Reflections: Revelation Chapter 2

After the initial vision of the glorified Jesus in Chapter 1, we move into the next section of the letter, which is the Lord’s messages to each of the 7 churches.

As we noted last week, John was exiled to the Island of Patmos, sent there as a political prisoner in the name of Emperor Domitian, who had resumed the Empire’s practice of persecuting Christians. In chapter one, John has seen a vision of the Lord Jesus in all His heavenly glory, exalted as the King of the World, holding 7 stars in his right hand and standing among 7 lamp stands. We are specifically told in Revelation 1: 20 that the 7 stars represent “the seven angels of the seven churches”, and the lamp stands represent the 7 churches. Therefore, we would see each lamp stand shining with the candles burning on them, and, according to 1:12, Jesus is standing among these lamp stands. (Which had to be encouraging for the churches — Jesus’s presence among those churches is portrayed as personal and real).

The Lord’s messages for each of the churches each address a problem that each church is experiencing. As we dig into each message, we will see that some of the churches were trapped in apathy because of the influence of wealth, or morally compromised, or the church members were still walking in sin. But it’s also clear that there are also members of these churches who have remained faithful, suffering harassment or even violent persecution. Jesus warns that things aren’t going to get any better — that a tribulation is coming that will force these churches to decide — remain in their half-hearted, comprised position, or turn back to the Lord in faith.

In the not-so-distant past, the horrible Christian persecutions overseen by Emperor Nero had devastated the church. But Nero had been dead for some 20 years, and the political crisis that followed in the wake of the end of the dynasty started by Caesar Augustus at the time of Christ’s birth brought sweeping changes to the eastern side of the Roman Empire, in the area of Greece, Asia Minor (the location of the 7 churches) and especially the Holy Land.

Emperor Nero committed suicide in 68 AD. The collapse of the imperial government and the political tumult that followed is known as “The Year of Four Emperors.” Rome was plunged into civil strife not seen since the assassination of Julius Caesar. The entire empire was wracked by Civil War.

A few years before Nero’s death, the tinderbox that had been the political atmosphere in the holy land and Jerusalem exploded. At the time of the crucifixion of Christ, the Jewish leaders had maintained an uneasy compromise with their Roman overlords. More and more, the Jewish political underground, inspired by the dreams of freedom the promised messiah would bring, had been waiting for an opportunity. After Rome made a series of efforts to stamp out these vestiges of rebellion, there was an incident where a gentile mob forced its way into a synagogue and egregiously slaughtered a bird in a mockery of the temple sacrificial system. Angry Jewish mobs took to the street, with the Roman governor reacting by cracking down on Jewish religious practices, seizing funds from the Jewish temple, and mercilessly killing Jewish protestors.

The Jewish underground was finally organized well enough to respond in kind, and to mount a serious rebellion. The Romans were taken by surprise, and the Jewish forces took over the Roman military garrison in Jerusalem. The Romans were forced to flee the city. Later, this rag-tag Jewish military force defeated an overwhelmingly larger Roman army at the Battle of Beth Horun. For the first time since the days of the Maccabean kings, a Jewish government was in control in Jerusalem, led by the high priest and the Sanhedrin.

Prior to taking his own life, Nero dispatched a Roman army four legions strong to deal with the upstarts in Judea. The general leading this force was Vespasian. He led a systematic military overrun of the entire area of what today makes up the modern state of Israel. He had just begun the siege of Jerusalem when he received word that Nero was dead.

The Jewish historian Josephus gives us an up-close and personal viewpoint of this episode of the Roman effort to re-conquer Israel, because he was intimately involved. Josephus was a commander overseeing a Jewish force trapped by the siege of the Romans in a suburb of Jerusalem, the village of Yodfat. After a brutal fight and siege that lasted 47 days, the village fell to a Roman force under the command of Vespasian’s son, Titus, and every adult male inside the village was executed, with the women and children sold into slavery.

