17Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To those who are victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give each of them a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.
By John’s time Pergamum had been a city of considerable importance for at least the four preceding centuries. Perched atop a considerable acropolis twelve miles inland from the Aegean Sea, it served as the seat of the Attalid empire, whose kings were major players in the events of Asia Minor during the latter period of the Hellenistic empire and on into the Roman. Its last Attalid kings had bequeathed their city to Rome, who made it their seat of government for the province of Asia (although this was always being contested by Ephesus). A temple to the imperial cult was built in 29 BCE in honor of Rome and Caesar Augustus; eventually, shortly after John’s time, a splendid temple to Trajan had been constructed, thus ensuring the ongoing worship of the emperor. Before that the city already had significant temples dedicated to Zeus, Athena, Dionysius, and Asclepius; the temple of the latter, being the “god of healing,” was a special attraction, vying in importance with the Ascelpion in Corinth.
In this, the second of only two of the letters where Christ’s words do not begin with “I know your deeds,” what is expressed rather is I know where you live. In his description of Pergamum John uses language (twice in v. 13) to emphasize its satanic nature: where Satan has his throne and your city where Satan lives. These appellations seem to be intentionally related to one or more of the phenomena noted above, referring either to the temple of Zeus with its imposing altar-platform (still an imposing sight even in ruins), or to its being a conspicuous seat of pagan worship, or to the worship of Asclepius whose symbol was a serpent, or to the prominence of emperor worship. Although I lean toward the latter, it may well be that John’s appellation was simply a way of emphasizing the accumulative affect of these pagan realities. Nor is it surprising that for the church in this city John picks up imagery from chapter 1, to the effect that what follows are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword, words that are intended not to threaten, but to encourage the believers in this ultra-pagan setting.
The opening sentence (all of v. 13) is one of the more convoluted in the entire book, and has rightly been broken up in the NIV into something more manageable in English. Furthermore, as with Smyrna, John does not begin with an acknowledgement of their “deeds,” but with the fact that you remain true to my name, despite the onslaught of paganism that surrounded them at every turn.10 But it was not that onslaught John had in mind, but the fact that persecution in Pergamum had already resulted in one of the earliest known martyrdoms in Christian history, that of Antipas, my faithful witness,11 who was put to death in your city. The believers there would thus have had good reason, humanly speaking, to renounce your faith in me; that they did not do so is what stands center stage in this strong commendation of them. Here are followers of the Crucified One who have learned from experience that discipleship in his name could mean death at the hands of the Empire, just as Christ himself had experienced. And all of this because they live where Satan lives, John’s now-Christian epithet for a city where Christian blood is first known to have been spilt.
Nevertheless, despite these warm affirmations, the risen Christ had a few things to say against you. The “few things” in this case turn out to be two, both of which have to do with some among you who hold to two different forms of false teaching, both of which, since they are noted only here in ancient literature, are otherwise not known to us with any degree of certainty (although there has been a long history of guesses). The first of these is referred to as the teaching of Balaam, a reference from Numbers 25:1–2 to the Israelite men who had sexual relations with the Moabite women, who “invited them to the sacrifices of their gods,” where they “ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods.” This matter will occur again in the Lord’s strong denunciations against the church in Thyatira, where it receives more detailed condemnation. The best guess regarding the present situation would seem to be that some believers in Christ were wanting to have it both ways—to be followers of Christ with an occasional visit to the pagan meals.
Christ’s second judgment against this church comes in verse 15: Likewise, and now in considerable contrast to the believers in Ephesus, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. As noted above (on 2:6), what this might refer to specifically is no longer known to us. What is significant for the first readers of this document is that two churches in the same general geographical area took quite opposite stances with regard to this false teaching. In Ephesus the believers are praised for rejecting “the teaching of the Nicolaitans”; those here are censured because they “also have those [among them] who hold to” this false teaching. And since this appears in a sentence that indicates that some of them likewise hold to this false teaching, it almost certainly is not to be understood as including the two sins already censured, idolatry and sexual immorality.
In keeping with the warning in the first letter (to Ephesus), but not found in the second (to Smyrna), the risen Christ calls on the church in Pergamum to repent therefore, which is the only hope for survival that the church would have had. But whereas the former threat was the removal of “your lampstand from its place”—severe punishment indeed!—in this second instance failure to repent means that otherwise, I will come to you and will fight against them. Here in particular one should note the change in pronouns, from “you” to “them.” This is not a battle against the whole church, although they are indeed to repent for letting this false teaching exist among them, but warfare carried on specifically “against them,” the purveyors of and adherents to this false teaching. The means by which the risen Christ will do battle against them is with the sword of my mouth, thus indicating that the sword in the original picture (1:16) is intended for battle, not simply for defense. All of this is imagery, of course, but it is difficult to escape its very strong implications, that Christ intends to purify his church and will personally do battle against those who would pervert his pure gospel into something else.
Following the call to hear what the Spirit says to the churches, which is common to each of the letters, in this instance the promise to those who are victorious (note again the battle imagery) is full of mystery for later readers. First, the promise is that I will give them some of the hidden manna. The allusion to manna is clear enough—having to do with divine provision for God’s pilgrim people—but what was intended by calling it “hidden” is simply not known to us, although it has opened the door to all manner of speculation! The implication is most likely eschatological; that is, it is a metaphor for the divine provision that awaits all those who are Christ’s. As with the long discourse in John 6, and looking toward the future, this imagery seems intended to point to the final great eschatological feast provided for God’s redeemed people, later called the “marriage supper of the lamb” (Rev 19:6–9). It almost certainly is intended also to stand in stark contrast to meals eaten in the pagan temples in honor of false gods.
Second, the promise is that I will also give each of them a white stone. This curious clause is most likely intended to be multivalent imagery, since there are at least three known possibilities from the ancient world that may lie behind it. Its first referent is most likely to the description of the manna in Exodus 16:31, where we learn that “it was white like coriander seed.” This seems to be the most likely first referent in the present case. But if one couples this reference with two other data from the period then this language can be shown to make a great deal of sense. On the one hand, there is good evidence that jury verdicts from this period produced a black stone if the accused was found guilty, but a white stone if acquitted. At the same time, on the other hand, there is some evidence that white stones were used to gain admission to public festivals. If one were to combine this evidence, then the “hidden manna” they are to receive at the Eschaton, vis-à-vis their refusal to participate in the local pagan festivals,