http://btb.sagepub.com

and Theology Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible

DOI: 10.1177/014610799902800405 1999; 28; 160 Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology

Mark R. J. Bredin The Synagogue of Satan Accusation in Revelation 2:9

http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/4/160 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

can be found at:Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology Additional services and information for

http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/4/160 Citations

by RONALD ROJAS on April 5, 2009 http://btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

160

The Synagogue of Satan Accusationin Revelation 2:9

Mark R. J. Bredin

Mark R. J. Bredin, M.Theol. (St. Andrews), is the author of threearticles published by Sheffield Academic Press, Irish Biblical Studies,and The Friends Quarterly. He is a Distance Learning Tutor inTheology, and is writing a Ph.D. dissertation on Revelation. He re-sides at 3 Lindsay Gardens, St. Andrews, Fife, KY168XB, UK.

Abstract

The accusation that the synagogue was a synagogue, not of Judeans but of Satan is connected with aninternal dispute on how one faithful to Israelite traditions should live with the Roman economic system. Theauthor of Revelation was arguing that there should be no compromise with Rome, and those who did

compromise were not fit to be called Judean. The Synagogue, on the other hand, argued that peacefulcoexistence with Rome was possible. It is suggested that the synagogue accused members of the church inSmyrna of not being Judean because they refused to pay the special Judean tax that allowed them to practicetheir religion unmolested. For the author of Revelation, however, to pay the tax would be an act of apostasy, asthe tax paid for the rebuilding of the Capitoline temple.

he task of this article is to show that the synagogue ofSatan accusation in Revelation 2:9 reflects an internal dis-

pute between two related Judean groups: the synagogue andchurch, and that the dispute is connected with how Judeansshould relate to Rome during the reign of Domitian. It isproposed that the dispute resulted in one group denying theother group, and vice versa, the honored title of Judean, andin the church being considered politically suspect before theRoman administration (Rev 2:10) .

Distinctive to this study is the evidence that revealsDomitian in a more positive light. As will be seen, and con-trary to the scholarly consensus, it is argued that Domitian’sJudean tax reform, reported by Suetonius in his biography ofDomitian 12.2, was not intended as a bad policy, but wasunderstandable and beneficial to Gentile and Judean churchesestranged from the synagogue.

To persuade the reader of my argument, I must meet

certain criteria: section one is an analysis of Revelation2:9-10 for hints of a dispute; section two, is an assessmentof the plausibility of such a dispute in this social setting; andsection three is an examination of evidence for an internal

Judean dispute that has similarities with Revelation 2:9-10.The article concludes with a reconstruction of events un-

derlying Revelation 2:9-10.

Dispute Reflected in the Languageof Revelation 2:9-10

The church at Smyrna is described as poor and onethat is experiencing tribulation, yet, because of its tribula-tion and poverty, is described as rich. The letter informs us

that the sender, described in v 8 as &dquo;The First and the Last&dquo;(referring to Jesus), knows not only of their poverty andtribulation, but also of the blasphemy uttered by those whosay that they are the true Judeans. It is because of the syna-gogue’s blasphemy that they are not Judeans, but rather asynagogue of Satan.

It is possible that the synagogue was arguing that thechurch was not Judean, an accusation that elicited a re-sponse from the author of Revelation to the synagogue that

&dquo;you are not Judeans but a synagogue of Satan.&dquo; This, firstly,fits the use of the word Satan. The name can suggest &dquo;onewho accuses falsely (Job 1-2, Zech 3). Secondly, it fits with&dquo;blasphemy,&dquo; which can indicate slander (Matt 12:31;15:19; Eph 4:31; Col 3:8; 1 Tim 6:4; Jude 9). Sweet arguesfor this usage and suggests that underlying the word is acharge made against the church (85). In sum, it is suggestedthat Revelation 2:9 is understandable against the back-

ground of the synagogue arguing that they are Judeans andthat the church is not.

V 10 anticipates the consequences of the blasphemymade by the synagogue. The church is expected to sufferand its members thrown into prison by the devil. The devilis generally thought to represent Rome. Consequently, thesynagogue had reported the blasphemy to Rome, a step that

Mark R. J. Bredin, M.Theol. (St. Andrews), is the author of threearticles published by Sheffield Academic Press, Irish Biblical Studies,and The Friends Quarterly. He is a Distance Learning Tutor inTheology, and is writing a Ph.D. dissertation on Revelation. He re-sides at 3 Lindsay Gardens, St. Andrews, Fife, KY 168XB, UK.

by RONALD ROJAS on April 5, 2009 http://btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

161

engendered the fear of imprisonment. It is supposed bysome that only Rome had the power to incarcerate (YarbroCollins: 17). Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 strengthen this con-nection when the ancient serpent is described as the deviland Satan. Bauckham suggests they signify the forces of op-position to God manifested in the contemporary politicalpower, i.e., Rome (1993: 187). Rome, consequently, be-comes the beast, the devil, and Satan. &dquo;Synagogue of Satan&dquo;thus reflects not only a synagogue that accuses falsely, butalso a synagogue in collusion with Rome. Kraybill com-ments that the use of Satan is &dquo;a way of highlighting com-mercial or political relationships some Jews had with Rome&dquo;(170).

