Hate never dispelled hate: no place for the pharmakos (Revelation 22:15).

Abstract

Pharmakoi in Revelation 22:15 are situated outside the holy city thus stating that there is no place in a peaceful society for blaming others for the fault that is their own. This idea of blame and revenge lies at the very heart of society, and Jesus in his death as a pharmakos uncovers the mechanism of blame and revenge which generates violence. In this article I examine occurrences of pharmakos-type words and consider them in the Septuagint, in Greek literature, and in the book of Revelation, showing that Girard's mimetic theory can be detected in the book of Revelation.

**********

The Sophoclean Oedipus Rex has been described as an Athenian mystery play in which the Athenians purge their collective guilt by punishing a scapegoat (Fergusson). This scapegoat is known in Greek literature as the pharmakus (see Liddell-Scott: 752; Dodds: 37; Burkert: 82-44; Bremmer: 299-320; Hengel: 27; Girard: 51; Aune: 1132; Strelan: 148). Classical scholars have shown much interest in the idea of being cleansed of sin through the offering of a scapegoat (see especially Bremmer). In spite of this, New Testament commentators miss the possibility that occurrences of this word may refer also to the practice of a scapegoat sacrifice in the book of Revelation. It is surprising that there is a lack of detailed comment among scholars on what the Greek word pharmakos actually suggests in the book of Revelation. The general consensus is to take the word to mean "the use of magic potions and charms in incantations and degraded religious practices" (Ladd: 139). In other words, pharmakos is taken to convey ideas associated with sorcery. "Sorcery," however, is not well understood in bible-theology scholarship, and this has prevented gaining a fuller understanding of biblical texts. Those accused of witchcraft can, for example, be simply those who break with the dominant ethic of society. Among the Melpa of the New Guinea Highland, those who consumed too much were accused of being witches (Stratern: 111-13; Janzen: 72-74). We must, therefore, be careful not to restrict the possible meanings for the term pharmakos in the book of Revelation to just sorcery.

Rick Strelan in his article on sorcerers in Revelation argues that John is referring to the cult of Hecate and the scapegoat sacrifice (148-57). Girard's work is also helpful where he designates pharmakos as one who "becomes the remedy of the crisis" (2001: 51-52; cf. Dodds: 37, 43; Burkert: 82-84; Bremmer: 299-320). In doing so, he makes the important connection between sorcerers and scapegoats. Beasley-Murray also intimates at this understanding when he acknowledges that "murder" is subsumed within the meaning of pharmakos (166). Scapegoats, like sorcerers, are people who are associated with bringing healing to various situations. The fact that in Philostratus' LIFE OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA, the magician Apollonius removes the plague that had blighted the Ephesians with the offering of a pharmakos should alert us to the connection between the two (Bremmer; Girard 2001).

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that John's intention in placing the pharmakos outside the holy city in 22:15 was to hint at a more precise association than just magic; it refers to the magic by which people restore harmony to their world through scapegoat sacrifice, i.e. blame and retaliation. In particular I suggest that the pharmakos in Revelation 22:15 is situated outside the holy city to indicate that there is no place in a peaceful society for blaming others for the fault that is their own. This idea of blame and revenge lies at the very heart of society, and Jesus in his death as a pharmakos uncovers the mechanism of blame and revenge that generates violence. The message is simply: "No more innocent deaths." Also, the practice of blame and revenge is connected with politics and economics. John sees those who compromise with Rome to be practising sorcery through excessive consumption of the resources of the provinces in the same way that the Melpa blamed the misfortunes that befell them on those who consumed excessively.

Girard and Pharmakos

Girard sees in Greek myth the phenomenon of people blaming others for the violence in themselves. This "other" is the pharmakos. Girard calls the pharmakos "the victim" whom we kill believing that we are rooting out violence and creating peace (1996: 163). Alison expresses it well: "We are all, always and everywhere, immensely violent creatures, and the only way which we have to control this violence is the search for collective unanimity against a victim" (1998:21). This phenomenon in society Girard calls "single victim mechanism."

Girard believes that Jesus is the innocent victim of a group in crisis, which, for a time at any rate, is united against him. Girard writes: "The passion is presented as a blatant piece of injustice. Far from taking the collective violence upon itself, the text places it squarely on those who are responsible for it. It lets the violence fall upon the heads of those to whom it belongs"(1996: 165). Unlike in the Sophoclean OEDIPUS REX, the gospel passion of Jesus does not restore peace, but puts the blame of Jesus' death at the feet of the perpetrators (1996:211-21). Jesus calls his followers to imitate him. Girard puts it simply: "When we identify with the person in need or who has been victimized, we encounter the Son of Man, Jesus Christ" (1996: 279). Alison writes that all who imitate Jesus "receive their identities as human beings through an entirely nonrivalrous, nonenvious, nongrasping practice of life" (1998: 168). We must see the violence in ourselves so that we can identify with the victims of history. It follows, therefore, that there is no place in the peaceable kingdom for scapegoats.