Josephus and a small, elite fighting force of 40 Jewish soldiers tried to break through the siege line but were cornered in a cave by Roman soldiers. The Israelite army had adopted the practices of the Zealots, a rebel political force active since before the time of Jesus, and each man had taken an oath to never surrender but fight to the death. As the situation for the trapped Jewish force became hopeless, the 40 soldiers drew lots, and killed each other one by one so that the Romans could take no prisoners. Finally, with only two men left, Josephus resolved to surrender to the Romans rather than take his own life. The now disgraced Jewish commander was brought before General Vespasian.

According to Josephus, his encounter with Vespasian occurred before Nero had died. Josephus purportedly told the Roman General that the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures had been interpreted by the Jewish authorities as predicting that the general himself would one day be the Emperor of Rome. Seemingly amused by this prediction, Vespasian spared Josephus’s life, making him a personal slave and to serve him as an interpreter. Soon afterward, word of Nero’s death reached Jerusalem. Seeing an opportunity, Vespasian left for Rome immediately, leaving his son Titus in command. The younger Roman oversaw the razing of Jerusalem, which included the complete destruction of the temple and the systematic dismantling of the entire city.

Meanwhile, back in Rome, Vespasian, with his new slave Josephus in tow, had managed to seize power and was truly the new Roman Emperor. Apparently out of gratitude for making the prediction, Vespasian set Josephus free and made him a Roman Citizen.

Vespasian’s rule was focused on the re-organization and centralization of his government. The violent and merciless persecutions under Nero ceased, probably because Vespasian didn’t have the time or energy to focus on the Christians. Because Vespasian and his oldest son and successor Titus ruled Rome with a policy that emphasized nepotism, Vespasian’s family members were appointed to positions of authority, and were usually not capable administrators. It was not until Vespasian’s second born son, Domitian, took the throne with a sense of able administration and a devotion to the Roman traditional values of family fidelity and Italian nationalism did the empire finally stabilize. Unfortunately for the churches, Domitian’s “traditional values” included the worship of the emperor as a God. Therefore, the persecution of Christians began anew.

Now that Domitian was bringing back the type of brutal policies that affected Christians under Nero, the pressure brought upon the members of the churches in Asia Minor was to deny Jesus was God either to escape the persecution or to identify with and join the “spirit of the age,” and become a part of Roman society. The messages Jesus has for these 7 churches is to inspire them to a level of faithfulness where they can overcome these negative circumstances and be “victorious” or to “conquer,” because Jesus promises great reward to the members of these churches if they do indeed “conquer,” or experience victory, which is eventually drawn from the Revelation’s final vision, a marriage of heaven and earth.

This concept serves as a kind of “thesis statement,” establishing the central focus of John’s narrative. After the messages to each of the seven churches is explained, it’s as if the narrator of the movie serials of the 1930s has his chance to whet our appetite for the next episode — will the people of Jesus endure? Will they inherit the promises of this new existence God has prepared for them? And [after an ominous chord sounded by the theater organ played for the movie serial’s soundtrack] why is faithfulness to Jesus identified with “conquering,” or being “victorious?” Tune in again, same time, same channel, and follow along in the Book of Revelation to discover John’s answer!

Before I dig into the details of chapter two, I want to revisit the concept of how to interpret the book of Revelation. Recall last time I cautioned against putting to much “personal spin” or modern political biases on what we think the visions in the book mean. Hopefully, I didn’t offend anyone when I ranted about that. But I thought I might offer some more incite into how Revelation has traditionally been interpreted, so that anyone going through the book can consider the value of interpreting it in a variety of ways.

Interpreters of Revelation have traditionally and normally fallen into four groups:

(1) “Preterists” (from the Latin word “preter,” meaning “past”) understand the book primarily in terms of its first-century setting, claiming that most of its events have already taken place. Preterists identify the visions and symbolism of the book as relating to the Roman Empire’s persecution of Christians at the time the book was written.

