(12) And to the angel of the Church in Pergamon write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; (13) I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. (14) But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. (15) So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. (16) Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. (17) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. (Revelations 2:12–17)
Letter to Pergamon Components
Image of Yeshua: He that hath a two edged sword
Positives: Works, hold fast Messiah’s name, not denied faith in Yeshua
Extras: thou dwellest where Satan’s seat is, faithful even in those days when Antipas was martyred where Satan dwelleth
Negatives: thou hast them there that hold to the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel to eat things sacrificed to idols and to fornicate, thou hast them there that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes which Yeshua hates
Warning: Repent or else Yeshua will come quickly and fight against them with the sword of his mouth.
Reward: He will give hidden manna and a white stone with a new name upon it
* * * * * * *
Letter of Pergamon Commentary
In looking at the opening verse we see Yeshua presented as he who hath the sharp sword with two edges. This passage will represent the first topical discourse. At first glance we might view Messiah as simply declaring to the Church it is he that ultimately wields the power of judgment and in essence life and death. The vast majority of prior works done on this Church message interpret this image of Messiah in this manner.
From the author’s perspective however this is an overly obvious and simplistic interpretation … for this symbolism we already knew since it has been revealed within the context of the vision. Furthermore as was the case in the previous two messages this introductory image of Yeshua, in similar fashion, should certainly have a deeper contextual meaning specific to this Church era.
From still another perspective it would seem if Yeshua was simply declaring it was he who wields ultimate judgment it would have made more sense to provide this symbolic image to the previous Church era, a time when believers were being slaughtered by pagan Rome. In this way the message would simply have translated to “fear not the Romans who can destroy only the body for it is G_D who has the power to destroy the soul.” But as we saw it was the suffering Yeshua presented to this persecuted Church era. So what then can this image be projecting?
As the author has exposed previously within this work the association of the sword and judgment/authority is inescapable. Regarding this specific Church era message the following should be noted specifically about ancient Pergamon: Attalus III King of Pergamon bequeathed his royal capital and kingdom to the Romans in 133 BCe and they formed it into the Province of Asia Minor. Pergamon became the official capital of the province from where the provincial governor, wielding the broad double bladed Roman sword, symbolic of Imperial Rome’s might, would issue the official decrees of Caesar throughout the province.
Pliny declared of Pergamon: it was the seat of a Roman supreme court, where prisoners were brought, sentenced and often executed. Pergamon was then in fact the seat of Roman authority and judgment within Asia Minor. [Pergamon Sources] (38)
Within this context we see a different meaning to Messiah’s introduction to the Church era. From this perspective the introduction from Yeshua may be indicative not of a judgment upon the Church but rather this will be a Church era where his Church will either wield the power of judgment over people or perhaps be associated with the government that wields power over the people.
In verse thirteen Yeshua declares he knows the works of the Church and that they dwell even where Satan’s seat is. Yeshua also declares that the Church holds fast his name and has not denied his faith even in those days when Antipas was a faithful martyr where Satan dwelled.
From a historical perspective Pergamon was notable as the official center of the pagan religion of the province and the leader in emperor worship. Jupiter, god of the sky and ruler of the Roman pantheon, was purported to have had his origins here. There were temples to Jupiter/Zeus, Athena, Dionysus, and Aesculapius. Aesculapius, “the serpent god,” or “god of healing,” also known as “the Great Physician,” and “the Savior” was revered as “the god of Pergamon.” A living serpent was actually kept in the temple and worshiped. Many coins from Pergamon display a picture of a serpent entwined around a pole, the modern symbol of the medical profession. Additionally in connection with the temple there was a famous school of medicine and learning. (39)
But Pergamon was still indeed further yet a far more notorious place in the realm of religious history. It would seem Pergamon, according to some historians and commentators, had become home to the fleeing priests and cult of that most despicable Babylonian Mystery Religion upon the defeat of the Babylonians at the hands of the Medes and Persians in the fifth century BCe. (40) This Babylonian Mystery sect, the oldest of pagan worshippers and hence Satan’s oldest synagogue, had apparently usurped even the indigenous pagans because in short order after their arrival the snake, now really representative of that old serpent from the garden of Eden, had become chief idol in Pergamon. It should also be noted the traditional Greek cult of Aesculapius had enjoyed its time of prominence centuries before. The comeback for Aesculapius in Pergamon bodes quite strange.