In sum, the pharmakos is one who is blamed and then condemned in order to restore peace to the community. Associated with the word are both the mechanism of putting to death the scapegoat and the sorcerer who sets in motion the process of condemning the scapegoat. In picking up on Girard's insights, I hope to show that we can gain a better understanding of pharmakos in Revelation and that it is a text that sees violence as ultimately connected with Satan who is a personification of accusation and violence.

The Way of the Dragon: Sword and Propaganda

The beast is a duplicate of the dragon, sharing his nature (13:1), whose origin and shape declare him to be a further manifestation of the principle of evil that has been active against God and the inhabitants of the earth (Beasley-Murray: 208). It is the world empire that perpetuates the rule of Satan known also as the Dragon. This beast--that is, Rome--has a mortal wound to one of its heads by the sword (13:3, 11); yet the beast's wound is healed and not the head (Morris: 196). I do not think an historical allusion is intended; at any rate, the purpose of the restored figure is to underscore the tremendous vitality of the beast. Though wounded, he returns with increased might. From the beginning of history the pagan state has set itself against the way of God (Mounce: 253). It follows the way of the Dragon who embodies himself in one empire after another (Dan 7-8; 11-12). The Dragon is always ready to cast one off for another, always ready to ride the winner, because it is assured that the very means necessary for one empire to defeat another will make the victor every bit as much a child of the Dragon as its predecessor (Wink: 91). Caird highlights the contagious nature of violence expressed in the image of the restored beast:

   Evil is self-perpetuating. Like the Hyrda, the many-headed
   monster can grow another head when one has been cut off.
   When one man wrongs another, the other may retaliate,
   bear a grudge, or take his injury out on a third person.
   Whichever he does, there are now two evils where before
   there was one; a chain of reaction is started, like the spreading
   of a contagion. Only if the victim absorbs the wrong and
   so puts it out of currency, can it be prevented from going any
   further [170; cf. Harrington: 141; and Mounce: 252].

Caird perceptively points out that the head of the evil beast will grow again, suggesting that Satan will rule in another emperor. The reign of Satan is perpetuated through one putting to death another: This is seen in blaming another for the misfortunes that have befallen society. Caird points this nut in the way the world takes its grievances out on a third person--whom Girard would call the scapegoat, the victim upon which the many descend as they blame all the wrongs on this one person. Given Caird's comments, we might see in Revelation 13 a depiction of the world grounded in the single-victim mechanism. Rome represents Satan and deceives the world by the way it is healed. This healing is achieved through blame and then retaliation. The healing, in other words, is effected by the pharmakos. It is achieved by putting others to death so that another representative of Satan can reign. One group blames the emperor for the suffering as they put him to death. In this way Satan expels his own reign that his own reign may continue. Satan deceives and survives by accusation and rivalry. Empires fall and others rise as they imitate the reign of the previous ones (see Wink: 91). We may see the blame and retaliation in the prayer of the martyrs in Revelation 6:10: "Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?" Sweet observes well that "the answer to the prayer comes not in the punishment of individual enemies but in the 'judgement of the great harlot' who deceives the nations (17:1-19:2) and the coming of a new order, symbolized by the Bride (141)."

In chapter 13 we read: "If you kill with the sword, with the sword you must be killed" (13:10). The success of the first beast, Rome, relies on the sword; yet it is also dependent on the second beast, the propaganda machinery of Rome (13:11). The second beast has been described as the religio-ideological propaganda authority of the totalitarian state (Beasley-Murray: 216). Such a figure in the first century CE may be identified with the priesthood of the emperor-cult (Beasley-Murray: 216). The system of Rome depends on murder and violence. It survives by the success of its army and its ability to persuade its citizens that it is a righteous empire and it can bring peace to the world when it puts to death those who are against Rome such as the saints, or for that matter anyone who is seen as different (see 13:7). The second beast in 13:11 is given authority and power from the first beast described in 13:1 (see also 11:7; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2, 10, 13; 17:7-13, 16-17; 19:10,20; and 20:4, 10). The second beast--the imperial cult priest--like the Jerusalem temple high priest, Caiaphas, initiates the blame and retaliation process. Caiaphas says: 'It is better that one man die and that the whole nation not perish" On 11:50). In Revelation 13, the priests symbolized in the second beast seek conformity to the sovereignty of Satan. Through the cult, the priests were able to assess and discern who were disloyal to Rome, and in so doing, were able to have such people (such as the saints) put to death, (see Pliny, Epistle 96). Such people are the cause of troubles to Rome, those who disturb the pax Romana. Wink appropriately calls imperial cult priests "the litmus test to expose the acids eating at the fabric of society" (93). In this environment, John would have been perceived as a subversive person. But John does not fall into the deception laid by Satan; he does not blame or retaliate and neither does he conform. He simply seeks to witness to the way of God as exemplified in Jesus through disclosing the mechanism of blame and retaliation that perpetuates Satan's reign (See Swartley: 219).