In conclusion, the claim of Revelation 2:9 that the syn-agogue is of Satan can be understood as a response to accu-sations the synagogue made against the church that it wasnot Judean. Moreover, they made such accusations to

Rome, resulting in possible punishment. Satan was also re-lated to the beast, an image representing Rome, and so thechurch argued that the synagogue was hand in hand withRome and, thus, no longer worthy of the name &dquo;Judean.&dquo;Consequently, Revelation 2:9-10 reflects two groups whohave differing attitudes towards Rome, and those who com-promise with Rome cannot be considered faithful to theGod of Israel. This suggestion now needs testing against thesocial setting.

Social Setting

Smyrna was a prosperous, leading political and reli-gious city in Asia Minor. Moreover, it was also a faithful allyof Rome (Caird: 34). The question regarding how Judeansshould live and work in this climate had been tackled longago, and varying degrees of compromise and failure to com-promise are evident. This was also the case for the church(168). There is evidence in the Second Testament for amore compromising attitude towards Rome (see Rom 13; 1

Pet 2:13-17; 1 Tim 2:1-2.A brief assessment of Domitian’s reign and his policies

towards the provinces will facilitate this study. According toSuetonius, Domitian kept such a tight hold on the city mag-istrates and provincial governors that the general standardof honesty and justice rose to an unprecedented high level(DOMITIAN 8). This fits with Pleket’s observation that ac-cording to Pliny, after Domitian’s death the provincial gov-ernors started exhorting money from the provincials (2.11,12; 3.9; 4.9; 5.20; 6.5, 13; 7.6, 10). Plecket comments thatthis could not have happened during Domitian’s reign (301).Contrary to much scholarship, there is no early evidence to

suggest that Domitian persecuted synagogue or churchcommunities. There is much evidence that he was hated bythe senate and ruling classes because he would not toleratetheir laziness and dishonesty (299).

There is, however, one text that may present Domitianas a tyrant: Suetonius’s reference to Domitian’s Judean taxpolicy. Suetonius reports that accusations were made in re-lation to this tax against those who were either living a Jew-ish life without professing Judaism, or concealing their Judeanorigins in order not to pay the tax (DOMITIAN 12.2). TheJudean tax, according to Josephus, was first imposed byVespasian on Judeans, whatever their place of residence,who had previously paid two drachmae to the temple in Je-rusalem (WAR 7.218). The implication here is that onlypracticing Judeans would be taxed. The tax was establishedfor the rebuilding of the Capitoline temple, and, accordingto Dio Cassius writing 100 years after the events, the amountwas a fee of exemption from imperial cult activities (RO-MAN HISTORY 66.7.2). Suetonius reports that Domitianwas concerned, in addition to practicing Judeans, to tax twoparticular groups: those living a Judean life but who did notprofess it formally, and those who were Judean by origin butconcealed the fact. The proposal of this article is that thetwo groups did not see themselves as liable to the tax as theywere not officially practicing synagogue Judeans. since manywithin this group were not participating in the imperial cult,however, accusations were made against them (as reportedby Suetonius). It is plausible that church members wouldfall into these categories because they still maintained out-ward practices associated with being a Judean group. Con-sequently, Domitian gave the churches their own right toexemption independently of the synagogue. This is not sur-prising, as in L. L. Thompson’s words, &dquo;Domitian’s policy ofrigor merely fits with his general administrative principles ofrationality and consistency&dquo; (134). This also coheres withwhat is known of Domitian according to Suetonius: i.e., heis a rigorous and honest administrator. Thus the Judean tax,as reformed during Domitian’s reign, was quite an under-standable policy in that an emperor would be expected toreceive something in exchange for allowing a people to fol-low their religious customs as well as making money for thetreasury. The tax was therefore extended for legitimate rea-sons to embrace groups who had not previously been envis-aged in Vespasian’s tax: namely, gentiles who had shownsympathy with Judaism and those who were circumcisedethnic Judeans yet did not participate in the cult; in addi-tion, they did not pay the tax as in many cases they did notbelong to the synagogue and were not officially practicingJudeans. Many Judean Christians would fit this category.

by RONALD ROJAS on April 5, 2009 http://btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

162

Consequently, Domitian’s reformulation of the Judean taxlegitimated the churches and exempted them from partici-pation in the cult as long as they paid the tax. Previously,they had not paid because they were not eligible. In the eyesof many Gentile and Judean followers of Christ, therefore,the extension would be welcomed.