So in light of this historical information we can draw clear implications from the reference to Antipas the faithful martyr; who according to tradition was bishop of Pergamon and was martyred during the persecutions of Domitian by being shut up in a brazen bull which was heated till it was red hot. Antipas purportedly ended his life with praises and thanksgiving to G_D. (41)
With history assisting our path we can see where Pergamon was literally the seat of Satan at one time declared by Messiah. The author says at one time because Satan unlike G_D does not dwell or sit in more than one place at a time. Satan is simply not omnipresent like G_D. It would seem evidence suggests Pergamon was the seat of Satan at least when Antipas was martyred.
But what about a Church era that is later than the persecutions of Diocletian, determined to be the end of the last Church era? What about this current Church era? Did Satan’s seat pass into antiquity with the ancient city of Pergamon or move on? This will certainly be an issue which we will attempt to answer through historical review. It should also be noted that in conjunction with the “seat of Satan” construct does Yeshua applaud this Church era for not denying his name and holding fast their faith.
We see in verse fourteen Yeshua declares a negative against the Church era where some hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
Now the reader may be aware of the recounting of the events of the chosen people in the Book of Numbers concerning the King of Moab, Balak. In brief this king, being dreadfully fearful of the horde of Israelites coming up out of Egypt, solicited the support of Balaam, a seer/priest of Pethor to come and curse the approaching Israelites. Balaam was apparently noteworthy for such activities.
As recounted, Balaam consulted G_D who told him to in effect stay out of things and leave the Israelites alone for he had blessed them. Balaam decided to go and meet with Balak in the hopes G_D would change his mind and as such Balaam could curse the Israelites and earn the great booty that Balak had offered. Ultimately Balaam was prohibited by G_D from cursing the Israelites and in fact issued the blessing, going so far as to inform Balak that in the end of days the Israelites would ultimately smite Moab.
In response to these events, and of course the desire for retribution, Balaam advised Balak to have the women of Moab seduce the men of Israel and lead them to worship the false god Baal. This is indeed what happened. Ultimately the evil within the Hebrew camp had to be rooted out physically and killed.
The key elements relevant to this Scriptural account from the author’s perspective are as follows:
The prophet Balaam represents leaders who are told to do one thing by G_D but find justifiable means of doing what they want to do and these things lead astray the chosen people. Although specific transgressions caused by Balaam’s conspiring were idol worship and sexual fornication, the doctrine of Balaam is broadly symbolic of the mingling of the ways of G_D’s chosen people or the ways of Scripture, with the ways of the heathens.
A point that previous commentators miss is the symbolism within this record of Balak that has G_D’s chosen people violently rooting out of their community those that transgress. In the case of the Israelites this rooting out was of course “righteous” before G_D.
Another point that previous commentators seem to miss completely is the symbolism within this record of Balak where G_D’s chosen people are warring with the heathens while they travel the path to the land of promise.
Ultimately what we will need to be in search of historically then is evidence of:
1) The Church era leadership following their own desires, those of Balaam and not G_D;
2) The ways/practices of the heathen being mingled with the scripturally ordained ways of G_D;
3) G_D’s chosen people warring with the heathens;
4) G_D's chosen people violently purging the wayward from among their ranks.
Moving along we see in verse fifteen Yeshua once again broaches the topic of the Nicolaitanes. As previously covered, this is an allusion to a conquering and elitist ecclesiastical body. With this Church message however this is not just a threat but a reality as declared by Messiah; subsequently this Church era will also be one associated with a Nicolaitane ecclesiastical bureaucracy to some extent.
In closing the opening review of the Church letter to Pergamon let us summarize the notable characteristics of the Church era which we will seek to validate with historical evidence.
1. A Church era where the Church of Messiah itself is playing judge or at least in league with a secular power that is playing judge
2. A Church era where we see a definitive Nicolaitane ecclesiastical bureaucracy that literally conquers the people
3. A Church era where we see a violent purging within the ranks of the Church
4. A Church era where some notable leaders follow the doctrine of Balaam—pursue their own desires
5. A Church era where we see the Church of Messiah come under attack or at war
6. A Church era where we see the mingling of pagan practices with the ways of G_D
7. A Church era where we can situate the dwelling seat of Satan and in conjunction with this location the Church holds fast their faith in Yeshua while not denying his name
* * * * * * *
Historically the rise of the Church of Messiah from the depths of the third century Roman persecutions could be considered nothing less than extraordinary and perhaps even miraculous. In brief, the turn-around must be attributed in large part to the actions of the Emperor Constantine, who in 313 Ce issued the famous “Edict of Milan” which in effect “legalized” Christianity within the Roman Empire, though in the East the Persians reacted by persecuting Christians.