Pharmakos in the Book of Revelation

In Revelation 9:21 John speaks of those who did not repent of their murders, sorceries (pharmakon), fornication, and robbery. There is a noticeable gap in commentaries when explaining the significance of sorcery in this verse (see for example: Swete: 126; Mounce: 204; Caird: 123-24; Sweet: 174; in particular Beale: 519-20). Charles recognized that the insertion of "sorcery" is difficult to explain (1:255). Ladd allowed within his definition of the word "degraded religious practices" (139).

Those listed in v 21 are the survivors of the plague (v20), perhaps by their acts of violence insofar as they have put people to death and made gain through it. In Revelation, the plague represents the spiral of ever increasing violence (Caird: 119; Beasley-Murray: 167; Sweet: 161-71 ; Wink: 298-99). This fits with Girard's understanding of the plague, in mythology, representing any disruption in society that threatens to destroy the existence of the community. It is possible that John in mentioning sorcery is referring to the practice of those who put others to death as a way of bringing a temporary peace back to the community where violence has escalated dangerously. Sorcery was the remedy to lift the plague that placed society at risk. It may allude to the putting to death of Christians or other outsiders who are blamed for the plague--a practice that perpetuates the plague of violence leading to more violence. This reading fits with the rest of Revelation with its commitment to nonviolence and the hope of the restoration of the sinner (Beasley-Murray: 119). Indeed, vv 20-21 illustrate that John seeks the repentance of sinners and not their destruction (Klassen: 304; Sweet: 162; Grimsrud: 77; Bauckham 1993a: 8647; Bredin 2003: 73, 194).

Revelation 18:23

The merchants, who are described as "the magnates of the earth" (NRSV), have led astray all the nations by their sorcery (pharmakeia). Again, the traditional understanding of sorcery seems to have no explanatory value. Sweet, acknowledging that pharmakos refers to the practice of black arts, cannot offer any reason as to why this word appears in 18: 23. Instead, he suggests that the word's meaning is wider (275). Grimsrud also extends the meaning of the word from black magic: "John likely had in mind Rome's apparent control of the world's powers and resources; the perception of which led people to accept her claims to divinity.... This certainly could be an echo of Jesus' teaching regarding the dangers of wealth" (139). Jesus indeed taught about not putting one's trust in wealth (Lk 18:18-25). I suggest that sorcery might imply something that perpetuates the status quo--the perpetuation of blame and revenge. This picks up to some extent Grimsrud's point. It also picks up on the understanding of witchcraft among the Melpa, who saw witches as those who consumed too much and in so doing sought to dominate society. The Melpa, like John, saw sorcery as something that resulted in death to perpetuate and feed desire for more and more.

The whole of Revelation 18 is an attack on Rome for having plundered the nations of their resources and left them in poverty (Bauckham 1993b: 338-83; Bredin 2003: 146-55). During the period when Revelation was written, there were great opportunities for merchants to profit under the policy of pax Romana (Kraybill: 109-10). John knew well the prevalence of trade as he watched the coming and going of merchant ships, perhaps from the shore of Ephesus. In the Old Testament, Assyria also was accused of pharmakon (Nah 3:4, Septuagint--later [3:16], Nahum points out that the number of merchants increased more than the stars of the heavens). Assyrian merchants are described as selling nations through fornication (porneia) and pharmakon. (The New King James version of 3:4 conveys the Hebrew mcr--to sell which is omitted in other translations; the NRSV has "enslaved"). The juxtaposition of porneia and pharmakon is to be noted, as this also occurs in Revelation 22:15. Nahum also describes Assyria as a city of bloodshed (3:1), suggesting that the accusation of sorcery was connected with murder. Beasley-Murray, however, writes: "By this term is indicated not so much the magic used for the murder of the innocent (as indeed was common) as the bewitchment that beguiles men to adopt false religion" (269). But there is no difference between false religion and murder in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 2:6-7, for example, sorcery-witchery-idolatry and military might are key marks of Israel's turning from the LORD. Babylon in Revelation 18 is a city dripping in innocent blood. In view of this, perhaps "sorcery" alludes to the killing of the enemy as a way of restoring peace and developing wealth.

