(8) And unto the angel of the Church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; (9) I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (10) Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. (11) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; he that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. (Revelations 2:8–11)
Letter to Smyrna Components
Image of Yeshua: He that is the first and the last; who was dead and is alive
Positives: works, tribulation, poverty (but art rich)
Extras: blasphemy of false Jews of the synagogue of Satan, fear not which thou will suffer, the devil shall cast some in prison, ye shall have tribulation for ten days, be faithful unto death and get a crown of life (a reward)
Negatives: none
Warning: none
Reward: not be hurt by the second death
* * * * * * *
Letter to Smyrna Commentary
In this message to the Church of Messiah the image of Yeshua presented within this message is one of martyrdom and resurrection. Yeshua presents himself as the first and the last; he that was dead and is alive. More so than any other Church message can the presented image of Yeshua be associated directly with his passion and sacrifice … and hence Earthly suffering to beget heavenly glory.
Yeshua continues in verse nine by declaring that he knows the Church’s works, tribulation and poverty. Oddly enough, unlike the message to the Church of the previous era, Yeshua does not rebuke the Church. Undoubtedly the Church, consisting of imperfect people, is of course imperfect, but Yeshua choosing not to rebuke the Church leads the author to conclude this is an act of mercy by Messiah. It would seem the tribulation and dread suffered by believers, the allusion being “death,” is sufficient to overshadow any wrongs of the Church body. It would seem fairly evident that martyrdom for the sake of Messiah is the greatest testament of faith one could ever profess.
The author subsequently views this Church message as indicative of a time of tremendous and unparalleled persecution of peoples for the name of Messiah. Although the first Church era was certainly not devoid of troubles and persecutions, this Church era will be typified by ongoing and extremely harsh tribulation for members of the Church of Messiah. A time period when many believers will pay the ultimate price for their faith in Yeshua the Messiah and the Church will undergo its own passion of sorts.
As the reader can easily verify on their own, with minimal historical research, the time frame which best describes this Church can be identified as approximately spanning the years 202 Ce through 313 Ce. During this time frame major persecutions of the Church were undertaken in both the Roman and Persian Empires.
Historical records for the Roman Empire are more abundant and will be the focus of interest herein. The author will note however that within the East the early Church had been tolerated for approximately two centuries but beginning with the Persian—Sassinid Dynasty (227 Ce) this changed and the persecutions of the East began in earnest and were purportedly dreadful.
Throughout this time period persecutions were tolerated and initiated by notable Roman Emperors: Septimius Severus, Maximian, Decian, Valerian and Diocletian. Without doubt there are scattered periods of toleration and some peace for the Church but it must be noted that even within these so called times of peace the Church was subject to wanton pagan persecution.
Despite the tremendous growth of the early Church within this Church era, the established and primary religion throughout the Roman Empire was paganism. Like many other topics broached within this work there is no plausible means by which a thorough exposition of Paganism can be portrayed herein. This being declared it is critical however to understand from a high level perspective the nature of paganism and the subsequent dynamic with burgeoning Christianity.
The paganism of the Roman Empire combined several different cult practices and embraced more than a single set of beliefs most assuredly. The Romans originally followed a rural animistic tradition, in which many spirits were each responsible for specific, limited aspects of the cosmos and human activities, such as “ploughing” for example. The early Romans referred to these gods as “numina.” Another aspect of this animistic belief was ancestor worship, with each family honoring their own dead by their own rites.
Early in the history of the Roman Republic, foreign gods were imported, especially from Greece, which had a great cultural influence on the Romans. In addition, the Romans connected some of their indigenous deities with Greek gods and goddesses. The old Roman gods became associated and sometimes synonymous with their counter-part Greek gods. Therefore Jupiter was perceived to be the same deity as Zeus. Mars was associated with Ares, and Neptune with Poseidon. The actual fact is of course that Jupiter had a distinctive Italic flavor that Zeus did not, and Juno retained as much of her Etruscan attributes as she borrowed from the Greek goddess Hera. It is a simplistic mistake to assume that the Roman gods simply absorbed completely the attributes and histories of these Greek gods, though they did come to be associated with them.
Based heavily in Greek and Etruscan mythology, Roman religion came to encompass and absorb hundreds of other religions, developing a rich and complex mythology. During the Roman Republic and early Empire, there was a strict system of priestly offices under the governance of the “College of Pontiffs.”
This College of Pontiffs or “Collegium Pontificum” was a body whose members were the highest-ranking priests of the pagan state religion. At the head of this body was the “Pontifex Maximus,” the high priest and most honored position in Roman religion. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was integrated into the Imperial office. “Flamens” were major priests who took care of the cults of various gods, while “Augurs” were the “seers” entrusted with interpreting omens and determining the will of the gods.
