It is n o I cleat what k i n d of i n t r a m u r a l a i g u n i e i i t is i n ­ volved hctc it" the churches w e r r o. The • 1. 1 Hi SlBVl I Μ Ι Λ Ι * .lt\\u ι |itiiH uw. as shays] l> v ' . hat the Let nl David. I n i i n l e t li> u r i d r r t t a n d ( h i t phrase. I koto* your oppressiu* aavd your poverty but yuu are isdi*—and the blupbcniy ί ι ο ι ι ι tbene who tar they aie Jews and arc nut bul arc α irwigtiguc at . I translate i n standard Texan: ' Beh. n o o n e else was c l a i m i n g to be i h e t i u e Israel. o r f o o d regulations {except f o r meat sacriheed to other d e i t i e t ) . as i t a i e d above.( Kim i i i o i n c l u d c t h a i J o h n b u i l l a n ν * " · · i w d i t m n * . and yuu • ml any w i n d and hate noc drwtrd my name Hebokl.-ld. T h e angel o f i h e l o n g t r g a t t i n is l a l l r d p o o * . | e * * » * i r tii-diutrtjUinhedbr ththlng. This i r o n i c context makes it unnecessary to suppose that John's use o f i h c phrase 'synagogue o f S a u n ' i m p l i e d that someone else deserved the tide of Jew. I come u u h k l y l b I d <>a t. H o i g c n c o n c l u d e d that J o h n M l . i n n t v an answer. such at sabbath. or lit cup a ι u n a . Ζ^-ίΛ. ul Satan—ihittr saying i h r y air Jrwt and are nnt hm mey Ire—behnld I ihall make them to that they w i l l •-• and w i l l pen it rat* ihesnsebet at t o u r iret and wwill know thai I love you. I>vii>£ •> a Jaoisb pan nf «-we.. d i . Here the second person u n g u b r address t o the angel breakt d o w n and the congregation it addressed d u e * t i t t h r o u g h the use o f plurals.las: the one with an en heat sthal the uviiil M I S to the churches. vpeech. especially (hose d e a l i n g w i t h i h r d e n u n c i a t i o n ol" pagan w o r s h i p . i n t i d e n l ironic lame atf the irtcv-cagr. Siasce you kept the word o f my cssduiaevcc. ihe Ihrnl is abocii in t h m w t u n u r o f sou into prmm H I lhal yuu might be trsicJ. some addretseei are a b o u t to sulTrr hut s h o u l d n o t be fearful: whoever is f a i t h f u l u n i o death w i l l rrcerse the c r o w n o f life.. A n o t h e r p r o b l e m w u h the iiiea thai Jnhn w * t ι ( a i m i n g that i h e t h o n h w « i h r i r u c Israel is ih. and ι 'all w i l l have oppression lor ten d a i s ' 12.inipo»ed m o s l h ' o f genlilet. i i .f i n i . O n e η nagogue o l S a u n reference comes f r o m i h e message i o i h e angel o f the c h u r c h i n Smyrna (Rev 2 : 8 .^· by W i l . who was dead and came to lire. n u o t h e r saints were H u b afraid: n o o t h e r individuals w c i e truly f a i t h f u l u n t o d e a t h : a n d . d i w * d Utam. circumcisaon. nomad ft' a |**w.e i i d l i n g Since eihni. 1 also w i l l keep yuu from the h u m • •:' icsling which at abuut lu c o n e tapon ibe * h .S«Pt MM IH RfVILatlil*" · . C h r i t l tats he also k n o w s " t h e blasphemy o f those w h o M V i b r t a i r Jewt and aie n o t . i i i i h i l r r v .<t the church in Philadelphu write: Thus says the holy one. Revelation — l u a l l i shows 1st tic c o n c e r n tor issaacs that w o u l d b e i n v o l v e d in an intramural Jcwnh polemic. T h e c h u r c h c t t c r t . it is i m p o r t a n t l o n o t e the t . I give from the * • • a ·• • ·.