The
Seven Churches of the 21st Century
Chapter 1
Introduction: The Seven Historical Churches
As we begin our short study of the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3, it is necessary to lay a foundation. To do this, let us take a little time to examine three introductory points.
The book of Revelation is an often misunderstood and misinterpreted book. The main reason for this is the failure to understand two basic things about it: its Divisions, its Declaration, and its Difficulty.
Without question, Revelation 1:19 is the key verse of the book:
Write the things which thou has seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.
This one verse declares the three divisions of the book.
The first thing we need to realize about the book of Revelation is that the Lord Jesus Himself was the Author. Often the Apostle John is called the author, but to be accurate, John was the recorder. Verse 1 makes it clear that this Epistle is:
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him, to show unto His servants things which shall shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant, John (emphasis added).
So, the “revelation” came for the Lord, and John wrote it down. John is instructed to write about the vision he has just received of the risen Lord Jesus. This is exactly the content of chapter 1. May we also add, these are the things that are past.
John is then instructed to write about the things that are in the present, the things concerning the churches of Asia. In other words, John was to write about the things concerning his present and our present, that is, this dispensation. This then is the content of chapters 2 and 3 and is the subject of our study.
Lastly, John is instructed to write about the things which will take place after these present things, that is, the things which are future. This encompasses all of chapters 4 through 22. May I interject here that the Church is gone as of chapter 4 and is not seen again until chapter 19. Many are confused about this, but may it be clear that God is dealing with Israel and the nations of the world during that time. The Church, therefore, is gone because she is no longer being dealt with. The age of the Church is a “parenthesis” between God’s sixty-ninth and the seventieth “weeks” of years spoken of by the prophet Daniel.
The outline of the book we have just examined makes the declaration of the book quite plain. There are teachers who say that Revelation is allegorical, symbolic, or merely historical. But ones who hold these views are, oddly enough, seldom in agreement since different interpreters find different meanings to the allegory, symbolism, and historical incidents. We see then that the “Futuristic View” (also called the “Literalist View”) is the only one that is consistent.
The point (or theme) of Revelation, of course, is The End of the Age. The title “Revelation” is derived from the meaning of the Greek title apokalupsis, which is a compound word that combines kalupto (“to veil”) and apo (“from”) to give us the idea of “to remove the veil” or “reveal.” What then does the book reveal? Several things, but preeminently it unveils the glorified and enthroned Christ. It sequentially records many visions that prophesy the course of the age. It begins with the Great Tribulation, unfolds great events, movements, and kingdoms, and finally culminates in eternity. But at the heart of if all is the conquering Christ (chs. 4; 5; 19:11-21).
This declaration is very important in light of the recipients of this book, namely, the seven Churches of Asia Minor. These churches were located on a major travel route connecting population centers of Asia Minor. The day in which they existed was a day of immorality, paganism, slavery, mystery religions, and persecution. Revelation was therefore an Epistle that was of tremendous encouragement. In short, it promised that God is going to defeat Satan and all evil. It proclaimed then and it proclaims now that God’s people are to be patient and encouraged in the face of persecution because God is ultimately going to win.
Someone has wisely said, “There is always a tendency in the human heart to become occupied with the dispensation in which we are not.” How true this is! Prophecy is a blessed subject, but it must not be over-emphasized. In recent years there has been what one might call a “prophecy craze.” Many Bible teachers have tried to take every headline and plumb it with some obscure prophecy in Ezekiel or some other prophetic book.
There have been many fanciful ideas come out of this overemphasis. For example, in his book on Revelation, one author recounts that after reading about the plague of locusts spoken of in Revelation 9:3, a friend of his who was a Green Beret in Vietnam said, “I know what those are. I’ve seen hundreds of them in Vietnam. They’re Cobra helicopters.” The author admits that “it may be just conjecture,” but then turns around and says “but it does give you something to think about.” He then gives further credibility to this theory by pointing out that the Cobra helicopter does fit the description and that the torment they inflict might be nerve gas sprayed from its tail. Years before this was written, however, as another author points out, many believed these to be B-29 bombers.
The main problem with such wild speculation is obvious, namely, there’s no clear meaning. Another problem, however, is that such conjecture inescapably implies that the book of Revelation could never have been understood by anyone other than someone living in modern times. This is obviously a serious error, because as we’ve seen Revelation was designed to be an encouragement to God’s persecuted people in every age. It shows that God is going to win. How, then, could Revelation be an encouragement to persecuted first century Christians when only twentieth century Christians could understand it? But may we ask simply, Why can’t we just believe that this prophecy actually speaks of a plague of locusts that sting like scorpions?