(2) “Historicists” take Revelation as describing a long chain of events from Patmos in 89 AD to the end of history. This has been the most popular way to view the book by Protestant leaders since Martin Luther. The visions and symbolism of Revelation can be identified with historical figures and events, but some may have already taken place, while others have yet to be fulfilled.

(3) “Futurists” place the book primarily in the end times.

(4) “Idealists” view it as symbolic of timeless and universal truths, and not necessarily an historical narrative. For example, an idealist will argue that Revelation is a narrative vision of the triumph of good over evil, but not necessarily a depiction of actual history.

Some interpreters recognize valuable insights from more than one of these interpretive perspectives. For example, they recognize the applicability of Revelation to its first-century audience (Preterist), but also see continuing relevance for God’s people throughout the ages (Historicist and Idealist), culminating in God’s ultimate victory when Jesus comes again (Futurist)

Even with these traditionally recognized methods of interpretation, there is danger in allowing our personal biases or preconceived notions to force us to adopt one of these methods at the expense of another. For example, I mentioned that Martin Luther and the other “founding fathers” of the Protestant reformation were primarily Historicists, who saw some of the visions of Revelation as having been fulfilled in the past under the Roman Empire. But they also saw the oppressive practices of the Catholic Church (from which they were breaking away) as being the fulfillment of the prostitute seen riding a beast, “drunk with the blood of God’s holy people.” (Revelation 17: 1-6).  A devout Catholic, on the other hand, will denounce this interpretation, and adopt either a strict Preterists viewpoint (that the prophecy of the prostitute in Revelation 17 has already been fulfilled) or a Futurist concept that the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.

The fundamental truths of Revelation should not depend on adopting a particular point of view. They are available to anyone who will read the book for its overall message and resist the temptation to become overly enamored with the details.

As far as the messages to the churches, many interpret them as representing a hierarchy of heretical behavior starting with the church at Ephesus and descending to the totally lukewarm and ineffective Laodecian church.

Regardless, the message to each church takes up a similar pattern. First, the Lord identifies a characteristic of Christ with that particular church. Then John presents a commendation, a complaint, a correction, and a conclusion.

Chapter 2 gives us Jesus’s message to the first four of the seven churches.

Each message takes the form of dictation: Jesus is commanding John to write down what he has to say and send it to the “angel” of each church. Recall that at the end of chapter 1, the “stars” that Jesus held in his right had been specifically defined to be the “angels” of the seven churches. But it is not clear if we are talking about “celestial beings” (recall our discussion in the book of Jude last week) or a prominent leader (as in a human being) in church being addressed. This is because the Greek word translated as “angel” here literally means “messenger.” Of course, this book is filled with symbolism and imagery that is sometimes difficult to parse out. But it’s logical to conclude that we’re talking about a human being when chapters 2 and 3 refer to the “angels” of the seven churches. While other places in scripture indicate that demonic forces appear to be assigned territorial responsibility on the earth (see Daniel 8), and Jesus refers to angels being assigned to watch over children (specifically “little ones,” in Matthew 18:10), it is not illogical to accept the concept of an angel being assigned to watch over or guard a specific church body/congregation. But, if these angels were celestial beings, does it make sense to send a written letter discussing the problems of that church to an “angel?” Is John’s letter to each church meant to be a shot fired in spiritual warfare? In the context of what Jesus is trying to accomplish here, I would think there would need to be a specific person who is to receive the letter, or perhaps a general notion of the letter being directed to those in authority over the church. I suppose in the context of the multiple layers of spiritual meaning we can unpack from the book of Revelation, perhaps it’s a bit of both.

The first church to receive a message from Jesus is the church at Ephesus. Ephesus was probably the preeminent church from this group of the seven. This was the most vibrant and important area in the Roman province of Asia Minor (now western Turkey) and was the fourth largest city in the empire, with a population approaching half a million people. While not located directly on the seacoast, it’s deep and ample harbor opened into the wide Cayster River, which flowed into the Aegean Sea. A comparative location in American history would be New Orleans, which became a vital center of nautical trade in the early years of the United States because of its access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Ephesus was also positioned at the intersection of the major overland trade routes in the region, with goods flowing through it on the way to Rome from Greece, Egypt, and the far reaches of what had been Persia and beyond into the far-flung regions of India and China in the far east. This would have made Ephesus similar in commercial development to Chicago, with access to the sea via the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway, plus the overland connection of the railroads coming from every direction. Ephesus was truly the economic hub of the region.

