Part II -The Salutatory Address
The adopted approach in dealing with these first three chapters of the Revelation will segment these passages into three distinct components. The first component consists of Chapter 1 verses 1 through 8 and will be referred to as the “Salutatory Address.” The second component consisting of Chapter 1 verses 9 through 20 will be referred to as the “Vision.” The third component consists of Chapters 2 and 3 and will be referred to herein as the “The Church Messages.” Not only does this segmentation seem to make literary sense, but individual components merit detailed review because of the rich eschatological, theological and historical nature of the content within these components.
As indicated, the overwhelming amount of previous reviews of the Revelation of Messiah focus on the apocalyptic events of the end days. Though understandable this typically results in the absence of the detailed theological exegesis associated with the content contained within the first three chapters. In our haste to get to the bottom line we overlook the path which was taken and fail to benefit from the lessons learned along the way. More important than understanding the end time events or the destiny of the Earthly Church of Messiah, is to understand the deal between G_D and people. What is most important is getting right with G_D before the end of days so we do not have to worry about such matters.
The reader will recall numerous contextual vantage points were developed previously within this work to facilitate proper interpretation. The primary contextual keys to remember throughout these discourses regarding the first three chapters of Revelations will be:
1) Reviewing the Scriptural passages … from a “Hebraic” context
2) Reviewing the Scriptural passages … in a “Scriptural Continuum” context
3) Reviewing the Scriptural passages … in a “Covenantal Continuum” context
4) Reviewing the Scriptural passages … in a “Church of Messiah” historical era context
5) Reviewing the Scriptural passages … in a “Doctrinal Seeding” context.
Ultimately the Revelation is structured in a unique manner which, from a theological perspective, an individual cannot help but see the passages as being extremely leading and crying out for review and interpretation. As will be seen these leading passages are not a result of prophetic ambiguity or symbolic utterances but represent a mandate from G_D to pursue the leads provided within Scripture until such time there are no more answers to be ascertained.
As the reader will see upon detailed review these scriptural passages can be viewed as being puzzle like. Typically straightforward literary strings are utilized to describe a specific fact, description or scenario … however the detailed explanations as to what these passages really mean are not provided. With the assistance of the developed contextual framework however the reader will soon see these passages translated in meaningful fashion.
* * * * * * *
(1) The Revelation of Yeshua the Messiah, which G_D gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: (2) Who bare record of the word of G_D, and of the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah, and of all things that he saw. (3) Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. (4) John to the seven Churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; (5) And from Yeshua the Messiah, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (6) And hath made us kings and priests unto G_D and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (7) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1:1–8)
When viewing the salutatory address with a mindset that the content is by nature designed to be leading, it becomes apparent that certain thematic propositions readily surface. For instance, in verses one and two there is an inter-relational dynamic between G_D and Yeshua. In verse four we see distinct greetings from G_D as well as from the “Seven Spirits” before his throne. In verse six we see the work of Messiah making us kings and priests unto G_D and his Father. Finally in verse eight we see once again the declared eternal omnipotence of G_D.
Perhaps these passages may not resonate within the reader but it would seem clear that within this opening salutation is the most complete framework anywhere in Holy Scripture for mankind to appropriately explore the mystery of the eternal G_D. If one really looks at these passages in a “doctrinal context” how could we not have many questions? What is the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit? Subsequently the author will dub this collective content as the “Nature of G_D” theme.
There are other “themes” which surface within this salutatory address as well and merit attention. When viewing collectively verses two, five, six and seven we see clear indications that the content deals specifically with Yeshua as Messiah. Subsequently the author will dub this collective content as the “Yeshua the Messiah” theme.
Additionally we can see in verses three and seven both prophetic and eschatological content. Subsequently the author will dub this collective content as the “Future Times” theme.
The great question is why would the eternal G_D want these scriptural leads pursued? In looking at the nature of the themes one might think these classifications to be of a rudimentary or basic nature and to not even be of any significance. These seemingly basic aspects of modern believers’ faith however are still even to this day a major point of contention for scores of Christians and other belief systems. The author would also contend this concluding chapter of the great literary epic, that is Hebrew Scripture, would most certainly contain a summary review of primary theological truths and precepts revealed to humanity.