*). the sanaclic phrase " M nagogue o f Satan" d i d n o t . Poverty*. " O n e p t o b l c m w i t h this a r g u m e n t is thai i t does n o t suhScienth a c c o u n t lor i h e d i m . D e n u n c i a t i o n was the goal. n o t w i t h systematic theology. Since t h i s is obscured i n standard fcnglith.ii the* w o u l d have h e r n perceived b y neighbors as J e w i s h * " A l t h o u g h n is impossible to u i i .11 1. ί*·"" flrftaaaaniaari •//••^a/tarn f\>y*Uj'*i. poipc »i>aud have iKSaced uihrr ihuipta auih at S t X f J M aaBotaHWR wah Ιο·».R . I h e focus m this message i t o n severe s u f f e r i n g : C h r i s t t u i e t t h a i he k n o w s the angels oppression loAiiiil ?! and that m o r e is to c o m e . The ttcmr I wdl m i k e Io be a caikumn an i h r temple o f 1 1 provide Moreoser.. a griiesome f u t u r e . a n d texts like Ke*« V ' c o n n r . vvfto t k'tcs aasd nu one ο pews I kasuw men deeds. ' " b u t ihcre are no signs thai the o f f e n d i n g phrase encapsulates an a t t e m p t t o o u t l i n e the r e U i w n s h i p o f Israel and ihe churches.1· ι w i l l —« be haimed by i h r tecund death. T h u s . a n d p r o t e i y u i m .* 61. 41. n o o t h e r c o n g r e g a i i o n was i r u l y p o o r i n contrast to i h e -ι ι m o t e c o n g t c g a t i o n . I l s a l i t i r c d their pi-r-hahlc claims to phrases like "svnagogue o f the L o r d " ( c f N u m 1 6 : 3 ) . K e s e b t i o n does n o t deal w i t h t t a n d a i d issues Torah observance.4m . n r|udala*ra. o n l i i . 19991. I n i h c message i o ihe c h u r c h i n Smyrna we are d e a l i n g w i t h sarcasm. i n n f |. See also Rev 7il -17. not ihe b y p r o d u c t . le world ta urdcr lu lest •hose da-riling tipon die caith.

12Λ-9.. the right o l entry ο ί ο · i h e c M h . . T h e p r o m i s e at ihc end o f the message affirms that the v i c t o r w i l l become a p e r m a n e n t fixture i n t h e temple a n d w i l l never ever leave again. lhal is. :. ΓΚ« Ginlilr ruler.i paitscvtet a u t h o r i t y over access t o the new J e r u u l e n i . ι the . T h e ri»en C h r i t t d e K i i b e t h i m t e l l at the o n e w h o has the key o f D a v i d . a tlnry in w h i t It ihe i n f r n l t o n t o | cettain as t o r * are i h w a r l e d o r revertetl by i h r ax toal c o u r t * o f r s e n t t . A o J I • i l l w i r i r ufnui h i n i the name oaf my before the l * n i l i .r.. I r t the o u r who hat an ear hear w+ui the spirit m i 10 the churches. . fie ihr torn trains.ibule in ihe h->li t i n 13*12-131. 11.••. i t o k i g K . Κ-rieaff. · · .** T h e i n v o c a t i o n o f I t a 22:22 i n Rev 3 : 7 . A l l i h e o i h e i messages o p e n w i t h descriptions that come I r o m Rev I .4->:2. i .. and my ι-tew tume. aTairaarns*.iesilvsVja. .~ I i w o u l d alto be alien i o this p a r t i c u L r message i n w h i c h i h e congregation was e x h o r t e d to h o l d o n t o what ihey h a d . * The descendants o f those w ho oppressed y o u shall come b e n d i n g l o w to y o u . >in ihr o i u r . asastrs. note that the message begins w i t h a b t r r n u b that i t u n u i u a l . 11771. T h e message comprises j collage o l phrases i r l a i c d t o Isaiah t h i l i n t e i p i e l i h c caitigrcgoriairit c o n t e m p u r a r y experience a* i h e t i i s i p a n o i l Linger 4 . Ita 12 22 M i l i x x acsdiical . d e c l a r i n g thai his p o s i t i o n w o u l d be g i v e n leti.Saw sstt i t R t v r i A i i o N II ρ C u d and be Call neicr i-i i i s v i 1-kiiT. Vf.i | . i l city o f G o d . .J l (*—. I T ..Isa 2 2 i 2 0 . nhip in aha rndriirar prrfJa . 1 Λ Ihn u ippiusanueiy o h i i RnliH auajptud ohen he dewratsnl the cii. Ty Xuaiir t. h i ) . a n d because l u 22 goes o n t o predict the d o w n f a l l o l this official as w e l l . i d . Linplxm nf ι '· ·• I an at m. " I be reuse o f L u 22 is l i m i t e d .. l . b u t this m c i u g c utet imagery t r o m ettewhere to E l i a k i m . SI. T h i * is an e i l i c n i d i unusual idea m R e v e l a t i o n . a bdtnb*ar>i laVI ClarL 1*>2D). Finally. Ha dad ft-a pmvadr an i r o i m r m . I t i t imrtossable to understand this message w i t h o u t recognizing i t i i r o n i c a p p i o p r u i u m o l Itaiania. at the leet • · ! the saints. i . 