Within a very short time frame not only was the Church of Messiah thriving but it had become dominant within the empire. Historically we see in the decrees of Emperor Theodosius (347–395 Ce) a progressively anti-pagan stance being adopted. He declared in 389 Ce that those pagan feasts which had not yet been rendered Christian were now to be workdays. In 391 Ce, he outlawed blood sacrifice and decreed “no one is to go to the sanctuaries, walk through the temples, or raise his eyes to statues created by the labor of man.” The temples that were thus closed were to be declared “abandoned,” as Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria immediately noted in applying for permission to demolish a site and cover it with a Christian Church, an act which must have received general sanction, for mithraea forming crypts of Churches, and temples forming the foundations of fifth century Churches appear throughout the former Roman Empire.
Theodosius participated in actions by Christians against major pagan sites: most notably the destruction of the gigantic Serapeum of Alexandria and its library by a mob in around 392 Ce, authorized by Theodosius. The destruction of the greatest temple in Alexandria gave encouragement to Christian vigilantism and mob action in other centers, often spurred on by the local bishops, as early hagiographies proudly relate.
By decree in 391 Ce, Theodosius ended the subsidies which had still trickled to some remnants of Greco-Roman civic paganism as well. The eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished, and the Vestal Virgins were disbanded. Taking the auspices and practicing witchcraft were to be punished. Pagan members of the Senate in Rome appealed to him to restore the “Altar of Victory” in the Senate House; he refused.
After the last Olympic Games in 393 Ce, Theodosius cancelled the much-diminished games, and the reckoning of dates by Olympiads soon came to an end. Now Theodosius portrayed himself on his coins holding the labarum, the banner adopted by Constantine I after his conversion to Christianity. [Theodosius Source Material] (42)
Within the fourth century the tide had indeed turned in favor of the Church of Messiah, and we in effect historically see the downfall of official Roman Paganism. The historical records show Christianity had become the de facto religion of the Roman Empire. These actions and policies undoubtedly inspired much of the population to convert to Christianity.
This period marks the beginning of an extremely long time frame in which the Church of Messiah would be deeply connected with the secular base of Western Power, be it identified as the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire or the Monarchical Kingdoms of Europe. Regardless of apologists’ attempts to downplay the relationship between the Church and state, the game of politics would be ingrained within the Church of Messiah. Admittedly politics were often forced upon the Church but often the Church willingly indulged in politics. This simply cannot be refuted and historically is a result of the marriage between the Roman Empire and the Church of Messiah.
Though the progressive Christianizing of the Roman Empire in the fourth century did not confer upon bishops civil authority within the state, the gradual withdrawal of imperial authority during the fifth century left the Pope the senior Imperial civilian official in Rome, as bishops were increasingly directing civil affairs in other cities of the Western Empire.
This status as a secular and civil leader was vividly displayed by Pope Leo I’s confrontation with Attila in 452 Ce and was substantially increased in 754 Ce, when the Frankish ruler Pippin the Younger donated to the Pope a strip of territory which formed the core of the so-called Papal States. In 800 Ce Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish ruler Charlemagne as Roman Emperor, a major step toward establishing what later became known as the Holy Roman Empire, from that date it became the Pope’s prerogative to crown the Emperor or any monarch with affiliations with the Church until the crowning of Napoleon. (43)
By 500 Ce the Roman Empire, undoubtedly in the West, was essentially extinct. What remained was the Roman Catholic Church which undoubtedly became the glue that held the collapsed portion of the empire together. There was indeed no other institution capable of performing such a daunting task and it cannot be refuted that this role played by the Church of Messiah mandated it take on secular responsibilities in light of the empire’s collapse and the need to institute social order.
So how did the Church come to this position of power? As history declares the Church of Messiah became the religious arm of the secular Roman Empire during the fourth century. In conjunction with the Edict of Milan we also historically see the first reference to the Lateran Palace, a gift of Constantine, which housed the Bishop/Vicar of Rome until the early fourteenth century, or nearly 1,000 years. It was commonly referred to as the “Palace of the Popes.”
Although history indicates the evolution and rise of the Roman Catholic Papacy occurred over many centuries it should be noted in 607 Ce, under a decree by Emperor Phocas, the bishop of Rome was deemed “Universal Bishop of the Church.” Prior to this time the term Pope had been used strictly as a courtesy for the Vicar of Rome.