In light of this interpretative background to Revelation 18:23, and my suggestion regarding the word pharmakos and derivatives, it would seem that John is attacking those who are driven by greed and gain and have no concern for true peace but only the peace that allows for trade and gain--the maintaining of the status quo--the pax Romana. Sorcery in this context suggests the pill that the ruling empire offers through the promise of material gain. Pax Romana is established and maintained through the sacrifice of those who are outsiders. It meant many from the church and synagogue, also, selling their heritage and religion to compromise with Caesar for gain and accepting the suffering that this would cause (Grimsrud: 139; Kraybill: 199). Desire is central here. Rome perpetuates the single victim mechanism (Girard's phrase) through creating an environment of desire for gain which results in competition and eventual conflict, ending in the need to blame someone for the conflict so that the status quo is maintained or reestablished. John teaches that all followers of Christ must not participate in the game of desire and gain (see especially chapter 18). I suspect John was attacked by those in the church who had been deceived by Rome's pharmakos, in which they have swallowed whole the pill of pax Romana (see Rev 2:4, 14-15, 20-21; 3:2, 15). They have been enervated and seduced by the charms of Rome's wealth and have lost the uncompromising nonviolent vision of Christ. They no longer see the victims that there must be for Rome's peace to exist, the losers in the game of profit and gain (i.e. the pharmakos). John stands out as one who says the pharmakoi must be left outside the holy city (21:8 and 22:15). He means there is no place for this way of deception. Peace is not created by blame and revenge. The pharmakos is both the pill that allows some in the church to live with Rome, so freeing them of the danger of persecution, and at the same time, the one whom they blame for the trouble they were having because of their association with John, who was preaching that there must be no compromise with Rome (cf. Jn 11:50).

Revelation 21:8 and 22:14-15

Given the understanding of pharmakos that I have so far adumbrated, we can now consider the pharmakoi (sorcerers) in 21:8 and 22:15. Again, I detect a gap in discussion among commentators as they seek to comprehend the sense of "sorcerers" in these verses (see, for example, Sweet: 300, 317). Aune in particular is unable to account for this word in the list of vices (1131). Arguing that the Decalogue underlies the list, he proceeds to show parallels between the listed vice and where it is outlawed in the Decalogue. Interesting for my argument is that he cannot match the vice of pharmakos with anything in the Decalogue (1131).

Rick Stelan, however, suggests that the cult of Hecate provides the interpretive background to unlock the door for understanding the "sorcerers" in 22:15 (148-57). He believes Revelation 22 is an attack on this particular cult. He points out that the "dogs" mentioned in 22:15 were intrinsic to the cult of Hecate functioning as purificatory animals, in particular at the crossroads and at entrances of cities (150-51). Strelan goes against the consensus in examining "dogs" in Hellenistic context rather than in relation to Old Testament understandings of dogs. John, and his readers, daily absorbed into their world the sights and sounds of pagan practices in Asia Minor. As to the sorcerers, Strelan (independently of Girard's work) goes so far as to allow for "scapegoat" as a possible translation of pharmakos (148). Like the dogs, the scapegoats were, Strelan argues, central to the purificatory rites of Asia Minor where the churches addressed in Revelation are located (148). His opinion is that 22:14-15 would have been heard as a polemic against the cult of Hecate and her dogs and scapegoats (151; Plutarch, QUAEST. ROM. 68). The message of the book of Revelation is that the only way to enter the holy city is by being washed in the blood of the lamb (22:14). Strelan also rightly believes that pharmakos can mean sorcery (155); unfortunately, he misses the connection between scapegoat and sorcery that Girard sees, one that I think has much exegetical value when applied to Revelation. The two meanings do not need to be separated, but in Strelan's work the connection does not appear to me to work persuasively.

The most interesting component to Strelan's argument is the juxtaposition of "dogs" and "scapegoats"--one not previously seen (as far as I know). It is, perhaps, more than coincidence that two aspects strongly associated with magical cults should be together. Jerome, however, emphasizes more the aspect of the sorcerer in his translation with no connection with scapegoats. But given the relationship between the two aspects as adumbrated by Girard, Jerome's translation should not militate against the argument that pharmakos conveys aspects of magic, healing, and scapegoat sacrifice. Therefore, in 22:15, John is indeed attacking acts that are associated with cleansing and restoration other than that which Jesus' death brings (22.14).

Why, though, does John not mention dogs in 21:8? Does this argue against the connection with Hecate and phormakos as a scapegoat? He does, at any rate, omit dogs in 21:8, and he adds the cowardly, the faithless and the polluted. The reader may be surprised by the inclusion of the "cowardly" (Caird: 267). The faithless and the polluted reiterate the type of figures that murders and fornicators are. John sees the cowardly as those who fear the threats of the beast more than they trust the love of Christ (Beasley-Murray: 314). They fear that if they do not compromise with Rome, they will suffer. They become part of the mob and consequently condone the murders that are committed in the name of peace, and they participate in the killing.