1:97 47. i o n o f the H o l y O n e o f UiaveL"* 1 T h e poetry in Isaiah laid o u t a t t i u t l u r a l i r o i i i i n abbreviated f o r m : the ruvΐ Ί ΐ ι ι t h a i impressed Jerusalem w o u l d Munrdav I x i w d o w n l*r-forc d i e city they hud *6_ Rattm H. u d . a n d n o t a t h o r o u g h allegory. t .silem d u r i n g the B a b y l o n i a n and Persian periods w o u l d eventually c o m e and b o w d o w n i o i h e c i t y i n r e c o g n i i i o n o f its special t u t u s . Johns p o i n t u ihe a u t h o r i t y o f ihe ( ' d r i l l itvei "'Jerusalem.l d t o e x t e n d ibemscKes i n m i c t i o n activity. .nh.used o n the imagery o l the o f h .**' l-tel |/^wtaaian. ihe n e w official over C o d ' s people. p i e v l i o n about w l m w i l l . Rr< 14:10.nn oracles late in the h o . I .r «cH_rit. t h o u g h . 41.it ι ·κ dep-ail. ' " • I· • i. l e l p h i a n congreganon. Set ο r u l . die neat J e t u u l r a i whu. lai ihr Philaaklpaaun .s. n. the o p e n i n g a n d i b u i t i n g o f i h r door baa t o d o w i i h a u t h n n i i over J e r u u l e n i and the house o f Jualah.n dour ai emry I r M ι r. I I and 2I retar m ihc remutjl and hrtimvanaj ol a ox-am. 7*r B+ai*fP*r*Unin (New I n u r a t n t a i u K ^ n B t m i a r y i C r a r ^ n i p i d c Fanlmaas*. hit tlumldei the key u f die htiute o f Daisd. T h a t l i t g e t n a i r a l i v r t a n he i h a r . „ ' «aaaOT-ιwy a a aiV aVnvtastav <*f St f*im I * s n k i Iiwri*esa«ii«awl Oaical i'. to c o m e a n d p t m i r a i c i h r i n t c k o . i h e / . Q . •*· f i> J n i n i i .v|.. 1 % . ι <ι igicgatiorit eventual v i n d i c a t i o n . the atX'aaeed m r . wkarh prihrpt iiunnnaxi an. T h e gentiles w h o had destroyed and h u m i l i a t e d Cud aatd ihe > J I M uaf die n l v uf* my t . .2 . i h c m e a n i n g o l the o p e n d o u r i n Rev ):*> is c r u c i a l . I will place «·*. he d u l l upeu and no one d u l l t h u i : he d u l l t h u i . t h a i i t . . .h t n n i n dnwti Imiri heaven ( m m my Ciod. oraclct. I t i i the new Icrusalem. k a w w i . .* In ihr Las. Λ c o m p l e t e allegory w o u l d be untenable because it w o u l d represent C h r i s t at the Isai Mm royal . i . i a l .1 κ . ( h a r f . R.•any hefurcharn. and the risen one's n e w n a m e w i l l be w r i t t e n u p o n the s s c t o r / c o l u m n . over Jerusalem a n d l u d a h . aasd mi o n r shall oprss . " ' T h e reason f o r i h e prostration m o t i f in 3*9 is l h a l Revelation here reuses a standard * l c » fn>m Sccaind ami 1 h u d l u i a l i t o b u i l d o n the a H u i i o n to t h e kevv o f D a v i d < err. i y o u r beet: i h e i d u l l call y o u the C i t y of tbe 1 .i k o f Isaiah p m m i v e d t h a i the f u t u r e w o u l d b n n g about a great reversal.n i t J * as lha tsrtil. i t t r r i / e d as t l r u t t u r a l i n m i . *vt n-t d o o r is o p e n 44. a n oracle i n Ita 22:1' 2 5 .a J t u b t c r v i e n t to the k i n g . o n e o t h e r phrase i n the Philadelphia message makes an i m p o r t a n t c o n ­ n e c t i o n w u h l u u h .8 t h u s portrays the risen C h r i t r as the one w i t h the key o f D a v i d . "and I si J] git lu kaast thegk»y ol Davad. T h e one w h o has i h e key o f D a v i d says he w i l l i n the lunate force the synagogue o f S a u n . . Muurtit. the ones w h o say the ν are Jews a n d are n o t . So the allusion to Isa 22 is fox. I n l u 22. NtWvntha. o r Acts 1 4 : 2 7 . and w i l l clothe him with your mbe and bind your sash on him I w i l l oitnmat t o u r