So when considering this doctrinal foundation from an infantile Church perspective one initially thinks that this should have been easy enough; just pull out the Bible and go to work, right? Wrong! 1,900 years ago there were not convenient public libraries, there were not printing presses, there were not Barnes & Noble book stores, there were not “Bibles” as we understand, and a vast majority of the population would have been marginally literate—including a significant portion of believers! In fact the vast majority of Gentiles being witnessed to would not even have had a basic understanding of the Hebrew Religion at all.
Still further at the end of the first century Ce, with the exception of the Hebrew Religion - Judaism, there was no singular accepted “doctrine” from which believers could determine correct from incorrect beliefs. Although the apostolic fathers would have served as the pillars of faith one must not lose sight that these brave souls were under extreme duress to:
1) Get the gospel message of salvation out to all peoples,
2) Wrestle with issues relating to witnessing to both Jews as well as Gentiles,
3) Stay alive while suffering persecution from both Jews and the empire’s authorities,
4) Establish and maintain control over a quickly developing and expanding ecclesia, and of course
5) Deal with ongoing issues related to false teachings and beliefs.
Rarely do modern believers ponder the enormous burden shouldered by the earliest elders and the continually developing ecclesia. They had to deal with the reality that the “Gospel of Yeshua” movement literally exploded across the civilized world of the day.
The author is not implying that the spread of the gospel message was done haphazardly or without conscientious efforts, but it must be understood from an ecclesiastical and doctrinal perspective that the time period must have been incredibly challenging and quite disconcerting.
There were however no technological supports available to early Church fathers from a travel and communications perspective. The Apostles of Yeshua could not broadcast an email, make a phone call or go on television to get their messages across to the population. The point is that while the Church of Messiah was essentially in its infantile stages, and spreading quickly far and wide, there were really minimal opportunities to assimilate new members to the faith in a manner whereby they could be provided a solid religious foundation. Of course there would have been some of the Epistles and even the Gospel narratives available but what about all the material on which these writings were resting? In essence there weren’t any Christian manuals or robust doctrinal exegetical works in the early stages of the developing Church of Messiah and there would not be for quite some time.
If the reader thinks the author might be taking liberties and making broad and sweeping assumptions, without support, to make a case of “delayed doctrinal development,” please consider the following information pertinent to the early Church of Messiah. Information relevant to:
Persecutions suffered;
Heresies battled;
The Church’s relationship with the Jews;
Early Church Synods
* * * * * * *
c. 81–96 Ce, Persecution of Christians in Rome under Domitian took place.
c.107–117 Ce, Martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch, Church leader and bishop. He was a disciple of John the Apostle, along with Polycarp; Ignatius was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan’s rule.
c. 111 Ce, Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, wrote in a letter that to his surprise, the Christians were not guilty of any of the vices they were rumored to engage in while continuing to execute Christians who would not apostatize.
c. 117 Ce, Persecution of Christians under Hadrian.
c. 156 Ce, Martyrdom of Polycarp, disciple of John the Apostle.
c. 161–180 Ce, Persecution under Marcus Aurelius.
c. 177 Ce, Athenagoras wrote “Embassy for the Christians” a work addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus that showed the reasonableness of the Christian faith and the absurdity of the charges made against Christians.
c. 202–210 Ce, Emperor Septimius Severus severely persecuted Christians with the aim of eliminating the Church of Messiah while establishing one common religion in the Empire (Paganism).
c. 222 Ce, Alexander Severus became emperor. He lifted some harsh laws against the Christians, and essentially gave them the right to exist as a religion.
c. 235 Ce, the Emperor Maximian launched persecution against the heads of the Church. Numerous Church leaders perished in this time period.
c. 250–251 Ce, The Decian Persecution. The Emperor Decius required all citizens of the Empire to perform acts of worship to the gods of the State. People suspected of Christianity are brought before a commission and required to sacrifice. Refusal meant a long prison stay and subjection to torture so that the accused would apostatize. Failing that, they are put to death.
c. 257–259 Ce, The Emperor Valerian launched a persecution against Christians. The clergy was summoned to sacrifice to the pagan gods. If they refused, the Church property they legally held in the Church’s name was to be confiscated and they were to be exiled (a year later, the penalty would be immediate execution). All faithful Christians who met in religious assemblies were punishable by death.
c. 259 Ce, Peace of Gallenius. Emperor Gallenius succeeded to the throne, ended much persecution of Christians and legally recognized their existence. Church property was restored. Churches were again built. Christianity still remained a target for hostility however and was viewed as a threat to the established pagan religion.