It should be understood by the middle of the second century Ce, despite being weakened by various cultural influences, paganism had reemerged with strength and was synonymous with the Roman Empire. There was an entrenched and civilly important bureaucratic religious leadership that worked in league with imperial elements to maintain unity and order throughout the Roman Empire. Essentially the Pagan Empire was by no means unreligious; in fact the opposite was true. (30)
It is against this backdrop that the Church of Messiah had to battle to survive. In essence the Romans, whom history proved absorbed all other religions of those territories that were conquered, were faced with a new sect of believers who were not so willing to forego their beliefs and succumb to pagan integration. Under this cultural and societal environment the growing Church of Messiah must have been viewed as a major threat to both Roman societal unity and of course the entrenched pagan religious bureaucracy. The subsequent result was an unprecedented era of persecution and subterfuge which resulted in the deaths of countless numbers of Church believers.
For instance, under the Decian Persecution of the middle third century, all citizens in every town and village of the Empire were required to perform acts of worship to the recognized gods of the State. Persons suspected of being Christian were 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 were put to death. This systematic persecution produces so many martyrs that devotion to martyrs, once a more private practice, becomes widespread among Church of Messiah believers.
Under Emperor Valerian leaders of Christian communities are summoned to sacrifice to the pagan gods. Failure to comply resulted in exile and seizure of Church property that had been legally acquired. At the completion of a year of exile if the persons would still not comply they were executed. During this period faithful Christians who were caught assembling in a religious manner were subject to immediate execution.
But the lack of freedom to practice was not the only tribulation suffered by believers during this time frame. Intolerance of Christians also resulted in the lack of economic and civil opportunities. By the beginning of the fourth century Christians officially could not serve in any imperial capacity. It was indeed an extreme time of suffering for Church of Messiah believers.
Perhaps the most notable persecutions however would be those of Emperor Diocletian. During this time, from 303 Ce until the Edict of Milan in 313 Ce, Christians were once again forced to sacrifice to pagan gods or suffer death. Records of massacres depict a ruthless and systematic attempt to destroy the Church within the Roman Empire. Churches were burned and books were destroyed in an attempt to purge forever the Church of Messiah. It is not until the 313 Ce Edict of Milan issued by Emperor Constantine that the black period of martyrdom within the Church of Messiah came to an end.
So when historical records are reviewed we can only conclude this time frame clearly coincides with Yeshua’s declaration of works, tribulation and poverty. Furthermore the imagery of Messiah’s death and resurrection aligns perfectly with this great age of martyrdom and personal suffering. Yeshua’s salutation to this Church era was indeed pointing to a period where the ultimate sacrifice of death would be prevalent.
Although it would seem the author has made a compelling case in identifying this Church of Messiah era it should be noted there are additional passages within this Church message which are most interesting and demand further review.
Let us begin by reviewing the last portion of verse nine and all of verse ten where Yeshua declares: “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold the devil shall cast some of you into prison that ye may be tried and ye shall have tribulation ten days.”
At first glance one might be inclined to think, the author included, that the conclusion of verse nine is a direct reference to Jews whom do not believe in Yeshua as Messiah. However for the purposes of objectivity, as well as the desire to discern and validate the truth, one should denote all the range of interpretive possibilities and then either support or negate declared potential interpretations premised upon due diligence and available facts. In keeping with this process the author has devised the following potential interpretations:
#1 This could refer to Torah faithful ethnic Jews who, because of unbelief, are recognized by Yeshua as being false Jews and therefore of the synagogue of Satan.
#2 This could refer to ethnic Jews who, because of failure to follow G_D’s Torah as prescribed, are recognized by Yeshua as being false Jews and of the synagogue of Satan.
#3 This could refer to persons that are not ethnic Jews but claim to be Jewish from an ancestral perspective.
#4 This could refer to persons that are not ethnic Jews but claim to be Jewish from a symbolic perspective where “Jew” symbolically represents “chosen people.”
Certainly this expanded view opens up the list of potential persons or groups significantly. However it must be taken into account that not all passages can be presumed to be literal. Previously at the outset of this work the author pointed out from a Scriptural perspective that passages could be: literal, literal and symbolic at the same time, or just symbolic. Given the nature of these passages it would be wise to exercise caution during this review and examine all potential interpretations.
The reader must also bear in mind the great evangelist Paul’s discourse on the subject of being a Jew in the letter to the Romans. In this discourse Paul makes the case that a real Jew is one who is circumcised inside, of the heart, and not outside. In this discourse Paul eloquently depicts how “Jew” can easily be used symbolically to represent anyone, including a Gentile.