u n h o r i n hi» hand and he thall be ι lather to the inhabitants o l Jerusalem and «> the house ul ludah. C o l V J . T h e text makes clear that the earth h* Jerusalem is n o i i n view here.' he is the o n e w i t h nit b o m a to o p e n a n d t l i n e .ti. t i n c e ebew here In using dot* n to an t o n e hot G o d — e v e n l o angels—ts u n a x i e p u h l e . T h i » t o t i i l u t i n n it l u p p o r t e d b y an a r g u m e n t w i t h f o u r s r r p * F i r t t . •attiult n i m n feitatn Cynt* at ι . the o n e t h a i comes d o w n f r o m G o d . the name o f the n e w l e r u u l c m ...·• will (. the e n d i n g o f the m e t u g r to the Philadelphia!! . h i m h p u k t u p i h e i m p o r t a n t . 117. » Λ open doors and siatc-s. n .o ι aaaiimad new ilnDO ? "hat aavoaaaad" in lha aaT. 1 . yea* *my i O . O n that day I wM c * i my servant H u k i m ton o l Hilkiah. The Itaiah passage d e n o u n c e d a royal o t h c u l w i t h a u t h o r i t y over Jerusalem a n d l u d a h . f.' . •aaa*rii:l4:tw«alaw4S:l4. damn </bnmM i n d bars of . T h i r d . R c i : i i i . Such a reading w o u l d be foreign i o ResvLtion's p o r t r a y a l o l the relations between churches a n d their social setting-. T h e n a m e o f G o d .^mtntrntty.d o o r imagery o f I C o r \»h% 2 Cot 2 : 1 2 . * * T h e idea recurs in Rev 2 2 * 1 4 . where a blessing i t p n t n o i i n c c d u p o n those w h o hate washed their robes so that ibev may eai o f the tree o f lire a n d so t h a i they may enter i h e n e w Jerusalem p f the gates ( w h i c h are named after the twelve tribes o t U r a c i l " H e w i l l guarantee t h e i r admission t i n c e the congregation had l i t t l e power b u t had remained foyal ( 3 : 9 ) . and this i t the root m e a n i n g in Rev \·Μ at w e l l .' It does nor refer t o a missionary o p p o r t u n i t y like the o p e n . I net* were n o t t . Mm may alaai iiraswve a tcs-t*asal*ry aliWitari to laa 4 l : t . a n d a l l w h o despised v o u shall b o w d o w n . 44.

tncepl o f " O i m t u n n y " i s n o w i n e x i n c a b l v entangled i n the rejection o f the c o n c e p t " J u d a i s m . " ITic discussion is m i s d i r e c t e d f r o m •he b e g i n n i n g h i i h e teitiis ihat f r a m e i t . " T b e m o m e n t we i n t r o d u c e (he foreign n o n o n o f C h n t t u n i i y i n t o Revelation siudies. T h e second issue is whether we should dcsxnhc the synagogue o f Sal. * * I f the Gospel o f I h o m a t a n d the G o t p c l o t Peter are f i t i t c e n t u r y d o c u m e n t s ( w h i c h I d . Moreover. '•V II.iv l i v p n i i v * / / « r J w ™ ) . I u n d e m a n d "anti-Jewish" t o m e a n a blanket .i n t i . i h s e m r o f the icT-m C h r i s t i a n in r a r l y * Chris-nun" l i t e r a t u r e is consistently o v e r k t o k e d i n N e w Testament studies.iy. T h i s ironic imagers does not come f m m an unstated assumption o n the p a r t o f John that i h e c h u n h e s are rhe real | r w s or i h e t r u e l»rael.S. T h i s practice is inexcusable. " O u i use i d " n i i J a ' i J d o u b l e r o e r x e .!. these several alluvions i o Isaiah i n (he m c u a g c t o Philadelphia arc viewed togcihcr. twice at a label used by hostile outsiders'* a n d once at an ambiguous e d i t o r i a l aside i n d i c a t ­ i n g that the t e r m o r i g i n a t e d i n A n t i o c h .in d i s ­ p u t e as an i n t r a m u r a l lewi-h argument o f the late first century. . B u t I also recognize l h a l ancient literature. or d i d n o t like the t e r m . I r o n i c a l l y .h a n d . 