The synagogue ... was seen by thechurch as being in collusion withRome

The more usual understanding is that Domitian estab-lished a ruthless and unfair system that taxed those whowere not liable. It is argued that the Nerva inscriptiion: fisciiudaici calumnia sublata (the calumnies of the Judean taxwere removed) reveals Domitian’s policy as ruthless, calumniaimplying &dquo;misrepresentation&dquo; or &dquo;false accusation,&dquo; and thatDomitian’s reforms were removed by Nerva.

It could be argued that the Nerva inscription wouldsuggest that Domitian’s tax policy had led to abuses andfalse accusations and thus prove my argument erroneous.The tax did give rise to some unfortunate abuses. The twonew groups identified for payment by Suetonius could be in-terpreted widely by informers from both the synagogue andgentile groups. M. Goodman has shown that Judean cus-toms were popular in the first century CE among Gentiles(41). It is to be expected that Domitian’s policy gave rise tofalse accusations against people who really were not consid-ered Judeans; this was, however, not the intention of thepolicy. Today’s laws towards child abuse may serve to illus-trate the point. Government agencies are rightly concernedto develop laws to detect any abuses committed againstchildren, and so relevant government agencies have to in-vestigate all reported incidences of child abuse and are em-powered to act even to the extent of placing a child in care.Even though this can lead to abuses in which false accusa-tions are made, the parents and guardians must still sufferthe stigma of being accused, and possibly having their childtaken away. Most would agree that this is an abuse of a goodpolicy.

In sum, the social setting has not deteriorated for thechurch because of specific policies introduced by Domitian.Rather, it has improved if the understanding of the Judeantax presented here is correct. Moreover, according to Thomp-son, it is supported by the provincial tradition that portrays

Domitian as a benevolent emperor towards synagogue andchurch (172).

In spite of the freedom to practice their religion, how-ever, the church at Smyrna was economically poor in aneconomically rich city and was experiencing tribulation. Itis suggested here that the &dquo;tribulation&dquo; is connected witheconomic poverty. Scholars are right to point out that the&dquo;tribulation&dquo; could mean persecution. The letter to Smyrna,however, indicates that the experience of suffering or perse-cution was not a present factor. Extreme poverty was, andthe consequences of such poverty, as many economicallypoor people know, can be described as a tribulation inwhich individuals and groups are divested of power.

The church, therefore, is very poor and powerless, aview suggested in the first section. The synagogue, in con-trast, was seen by the church as being in collusion withRome, suggesting that the setting was right for a debate onthe correct attitude towards Rome and its policies. Kraybillpoints out that during the early Roman imperial era, Judeanmerchants reached the far corners of the Roman Empireselling wine, spices, perfumes, and perhaps textiles (186).There is evidence that provincial Judeans cooperated closelywith the Roman government in administrative affairs (188).Rabbinic tradition holds that Johanan ben Zakkai spentforty years in trade (SIFRE 35 7.14) . M. Tamari commentsthat &dquo;Judaism never had any religious or ethical objectionsto buying and selling goods for profit&dquo; (65-66). But it can-not be assumed that all synagogue members were doing welland all church members were doing badly. As Bauckhampoints out, &dquo;Revelation’s first readers, as we know from theseven messages to the churches in chapters 2-3, were by nomeans all poor and persecuted like the Christians at Smyrna.Many were affluent, self-satisfied, and compromising ...&dquo;

(1993: 377). It has been observed that there was potentialfor improving one’s financial situation, and Asia Minor hada flourishing economy. Although Oakman concludes fromhis observations of the economy during Domitian’s reignthat there was great prosperity, he points out that there wasalso an unequal spread in the distribution of this wealth(213). Petronius’ first-century novel recounts the deeds ofTrimalchio, a slave in Asia Minor who, through wheelingand dealing becomes a very rich man. Given this situation,one could conclude that the churches should not compro-mise in any way with the Roman system. It may be addedthat Revelation may also be against the so-called wheelingand dealing that was needed to make money. It can be seen,therefore, that the question of wealth gained from involve-ment with Rome could be an issue in a dispute between syn-agogue and church.

by RONALD ROJAS on April 5, 2009 http://btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

