KFC WRITES:

Apoc. 2:12 “And to the angel of the church of Pergamus write:
‘These things says He that has the sharp two-edged sword:'"

Pergamus was an ancient city located about 40 miles to the north of Smyrna. It’s ruins adjoin the modern Turkish city of Bergama. In the Hellenistic period, Pergamus achieved major political and cultural stature as the capital of the Attalid dynasty 282-133 BC.

Christianity was established at Pergamus in the 1st C, probably during St.Paul’s apostolate at Ephesus. Christ is portrayed to this Church as a judge, that is, one who distinguishes good from evil and who distributes rewards and punishments. As you say, the reason being that the Church of Pergamus is a mix of truth and error with some holding on to sound teaching and others supporting false teachings of the Nicolaites v. 12-17. The temptations and allurement of paganism, the idols and false salvific doctrines have nothing in common with the one true God and His revelation. A clear separation is necessary hence the Lord introduces Himself to them as a bearer of the “sharp two-edged sword”.

KFC WRITES:

Apoc. 2: 13 “I know where you dwell, where the seat of Satan is: And you hold fast to My name, and has not denied My faith. Even in those days when Antipas was My faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells."

The rich natural resources of the area as well as the opportunistic policies of the rulers brought Pergamus into the Roman arena. It was the first city in Asia Minor to erect a temple to the “divine Augustus” and to “divine Rome” in 29 BC. The temples dedicated to Zeus and other gods and for all the reasons you name is described as the place where Satan has his throne.

Much of the ancient Greek city (the Roman city being largely covered by modern Bergama) has been excavated by German archeologists. They found the great cultic altar of Zeus, which Eumenes II had erected in 180 BC to commemorate his victory over the Gauls of Galatia, and thought this to be the “throne of Satan”. The ‘throne of Satan’ could just as easily allude to the atmosphere of the city permeated by hedonistic paganism.

Despite these surroundings and its dangers, the Lord expressly praises the Church for their fidelity to Him despite the persecution they suffered which led to the death of Antipas, “My faithful witness”. Antipas, and in the reign of Marcus Aurelius or Decius, Karpos, Papylos, and Agathonike were early marytrs there. The emperors of the time insisted on being acknowledged as “Kyrios”, Lord, which amounted to divine honors which implies a form of idolatry and no Christian could subscribe to this. Tertuillan says there is nothing wrong to calling an emperor or king,"lord", as they did so often in medieval England, if the title referred to his temporal power, but it couldn't be given if it had a religious meaning and treating him as a god.

The title given to Christians who died for the faith, like Antipas, “My faithful witness”, was and is an outstanding title for a believer applied as one who kept the faith with Christ even at the cost of his life. In the days of the early Church was a time of unique persecution and many Christians followed the example of the Church’s first martyr St.Stephen Acts 7:55-60. Their deaths played an important part of the spread of Christianity so much so that Tertuillan said that the blood of the martyrs was the seed from which Christians grew. St.Justin said the more martyrs, the more Christians increased in number, like the vine that is pruned puts out many more shoots.

KFC WRITES:

Apoc. 2: 14-15 “But I have against thee a few things: because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat, and to commit sexual immorality: 15 So you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaites.”

After being praised, the Christians of the Church of Pergamus are told where they are going wrong. Some of them are compromising their faith by taking part in pagan ritual banquets, and ‘sacred fornication rites” of the Nicholaites at Ephesus. Some have let themselves be infected by hedonism and the theories which inspire it. Their condition and its danger is characterized by a comparison drawn from the OT story of Balaam who encouraged the Moabite women to marry Israelites and draw them to worship the god of Moab. It’s easy to understand how this aberrant behavior could have arisen in a society where Christians were living with pagans who went in for “sacred” banquets in honor of idols and rites of an erotic character. This situation arose more than once then and it is prevalent in the Church and society today. Your comments about the Church's duty to teach in this area are right on and very timely. Christians cannot make concessions to the spirit of the times for in reality, if they do, it amounts to a break with Christian teaching and practice. 1Cor.6:12-20; 20:14-22.