11 explained (he d i f f i c u l t situation o f the l*hiladelphian saints and ο tie red rhem hope for the f u t u r e . u s i e r . Yarr-oC^lm^^'ilm.all recent c o m m e n t a t o r s a f f i r m .:: • 1 . n o t global and systematic. I speak f r o m a p i o l e c i e d .a r c almost never used i n N e w T c t t a j n e n t s l u d i r s .-•. " H e dad n o i 1 1 . a h. I d o nor approve o f such tavcasan as an clhical d e c i s i o n . T h e t i n t is w l i c l h e r ihcse i r r . Front n i l ' vantage p t n n i . u l i r sitiaanons a b o u t w h i c h we base precious l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n . * Ί he messages are sarcastic a n d -·•· ι . the i r o n y o f i h r Isatanic raion turns i n t o relererv.lplul κ .. Varbro C o l l i n s noted thai Ignatius o l A n t i o c h had a developed language tor d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between "Judaism"* a n d " C h r i s t i a n i t y * i n the eaily second century. Aits itiilH by I -. Mtr&AFtttHnmfVer.aak. I h c risen <_'hiiit i n Revelation promises that t o m e Jews o f Philadel­ p h i a w o u l d someday come and b o w d o w n i o i h c (mostly ( ' e n t i l e I c o n g r e g j t i o n . m l < u u u i because ike author d i e t imi tay wfariliei ike term »at cited by n t t d e n <* iiinialti ι or boch. ( • r a n t e d . . Vc V . b u l their c o n d e m n a t i o n s were b n a l i / e d a n d sryecitic. Crnac-i ihr AniMvhain ηήςιη· ul rhr nrrn asplaini Ifnanui't -<• of ihr tare χ η ι η η η ι ν ι ι μ ι < lr g . .i. however. " T h u s .and i h i r d .i. I I I : . i h c synagogue o f Satan. privileged p o s i t i o n w i t h i n A m e r i c a n academic i i u i i t u i i o n t . .-ind synagogues i n Revelation because rhe s. (ben we h a t e l i m b e r evidence o l the irrelevance o f the t e r m C h r i s t i a n for this p e r i o d . * • • p a n I n the o r j c l c o f the risen C h r i s t .· Stxvt I k i u i . tlitsust m j u i r t t t Μ m i l it Λ .. .o h t ] . a n d superior l o . i get w c t e . a n d h i s congrcgarions.1 Λ becomes clear. "•t Aclt 111!(· it . 1 I tuithei. we are t o r r e d b y o u r i n a p p r o p r i a t e categories t o i m p o r t i n t o o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n an asyrnm e t n c a l relationship w i t h Judaism. the terms t h a i we k n o w weie used m o t t liec|uentlv at sell designations i n the hrst c c n i u r v c h u r c h e s vain t. o u r ο i d e m c is spoils. M y knowledge o f religious d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d * H tal ι · · ΐ ι .. " N o . t b e disease f o r w h i i h C h r i s t i a n i t y is i h r -lire.. (he somewhat strained analogy e m b e d d e d i n (he Rev 3 : 7 . As a socio-literarv strategy. η . -i-iii the m l e ot Isaiah* g r n i i l c t is pkivcd bv i h r Jewish c o m m u n i t y i n P h i U d e l p h i a . I h e most g l a r i n g example ot o u r misbegotten conceptual framework is the u b i q u i t o u s use o f the t e r m " C h m i i a n * b y m o d e r n scholars to describe J o h n . M I is | i n r > i i K i v : . 'a*. * ) . C h r i s t i a n occurs three times i n all of ihc New Testament. i n m y o p i n i o n . Csih. as nea rh. I n ( h i s instance.l A g r r n u I I ^Jdrrtu-ng Paul. I d o . his ( e x t .• t*ii I desltl. b r o i h e i . I fvtal t : l h a* a lacal JtiUtatKe J I V M I whiih i**e might be aihamtd.J c w i t h . Tint Iron. even i l i i it practiced by a n e m e r g i n g religious group i n a vulnerable a n d p o t e n t i a l l y lethal s i t u a t i o n . ' ' T h a t w a r n i n g should be herded and . 1 his i i l t f u c i u r a l i r o n y w i t h a sarcastic t w i s t . N o i is t h e i r o t d e n c e for aiLc-puiicc o f i h c term by the churches before the c r o m i l c e n t u r y if. T h i s q u e s t i o n is m o r e d i f f i c u l t and depends a g o o d deal o n h o w we deline the terms we use.