Summary
Donald Trump’s consciously distorted vision of reality is nothing new. Casting the world in stark black and white terms and falsely depicting oneself and one’s followers as victims of threatening powers also characterize the writing of the early Christian, John of Patmos—the author of the New Testament’s Book of Revelation. With his rhetoric, John attempts to shore up his flagging leadership by portraying his followers as victims, presenting Rome as a serious threat, and depicting his prophetic rival as a Roman collaborator. This presentation examines in detail the weaponized rhetoric of that early Christian writer.
View Webex recording of “Early Christianity: Apocalypticism, Victimhood, and Big Lies“
I have worked on the Book of Revelation on and off for a couple of decades. I published a book about it in 2001.[1] But it’s never been my primary research focus; it’s been more like a hobby. However, every time I think I’m finished with it, something draws me back. Occasionally, it’s an invited book chapter, conference presentation, or looking over a paper at the request of a colleague. Most recently, it was Donald Trump’s rhetoric. During the presidential campaign of 2016 and throughout the Trump administration, I became intrigued (as well as appalled) by Trump’s weaponization of language. But, I was also struck by the way it compared with that of the author of the book of Revelation. The following is intended simply as a way of beginning a conversation about dualism, demonization, and propaganda.
***
A prominent scholar of early Christianity once identified apocalypticism as the mother of Christianity. That is to say, from the time of Jesus on, Christians believed that they lived at the end of a corrupt era, controlled by “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:3)—i.e., Satan. At some point in the very near future, they assumed that God would institute his “reign” (βασιλεία—usually translated “kingdom”), an era of peace and justice. Apocalyptists tend to see things in terms of black and white, good and evil.
The intensity of apocalypticism and its stark dualism waxed and waned throughout the first century. Sometime towards the end of it, a seer named John described a series of frightful visions he experienced during a heavenly journey. John’s ascent was prefaced by messages to seven individual gatherings or assemblies (ἐκκλησίαι, usually mistranslated “churches”), purportedly dictated by the risen Jesus. Altogether, the messages and visions comprise what is typically known as the book of Revelation (or, in popular parlance, “Revelations”).
It has traditionally been assumed that the book of Revelation was written to strengthen the resolve of Christians in the face of Roman persecution. Consider, for example, the following vision described by the seer:
I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations.” And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. (17:3-6)
“Babylon” here stands for Rome and the depiction of her as “drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus” clearly indicates persecution.
Despite this visionary claim (as well as others like it, scattered throughout the book), there is no evidence of empire-wide persecution at the time that the book was written. Although some have argued for a localized persecution (not recorded by ancient historians) as the backdrop for the book, a close look at the messages to the seven assemblies belies any such scenario. So, what is going on?
The ordering of the messages to the seven assemblies seems to follow an intentional pattern. For example, the second and second-to-last (i.e., sixth) messages are different from the others and, furthermore, are quite similar to one another both in their structure and descriptions of the assemblies’ situations. But more importantly, the central message (i.e., the fourth one) is the longest and most detailed of the seven. This suggests that it is the most significant message, framed by the less important ones. Surprisingly, the city addressed—Thyatira—was relatively small and hardly of the same order as most of the other cities mentioned, great metropolises like Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, and Sardis.
The content of the central message clearly points to its importance. Below, in a portion of the message, the seer repeats the words of the Son of God that he had experienced in his vision. Although the message begins positively, the tone quickly changes:
“These are the words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze: ‘I know your works—your love, faith, service, and patient endurance. I know that your last works are greater than the first. But I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication. Beware, I am throwing her on a [sick]bed, and those who commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings; and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve. But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call “the deep things of Satan,” to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden; only hold fast to what you have until I come.’ ” (2:19-25)
A quick breakdown of the message indicates a couple of important things. First, John had a rival, who he tagged with the name of a notorious, idolatrous queen of Israel, “Jezebel.” She was a prophet like John (he, of course, refused to grant her than status). Second, the community was divided. Some were followers of “Jezebel.” They were labeled her “children.” Others were in the Johannine camp (“the rest of you, who do not hold [her] teaching”). Still others—possibly a majority or at least a substantial minority—were attracted to “Jezebel’s” message. John called them adulterers, probably because he considered them to belong to him but they were—to continue John’s sexual metaphor—“flirting” with “Jezebel.” In business terms, John was losing market share to “Jezebel” and he had to somehow convince those flirting with “Jezebel” to reject her authority and accept his.