Because of this, Ephesus became cosmopolitan, a focal point for a great diversity of culture. For centuries, it was home of an immense pagan temple dedicated to the Roman goddess Diana (in Greek, Artemis, see Acts 19:23–31), and became the de-facto international headquarters for the concept of a “goddess cult,” popular not just among Greco-Romans, but in cultures such as the Egyptians, Medes, Persians, and Babylonians.

(Side bar: Centuries later, Ephesus was the location of one of the “ecumenical councils” of the Catholic Church, which were regularly organized by either the centralized church authorities or the imperial government of what was by then the Eastern Roman Empire (or the “Byzantine” Empire). In 431 AD, Emperor Theodosious II organized the Council at Ephesus. One of the major controversies that was purportedly settled was whether the church would venerate the mother of Jesus as “Christotokos” (“Christ bearer”), or as “Theotokos” (“God bearer.”). Without going into too much detail, the concept of defining the nature of Mary the mother of Jesus was important because it necessarily related to how the church defined Jesus. There had been a heretical view pushed forward by an early church leader, Nestorious, that it was illogical to believe that Jesus, as a human, could not also be stained with original sin. His solution was to take the concept that the Gospel of John presents in its first chapter — “in the beginning was the Word” — and conclude that “the Word” (in Greek “logos”) that is, Jesus, has always existed. But because the sinful nature of the “flesh” cannot be one with the purity of God, he concluded that Mary gave birth to the “incarnate Christ,” as opposed to the “logos” or “theos” concept, because “Logos” existed eternally, long before Mary did. It’s not clear to me how Nestorious concluded that the “logos,” or “God nature” came to inhabit Jesus – at his baptism, perhaps? Regardless, this contrived interpretation ultimately leads to the conclusion that Jesus was not both fully man and fully God in the incarnation. The church council determined that the honorific term given to Mary should be “God bearer” rather than “Christ bearer” to emphasize Jesus’ eternal union with the Father, even though he had taken on the form of a man (indeed, in keeping with this theme, one holding of this council was to re-affirm the Nicene Creed, which states that Jesus is “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all time began, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father”). But this focus on who or what or how the Virgin Mary was to be viewed legitimized another growing practice of the developing theology of the Catholic Church — the veneration of Mary herself. As the theology of the reformation developed, scripture scholars look back to the Council of Ephesus and the historical connection of that region to the “goddess cult,” and see the pagan influences there as leading to a compulsion to venerate a spiritual female figure, fitting an historical Christian role model into the traditional Roman cultic practices of honoring and praying to deceased ancestors and the exalted role of motherhood in society. A form of that controversy continues to this day).

Ephesus is also the only one of the seven churches to which Paul sent a letter. Considering the importance of the city as the commercial and cultural centerpiece of Asia Minor, church history makes it clear that Paul made Ephesus his home base for his evangelistic operations for over two years. Paul’s first visit to Ephesus was on the “return trip” leg of his second missionary journey. In Acts 18:18-22, Paul goes to the synagogue in Ephesus and “reasoned with the Jews.” (Acts 18:19). Paul’s reception by the Jewish community in Ephesus was positive, but he could not stay, promising to return “if it is God’s will.” (Acts 18:21). Paul sailed on toward Israel, but he left mature Christians behind (Priscilla and Aquila) to help lead the fledgling church there. Later, on during what tradition calls his “third missionary journey,” Paul and his team all but camp out in Ephesus, making it the church’s headquarters as he directed the spread of the Gospel throughout the region (Acts 19:10). The church Paul established there flourished, but later encountered difficulties, needing intervention from the centralized church authority because of the presence of false teachers (1 Timothy) as well as the warning here in Revelation 2:1–7. It would seem that all seven churches of Revelation were established by Paul’s ministry during the two years and three months Paul spent in Ephesus. Indeed, Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is addressed to “God’s holy people in Ephesus” (Ephesians 1:1), rather than to the “church” or “churches” at Ephesus, as he did in his letters to Corinth, Galatia, or Thessalonica. Paul often directed his letters to larger metropolitan areas in this manner (see the first few verses of Romans, Philippians, and Colossians). Paul’s letter to the Ephesians was probably meant to be a circular memo to be read in each of the seven churches of Asia Minor, in the same way that John’s letter as embodied in the book of Revelation was apparently meant to be circulated.