163

It was the church’s attitude towards Rome that led toits poverty. The ability to earn would be considerably re-duced. A modern illustration may be that of a physics gradu-ate’s refusing to work in the arms trade and her consequentpoverty possibly leading to association with others in

like-minded groups. Also, Wilson, in his observations of Afri-can millenarian groups, saw groups arising out of a dissatis-faction with the current social order. Underlying the groups’belief system is their longing for the millennium to dawn inthe present. In terms of the church at Smyrna, however,they had to deal with a delay in God’s establishing his king-dom on earth. This could result in a sense of doubt or dis-comfort regarding previously held beliefs. According toFestinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, this sense ofdoubt could lead to an intensification of belief, leading inturn to a group’s refusal to comply, and, possibly, result inpoverty and tribulation. Moreover, as Gager has pointedout, the intensification of belief could result in increased

missionary activity, thus increasing the sense of group be-

longing and lessening the individual’s sense of discomfort(37-49). This would lead to even greater separation be-tween synagogue and church. Goodman points out, in Lieuet al., that there is much evidence that the early church setout to convert members of the synagogue and that the syna-gogue was hostile-or at least ambivalent-to proselytizing(1992: 70). The desire to proselytize is therefore connectedwith an uncompromising attitude to Rome or society as awhole. This attitude is most clearly seen in Revelation 18, inwhich a verbal attack on Rome is made and the evidentmanifestations of her rule listed in verses 11-13. Of particu-lar interest to this discussion regarding the synagogue of Sa-tan is one group described as compromising with Rome

(Rev 18:15). Philo reports the cessation of Judean businessin the east due to the stirring up of hatred against Judeans.The result, writes Philo, was that &dquo;those [i.e., Judeans] whohad let money lost what they lent, and no one was permit-ted, neither farmer, nor captain of a ship, nor merchant, norartisan, to employ himself in his usual manner&dquo; (FLACCUS57). The word for merchant used in Revelation 18 is theone used for the Judean merchants in Philo. It is not sug-gested that Revelation has only synagogue merchants inmind in 18:15; rather, all who compromise with Rome. Still,the evidence suggests that many, both in the synagogue and

in the church, were among the merchants.Pliny’s trial of Christians in 112 CE suggests that the

church could be in a vulnerable position before Rome, notfor being Christian, but for being anti-Rome. Downingpoints out that there are really no accounts of the trials ofChristians for being Christians before 112 CE and thus the

Judean tax had not resulted in arrests or trials (118). Surelyif Christians were being arrested or put on trial over the lasttwenty or so years, Pliny would not have needed to write toTrajan asking him for advice; he would have found prece-dents for his situation in the archives. Pliny acknowledges,moreover, that he is not even sure whether being a Chris-tian is punishable~nly the crime associated with being aChristian was to be punished; he writes that &dquo;I am not at allsure whether it is the name of Christian which is punish-able, even if innocent of crime, or rather the crimes associ-ated with the name&dquo; (96). It is proposed here that beforeTrajan’s reign being a Christian was not punishable, al-

though anti-social behavior would have been. Law-abidingChristians would be left in peace, but not troublemakers.

In sum, the situation was right for a dispute betweenthe synagogue and the church regarding who had the rightto be called a Judean. Moreover, Revelation reveals an atti-tude that could lead to punishment for being anti-social: forexample, its attitude towards wealth and its desire to standfirm against the Roman system.

Evidence for an Internal Conflict .

Borgen points out that the Qumran community harshlycriticized other Judeans (282). The Damascus Document il-lustrates this point:

During all those years Satan shall be unleashed against Is-

rael, as He spoke by the hand of Isaiah ... saying: terror and thepit and the snare are upon you, 0 inhabitant of the land.... Inter-

preted, these are the three nets of Satan with which Levi son ofJacob said that he catches Israel by setting them up as threekinds of righteousness. The first is fornication, the second isriches, and the third is profanation of the temple [CD 4.14-20].

The three nets, especially the one regarding riches closelyresemble the argument I am making about the synagoguebeing rich. An issue involved in this dispute was the perni-cious nature of wealth which would result in alienationfrom God. The instrument of this alienation is Satan. The

Qumran text is suggesting that Israel will be of Satan. Itmight also be interesting to consider this text in light of theview of some Qumran scholars who suggest that the Damas-cus Document was not intended for the group living atQumran but for others who adopted similar beliefs andpractices and yet had not exiled themselves to Qumran.Their main argument for this is based on the author of CD’smention of &dquo;camps&dquo; (7.6), &dquo;the camp&dquo; (10.23), &dquo;the assem-

bly of the towns of Israel&dquo; (12.19), and &dquo;the assembly of thecamps&dquo; (12.23).

by RONALD ROJAS on April 5, 2009 http://btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

164

Similarly, in 1 QH (The Thanksgiving hymn) 2.22

Bauckham observes that the Qumran community denouncedtheir fellow Judeans using the phrase &dquo;a gathering of Belial&dquo;(1994: 124). The word for &dquo;gathering&dquo; could be renderredsynagogue. Belial is used as a proper name for Satan in CDand the War Scroll. Thus they are a synagogue of Satan.