c. 270–275 Ce, Emperor Aurelian ruled that the bishop of a city was whomever the bishops of Italy and Rome acknowledged as such. This way the secular arm made it possible for Rome to effectively depose bishops.
c. 302 Ce, Growing intolerance of Christians led to the army and the imperial service being closed to professed Christians.
c. 303 Ce, “The Great Persecution” of Christians began under Diocletian through a series of devastating edicts. All people were to worship pagan state gods. Churches were to be destroyed; Christian books were to be burned. The first act of the persecution was to burn down the cathedral at Nicomedia.
c. 304 Ce, Christians faithful to their religion were now subject to the death penalty. The government committed massacres to terrify the faithful.
c. 310 Ce, Sapor II became king of the Persian Empire. Until the third century, the Church grew in Persia without persecution. However, with the accession of the Sassinid Dynasty (227 Ce) the Church became suspect and was eventually persecuted. Under Sapor II, Christians were subject to a persecution worse than any undertaken by the Roman Emperors. Christianity was considered the religion of the Roman Empire, with whom the Persians were constantly at war.
c. 313 Ce, Edict of Milan. Toleration of Christians in the Western Roman Empire. All people, not only Christians, had freedom of religion so long as they rendered honour to “the divinity.” Emperor Constantine returned Church property. In the Eastern Empire, Maximinus continued to persecute Christians until he granted them toleration in a last-ditch effort to gain their favor and keep alive his struggle against his enemy Licinius
c. 313 Ce, The Lateran palace made its first appearance in Catholic history as it was the scene of an appeal of the Donatists in the matter of Cecillian’s election as Bishop of Carthage. Emperor Constantine chose the bishops to sit on the tribunal, but the Vicar of Rome presided over it. It ruled in favor of Cecillian.
c. 323 Ce, Licinius, Emperor of the East, launched a persecution against Christians.
c. 323 Ce, Constantine and Licinius battled at Chrysopolis. Licinius died six months later. Constantine had no rival and was the sole ruler of the Empire. Constantine preserved freedom of religion, but his attitude towards paganism became contemptuous. Paganism and Christianity enjoyed equal status before the law.
As the reader can see from this listing of primary persecutions, and in some cases intervention to stop or relax persecutions of the early Church, the environment was often not conducive to survival, let alone development of a governing doctrinal base. But the reader may ask: why is this doctrinal base the author keeps harping on so important? This issue will become very clear as we proceed with the review.
* * * * * * *
Within the early Church of Messiah there were numerous and often very dangerous beliefs which emerged. Often these diverse beliefs split the Church not only along doctrinal but cultural and geopolitical lines as well. Following is a brief summary of just the “major” doctrinal beliefs eventually deemed “heretical” by the Church.
Antinomianism: or lawlessness, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities.
Apollinarism or Apollinarianism: was a view that Yeshua had a human body but a divine mind.
Arianism: a Christological view that G_D the Father and the Son were not co-eternal. The doctrine held that the pre-incarnate Yeshua was a divine being but nonetheless created by, and consequently then inferior to, the Father at some point before which the Son did not exist.
Docetism: is the belief that Yeshua did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his execution on the stake.
Gnosticism: is a historical term for various mystical initiatory religions, cults and knowledge schools which were most active in the first few centuries Ce around the Mediterranean and extending into central Asia. These systems typically recommend the pursuit of special knowledge (gnosis) as the central goal of life. They also commonly depict creation as a battle between competing forces of light and dark and believe in a marked division between the material realm, which is typically depicted as under the governance of evil forces, and the higher spiritual realm from which it is divided. It should be further noted that Gnosticism maintains its roots in Oriental/Chaldean/Egyptian mysticism.
Marcionism: is the dualist belief system that originated in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144 Ce. Marcionism reflects a different understanding of the roots of Christian belief than that commonly held today. To the early Church, the source of the most persistent persecution of Christians was from Judaism. An ordained bishop of Sinope, Asia Minor, Marcion declared that Christianity was distinct from and in opposition to Judaism. This was nothing new to the Church of his contemporaries. Indeed, a great number of early Church fathers attacked Judaism; for example, John Chrysostom believed that Jews “worship the devil.” Marcion went much further. First, he rejected the whole Bible other than the Gospel of Luke. Second, he adopted a belief in two gods. One was good; the other was the Jewish god who was evil, but somehow created the universe.