At the heart of this problem is the typical response humans have when they read symbolic language. When we read symbolism our immediate impulse is to “try and figure out what it means.” But as someone has wisely said, “It would seem, based on the stated purpose of the book, that the best interpretation is no interpretation.” In other words, because it was written to be an encouragement, it was written in simple language, so just read it as it is. I have believed for many years that the problem is not that Revelation is hard to understand, rather it’s just hard to believe. Many people, even Christians, simply can’t believe that God is going to do exactly what he says He’s going to do, so that have to “make sense of it” by their own interpretations.
The real key to literal interpretation is that we are to the original sense of the Bible according to the normal and customary usages of language. We can only do this by studying the Bible grammatically, historically, and contextually. The key, then, to understanding the symbols or figures of speech in Revelation is that when symbols are used, their meaning is explained either in the immediate context or elsewhere in Scripture. What good are symbols that puzzle the reader and make him wonder about their meaning? The purpose of Revelation was to reveal, not puzzle.
In light of a literal approach to Revelation, God strongly emphasizes the messages to these seven churches. So important are these messages, in fact, that they comprise a little over twelve and one half percent (or about one eighth) of the content of the book of Revelation. Moreover, there is a lot of “Church Truth” in these messages that matches the Church truth contained in other New Testament Epistles. May we not neglect these two chapters in favor of the more “spectacular” parts of Revelation. These two chapters will honestly be of far more help to local churches and individual believers than will the remainder of the book.
Let us consider that these letters have a fourfold reference, a fourfold application. We will develop this as we study each letter.
By this is meant that Christ was concerned with the state of each of these physical, 1st Century local churches. As one commentator observes, “The order of scriptural presentation was geographic. A messenger would naturally travel the route from the seaport Ephesus, 35 miles north to another seaport Smyrna, proceed still farther north and to the east, to Pergamos, and then would swing further to the east and south to visit the other four cities (1:11).”[1] These cities, of course, were located in the Roman province of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and were undoubtedly selected because they were the key cities of the seven postal districts of that region. They were the cities one would choose if he wanted to spread information.
The Lord Jesus makes observations and counsels each one of them. Revelation 1:20 makes this clear:
Thy mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands. The seven stars are the seven angels of the seven churches; and the seven lampstands which thou sawest are the seven churches.
As this verse declares, each church was viewed as a lampstand. The Greek here for “lampstand” is luxnos, which refers to the hand-lamp that was fed by oil. As we know, “oil” is used in Scripture as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, so the thought here is that the churches themselves do not create light; rather, each church bears the light of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.
We then notice the word “angels.” The Greek here is aggeloi, meaning “messengers.” The
identity of these “angels” has been a matter of much discussion through the
years. A clue to this identity is in the fact that Jesus holds them in His
right hand. As the right hand is used in Scripture as a symbol of
honor and authority (Eph. 1:20; Heb. 8:1; 12:2; I Pet. 3:22; etc.), the idea
here is that Jesus is controlling His church through the authority of these
“messengers.” While angels is the common translation of aggeloi, and while there are some valid arguments that these are literal angels,
we are compelled to disagree for several reasons.
First, literal angels are never spoken of in
Scripture as being the “authorities” in churches. In other words, they are
never involved in church leadership; God does not rule churches through angels.
Nowhere is this indicated in the Epistles. Angels don’t lead churches; God’s men lead churches and are responsible for how they lead.
Second, all but two of these churches, and
obviously their leadership, have been disobedient to God’s Word and are
commanded to repent of their sin (2:4-5,
14, 20; 3:1-3,
15, 17, 19). Angels, however, do not sin and,
therefore, have no need to repent.
Third, and perhaps most significantly, saying that these are literal angels actually means that God is sending messages to angels through John, but such an idea has no precedent in Scripture. Not once in Scripture do we read that God spoke to angels through men.
Fourth, while it is argued that angelloi always means angels, that simply is not so; there are several instances in Scripture where angelloi clearly speaks of “messengers,” that is, human messengers. Luke 7:24, for example, declares, “And when the messengers [angelloi] of John were departed, [Jesus] began to speak unto the people concerning John.” A few verses before, in fact, we read that these same messengers were John’s disciples, that is, men (v. 19). Then in verse 27, our Lord Himself uses angellos to refer to John as His “messenger.” Likewise, James 2:25 recounts, “Was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers [angelloi], and had sent them out another way?” The spies sent in to reconnoiter the Promised Land were men, not angels. As one Greek authority points out, an argument could even be made that even Hebrews 13:2—“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares”—might be referring to hospitality “to itinerate preachers rather than angels.”[2]
Further, we see the same idea in the Old Testament, both in the Hebrew and the Greek (Septuagint), which provides a clear precedent for the New Testament use. While most references in the OT are to literal angels, several are not. Commentator William Newell well points out some of these. While Genesis 32:1, for example, says that Jacob encountered literal angels, verse 3 says he sent his own “messengers” to Edom. In both verses, the Hebrew word is the same, malāk, which in turn is translated as the Greek angelloi. Likewise, in Numbers 20:14, Moses sent his own “messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom,” while God sent an “angel” to Moses. The Hebrew is again malāk in both verses and is translated as the Greek angelloi (and angellos). Again, in Judges 6:10-23, the literal “Angel of the Lord” is referred to seven times by the Hebrew malāk (vs. 11, 12, 20, 21 [twice], 22 [twice]), while the messengers Gideon sent are also called malāk (v. 35); in all cases the Greek is again angellos. And still again, Sennacherib’s representative are called “messangers” in Isaiah 37:9 and 14, while in verse 36 the Angel of the Lord is in view, and the same Hebrew and Greek words are used.[3]
Most significant in all these examples is the fact that the Hebrew and Greek words refer to both angels and men in the same context. Some argue, “Since the word ‘angel’ occurs 67 other times in Revelation, and since every one of those refers to heavenly angels, then it must also be true here in 1:20.” But that obviously is not so.