The Relationship between the Pharmakos and Other Vices Listed in 21:8 and 22:15

As we have seen, dogs were commonly associated with the cult of Hecate and purificatory rites (Plutarch, QUAEST. ROM. 68). The murderers would be those who put to death the pharmakos or the dogs. The fornicators are usually associated with sexual promiscuity and are, therefore, apparently not connected with murder. Yet here again there may be an association with murder and scapegoat. In Revelation 14:8 Babylon is described as one who has made the nations drunk with the blood of the wrath of her fornication. The occurrences elsewhere in Revelation are illuminating: 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3, 9; and 19:2. There is a connection between fornication, murder and the wrath of the ruling empire. In 14:8 and 17:2, Babylon makes the nations drunk on the wine of the wrath of her fornication. The wine is the blood of her violence: the innocent ones she has killed. Those who drink Babylon's wine are the supporters of Babylon in her violence (Grimsrud: 150; Bredin 2003: 211). This association is made explicit in 17:6, where Babylon is the woman arrayed in the costly plunder she has gained through her fornication. Fornication, in this context, is connected with the murder of the faithful. Fornication consists in seeking power through deception (cf. 2 Kgs 9:22--Sweet: 226). In 19:2 again the association between murder and fornication is made: Babylon is the whore who corrupted the nations with her fornication and murdered the faithful. Idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood are mentioned. In I Corinthians 5:10 and 6:9 idolaters are associated with sexual immorality and robbery. In Ephesians 5:5 idolaters are synonymous with the greedy (cf. Col 3:5). Idolaters are violent and stop at nothing to gain the object of their desire. Those who practice falsehood must be associated with those who deceive for gain. The connection with lying and murder is seen explicitly in John 8:44, where the leaders are described as sons of the devil and are murderers who do not stand for the truth. They are those who deceive others. Stassen's recent article in which he looks at Matthew 7:6 is illuminating (2003: 290-95): Jesus is presented as teaching against giving what is holy to dogs and throwing pearls before swine. Stassen observes that pigs were used as a sacrifice to Roman gods (292). In the light of my discussion of dogs, it is possible to see dogs in Matthew 7:6 as also alluding to sacrificial animals. Stassen thus believes that Jesus warns against "being corrupted by giving loyalty to the defilements of the Roman world"; he goes on to say that this "is the temptation against which the Apocalypse warns" (292). The dogs, like the pigs, are animals associated with Rome and the way Rome maintains her pax Romana. Matthew 7:6, like Revelation, sees no place for dogs or pigs in the holy city. They bespeak a way of life that seeks sacrifices to maintain the peace of the privileged.

Pharmakos Elsewhere

To develop my argument I must now carry out an intertextual study of pre-texts that may have informed John's use of the term pharmakos. The presence of pharmakos and its cognates is quite common throughout the Septuagint. I will examine texts that are pertinent to my argument that the word is connected with healing and sacrifice.

In Revelation 2:20 the mention of Jezebel, points the reader to 2 Kings, where she is known as a fornicator, a murderer and a sorcerer (pharmaka) (9:22). It may be possible that Jezebel put the prophets to death to appease the angry gods so that the famine might abate (see 1 Kgs 18:4). In other words, Jezebel kills the prophets to bring healing to her land. Sorcery is therefore connected, here, with offering scapegoat sacrifices for the famine that had descended upon the land. We are told that David also had put seven men to death in order to appease the Gibeonites so the famine would end (2 Sam 21:1-14).

In Isaiah 47:9 the one who rejoices in success is told that death will come upon her children in spite of her sorceries. Despite her offering sacrifices to the gods, death will still come upon her. In the Wisdom of Solomon, sorcery (pharmakcia) is juxtaposed with unholy rites, merciless slaughter of children, and sacrificial feasting on human flesh and blood (12:4-5). These terms may well allude to certain Greek rites of sacrifice. In Pseudo-Phoclides the idea of making potions and referring to magical books is set besides harming children (149 50). The connection cannot be coincidental. Also, in the Sibylline Oracles (Book 5) there is a connection again between sorcery and a murderous heart (165-67--see Aune 1983: 285; Beale: 923).

Finally, I want to pay particularly close attention to Apollonius of Tyana and the Beggar in Ephesus recounted by Philostratus in the second century CE. This is an important story in which the pharmakos is portrayed as restoring peace to society in Ephesus, an area with which John was familiar (see Bremmer: 316-17; Girard 2001). Apollonius, known as a sorcerer, probably was born while Jesus was alive. In this incident, Ephesus is suffering from a plague. The Ephesian people, in desperation, turn to the magician, Apollonius. Apollonius, seeing a blind beggar, says to the crowd: "Pick up as many stones as you can and hurl them at this enemy of the gods" (Philostratus, LIFE OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA 4.10). The Ephesians are reluctant to do this, but Apollonius persuades them. When they finally stone the beggar, they recognize him as a demon. The Ephesians later find him buried under stones as a Molsian dog (4.10). This story recounts a very ancient form of purifying a city from plague by stoning a pharmakos (Bremmer: 316; Hengel: 27). Girard notes the connection between the magic and the pharmakos (2001: 49-61), the former being made effective through the sacrifice of the latter. The link with the dog should not be missed. The pharmakos is in fact not a poor, blind beggar, but a dog, associated with Hecate. Girard deals with this story in some detail (49-61), showing that it expresses the way people are deceived into blaming their troubles on an outsider, such as the beggar. The genius of the sorcerer is to deceive the crowd into believing that it is right to murder an innocent beggar. In so doing they believe they see a demon in the form of a huge dog.