«I. the synagogue o f Satan reference is simply a satirical. ι nrvrr Η * · Ι X l h r M i a n " η hit ' t r a m Linrrtl. s j n a s t K n o u r i s h embedded » u h in the ironic reuse o f scripture. a n d she warned against i m p o s i n g that separation u p o n John's R e v e l a t i o n . o r t d e m n a t i o n o f Jewish people or p r a c t K C i .J c w i s h . ' l b p u t i i another way. we are never g o i n g t o b e able t o understand ihe relationship between synagogues a n d churches i n Revelation i l we keep c a l l i n g i h c c h u r c h m e m b e r s " C h r i s t i a n . l u d a i s m . is n u t subieci to m y values a m i o p i n i o n s .. Rev 2-} is nor a n l i .es is d u e to the lact that we have n o t developed an appropriate language f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g the c o m m u n i t y addressed i n K c v e U u o n .. i h r p i a c t n r hat c l o u d e d the debate a b o u t anti-Jrwishnes-s .ι Jrtrs* 1 Io describe Revclalion is a '•ovtcrtul a n d peivative t e t f o | c i T w o issue* remain Io be c o t i i i d r r e d . W u h careful analysis o f !**tijitmvi. . Revelation is a lengthy text. o f (be o n n i l ν G e n t i l e congregation ( o enter ihc new Jerusalem. A t lean p a n o f our t r o u b l e i n u n d r r s l a n d i n g i h e "synagogue o f Satan/Jews w h o are n o t Jews" I n n l h a l w a i p t our ana It t i t o f i h c first c e n l u r t bv w i b l l v t e d r t i n i n g ( h e churthc-s at o p p o t e t l t o . I n m o d e r n New T r t i a m e n i studies it has breti i a * l at the t o i l againsi w h n l i o n e u t t d e i s u i i d s ( I n • n a n u s . and bit ι use η unl» η ι ι ι ί Μ ι liui ihr term J O T back to the tassc ol I'amJ > * ' .-HI-IJ. T h e i r o n i c strategics were Jets o f verbal aggression a i m e d at p a r t i . Chrssl ο the n n a l o'Tsvial w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n over the b o h " city. M. l u . I n that case the answer is.S e m i t i s m . . b i b l i c a l ot otherwise. $7. ' J u d a i s m * at α m o d e m t e r m i> o i i b d i g h i l y Ictt o f a p r o b l e m . R u l at Irasl i h r r r is a n c i r n i precedent f o r t h e c o n c e p r . . t approve o f vicious name c a l l i n g . n this I c o n c l u d e thai J o h n either dad not know i h e terns. 1 m a i n t a i n that neither " C h r i s t i a n " n o r "Jewish" is p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l i n this task. w i t h a m p l e o p p o r t u n i t y for l o o n t o call h i m s e l f or his audience " C h r i s t i a n . h i . ι ι i n n is second.i. . at best.Wavw. C l I R i . first-trntury usage o l loudw and we m i g h t be able to rehabilitate the vocabulary and use it i n a w a y thai does n o i autnmatically c o n j u r e u p the ghosts o f theological a n t i . " W. I h i s does not exonerate rhe t e n . Revelation reuses Isaiah t o asseri the n r . b m i h r near It c o m p l e t e ..

as it ihe h r u t r i i l v w o m a n . I ι . a n u n n u m b c i e d m u l t i t u d e . T h e i r v i n d i c a t i o n w i l l be ..|H:7|*rc. b u l they are m o r e o f t e n called t a i n u " o r servants of G o d . T h e o t h e r o f f s p r i n g aie ' t h o s e keeping the c o m m a n d s o f G o d a n d h a v i n g i h e t e s t i m o n y o l Jesus" ( 1 2 : 1 7 ) . ι . IWo aspects t o u c h o n the character o f the churches i n t h e i r relationship I o Israel. I he t h i r d image is the new lerusalcm. i h r ι h u n h e v h. 1-kiLsis. and i h r relationships between synagogues a n d shuts h e * are m i l d e f i n e d . a c r o w d . A m u l t i t u d e l o o Urge t o n u m b e r appeart a r o u n d i h c t h r o n e . satire. T h i s is a r e w o r k i n g o l h r e l u e l s vision o f the sealing o f the f a i t h f u l lerutalemites rseforc t h e assault o n that c i t y [hack ftibylonian I A c c o r d i n g t o John's v i s i o n . I h c churches made up some t o n o f n e t w o r k . 