Here in Revelation 2, Jesus’s direct words for the Ephesian church via John initially are very supportive. The pattern of each of the messages to the seven churches starts with Jesus identifying a personal characteristic of His own — something that was already identified about Him in John’s initial vision in Chapter 1. Here, its that “These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.” Jesus is declaring that he has the authority to speak to the church, that his presence is authentic, and that this presence is closer to them than they realize.

Jesus then commends the Ephesians for their dedication to Him. What follower of Christ would not want to hear our Lord say, “I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance?” He specifically praises them for the equivalent of graduating with honors in dealing with issues identified in other places in the places in the New Testament. Some folks at SOGF will recall when I shared on a Sunday morning about the “cosmic mission” of the church. Paul initially presented that concept to the Ephesian church. Therefore, the Ephesian church was “getting it right” with regards to unity in diversity! Indeed, the overall theme of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is encouraging this kind of unity in the body of Christ. However, the Ephesians had other issues. Paul encouraged them to live a life of purity and self-deference (Ephesians 4) and to guard against the deception of Satan through submission to God and through prayer (Ephesians 6). Paul’s first Letter to Timothy gives us further history — apparently heresy had found its way into the Ephesian church. Paul deputized Timothy to take charge there, and deal with it (the heresy involved an early form of Gnosticism, where false teachers were pushing a form of occult practice mixed with Jewish mysticism). Here in Revelation 2, the Ephesians have overcome this issue. Jesus praises them for properly dealing with this — the Ephesian church refused to tolerate wickedness and had faithfully identified the false teachers and condemned their wrong theology. They had worked hard, stayed steady, endured hardships. There seemed to be a very special bond of unity within the Ephesian church.

But then comes one of the most stunning, gut-wrenching thing a follower of Christ can hear. And Jesus makes it very, very personal. “Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first.” What a gut punch! Yet, it is not without hope. Jesus offers a remedy — to take stock of exactly where we are at, and then do the things we did when we first came to know Him. He warns of dire consequences if the church fails to repent but offers a promise to those who are “victorious,” — “the right to eat from the tree of life.” (Revelation 2:7).

 There is a great irony in this. How can a church full of people, unified in purpose, living and walking in the truth they have come to know, working together in service to the Lord, and accomplishing good works that garner compliments from the Savior himself wind up not having a love relationship with God? Yet, I think this is one of the most common issues Christians face, especially mature Christians.

How does this happen? Consider how often married couples who have raised a family together, worked to build a life for themselves for decades, and established themselves in the communities where they live suddenly find that the romance is gone, and come to the realization that there’s nothing left between them but the rote passing of day-to-day life? Consider the situations we just read about last week in Malachi, where God expresses his love to the Israelites, yet for a variety of negative circumstances in their lives, they have come to distrust Him and have literally forgotten his love — while still going through the motions of offering sacrifices and participating in worship and the communal activities of God’s people, albeit half-heartedly.