In sum, pharmakos, in some texts, is associated with magic rites that were connected with healing or resolving a difficult situation. In the Hellenistic texts pharmakos is most obviously connected with a scapegoat. Without doubt, human sacrifice was used as a religious and political expedient in desperate circumstances even under Caesar and Augustus (Burkert: 82-44; Bremmer: 315-18; Hengel: 19). Again we need to hold these two aspects, sorcery and scapegoat, together. But how did John understand Jesus' death?

Is Jesus a Scapegoat Sacrifice (22:14)?

My contention is that John perceived Jesus' death as that of a scapegoat. He was put to death to appease the angry leaders and mob in the same way that Greeks offered up the pharmakos (Bremmer: 307; see Origen, CELS 1.31). As Girard has shown, Jesus is the classic myth scapegoat sacrifice. John, however, as Girard has argued with regard to the Gospels, rejects this as both evil and ineffective. Jesus' death and resurrection uncovered the mechanism of violence at the heart of society--it revealed sin rather than removing it. Thus, we are released from the idea that others are to blame for the troubles they experience. It has been a mooted point as to what extent some texts support this (see Hardin's article on Hebrews and Johns's response). To what extent is this seen in Revelation?

John states that the faithful must wash their garments; this, I suggest, implies that they must live with faithfulness and be ready to die. John says that Jesus released/freed (Greek, luo) people from sin (1:5). Jesus did not free us from sin so that we might be acceptable to God, but he makes us a people of God (5:9-10). Jesus has shown our nature as sinners. Sin in the Hebrew tradition is servitude from which humanity cannot be freed except by a miraculous intervention of God (Lyonnet & Sabourin: 9). For John, sin is bondage to the beast, and those who follow the way of violence reject the way of God. Raymond Schwager perceptively puts forward the view that Jesus does not reconcile God to us, but us to God:

   It is not God who must be appeased, but humans who must
   be delivered from their hatred. They should no longer offer
   stubborn resistance but surrender themselves to God's wooing
   love and let themselves be freed from resentment [209;
   cf. Wink: 151].

John, by pointing out that the blood of the lamb has freed us (1.5) is saying that in making Jesus a scapegoat, we have come to acknowledge and so confess our sin of making him a scapegoat. Washing our robes in the blood of the lamb (22:14; cf. 7:14) does not necessarily signify cleansing. John makes clear that we have our freedom from the way of violence not just through Jesus' action, but also through our faithful witness in being ready to face the violence of the mob and being ready to follow Jesus' way of nonviolence (12:11). Bauckham suggests that the washing in the blood is not atoning in itself but refers to our way of life that is expressed through active participation in the way Jesus has shown us in releasing us from sin (1993a: 229).

In conclusion, the juxtaposition of Jesus as the scapegoat in 22:14 alongside the dogs and the pharmakoi in 22:15 highlights that the only way to enter the holy city is to abandon the way of bloodshed; intrinsic to this is the mechanism of scapegoat sacrifice. The dogs and pharmakoi allude to the rite of sacrifice. But the question needs to be explored: is John not simply accusing others of being sorcerers to restore social coherence among the churches in Asia Minor?

Sorcerers are Scapegoats for the Churches in Asia Minor

Philip Esler argues that those "outside" in Revelation 22:15 are scapegoats to resolve peace within the community (143-46). From his study particularly of the Navaho and Lugbara groups, he concludes:

   The primary function of portraying Rome as a sorcerer is to
   clarify and reaffirm the identity of the communities both in
   relation to the outside world and in response to internal tendencies
   toward disintegration and ennui. By directing an
   accusation of sorcery at an entity presented (however unjustifiably)
   as a common threat and as an actor in a vast, cosmological
   drama the author adopts a strategy which emphasises
   the shared experience and the shared destiny of the
   churches of Asia and thereby counteracts tendencies
   towards error or lassitude among them [146].

Esler understands "sorcerer" as a pejorative term describing those outside the churches. For Esler, the sorcerers are cathartic insofar as the pejorative label "sorcerer" is placed on someone outside the churches so that the intra-debates that had occurred in the churches might be blamed on Rome. This is similar to what happens to the crowd in Ephesus when they obey apollonius and stone the beggar to get rid of the plague. Girard uses the modern phrase "letting off steam" to describe their actions in this story (2001: 51). In my understanding of Esler's argument, John is a bit like Apollonius; he accuses Rome of sorcery and thus places it outside of the holy city, a device that is equivalent to Apollonius' call to stone the beggar. If Esler is right, John would be guilty of looking at the spot in the outsider's eye and failing to see the plank in the eye of his own community. Esler's view differs from my own and Strelan's in his understanding of the meaning of "outside" (the holy city). "Outside" suggests the desert into which the scapegoat is sent to bring healing to the community, whereas for Strelan's and my position, it suggests the place where violence exists (see also Beale: 1142). Inside the holy city there is no place for blame and accusation. Satan and his reign remain outside the holy city--in the lake of fire (21:8) where there are only blame, accusation and murder.