1 1 .i and gunny. « ι lUvMiM-iilldeilidOi-e. ftoth tynagoguet and c h u r c h e t c l a i m e d t h e same s c n p t u r a l t r a d i t i o n s . These c o m e " f f t i i n every n a t i o n .. 2 . T h a t reality was an cschaiokigical k i n g d o m . • lll-IU. a n d deserve c o m m e n t . · . p r o v i d e d t h e m a t r i x w i t h i n w h i c h t h e ironies o f John's text flourished. .il i i s o v r i n r i t t . twelve t h o u s a n d f r o m each o f the twelve i n b e t .ΜΜ ΙΗ RlVf LAtlON · . a n d does n o t need t o be d e t e n b e d f u l l y here. t a i t h l u l Ot his people i n that earlier catastrophe. m o l Israel.S V c a t s n r c * IV*.hn. just as G o d had saved t h e s a n d t h e L a m b w i l l d w e l l w u h h u m a n i t y .J ) . a n d t r i b e and people and t o n g u e " ( 7 . is n o talk liete o l G h l i t t u n i t y . I h i t i b i u b l r v i s i o n . 1-4-10. T h e n * o v c m e m i n w h i c h | o h n was a p r o p h e t was c o m p o s e d o f churches. John did Μ Ι U W ' c h u n k * in • u n i v n u l nmw tor the Larpri m c . W i t h o u t s o l v i n g a l l the p r o b l e m s i n ­ volved w i t h t h u v i r i o n (and thev are m a n y ) . " These were g r a n d claims. A g a i n . at the true | r w t .irdlv k i n k e d like ihe est h a i o k i g j • . ' " * l i r e k i n g d o m w a t made u p o l p r i r t u t o G o d . I h c twelve courses o f f o u n d a t i o n stones f o r t h e w a l l o l the city arc n a m e d after the twelve apostles ot i h e l a m b . • John's i t n a g r t t ι» i m p i r s s i v r a n d f u m l i o n u l . a n d their d e s t i n y — t i m u l t a n e o u t l y . so i h e w o m a n is i n some sense t h e source o l the saints a n d i h e i i mcssiah. t o i n | t o t e d o f some pci>ple f r o m i h r twelve tribes o f Israel a n i l a k<l o f people f r o m a l l t h e o i b e r i n b e t o f ihe w o r l d .1 Sts-vr.4 ) .u know ledgrd b y their antagonists f r o m t h e local ο nagogue. ile-scrihrt t h e c o m p o t i l s t i n o f the k i n g d o m .upcci n f the new ) r r i i c i k r r n thai touches o n o u r topic is the d e ­ s c r i p t i o n o f t h e walls o f i h e c n v . language. w h i c h w a t i n some t e n t r their o r i g i n . 2UB1). C h r i s i u n .i churches (ttd. Re* 1. r h e w v o n d . w h i c h is o n l y " n e w " t o h u m a n i t y . b u t a new feature is added. / . T h e first image it t h e w o m a n o f Rev 12." and " C h r i s t i a n " are n o t a p p r o p r i a t e terms for this m o v e m e n t . a n d a city. t h e gaiet are also n a m e d after ihe twelve i n b e t o l the t o r n o l Israel. Cf." "Israel. f o r ihe text o l Revelation it a c o m m u n i c a n o n t o t h e m a l l . Sor*. and Israel arc inadequate terms f o r i t * d e s c r i p t i o n . i i m i i c d u l r d presence o l G o d a n d t h e end o l human t u l l r r i n g . l o r a n r t w o r k o f -n. .m is*r » iScw Y™k. • Ί I image it the c r o w d f r o m R r v 7. Oifuid L m v w i c i 1'iess. to* -ay fmrtmCmt* W air Apstbr* • / Α * · fr^-f aVnoViM . however.v r r w / t a A x leil-'ls.3 5 1 . 61.