The most pointed example of this for me personally is Christ’s admonition in Luke 10. Jesus had sent out his disciples to minister to the people themselves. They return, flushed with success, their hearts and spirits full and overflowing in the rush of being used by God to minister to His people. I imagine they felt like rock stars as they came back to report to Jesus, high fiving each other, and boasting of their successes. In Luke 10:17, it says they “returned with joy, and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name!” But Christ’s final reply to them is very sobering, “do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” (Luke 10:20). Its so easy to place value in who we are, and what we do. But Jesus is saying here that when we put too much value in those things, we lose something. Even when the people we try to be and the work we do wind up bringing glory to God’s name, and minister healing and wisdom to the masses. Because even the work we do for God, the things we work for and do to become something or somebody for God can only last for a season of time. When we place value on things that are not eternal – whether an achievement, a career, a ministry calling, a relationship with a person in the here-and-now – when that thing ceases to be, what do we have to depend on? What we truly value in trust must have heavenly value (see Matthew 6:20-21). Just as my achievements and self-importance will not bring me any closer to my wife or my family in an emotional or relational sense, the same is true for God. I know that I have to deal with this issue, and face the reality that, like the Ephesians, I have lost my first love. But thankfully, there is great hope in the path to regaining it.

Revelation 2:8 begins the address to the church at Smyrna. Smyrna (modern day Izmir) was located on the Aegean Sea, much of the city built on what amounted to an island connected to the mainland by a narrow isthmus. This gave the location great strategic value, as the position further out on the water commanded the harbor and guarded against attack from the sea. Smyrna had developed over the centuries as a thriving community of Greek culture, but the population really exploded when Alexander the Great made the city one of his main military bases. Under the rule of Alexander’s successors, Smyrna grew into one of the great metropolitan areas of the ancient world.

However, in 197 BC, a crisis caused a political upheaval. The leaders in Smyrna broke ties with the King of Pergamum and appealed to the Roman Empire for help. Rome and Smyrna had not yet had any kind of political exchange. In order to appeal to the Romans, the leaders of Smyrna created a new religious cult, where they constructed a temple dedicated to the worship of the Roman Empire. Now, this wasn’t worshipping the emperor as a god — this was the actual worship of the Roman Empire itself as if it was a god. The Roman authorities were so impressed, they brought Smyrna under imperial authority immediately. Within a few years, the leaders of Rome adapted Smyrna’s creativity into the deification of the City of Rome!

This all made Smyrna the jewel of the Roman Empire’s crown in the eastern Mediterranean. By 90 AD, Smyrna was one of the most beautiful and urbane cities in the Empire, with its citizens proud of their Roman heritage. The combination of the abstract worship of the empire/city of Rome, and the personal worship of the emperor made Smyrna a particularly hostile place for Christians. But there was also a sizable Jewish contingency in Smyrna, which proved to also be hostile to Christians.

Here, Jesus identifies himself as the “First and Last,” emphasizing his death and resurrection. He recognizes the faithfulness of the Smyrna Christians — the poverty they live in, the persecution they have endured. He warns them that things are not going to get any easier — they will endure great persecution and even have to die for their faith. Yet, Jesus encourages them. If they can remain faithful, he will give them a victor’s crown. And the reward for victory here is not having to taste the second death. Smyrna is the only one of the seven churches that do not receive some sort of a word of judgment or condemnation from Jesus.

Verse 12 begins the message to the church at Pergamum. After the death of Alexander the Great, one of Alexander’s generals seized control of the city of Pergamum and made it his headquarters as he organized and fought for what would eventually be a nation-state of its own. Known as the kingdom of Pergamum, it eventually developed its own distinct culture and became the capital city of a nation that covered about a third of Turkey today. After Rome swept to power, the Empire made Pergamum the capital of the province of Asia Minor.

Pergamum literally means “citadel” in Greek, and was located inland, but was elevated a thousand feet above and overlooking the valley surrounding it. As the headquarters of Rome’s provincial government, the state-sponsored religion was available in abundance, with opulent temples dedicated to Zeus and Athena. Of particular importance was the cult of Dionysus, the god of wine, Asclepius, the god of healing, and, of course, Emperor Domitian himself.