KFC WRITES:

Apoc. 2: 16 “In like manner do penance; if not, I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.”

Again, Christ calls those who have gone astray to repent; the same pattern is found in the other letters. Otherwise, He will have to take action Himself with a clear sentence of judgment.

Pope John Paul II taught on the call to do penance as something that all periods of history the Church has as the very basis of her mission. He said “authentic knowledge of God of mercy and love is a constant and inexhaustible source of conversion, not only as a momentary interior act, but also as a state of mind. Those who come to know God in this way, who ‘see’ Him in this way, can live only in a state of being continually converted to Him. They live, therefore, in statu conversionis, and it is this state of conversion which marks out the most profound element of the pilgrimage of every man and woman on earth in statu viatoris”.

KFC WRITES:

Apoc. 2: 17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone, a new name written which no one knows except he who receives it.’”

The victor in this battle is promised the prize of victory with a double metaphor. The promise of the “hidden manna” can be seen as a counter to the sin of indulging in idolatrous meals. St. Paul also contrasts sacrifices to idols with the Eucharistic Sacrifice when he tells the Corinthians that they cannot “drink from the cup of the lord and the cup of demons...cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” 1Cor. 10:21. St.John tells us of our Lord’s referring to manna when speaking about the Eucharist as the "Bread of life" 6:31-33. The nourishment which Yahweh gave His people in the desert was described as “bread from heaven” Ex. 16:4 and the ‘bread of angels’ kept in the Ark of the Covenant to be revered by the people. Heb. 9:4. Here, it is described as ‘hidden manna’, a reference to the supernatural divine character of the reward of the heavenly beatitude. We (Catholics) share in this in Holy Communion to a degree, in eternal life it is partaken of fully.

As you say, the ‘white stone’ is a reference to the custom of showing a little stone with some appropriate mark on it to gain entrance to a feast or banquet. The name inscribed on the stone referred to here shows that the Christian has a right to partake of the good things which the Lord reserves for those who win the victory. The fact that only the recipient know what is written on the stone points to the personal, intimate relationship between God who issues the invitation and the invited guest.

Since the letter mentions judgment twice, the metaphor of the “white stone” could be seen as a way in the ancient process of justice where the judges announced their verdict of not guilty by proffering a white stone; hence this metaphor would mean a declaration of innocence in the court of God.

KFC WRITES:

You mentioned the stately library in Pergamus filled with scrolls. Pergamus had preserved this library from its ancient past the present time of the early Christian Church. According to Pliny, Pergamus got its name from ‘pergamena’, the writing material from especially prepared animal skins.

How is the word “Pergamum” related to the base root of marriage? It's interesting that the Church of Pergamus was found married to the culture given that the Wedding Feast of the Lamb symbolizes Christ as the Bridegroom and the Church as the Bride. Is there something that refers to the Church at Pergamus married to the culture later in the Book of Revelation?

What is your source that Constantine literally put crosses on all the pagan temples? I've researched Constantine and the symbol of the Cross and never read that. According to the Christian historians, Eusebuis and Lactantius, Emperor Constantine, on the eve of his victory over his rival Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, saw in a dream or vision the Cross of Christ with the inscription, “In hoc signo vinces” ---In this sign thou shalt conquer. Because of this, he had a monogram composed of “X” and “R”, the first letters of the name of Christ in Greek, placed on his imperial standard (labarum). Legend also has it that he ordered his soldiers to paint the Christian symbol of the cross on their shields. When his army won the battle, Constantine credited the victory to the Christian God. After this, although a pagan himself, Constantine became a protector of the early Christians. Holding the office of Pontifex Maximus, he spoke of himself as an instrument of God for the triumph of Christianity. In 313, he issued the Edict of Milan which decreed that all religious groups, including Christians, of the empire were free to worship as they pleased. In 330, he established the imperial capital of Constantinople on the site of the Greek city of Byzantium, making use of the blend of pagan and Christian ceremonies at the dedication. At Adrianople in 324, Constantine crushed his co-emperor, Licinius, a champion of paganism. One year later, he intervened the Church to settle the matter of the Arian heresy at the General Council of Nicea. He was baptized in his last moments by Eusebius.