-1-6. "Jew. t c ! .i p i t c i l i n thi» transcendent reality. I n Rev 3 : 7 .5**-. ihc l u l l . however. a heavenh c i i v that c u t across boundaries o t c i h n i c i t v . i h e larger reality d i d n o i i n c l u d e a l l lews n o r d i d it include a l l those w h o called themselves saints. a largclv G e n t i l e congregation is guaranteed admission t o the c i t y where G o d Μ NWe the ritual sxttxsx brs" in 1:«11x231 and 22ι 16 V». a n d t o o t h e r o f f s p r i n g as w e l l . Revelation κ ckrar e n o u g h . . T h e first part o f the vitson ' R e v 7 . a n d i h c new t Jciutalcrii were i n l e r k i c k i n g purls I n t h e same •• . juxtaposed w u h m o r e m o d e s t earthly appearances.1 4 r e m o d e l t ihe vrsion o f t h e eschatological Jerusalem f o u n d a i t h e e n d o f Eiektel's o r a c l r t ( t r e k 4 8 : 3 0 . I n John's v i n o n .«. Rev Rill Ι ι ί Ο ι ? J .β ) describes o n e part o f i h e k i n g d o m as the f a i t h f u l 144. o r as C h n t t i a n s . one f o r each o f t h e i n b e t . These i m u g c t tuggcsl that John perceived a liaiistcisdcnt realm w h i c h h e p o l l u t e d at a w o m a n . Α ι ihc level o f t r i m t n o l o g v . b u t accord­ i n g t o | o h n . their c o n t e m p o r a r y experience. · . T h e ». i. o f d u e Jews. T h e p i c t u r e i t f i l l e d o u t w i t h the second p a n o f the v i s i o n ( R e v 7:°—17). a n d c u l t u r e .all l u l n e r a h l e g r o u p s like t b r t h u n h e v F n i m t h e outside.• I.Call. T b e new Jcruaulern is a p r e e x i i i e n i l e a l u i w h i c h t h e t a i n u encounter ai t h e end i d u o i n i . t o G o d w o u l d always protect t h e remnant o l h u p e o p l e . three images f r o m Revelation help us gain t o m e c l a t i r t o n i h e rexiiironthip hetween ivitagngucs a n d the k i n g d o m o l p r i c t t t envtcioncd b y J o h n . I he later v i n o n o f the new lerusalcm in Rev 2I**'>. a n d sarcasm a p p e a l i n g strategics. i h e |44 (klL>. . . t h e u n n u m b e r e d m u l t i t u d e . E i e kiel had d e t e n b e d t h e f u t u r e Jerusalem at h a v i n g t w e h v gates. O n e aspect is t h e p r c e x i s l c i i l character o l ' i h e new Jerusalem.nc • W . !-. T b e i m a g c r i suggests a t i t i o i i o l the s h u n bet as a t o u i e m | t o r a r v a n d est liatoli<gu..iv) These t o l l s o f grand claims. b i n hardly systcmalic. I t w o u l d be d i t a n l o u t t o u> to tqurexe these several ullages i n t o one schema. Some o f I t r a r l a m i t o m e o l i h r churches p a r t i . a heavenly w o m a n . H a b i t a t i o n in the t i l l filial':. thai iii»tif i r t ihis b r i e l review I n n o n e o l these images w r r e rhe churches p o « r a y r d at Israel. T h e p a r a d o i i c a l experience made irony. I h e gaps between aspiration and achievement gave ihe p r o p b e i r o o m I D maneuver. " J o h n * t e r m f o r ( h i t n e t w o r k o f c h u r c h e t was * k i n g d o m . i l b i t t o n ( R e v 2 1 : 2 . I t w o u l d b e more accurate t o sav that [ohn · text d r <c η bet l i r a e l a n d t h e churches at p a n i c i p a t i n g i n a larger transcendent reality. Fnrasnrvnn nnt«ih. true hrw.•••.13.22:S is m o r e elaborate t h a n ihe image i n Rev 3:7-13. T h e r e is a c o h e r e n t r t o i l . I he o b l i q u e use o f this image was already h i g h l i g h t e d f n t m ihe message t o t h e angel o f the c h u r c h i n Philadelphia. interjected be­ tween the t i x i h a n d tevcntb seals.«I l u l f i l l m e n i o f God's d e a l i n g w u h t h e w o r l d ( n o r d . R r s e t i ' i o n 2 1 : 1 2 . it i t sate t o say that the text suggests a c o n n e c t i o n between the churches a n d ancient Israel A heavenly w o m a n gives b i r t h to the mcssiah.c m i t i . ' " A i the level o f cor>c~eptuala/arion.00(1 o f Israel.