To understand the position of the bishop of Rome and to a greater extent the governing ecclesiastical organization however one needs to look at the relationship between the Church and the Roman Empire. As was previously detailed the pagan religion had its own priestly order. The reader will recall the order consisted of: the Pontifex Maximus at the top, the collegium of Pontifices, the Flamens/Priests and the Augurs or oracles. Most important to understand is the ingrained civic nature of this priestly order. This was not simply a religious component of the Empire by any stretch; the priestly order was deeply entrenched within Roman civil affairs and society in general.
What the author is pointing out is with the fall of paganism and the priestly order there was a natural power vacuum which undoubtedly was filled by the Church of Messiah. When one objectively looks at the development of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical body one simply cannot ignore the similarities between it and the pagan priestly order from an organizational perspective. In essence the Pope assumed the role of the Pontifex Maximus, a literally gifted designation from the Emperor of Rome who was bearer of the title. It should also be noted this Latin term is still an official title of the modern Pope. We certainly cannot ignore the similarities between the college of pontiffs and the college of cardinals, etc. It must be remembered the secular power base would not only desire to use the Church as a means of stability and influence but would have needed such an arrangement. It was logically natural for this scenario to develop in light of the history of the Roman Empire.
It was under this scenario in which the bishop of Rome assumed not just religious authority but also political authority. Within this environment the ecclesiastical organization would have followed suit and the hierarchical structure would and did evolve. Ultimately what emerged within the Church was an ecclesiastical institution, which unlike the Apostolic Age, comprised a distinct sector of individuals which had not only religious but secular authority as well.
A summary review of the development of the Papal States can shed some much needed light on the nature of the ecclesiastical institution which the priesthood had evolved into within the Church of Messiah. The seeds of the Papal States were planted in the sixth century. By the seventh century, with Byzantine power weighted at the northeast end of this territory, the Bishop of Rome, as the largest landowner and most prestigious figure in Italy, began by default to take on much of the ruling authority that Byzantines were unable to project to the area around Rome.
In practice the Duchy of Rome, an area roughly equivalent to modern day Latium, became an independent state ruled by the Church. The Church’s relative independence, combined with popular support for the Papacy in Italy, enabled various Popes to defy the will of the Byzantine emperor; Pope Gregory II even excommunicated Emperor Leo III. Nevertheless the Pope and the Exarch still worked together to control the rising power of the Lombards in Italy. As Byzantine power weakened, the Papacy took an ever larger role in defending Rome from the Lombards, usually through diplomacy, threats, and bribery.
The Donation of Pippin and the Holy Roman Empire
In 751, the Duchy of Rome was completely cut off from the Byzantine Empire by the conquering Lombards. Pope Stephen II acted to neutralize the Lombard threat by courting the Frankish ruler, Pippin the Younger. Stephen gave Church sanction to Pippin’s desire to depose the Merovingian figurehead, Childeric III, and take the throne himself; he also granted Pippin the title Patrician of the Romans. In return, Pippin led a Frankish army into Italy in 754 and 756 and conquered much of northern Italy and made a gift of the properties to the Pope. In 781, Charlemagne codified the regions over which the Pope would be temporal sovereign: the Duchy of Rome was key, but the territory was expanded to include Ravenna, the Pentapolis, parts of the Duchy of Benevento, Tuscany, Corsica, Lombardy, along with a number of Italian cities. The cooperation between the Papacy and the Carolingian dynasty climaxed in 800, when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne “Emperor of the Romans”—”Augustus Romanorum.”
Over several campaigns in the mid-tenth century, the German ruler Otto I conquered northern Italy; Pope John XII crowned him emperor and the two of them ratified the “Diploma Ottonianum,” which guaranteed the independence of the Papal States. However, over the next two centuries, Popes and emperors squabbled over a variety of issues, and the German rulers routinely treated the Papal States as part of their realms on those occasions when they projected power into Italy. A major motivation for the Gregorian Reform was to free the administration of the Papal States from imperial interference, and after the extirpation of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, the German emperors rarely interfered in Italian affairs. By 1300 Ce, the Papal States, along with the rest of the Italian principalities, were effectively independent. (44)
What should logically be concluded by this brief review of the “Papal States” is that a segment of the Church of Messiah had indeed evolved into an institution wherein a separated and authoritative ecclesiastical organization was prevalent and not just running the Church but an entire geo-political realm.
Important to note is this discourse thus far has clearly focused upon the Roman segment of the Church of Messiah for obvious reasons. While the ecclesiastical institution within the Church was evolving within the West there were marked differences when compared with the Church of the Eastern Empire. Constantinople had essentially become the seat of the Roman Empire during the fourth century and by the fifth century the unrivaled replacement of Rome as Imperial Capital City. Despite the deeply Christian (Greek Orthodox) nature of the realm there had not been a deep embedding of the Church ecclesiastical organization within the secular power base. Essentially the Eastern Empire had what could be described as a somewhat separated Church and state. The Church most assuredly was influential but could in no way be described as wielding the power as did their Western counter parts.