Because of effective missionary work and growing government support, Christianity further increased in size and influence throughout the Roman world. It became as important in the western part of the empire as it was in the eastern part Acts. 2:9-10. In 392, the Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. At the same time, he banned the old Hellenistic and Roman religions finally putting an end to pagan persecutions of Christians.

As a follow up, during the Byzantine period Pergamus was refortified and several churches were built, but in the 14th century, it fell into the hands of the Moslem Turks.

Jeepers Lula! Slow day today?

Glad you like the discussion. I'll have to take a few to see what you brought me.......

As always........a pleasure to do business with ya......

KFC

I had some quiet time on the home front and really enjoyed reading your commentary. I followed along with your theme and added a couple cents worth.

Yes. Pergamum was the center of that worship for the province of Asia. It was the place where men were required on pain of death to take the name of Lord and give it to Caesar instead of Christ. To a Christian there could be nothing more Satanic than that.



There's a whole lot of compromise going on and we'll get into that with the next church.



This hidden manna has a Jewish conception which has two parts.

1. We know the children of Israel were given manna to eat while they wandered in the wilderness (EXODUS 16:11-15) When this was finished the memory did not. A pot of manna was put into the ark of the covenant and brought into the Holy of Holies. Early in the sixth centry BC the Temple Solomon had built was destroyed and the rabbis had a legend that Jeremiah hid away the pot of manna in a cleft in Mt Sinai and that when the Messiah came he would return and this pot of manna would be discoverd. To a Jew "To eat of the hidden manna" meant to enjoy the blessings of the Messianic age. To a Christian its meaning is not much different.

2. Another meaning is more general. Of the manna it's said "This is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat" (Ex 16:15). The manna is called "grain of heaven" and it is said to be the "bread of the angels." Here the manna may mean heavenly food. In that case John would be saying "In this world you cannot share with the heathen in their feasts because you cannot sit down to meat with is part of a sacrifice that has been offered to an idol. You may think that you are being called upon to give up much but the day will come when you will feast in heaven upon heavenly food."

If this is true, then Christ is saying that a man must abstain from the seductions of the world if he wishes to enjoy the blessings of heaven.

Another interpretation of this manna is this. Some believe that this hidden manna is the bread of God given to the Christians at the Lord's Supper. Jesus told the Jews that he was the bread of life. If the hidden manna and the bread of life are the same, the hidden manna is not only the bread of the sacrament but stands for nothing less than Christ the bread of life. So this would be a promise that to him who is faithful he will give himself.



There are endless interpretations for this stone. One of the things I read was about a commononest of all customs in the ancient world surrounding this. That is, the carrying of an amulet or charm. It might be made of precious metal or stone but often it was nothing more than a pebble. On the pebble there was a sacred name. This name would be the god or idol that one worshipped. To be able to summon him to one's aid in time of difficulty was to have mastery over the demons. Such an amulet was thought to be double effective if no one other than the owner knew the name that was inscribed on it.

John could be telling us that we are safe in life and death because we know the name of the only true God. We need no such amulet to keep us safe, we have the real thing.

Maybe it's wrapped up in the following verse?

"His eys were as a flame of fire and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written that no man knew but he himself." Rev 19:12

Putting all this together, I'm thinking perhaps this will be the name on that white stone. We will know then, but for now it's not to be known.

Yes, all that you said is true. But Constantine and his co-emperor (as you stated a champion of Paganism) Lincinius issued the "Edict of Milan." Their pupose?

"Our purpose is to allow Christians and all others to worship as they desire, so that whatever Divinity lives in the heavens will be kind to us."