Before we begin the review of the potential interpretive options it seems prudent to explore the other leads included within the passages to assist the endeavor. To begin we should consider the context in which verses nine and ten are set.
It would seem logical to presume that the “blasphemers” spoken of would be directly involved with the tribulation of the Church of Messiah given its position within verse nine where tribulation and poverty are prominent.
It would seem logical to presume that the “devil” in verse ten is connected with the “synagogue of Satan” in verse nine given the similarity in symbolism and imagery between Satan and the devil.
It would seem that the reference to “ten days of tribulation” is directly associated with the “devil” who will cast some into prison.
We are dealing with a Church era that roughly spans 190 Ce to 313 Ce.
Outside of setting the correct context we should also take a look at some other literal leads which have been provided. First let us review the word “blasphemy:”
(a) A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning G_D;
(b) The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of G_D;
(c) An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct. (31)
Secondly let us review the word “synagogue:”
(a) A building or place of meeting for worship and religious instruction in the Jewish faith;
(b) A congregation for the purpose of worship or religious study;
(c) The Jewish religion as organized or typified in local congregations. (32)
The next lead to be looked at is “Satan:” adversary; accuser. When used as a proper name, the Hebrew word so rendered has the article “the adversary or hasatan” (Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7). In the New Testament it is used as interchangeable with Diabolos, or the devil, and is so used more than thirty times.
He is also called “the dragon,” “that old serpent” (Rev. 12:9, 20:2), “the prince of this world” ( John 12:31, 14:30), “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2), “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4), “the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2), and “Beelzebub, the prince of the devils” (Mat.12:24).
He is “the constant enemy of G_D, of Messiah, of the divine kingdom, of the followers of Yeshua, and of all truth; full of falsehood and all malice, and exciting and seducing to evil in every possible way.”
His power is very great in the world. He is a “roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). Men are said to be “taken captive by him” (2 Tim. 2:26). Christians are warned against his “devices” (2 Cor. 2:11) and called on to “resist” him (James 4:7).
Yeshua redeems his people from “him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). Satan has the “power of death,” not as Lord, but simply as executioner.
The last lead to be looked at is “Devil:” (a) In many religions, the major personified spirit of evil, ruler of Hell, and foe of G_D; (b) A subordinate evil spirit; a demon; (c) A wicked or malevolent person (33)
Now that we have gathered some basic definitions for the added clues we should evaluate these to ascertain if additional meaning can be extracted and applied to the apparent mystery at hand: “who represents the synagogue of Satan?”
The author considers the literal definition of “blasphemy” suitable but cautions the reader to understand that “blasphemy” in effect can be generally interpreted to mean lowering the status of G_D either directly or indirectly through elevating another to the position of “Supreme Being.”
Furthermore with regards to “blasphemy” it should be viewed as defiling that which is holy or sanctified before G_D. In a broad sense blasphemy is knowingly and overtly acting against the will of G_D in a “high handed/defiant” manner.
Moving on to “synagogue,” these definitions bring no surprises, but the author must note in a general symbolic sense synagogue cannot be ruled out as referencing any “house of worship” or “place of religious instruction.” Subsequently this potential symbolic use of the word synagogue must be taken into account when reviewing the interpretive options; certainly so for options 3 and 4 respectively where the potential persons or group being considered are not ethnically Jewish.
Regarding Satan it would seem enough material was provided herein however the reader should understand in a general symbolic religious sense “Satan” translates to “other than G_D,” as would be the case for any false god such as Baal. In the context we are dealing with, it should be accepted that worship of any deity other than G_D would have to be considered “satanic.”
As for “devil” the author believes the provided definitions are suitable for our needs. We can now proceed with a review of our four potential options concerning the false Jews of the synagogue of Satan.
Looking at option #1 we will consider the “false Jews” reference to mean Torah observant and faithful Hebrews who did not accept Yeshua as Messiah of Israel.
Although it might seem contradictory that devout and faithful believers in G_D could in any manner be deemed to be blasphemous, we must bear in mind that denying Yeshua, both as Messiah and as G_D manifested on Earth, would indeed fit the broad definition of blasphemous. Still further when we look at the general definition of Satan which is “the adversary” we could objectively conclude the synagogue of Jews did indeed put itself in an adversarial position to Yeshua and hence G_D.