Furthermore, I see no evidence in the book of Revelation to suggest that John blames others for the dissension that occurred in the churches. John rather attacks the works of Satan, who leads the world towards violence by sowing seeds of rivalry. I find that the view that John intentionally blames others for the troubles in his own community misses the whole significance of the book of Revelation as one that encourages inhabitants on earth to refrain from violence. John does not blame Rome or the synagogue (2:9; 3:9); Satan throughout the book is the one who deceives the inhabitants of the earth through Rome or the synagogue (see especially 13:8, 12, 14). Rome is the beast that Satan depends on to perpetuate Satan's rule. Satan is the father of lies who discloses not only the innocence of one victim, Jesus, but all victims (Girard). Satan conceals the mechanism of violence in our world. Satan thrives and exists on the basis of rivalry. Without rivalry there would be no violence. It follows that Satan creates an environment of accusation and rivalry whereby one group accuses another of being the cause of their troubles. This is why we see the replacement of one empire by another throughout the Old Testament. They are the inhabitants of the earth who are deceived by Satan (13:8). Girard writes: "The single mechanism only functions by means of the ignorance of those who keep it working. They believe they are supporting the truth when they are really living a lie" (2001: 41). When one community accuses another and makes of that other a scapegoat to restore the peace, they do not recognize this as a lie. John sees through this and challenges the symptoms of Satan's deception. John challenges the age-old way of gaining release from violence by making scapegoats. He understands that violence leads to more violence (13:10). In Revelation 2:9 John accuses the synagogue of belonging to Satan. John is not attacking the members of the synagogue; he is rebuking a way of life that perpetuates the reign of Satan. In saying the synagogue is of Satan, John challenges the synagogue to see its own violence as it accuses the church of being a subversive group to Rome (Bredin: 1998). Girard's understanding of Jesus' words to Peter saying that he was of Satan can help us in elucidating John's rebuke of the synagogue as belonging to Satan. Peter is angry with Jesus when he predicts that he will suffer and die (Matt 16:21-23; Mk 8:31-33) and castigates Jesus for saying such things. Jesus replies: "Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things" (Mk 8:33). Girard (1996: 200) argues that Peter invites Jesus to take Peter as his model and abandon the way of God: "Peter is scandalized. His ideal is the same as ours, worldly success, and he tries to instill it into his master. He turns his own desire into a model that Jesus should imitate." Willard Swartley makes the point that Mark's depiction of the exchange between Jesus and Peter reveals Jesus' way, which "contrasts sharply to the disciples' persisting acquisitive mimesis and rivalry" (230). John in the same way sees the synagogue as putting a stumbling block in the way of his following Christ. It is more concerned, like Peter, with worldly success dominated by mimesis and rivalry.

Conclusion

In this article I have attempted to understand the possible significance of pharmakos in the book of Revelation in a way that is true to the word, the social context of Revelation and John's own Jewish literary tradition. In using especially Strelan's and Girard's work, I conclude that the book of Revelation understood the world and its violence as connected with rivalry fueled by blame and retaliation. John perceived, through his experience of the crucified and risen Christ, that victims in society result from seeking scapegoats to blame for the troubles that have come upon society. The peaceable kingdom of God would have no place for scapegoats, murder, sacrifice or any other cultic offerings to appease the angry gods. This is why the pharmakoi are outside the city in Revelation 22:15. In the holy city, the way of Jesus must reign. But in emphasizing the scapegoat aspect, I do not wish to minimize the aspect of sorcery associated with the word pharmakos. Sorcery was seen as an essential part of religion to maintain peace. It is not coincidental that sorcery and scapegoat are both expressed in pharmakos. But they are "outside" because they express ways of resolving a false peace that ultimately results in the escalation of violence, the reign of Satan. Pharmakos, for John, conveys the essence of Satan's reign. Satan deceives the world into blaming others for the violence that is in society resulting in the violence of scapegoat sacrifice. Jesus conquers Satan by uncovering this deception; he shows that the way of God is that of non-violent faithful witness.

The author would like to thank Willard Swartley, Professor of New Testament at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, Indiana, for reading an early draft of this paper.

Works Cited

Alison, J. 1998. THE JOY OF BEING WRONG: ORIGINAL SINS THROUGH EASTER EYES. New York, NY: Crossroad.

1996. RAISING ABEL: THE RECOVERY OF THE ESCHATOLOGICAL IMAGINATION. New York, NY: Crossroads.

Aune, D. 1998. REVELATION 17-22. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 52c. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

1983. PROPHECY IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND THE ANCIENT MEDITERRANEAN WORLD. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Bauckham, R. 1993a. THE THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

1993b. THE CLIMAX OF PROPHECY. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.

Beale, G. 1999. THE BOOK OF REVELATION. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. 1981. REVELATION. The New Century Bible Commentary. London, UK: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.

Bredin, M. 2003. JESUS, REVOLUTIONARY OF PEACE: A NONVIOLENT CHRISTOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION. Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster.

1998. The Synagogue of Satan Accusation in Revelation 2:9. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 28/1: 160-64.