In light of the developed authority of the Western segment of the Church of Messiah it is absolutely clear the general population was subjected to the rule of the Roman Church or at least its ecclesiastical institution. It would also seem clear then the Western Church had assumed the role of ruler and judge within its realm of influence. Essentially then it should be considered a given that a separated and elitist organization, a Nicolaitane organization had emerged. With this being the case is there historical evidence that points to this organization being a “conqueror” of the laity or general population?
During the same time of the Christianization of the Roman Empire, the Church began to handle internal differences in a new method. As we see from a brief historical review of the Donatist Churches of Africa it was not just the general Christian population that would become militant.
The Donatists, founded by the Berber Christian Donatus Magnus, were followers of a belief considered a heresy by the broader Catholic community. They lived primarily in the Roman Africa Province and flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries. The Donatists’ primary disagreement with the Church was over the treatment of those bishops and priests who renounced their faith during the violent and terrible persecutions of Diocletian. The rest of the Church was apparently far more forgiving of these people than were the Donatists.
The Donatists essentially refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of any priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution. The Donatists deemed the renouncing of faith to be unforgivable for a person of leadership stature within the Church. After the persecutions many of these apostatized Church leaders had been forgiven by the Church and returned to positions of authority under Constantine. The Donatists however proclaimed that any sacraments celebrated by these priests and bishops were invalid. As a result, many towns were divided between Donatist and non-Donatist congregations particularly in North Africa.
Constantine, as emperor, ultimately got involved in the dispute, and in 314 Ce he called an Imperial council at Arles in France; the issue was debated and the decision went against the Donatists. The Donatists however refused to accept the decision of the council; their distaste for bishops who had collaborated with Rome came out of their broader view that the Roman Empire was inherently an evil pagan entity. After the Constantinian shift when other Christians accepted the emperor as a leader in the Church, the Donatists continued to see the emperor as the devil. In 317 Ce Constantine ultimately sent troops to deal with the Donatists in Carthage, for the first time in history we see Christian persecuting Christian. It resulted in banishments and executions. It failed completely and Constantine had to withdraw and cancel the persecutions in 322 Ce. (45)
This record is recounted because this treatment of the Donatist Churches essentially became the acceptable modus operandi of the Church of Messiah in dealing with dissenters as well as non-believers within their realm of influence. As history depicts violent judgment prevailed: with ongoing persecutions of Jews, brutalities during the Iconoclastic Wars (eighth and ninth centuries BCe) and certainly of notable importance were initiation in the late twelfth century of the horrific brutalities of the Inquisitions.
The author believes the historical record needs no embellishment to prove definitively how the Nicolaitane authority of the Western Church of Messiah conquered the laity. The author ultimately wants to impress upon the reader that historically the development of and control by a Nicolaitane Church bureaucracy can simply not be reasonably argued. History points out the Church bureaucracy ruled in most cases with an iron fist and in political fashion akin to the modus operandi of a secular empire.
In looking at this last topical discourse it should be noted the historical review initially started with the search for seven definitive attributes applicable to this Church era. The author is confident that attributes one, two, and three have been adequately identified herein.
1. A Church era where the Church of Messiah itself is playing judge or at least in league with a secular power that is playing judge
2. A Church era where we see a definitive Nicolaitane ecclesiastical bureaucracy that literally conquers the people
3. A Church era where we see a violent purging within the ranks of the Church
* * * * * * *
Attribute number four pertinent to this Church era as listed previously deals with the Church leaders following after Balaam and pursuing authority, wealth, influence, etc. It should be apparent to the reader these types of activities would be most prevalent of course within a Nicolaitane ecclesiastical environment. As such it would be logical to pursue historical leads relative to the Western Roman Church segment.
Despite the emergence of the “dominant Church” within the Western empire it must be noted in all fairness to the Church that specific records of personal opulence and greed are not very abundant. It would seem in spite of the opportunity to systematically abuse their positions of authority, Church leaders were not very prone to do so. This statement by no means is meant to portray the Church as perfect or even excellent but is just meant to be objective and make it clear that abuses along the lines of Balaam as described herein were not widespread or prevalent.
Can history then not assist us in defining this Church era attribute? What history does provide for us is a look into a period known out