On the other hand any reasonable individual should be hard pressed to declare the Jewish denial of Yeshua as Messiah is maintained out of hatred of G_D. This being the case would mean this unfortunate decision represents a brutal and fatal mistake and not a high handed blasphemous act against G_D. It would seem that faithful Jews would not fit the description of “synagogue of Satan.”
Still further could this reference by Yeshua relate to third century Jews anyway? We must bear in mind the time frame or Church era being referred to. The last great attempt of Jewish re-emergence took place from 133–135 Ce. This revolt was crushed by Rome and in essence rendered the Jews utterly defeated. In fact countless Jews were enslaved, vast numbers of others dispersed throughout the empire and Jerusalem became a totally pagan city where Jews were not even allowed to enter under penalty of death. In light of this situation it would seem that option #1 should be eliminated.
Moving now to option #2 we will review the potential scenario of the false Jews reference to mean ethnic Jews that do not follow G_D’s prescribed plan for his chosen people.
To begin the author will point out this group could consist of two distinct segments of persons. The first group can readily be identified as those ethnic Jews who are in effect “secular,” or non-religious, whereas the second group would have to be identified as ethnic Jews who are religious but knowingly usurp the Sacred Torah of G_D.
In looking at the first group it should be proposed without much argument that a secular, non-religious, Jew is one who has revoked their birth right as a member of the chosen people. They have in effect turned their backs on G_D all together and hence have blasphemed in a most dreadful manner.
With this being the case however can we see this as having any bearing on the reference within this Church message? It would seem there is no historical evidence to indicate secular non-religious Jews would have any hand in the persecution upon the Church of Messiah. There is just no evidence to support that any secular Jewish contingent ascertained any position of influence or authority within the Roman Empire to conduct such activities.
Based on this simple argument alone we should be able to eliminate the secular non-religious Jew as being the referenced “false Jews” within this Church message, regardless of their blasphemy.
Moving on to the second group of ethnic Jews who are religious but knowingly usurp the Torah of G_D, this will require some explanation. The reader will recall the author had exposed earlier in this work that early Church fathers had serious problems with heresies in the developing Church of which a significant heresy was that of “Gnosticism.”
The Gnostic movement of the first through third centuries Common Era was centered in Alexandria, Egypt which had become a center for Jewish learning and culture after the failed revolt of 133–135 Ce. Before tying this movement to any purported false Jews some additional background materials on mysticism are warranted.
The reader must keep in mind that alchemy, astrology, numerology, etc., were not just ways of the ancient Egyptians and Chaldeans. Modern mystics contend vociferously that knowledge of and practice of the craft can be traced back to Shem and Abraham of Hebraic roots. They point to the origins of the craft in Biblical accounts of the Nephilim or “fallen angels,” which purportedly had traded divine knowledge for human sexual favors. This divine knowledge consisted not just of “technological” information but purportedly secrets that could provide the initiated and learned, a path to spiritual ascension or metaphysical transmutation. In effect salvation or perfection could be acquired through secret knowledge and practice of the craft, as opposed to salvation being a gift from a merciful G_D bestowed upon people willing to be faithful and obedient to him.
We could of course go on and on regarding this topic, but what is important to relate is the following. Mystical under currents apparently were at work within Judaism for a long time, most probably as a result of the Babylonian Captivity where these two schools had ample opportunity to cross pollinate. By the onset of the Common Era, marked by the loss of power and control by the legalistic Jewish religious establishment, this mysticism began to manifest itself significantly in the Jewish Talmud or “Rabbinical Commentaries/Oral Traditions.” These traditions even to this day in Judaism stand equal and as a part of G_D’s Tanakh in importance; much like the Canon of the Roman Catholic Church.
Unlike infantile Christianity, which denounced claims of mystical origins as heresy, Judaism retained a powerful connection with those purported mystical roots. The earliest alchemical text, “Isis the Prophetess to her son Horus,” points to an Egypto-Hebraic source for its transformational philosophy. Interestingly enough, a Hebrew contemporary of the author of the “Isis the Prophetess” story, Rabbi Nehuniah ben HaKana, purportedly revealed to his students the magical technology behind these transformational processes. In the later centuries of the Dispersion, his teachings would form the basis of the traditional Jewish Kabbalah. (34)
The reader should be aware that numerous Jews of the mystical persuasion would have indeed migrated to early Christianity where they would have seen Yeshua as the ultimate magician. In fact it is in these mystical Gnostic schools where the stories of Mary Magdalene as Yeshua’s wife first emerge. It must be remembered within this mystical cultic sector women are by no means secondary and represent a very important element of the grand scheme. It is also within these schools where Mary Magdalene is professed to be the first alchemist. As the reader can surmise the Gnostics were and still are the root of all the nonsensical holy grail and DaVinci Code myths.