Modalism: considers G_D to be one person appearing and working in the different “modes” of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Monophysitism: (from the Greek monos meaning “one, alone” and physis meaning “nature”) is the Christological position that Messiah has only one nature, as opposed to the Chalcedonian Council position which holds that Yeshua has two natures, one divine and one human.
Montanism: was an early Christian sectarian movement of the mid-second century Ce, named after its founder Montanus. The most widely known Montanist was undoubtedly Tertullian, who was called the “Father of the Latin Church” before his defection to Montanism. Shortly after Montanus’ conversion to Christianity, he began traveling among the rural settlements of Asia Minor, preaching and testifying. Montanus was accompanied by two women, Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla, and Maximilla, who also purported to be the embodiments of the Holy Spirit that moved and inspired them. He claimed to have received a series of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit and to be the paraclete of the Gospel of John 14:16. As they went, “the Three” as they were called, spoke in ecstatic visions and urged their followers to fast and pray, so that they might share these personal revelations. His preaching spread from his native Phrygia, where he proclaimed the village of Pepuza as the site of the New Jerusalem, across the contemporary Christian world, to Africa and Gaul.
Nestorianism: is the Christian doctrine that Yeshua existed as two persons, the man Yeshua and the divine Son of G_D, rather than as a unified person. This doctrine is identified with Nestorius (c.386–c.451), Patriarch of Constantinople. This view of Yeshua was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 Ce, and the conflict over this view led to the Nestorian schism, separating the Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church.
The Ophites: is more or less a broad term for numerous gnostic sects in Syria and Egypt about 100 Ce. The common trait was that these sects would give great importance to the serpent of the Biblical tale of Adam and Eve, connecting the Tree of Knowledge (of good and evil) to gnosis. In contrast to Christian interpretations of the Serpent as Satan, Ophites viewed the serpent as the hero and regarded the figure that the Bible identifies as G_D as being the evil lesser god.
Psilanthropism: or Socinianism, is a Christological view that denies the divine nature of Yeshua. The presumed etymology of “psilanthropism” stems from the Greek psilo (merely, only) and anthropos (man, human being). Psilanthropism was rejected by the ecumenical councils [Heresies Source Material](20)
As can be seen unfortunately there was no shortage of variant doctrines developed after the Kingdom of G_D began being preached to the masses. This abbreviated summary of divergent doctrines, coupled with the review of the persecutions suffered, provides the reader with a better idea as to what was going on within the early Church. It was the development and spread of a number of these heretical doctrines which ultimately led the Church hierarchy to finally energize and establish an official doctrinal base in response to these numerous emerging heresies.
In spite of many diverse doctrinal contentions being put forth within the early Church however “doctrinal order” would not come officially until a long time after the gift of the Revelation of Yeshua the Messiah. Although it should be presumed the early Church had some means of establishing control and communications between various believing communities, it should be noted that records of such “centralized” control are scant. Furthermore, although some early post apostolic Church writings do exist which support some doctrinal development and indicate certain emerging practices and traditions, these writings are also short in number and certainly do not convey any true organizational unity or standardized practices throughout the entire Church body.
* * * * * * *
At this point in time the reader may be accepting of the notion that the development of the official doctrinal base by the early Church was significantly delayed. It would seem apparent this was the case! The reader may also add: "so what?" Truths do not change, and we know the Bible had been intact for thousands of years. What is the problem if the doctrinal development in earnest was delayed for such a long time?
The reader will recall much effort was spent herein developing certain contextual points. If the reader is satisfied that Christianity is in fact “Hebraically rooted” then it would make sense if the early Church’s doctrinal development efforts would have been undertaken with this in mind. At this point the reader may be thinking that modern Christian doctrine is reflective of both the Old Testament and of Yeshua’s role as The Messiah of Israel. This then of course must mean the early Church did account for this “Hebraic rooting!” So what is the author driving at?
Although we have explored the dynamic of the early Church environment in terms of persecutions and variant emergent heresies, we really have not yet explored the last major aspect of the early Church cultural dynamic. This aspect being the relationship between the Jews and the early Church Gentiles! Since we are in effect discussing the development of doctrinal exegesis in terms of Hebraic rooting we should look to see if this relationship might in some way have affected the early Church in some manner.