Bremmer, J. 1983. Scapegoat Rituals in Ancient Greece. HARVARD STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY 87: 299-320.

Burkert, W. 1985. GREEK RELIGION: ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL. Tr. J. Raffan. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Press.

Caird, C.B. 1984. THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE. Black's New Testament Commentaries. 2nd Edition. London, UK: A&C Black.

Charles, R. H. 1920. THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN, vol 1. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburg, UK: T&T Clark.

Dodds, E. R. 1951. THE GREEKS AND THE IRRATIONAL. Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA/London, UK: University of California Press.

Esler, P. 1994. THE FIRST CHRISTIANS IN THEIR SOCIAL WORLDS: SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES TO NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

Fergusson, F. 1953. THE IDEA OF A THEATRE: A STUDY OF TEN PLAYS, THE ART OF DRAMA IN CHANGING PERSPECTIVE. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Girard, R. 2001. I SEE SATAN FALL LIKE LIGHTNING. Tr. J. G. Williams. Leominster, Herefordshire, UK: Gracewing. 1996. THE GIRARD READER, edited by J.G. Williams. New York, NY: Crossroad Herder.

Grimsrud, T. 1987. THE TRIUMPH OF THE LAMB: A SELF GUIDE TO THE BOOK OF REVELATION. Scotdale, PA: Herald Press.

Hardin, M. 2000. Sacrificial Language in Hebrews: Reapraising Rene Girard. Pp. 103-19 in VIOLENCE RENOUNCED: RENE. GIRARD BIBLICAL STUDIES AND PEACEMAKING, vol. 4., edited by Willard M. Swartley. Telford, PA: Pandora Press.

Harrington, W.J. 1993. REVELATION. Sacra Pagina 16. A Michael Glazier Book. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Hengel, M. 1981. THE ATONEMENT: THE ORIGINS OF THE DOCTRINE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Tr.J. Bowden. London, UK: SCM.

Janzen, D. 2001. WITCH-HUNTS, PURITY, AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES: THE EXPULSION OF THE FOREIGN WOMEN IN EZRA 9-10. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 350. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Johns, L. L. 2000. 'A Better Sacrifice' or 'Better Than Sacrifices'? Response to Michael Hardin's 'Sacrificical Language in Hebrews.' Pp. 120-31 in VIOLENCE RENOUNCED: RENE. GIRARD BIBLICAL STUDIES AND PEACEMAKING, vol. 4., edited by Willard M. Swartley. Telford, PA: Pandora Press.

Klassen, W. 1966. Vengeance in the Apocalypse of John. CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 28:300-11.

Kraybill, J.N. 1996. IMPERIAL CULT AND COMMERCE IN JOHN'S APOCALYPSE. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 132. Sheffield. UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Ladd, G. E. 1972. A COMMENTARY ON THE REVELATION OF JOHN. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott, eds. 1994. ABRIDGED GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Lyonnet, S,, & L. Sabourin. 1970. SIN, REDEMPTION, AND SACRIFICE: A PATRISTIC STUDY. Analecta Biblica 48. Rome, Italy: Biblical Institute Press.

Malinowski, B. 1948. MAGIC, SCIENCE, AND RELIGION AND OTHER ESSAYS. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Morris, L. 1969. REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester, UK: IVP.

Mounce, R.H. 1977. THE BOOK OF REVELATION. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Schwager, R. 2000. MUST THERE BE SCAPEGOATS? VIOLENCE AND REDEMPTION IN THE BIBLE. Leominster, Herefordshire, UK: Gracewing.

Stassen, G. 2003. The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount. JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 122: 267-308.

Strathern, A. 1982. Witchcraft, Greed, Cannibalism and Death: Some Related Themes from the New Guinea Highlands. Pp. 111-13 in DEATH AND THE REGENERATION OF LIFE, edited by M. Bloch & J. Parry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Strelan, R. 2003. Outside are the Dogs and the Sorcerers (Revelation 22:15). BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 33/4: 148-57.

Swartley, W. 2000. Discipleship and Imitation/Suffering Servant: The Mimesis of New Creation. Pp. 218-45 in VIOLENCE RENOUNCED: RENE GIRARD BIBLICAL STUDIES AND PEACEMAKING, vol. 4, edited by Willard M. Swartley. Telford, PA: Pandora Press.

Sweet, J. 1979. REVELATION. London, UK: SCM.

Swete, H. B. 1922. THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN, 3rd edition. London, UK: Macmillan.

Wink, W. 1992. ENGAGING THE POWERS: DISCERNMENT AND RESISTANCE IN A WORLD OF DOMINAHON. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Mark R. Bredin, Ph.D. (St Andrews University, Scotland) tutors in the Cambridge Federation and University of Gloucestershire, UK, and also works with adult learning difficulties. He has published various articles on New Testament and is the author of JESUS, REVOLUTIONARY OF PEACE: A NONVIOLENT CHRISTOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003). He has produced material for distance learning and is presently editing a volume on the book of Tobit. His email address is [e-mail].