Within this backdrop we can certainly envision this sect as not just attempting to infiltrate the Church of Messiah but whole heartedly embracing it; but under a false conviction and with motives very different than those of Yeshua the Messiah. It is under this scenario Yeshua certainly could have been pointing to these mystical schools as being false Jews and of the synagogue of Satan. There are no doubt these groups, still existent today in various forms: Kabbalists, Freemasons, etc., represent elements of the synagogue of Satan.
This being the case however it should be realized these schools or groups would not have held sway over the Roman government or is there any historical evidence to indicate these groups conspired to attack members of the Christian faithful, even those of orthodox non-mystical beliefs.
So based on the sole fact these groups of ethnic Jews were not the ones persecuting the Christians it would seem, though they were indeed blasphemers, this was not the specific synagogue of Satan being referenced.
Option #3 will have us investigate the possibility of the false Jews to mean any non-ethnic Jews purporting to be ethnic Jews—that is of the seed of Abraham.
In looking at potential candidates we might consider first the possibility of those Hebrews dispersed during the Assyrian Captivity—Hebrews from the fabled lost tribes of Israel. This would pose an interesting option in as much there very well must be persons of Hebrew lineage, who do claim to be Jews, but are of a different tribe and have no proof of Hebrew lineage. We must acknowledge however there is no historical evidence to work any such group into this Church message or Church era. This group as it pertains to this Church message must be deemed to be implausible.
The next group which we could identify to fit this non-Jew claiming to be of the seed of Abraham would of course be the Arab Muslims who contend that through Ishmael, son of Abraham and his concubine Hagar the Egyptian, that they are the rightful heirs as “chosen people.” Or perhaps through Esau, who had sold his birthright to Jacob/Israel, are the rightful heirs of G_D’s promises.
Of course this group however must be excluded as a potential option within this Church message simply because the rise of Islam did not take place until the seventh century Ce.
We are now left only with option #4 which will entail a brief review of a group which is not ethnically Jews but claim to be chosen people. The reader hopefully is tolerant of the author for not proceeding directly to the most likely suspect first, but it is important that all plausible options are at least reviewed.
Because the presumption is that the false Jews of the synagogue of Satan are in fact the persecutors of the Christians, we know for a fact we are discussing the Roman Empire. In light of the reference to tribulation for ten days we can even identify the “devil” as most likely being Emperor Diocletian. The reader should first understand in Biblical symbolism the term “day” is often used to describe a year or many years depending on the intended need. In essence the reference could translate to ten or even one hundred years.
As has been previously disclosed it was Diocletian who initiated, authorized and was most zealous in persecuting the Christians in the most grievous of manner. As also noted this heinous period of persecution and martyrdom lasted roughly a decade from 303 to 313 Ce. There are two authorities for the ten year period of the most intense persecution against the Christians, that initiated under Diocletian. Eusebius and Lactantius, were contemporaries and eye-witnesses, the one in Phoenicia and Egypt, and the other in Nicomedia itself. From the two we get many details of the events leading up to the promulgation of the decrees, as well as of the horrors and cruelty attending their execution.” (35)
But even acknowledging that Diocletian is the “devil” being referenced, where do we see the false Jews from the synagogue of Satan in this construct? As the author exposed within the discourse of this same Church message, the Roman pagan priesthood was most prominent throughout the empire. The fact the pagan religion was in essence integrated and sponsored by the Roman Empire should alone qualify it as a “synagogue of Satan.” In looking at this relationship between paganism and the Roman Empire a bit closer we will see how this is without question the reference Yeshua was making in the Church message.
Obviously the blasphemy of paganism cannot be denied when thinking in context of the one true G_D of Israel and all peoples; this is a given! However it should be understood by the beginning of the third century Ce Rome was being ruled by the Severan Dynasty. During this dynasty it had become common practice for the emperor to be deified by the Roman Senate; blasphemy indeed!
Ironically in 218 Ce one of the most controversial Roman Emperors to ever reign came to power; his name was Elagabalus or Heliogabalus. What is notable about this emperor was his religious fervor and practices. Elagabalus’ name is a Latinized form of the Semitic deity El-Gabal, a manifestation of the Semitic deity Ēl. Elagabalus replaced Jupiter, head of the Roman pantheon, with a new god, “Deus Sol Invictus,” which in Latin means “the Sun, god Unconquered.”
Since the reign of Septimius Severus sun worship had increased throughout the Empire. Elagabalus apparently saw this as an opportunity to set up his god, El-Gabal, as the chief deity of the Roman Pantheon and h