To Constantine the cross became a charm confirming Constantine's power. Christ was now his personal patron. Constantine's hope was to unite his empire and felt Christianity was just the vehicle to do this. But that hope soon vanished with a squabble in Africa and with an elder in Alexandria (Arius).

Constantine didn't care whether Jesus was God but he did care about a united Empire. After the Council of Nicea where Arius's doctrine was finally put to rest and he himself excluded Constantine later tried to restore Arius. Very few voices protested the emperor's actions. There was one very loud voice that cried out and that voice belonged to Athanasius of Alexandria.

He was a monk who lived alone in the desert. He and Constantine clashed. Constantine threatened Athanasius when this monk refused to restored Arius. Athanasius was, by this time, ordained as an overseer by the church, a job he did not seek. Constantine threatened Athanasius for five years and eventually exiled Athanasius on a false charge of treason. Eusebius, a followerer of Arius, was behind all this.

At Constantine's deathbed Eusebius, as you stated, baptised him. This Eusebius not to be confused with Eusebius, the church historian. After Constantine died he became a pagan god after his death. The Roman Senate declared Constantine "divine."

Do a bit of search on the major players. You'll find that Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius are the "bad guys" and Athanasius was the godly one but it was the former not the latter that Constantine aligned himself with in the end.

By the year 328 Eusebius, a spokesman and follower of Arius, was restored from disgrace of the Council of Nicea by Constantine and became his trusted advisor. In 330, only five years after the council the Bishop Eustathius was hauled before a synod, charged with various offenses, was deposed and was exiled by Constantine. His crime? He was a bishop of Antioch and a leader of the anti-Arians. He dared believed Jesus was deity. During this time any that came against Arius, who taught against the deity of Christ, and the powerful Eusebius were driven from their posts by Constantine who now was in bed with the Arians.

Constantine in the end was a compromiser. Yes, he did much to help the persecution to stop, put the cross forward and the Christians were free to worship but it really was under the guise of compromise that the church went forward.

KFC POSTS:

Thanks for your added commentary on Constantine. It may have seemed as though I was holding Constantine up on some kind of pedestal, but I wasn't and your points nicely pull that through. That he was a political compromiser is certain as is the fact that he helped pave the way for the Church to grow and proceed in her mission.

Also, thanks clearing up the point about the 2 Eusbiuses (must have been a common name back then as there are 6 in my dictionary and 3 of those were involved with Arianism and the council of Nicea!)

Eusbius of Caesarea 260-339, was one of the earliest Church historians. He was Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and preached at the dedication of the Chruch at Tyre in 316. When the huge Arian controversy began in 318, he too backed Arius. At the Council of ANtioch in 324, he and 2 others were provisionally excommunicated for their adherance to Arian views. Their case was referred to the council called to meet at Ancyra, but Constantine wanting a more central location changed the venue of the Council at Nicea. The Council accepted the description of the Son as 'true God' and Eusbius signed the Creed more from a desire for peace and under the influence of Constantine than from genuine conviction.

He was involved in the quarrels in the following years during which Bishop Eustathius of Antioch, St. Athanasius and other leading supporters of Nicea were attacked and St. Athanasius was sent into exile. Although Eusbius wasn't a strong supporter of Nicea, his subsequent writings reveal that he did move nearer to the theology of the COuncil. After the death of Constantine in 337, Eusbius wrote his "Life of Constantine" and it reveals he was no toady of the Emperor. Eusebuis was dead by the time of the COuncil of Antioch in 341.

It was Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptized Constantine. He was the one who studied with Arius who would become the heretic under Lucian of ANtioch. At the Council of NIcea I in 325, Eusbius acted as spokesman for the Arian faction. He had composed a doctrine of his own which was not accepted by the Council. When St. Athanasius proposed the Nicene Creed, Eusebuis rejected the term 'homoousios' but in the end signed the creedal statement under pressure from Constantine. You filled in the story from here.

Unlike Eusebuis of Ceaseara, he left no major writings after his death in 341.