In sum, there is evidence not only for disputes betweenJudean groups, but also that compromise with Satan waspart of the accusation, an accusation that perceived wealthas an attribute and sign of belonging to Satan.

Conclusion

In the first section, it was concluded that underlyingthe language and themes of Revelation 2:9-10 was a dis-pute regarding who had the right to be called a &dquo;Judean.&dquo; Inthe second section, it was concluded that under Domitian’s

reign, the setting was right for a dispute between synagogueand church on the extent to which a Judean could compro-mise with Rome. In the third section, it was shown thatsuch a conflict was not unfamiliar in first-century Judaism.It would seem that a dispute concerning how a true Judeanshould relate to Rome influenced the writing of Revelation2:9-10.

Therefore, the events underlying Revelation 2:9-10can be established. The synagogue’s blasphemy that theywere Judeans and not the church is connected with thechurch’s uncompromising attitude towards Rome. It wouldseem that the synagogue would be concerned to distance it-

self from the church insasmuch as it attached great impor-tance to maintaining good relations with Rome. Moreover,the desire of the church to make converts would be threat-

ening to the synagogue, perhaps some synagogue memberswere being persuaded that the church was right, especiallythe less wealthy of the synagogue community. For the syna-gogue, Domitian’s policy on the tax was crucial as it gavethe church its own right of exemption from participating inthe imperial cult. A refusal to pay, however, would be seenas the church’s confession that they were not &dquo;Judean,&dquo; buttroublemakers. Consequently, Domitian’s tax led to thesynagogue’s declaring both to the Roman authorities and tothe church itself that &dquo;they are Judeans.&dquo; Revelation 2:9 is aresponse in which John protests that &dquo;they are not, but are asynagogue of Satan.&dquo; Ultimately it could result in churchmembers being detained (Rev 2:10) . This would be wel-

comed by the synagogue and would make synagogue mem-bers think twice about joining the church. It helped draw adistinction, moreover, between synagogue and church inthe eyes of Rome. But from Revelation’s perspective, to paythe tax would be to participate in the cult and the conse-quences of Rome’s economic policy, and thus the syna-gogue would be of Satan and not Judean.

Works Cited

Bauckham, R. 1994. THE THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF REVELA-TION. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

1993. THE CLIMAX OF PROPHECY. Edinburgh, UK: T. & T.

Clark.

Borgen, P. 1996. EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND HELLENISTIC JUDA-ISM. Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark.

Caird, G. B. 1984. THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE.London, UK: A. & C. Black.

Downing, G. 1988. Pliny’s Prosecution of Christians: Revelation and1 Peter, JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

34: 105-23.

Gager, J. A. 1975. KINGDOM AND COMMUNITY. Englewood, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Goodman, M. 1989. Nerva, The Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity,JOURNAL OF ROMAN STUDIES 79: 40-44.

Kraybill, J. Nelson. 1996. THE IMPERIAL CULT AND COMMERCE INJOHN’S APOCALYPSE. JSNT Supplement Series, 132. Shef-

field, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Lieu, J., J. North, and T. Rajak, editors. 1992. THE JEWS AMONGPAGANS AND CHRISTIANS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE. London,UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

Oakman, D. E. 1993. The Ancient Economy and St. John’s Apoocalypse,LISTENING JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND CULTURE 28/3: 200-14.

Plecket, H. W. 1961. Domitian, the Senate, and the Provinces,MNEMOSYNE, 4th series, 14: 296-315.

Sweet, J. P. M. 1990. REVELATION. London, UK: SCM Press.

Tamari, M. 1987. WITH ALL YOUR POSSESSIONS: JEWISH ETHICSAND ECONOMIC LIFE. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Thompson, Leonard L. 1990. THE BOOK OF REVELATION: APOCA-LYPSE AND EMPIRE. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, B. R. 1973. MAGIC AND THE MILLENNIUM: A SOCIOLOGI-CAL STUDY OF PROTEST AMONG TRIBAL AND THIRD-WORLD

PEOPLES. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Yarbro Collins, A. 1979. THE APOCALYPSE. Dublin, Ireland: Veri-tas Publications.

by RONALD ROJAS on April 5, 2009 http://btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from