The qualities and features of Pergamum are apparent in Christ’s word to the church there. He identifies their homes as being where Satan lives — a connection to the seat of the Roman government, or the temples of the pagan gods. Jesus commends them for not renouncing their faith, even in the face of death. However, Jesus criticizes the church’s adherence to the “teaching of Balaam,” drawing a connection to Deuteronomy 25 and 31 (and the Book of Jude also makes mention of this), where Balaam’s influence led the Israelites into idolatry and sexual depravity. Christ’s words aimed at the Pergamum church specifically condemns the eating of food sacrificed to idols, and blatant sexual sin. My guess is the Pergamum Christians were trying to fit into Roman society, leading to participation in the practices at places like the temples of Dionysus and Athena, where such things would have been common. He also connects this to the teachings of the Nicolations, who believed one could be a Christian, but still participate in the pagan temple rituals. Jesus also makes a promise to those who would be faithful; for them to be able to eat “hidden manna” and the gift of a white stone with a new name written on it. I believe the “manna” reference would mean God would provide both the material and spiritual support his people would need in a hostile city where idolatry was nearly impossible to avoid and to not participate would lead to exclusion from society, and the stone seems to indicate the fulfillment of a personal, protective relationship with Jesus.

Thyatira is the next church, in v. 18. Thyatira was situated further inland and was renowned as a commercial center involving many varied trade guilds. In particular, in Acts 16, Paul introduces us to Lydia, a woman who was an expert in producing “purple cloth,” who was also a native of Thyatira.

The situation in Thyatira was not a whole lot different than in Pergamum. Here the connection is made to the teaching of “Jezebel,” the pagan wife of King Ahab of Israel referenced in 1 Kings 9-30. The source of the heresy in Thyatira must have been a woman or a group of women in the church who were asserting authority, or, more likely, covertly manipulating the situation through the male leadership. But I think we make a mistake when we flippantly conclude that Thyatira’s spiritual issues are blamed on something that is exclusively female. The specific symptoms of sin in both Pergamum and Thyatira are consuming food that has been offered to idols and sexual immorality. In 2:24, Jesus commends the Thyatirids for resisting the teachings of “Satan’s so called deep secrets,” as opposed to Pergamum’s sin in 2:15 of following the Nicolations (besides allowing for compromise for participating in pagan religious practices and sexual behavior, the Nicolations were deeply involved in combining Jewish and pagan mysticism — in this instance, saying in order to defeat Satan, one had to first experience evil at a deeper level, sort of like the dark side of the force in Star Wars).

The behaviors condemned in both churches spring from the heresy of antinomianism, a fancy way of saying that once you’re saved, you have a license to sin. Paul had the final word on this concept when he asked and answered the rhetorical question in Romans 6:1-2, “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” The premise of the Nicolaitan heresy was to allow compromise with pagan society. (“When in Rome . . .”). The result is the same. The evils condemned at Pergamum are ascribed to the teachings of Balaam, those at Thyatira to the teachings of Jezebel. Perhaps these labels can be explained because Pergamum was the seat of governmental authority in the region, where men would be presumed to be in charge, while in Thyatira, where business related craft guilds held sway (and we already have the biblical example of Lydia as a woman of great skill who came from Thyatira), women had greater influence because of their involvement in these businesses. We also need to consider Jewish culture. “Jezebel” was probably a common epithet for an immoral or controlling woman, “Balaam” for an unscrupulous pagan male. As I’ve gotten older (and I hope, wiser), I have seen where knee-jerk reactions can cause a great deal of hurt and misunderstanding. To ascribe some deeper level of sin to the church at Thyatira and blame in on something that is unique to women is short sighted. A headstrong, manipulative woman is only different from a headstrong, manipulative man because of cultural expectations. Making a snap judgment about a “Jezebel Spirit” in a woman is akin to forbidding a woman to speak in church based on 1 Timothy 2:12. A “spirit of witchcraft” can apply to a man as well as a woman. Indeed, Balaam was the equivalent of a sorcerer or conjurer. It’s two sides of the same coin.