Besides being a woman—something that John would ultimately use against her—John attributes two specific crimes to “Jezebel”: first, practicing fornication (πορνεῦσαι, a term that covers a multitude of sexual sins) and second, eating food sacrificed to idols.
The latter of the two is easier to nail down. It has to do with appropriateness of eating meat that had been previously sacrificed to a pagan deity. Was the consumption of such meat to be considered idolatrous behavior? Could a monotheist eat it? John thinks that such meat should be forbidden. ”Jezebel’s” opinion differs. Although John claims that she encouraged the consumption of such meat, I suspect that she merely allowed it among her followers, perhaps in certain cases. Here “Jezebel” was in good company with Paul (St. Paul to Christians). He held a similar opinion.
The meaning of “practicing fornication” is more difficult to discern. It probably did not have to do directly with sex for John only uses sexual terms symbolically in the book (cf. his use of “commit[ting] adultery” with “Jezebel” in the above-quoted passage). If it does not point to sexual acts per se, what could it mean? I suggest that it refers either to marrying a pagan or remaining married to a pagan after one has converted. We see the Greek term for “fornication” (πορνεία—John uses the verbal form of this noun) employed in this manner in some Hellenistic Jewish literature. “Jezebel’s” opinion in this matter is, likewise, not too far from Paul’s.
To over-simplify things—John built strong walls between Christians and the surrounding society while Jezebel envisioned those boundaries as more porous. John’s way of thinking about such things is typical of intensely apocalyptic thinkers. They tended to see the world in black and white or in terms of good and evil.
So, what was John’s strategy? How could he regain his market share? His strategy was, in part, aimed at denigrating his rival. Although in the message to Thyatira, John’s approach is direct (but remember, it is the Son of God speaking there), elsewhere, he is much more subtle. I suspect that the subtle approach had to do with “Jezebel’s” popularity. If John took her on too directly, his strategy could backfire. So, he concocted a conspiracy theory of sorts. He implied that “Jezebel” was in league with Rome and that Rome represented a significant threat to Christians. Neither of these was true. The first was a lie; “Jezebel’s” association with Rome was a product of John’s imagination and a tool that he used in his propaganda war. The second was a gross exaggeration; with the exception of a few isolated cases, persecution targeting Christians would not happen for another century. But John not only tried to tie “Jezebel” to Rome. He also claimed that Rome derived her power and authority from Satan—a typical apocalyptic trope—and by that, he indirectly tied “Jezebel” to Satan. She became the enemy, not just of John but also of God.
The apocalyptic world that John constructed was (and is) typical of apocalyptic thinking. The universe is dualistic as the chart below indicates:
- God
- Jesus (raised from the dead)
- Jesus followers
- Satan
- Rome
- Those who followed the religion of the empire
John used his literary power—and he was a capable writer—to try to move “Jezebel” from the left-hand column to the right.
There are a number of ways that John attempted to implicitly connect “Jezebel” to Rome (and Satan) but the most obvious way is baked into the structure of the work.
Four important female figures appear in the book of Revelation, one towards the beginning (ch. 2), one near the end (ch. 21), and two in the central portion of the work (ch. 12 and chs. 17-18). Two of these female figures are depicted as evil (“Jezebel” and “Babylon”), and two, good (an unnamed woman clothed with the sun and “Jerusalem”). The good and evil figures alternate (bad-good-bad-good) and they are compared and contrasted with one another.
“Jezebel” (bad) The woman clothed with the sun (good) “Babylon” (bad) Jerusalem (good)
ch. 2 ch. 12 ch. 17 ch. 20
John subtly connects the passages in which these figures appear. By using similar language and themes he ties the good figures together. He does the same with the pair of evil figures. But he also has the evil and good figures distortedly reflect one another to establish contrast. The effect is illustrated by the chart below.
For the sake of time and convenience, I only provide two examples (below) of how this works. The first example describes how equivalence is established and the second, how contrast is shown.