What do we know about this Jewish and early Church relationship? We know the early Church had a heavy Jewish contingent and was of course “Jewish” centric through the Apostolic Age. We also know the relationship between the greater community of Jews, which did not accept Yeshua as Messiah, and the early Church was not a good relationship. In fact there is solid supporting evidence to indicate the early believers were persecuted, with indirect and often direct support, by the Jewish communities.
Ultimately however we know that sometime between the end of the Apostolic Age (death of John the Apostle) and the time frame of Marcion (see previous heresy—Marcionism) circa 145 Ce that there was already a belief that the new Church was absolutely distinct from and separate from Judaism or from a broader extent the Hebrew Religion. Prior to Marcion there is evidence from other early writings within the Church exhorting congregations to break away from Jewish fables and religious practices! Marcion was in no way alone in the anti-Jewish mind set. But it should be made clear there were different early Church camps that were opposed to elements of Judaism for very distinct reasons.
It should be understood within the early Church there would understandably not have been tolerance for anyone preaching any brand of Judaism which did not include the conviction that Yeshua was The Messiah and even more so the Son of G_D! So we know on the grounds of refuting Yeshua as Messiah alone there could be no mingling of the two groups of believers.
Another significant point of contention within the Judeo-Christian relationship that is often overlooked is the aspect of Jewish Mysticism. This is a topic worthy of its own distinct work but at the same time regarding the present discussion it cannot be totally ignored. This Jewish Mysticism, which has nothing to do with proper Hebraic Religious practices, is a movement of “enlightenment” and “inner spiritual” development which is rooted in Oriental/Chaldean Mysticism. Today most readers may recognize this Jewish Mysticism as Kabbalah! Around the time of Yeshua this Jewish Mysticism was undergoing another transformation via the influx of Greek philosophy. Within the Jewish culture the practitioners would have been elitist and conducted their practices in a secretive manner for they would have been “initiated.”
Why this is mentioned here is because a major by-product of this false religion was and still is Gnostic doctrine. The author would contend that more than a little of the Gnostic heresies and onslaught encountered by the early Church of Messiah came as a direct result of Jewish Mystical influences. Historical records indicate more than a few early Church fathers were aware of these dangerous influences and vigorously attempted to stave off these negative forces. This “anti-Jewish” or more appropriately “anti-Jewish Mysticism” perspective would have served to promote a separation between the early Church and their Hebrew roots. More on this issue will be exposed later in this work.
Returning focus back to Marcion; what we know of him comes mostly through his detractors. The first mention of Marcion was in Justin Martyr’s Apologia, written mid-second century, which finds Marcion yet alive and his followers dispersed among many nations.
Marcion was the wealthy son of the bishop of Sinope. He is described as a ship owner, by Rhodon and Tertullian, who wrote about a generation after Marcion’s death. The hostile confrontation of Marcion described in Adversus haereses of Polycarp’s pupil Irenaeus was expanded in a more detailed and more furious polemic written by Tertullian, “Adversus Marcionem.” Marcion had found his way to Rome about 142 Ce. In the next few years after his arrival in Rome, Marcion refined his theological system and attracted a large following. When conflicts with the bishops of Rome arose, Marcion organized his followers into a separate community. He was excommunicated by the See of Rome around Ce 144, which returned his previous donation of 200,000 sesterces, a very large sum of money.
Marcion apparently then used Rome as a base of operations, devoting his considerable wealth to the propagation of his teachings and the establishment of communities throughout the Roman Empire, making converts of every age, rank and background. He created a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Church of Rome, with himself as bishop. Tertullian and Irenaeus report Marcion attempted to use his money to influence the Church to adopt his teaching, which they rejected. He also came face to face at Rome with Polycarp, who claimed to have known John the Apostle personally—Polycarp called Marcion “the first born of Satan.” his numerous critics included the aforementioned, along with Ephraim of Syria, Dionysius of Corinth, Theophilus of Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus and Rhodo in Rome, Bardesanes at Edessa, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Such a battery of opponents suggests a very real and widespread teaching running counter to what would later be called Catholic.
So what did Marcion spew forth that upset so many? Marcion declared Christianity was distinct from and in opposition to Judaism. This was nothing new to the Church of his contemporaries. Indeed, a great number of early Church fathers attacked Judaism; for example, John Chrysostom (