Example 1—Equivalence: How the figure of “Jezebel” (John’s rival) was created to resemble “Babylon” (i.e., Rome)
“Jezebel” (ch. 2):
- identified with a negative name from Israel’s past
- described as an inappropriate mother (whose actions cause her children to be killed)
- is shown to “lead astray” (πλανάω)
- acts aggressively (i.e., like a man)
- is connected to illicit sexual practice (e.g., she teaches Thyatirans to “commit fornication,” πορνεῦσαι)
- is connected to defiling food (food sacrificed to idols)
- will be destroyed
“Babylon” (ch. 17):
- identified with a negative name from Israel’s past
- described as an inappropriate mother (“mother of whores and abominations”)
- is shown to “lead astray” (πλανάω)
- acts aggressively (i.e., like a man)
- is connected with illicit sexual practices (πορνεία “fornication”)
- is connected to defiling food (human blood)
- will be destroyed
Example 2—Opposition: How “Jezebel” (John’s rival) was described as the antithesis of the unnamed woman, “clothed with the sun” (NOTE: the identity of this figure is unclear, at times she appears to be the mother of Jesus, at other times, the protector of Jesus followers, at yet other times, she represents Israel).
“Jezebel” (ch 2):
- mother whose children are under threat—by the Son of God
- is connected to Ps 2:8
- “leads astray” (πλανάω)
- is aggressive
- is connected to illicit sexual practice (“fornication”)
- is connected to defiling and dangerous food (food sacrificed to idols)
Unnamed woman, “clothed with the sun” (ch 12)
- mother whose children are under threat—by the great dragon (i.e., Satan)
- is connected to Ps 2:8
- has an opponent (Satan) that “leads astray” (πλανάω)
- is passive
- is connected to licit sexual practice (her motherhood, i.e., sex only for reproductive purposes)
- is connected to dangerous food (the dragon [Satan] attempts to consume her child)
The world that “Jezebel” and her followers inhabited was, in John’s eyes, highly flawed. By means of his rhetoric, John portrayed it as a highly dualistic, apocalyptic one in the hopes of driving a wedge into an already divided community. He was the spokesperson (i.e., prophet) for God and the risen Jesus, “Jezebel” was not. John not only amplified the fear that Rome was the enemy, he promoted the lie that “Jezebel” was a false prophet in league with Rome. That purported alliance, in turn, made her an agent of Satan.
Although I have tried to demonstrate one of his strategies, there were a number of others. Among them was John’s misogynistic and cynical use of an ancient stereotype: the out-of-control, emotional female. By means of this stereotype, he implied that “Jezebel’s” public role, unmediated by a (rational) male, was inappropriate. In the Greco-Roman world, females were considered overly emotional and hence, irrational; only males were considered rational. That rationality allowed them to control their emotions. “Jezebel” should have been governed by a male, like a father or husband, who could have kept her worst impulses—like living in harmony with the demonic Roman society—in check.
But, in addition to denigrating “Jezebel,” John also John also described his followers (i.e., the faithful) as victims, in particular, victims of Rome. Throughout the work, Rome—backed by the power of Satan—enthusiastically harasses, imprisons, tortures, and murders innocent Jesus followers, just as it murdered its founder. The reality of the situation on the ground was, of course, different. But a small, counter-cultural community can easily be made to feel that it is—or is about to be—victimized.
How does all of this connect with Donald Trump?
For Trump, dualism and lies (not to mention misogynism) became effective rhetorical strategies. Trump’s followers, by and large, live in a dualistic world—constructed at least in part, by Trump himself. There was good (Trump and the MAGA crowd) and there was evil (his rivals during primary season in 2016; then Hilary Clinton; then the democrats, the “RINOs,” the socialists, the BLM movement).
Trump’s word was gospel (pun intended). Objective reality meant nothing. He built his dualistic world on lies. His followers believed him. In 2020-21, he perpetuated the big lie that he had won the election, a lie that his followers welcomed and continue to parrot. In his dualistic world, Trump regularly pushed people—often his cabinet members—out of the realm of the good into the realm of evil.
Trump’s world also exhibited something akin to apocalyptic anxiety/fear, something that Trump stoked among his followers. As he described things, the MAGA crowd were victims. Their jobs were being stolen by illegal immigrants; government regulation—instituted by liberals—had deprived them of a decent living (e.g., coal mining was—as Trump told the story—regulated out of existence); their right to bear arms was under attack. So were Christian values. But the imminent apocalypse was not identified with the raging pandemic or the impending climate crisis. Rather, it was the specter of socialism. Only a messianic figure like Trump could save them.
[1] Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001).