Fifth, the context clearly seems to argue against literal angels. Christ is speaking about earthly matters to an earthly messenger, who will in-turn pass on those matters to other earthly messengers. Why would He bring heavenly beings into a discussion of earthly issues? Further, the responsible parties in these letters are earthly beings, not heavenly beings.
Sixth, one final problem with the literal angel idea is that there is no way to explain how the angels then conveyed Christ’s message to the churches. It seems more than obvious that men would carry these messages to the churches.
We must conclude, therefore, that the messengers of Revelation 2-3 were, indeed, the pastors of the seven churches. These men were those who were responsible for the leadership of those churches and those to whom the challenges and encouragements of the letters were given. It is through such men that the Lord (Who holds these in His right hand) leads and rules His Church.
May we submit, therefore, that this is precisely why the qualifications and requirements for leadership in the Church are extremely high, according to I Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. God could not be clearer on this issue of qualified leadership. In spite of that, however, more and more today we see people leading who frankly should not be doing so. The common attitude is that anyone can lead, but this is worse than dangerous. In fact, the precedent in Scripture for training to be a leader seems to be three years. The disciples spent three years with the Lord, Paul spent three years in training before being sent out to preach and plant churches (Gal. 1:11-18), and Timothy was with Paul three years during his second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-18:22). May we also add, when Paul wrote to Timothy—“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (II Tim. 2:2), can there be any doubt that he was saying, “As I trained you for leadership, you train others for leadership?”
By this it is meant that these letters are an admonition to all churches of all time. In other words, by extension, not only did they apply to the seven specific churches in Asia Minor, they apply to all churches everywhere both then and in the future. These messages give us the seven possible appearances of any church. Every individual local church throughout this age fits into one of seven types.
It’s interesting to observe that except for Smyrna and Philadelphia, our Lord rebuked all the churches for some sin that exited within them. How many churches is this true of today? Further, the specific evils in those five churches varied in seriousness from a lack of love at Ephesus, which then progressively grew in severity until it reached the total apostasy at Laodicea. Further still, and even worse, a church can be plagued by more that just one of these problems. Let’s take a brief overview of the seven possible types of local church.
First, there was Ephesus, which had no love for the lord (2:1-7). They hadn’t “lost” their first love,” as some incorrectly quote verse 4, rather they had “left” their love for the Lord behind. While they were busy and heresy free, it was all mechanical and lacked a real love for the Lord.
Second, there was Smyrna, which was willing to suffer (2:8-11) tremendous persecution for the Lord. No sin was mentioned for this church, which shows us that suffering for Christ keeps us purer, more faithful, and more humble and makes us gloriously triumphant.
Third, there was Pergamum, a church that was tolerant of the world (2:12-17), tolerant of false teaching and had compromised key principles of God’s Truth.
Fourth, Thyatira was clinging to paganism (2:18-29). While Pergamum was entangled with the world, while Thyatira was absorbed in the world. Pagan teachings had actually been embrace.
Fifth, there was Sardis, the church that was dead and buried (3:1-6). The inevitable result of Pergamum and Thyatira was dead orthodoxy, a church where there was liturgy but no life
Sixth, the church at Philadelphia is a breath of fresh air in the progression, for here we see a church that was faithful in all things (3:7-13). Here is a church with great works, a consistent witness, and a guarding of God’s Truth.
Seventh, after a moment of respite in Philadelphia, the church at Laodicea had been overtaken by apostasy (3:14-22). Here the church was people-centered and had become the authority in place of God’s Word.
Each of these messages also carries with it a personal application to every individual believer. After all, a church is comprised of people who will make that body what it is. As each of these churches, then, applies collectively to other churches, the lessons of each likewise apply to every individual Christian. Note Revelation 2:7, for example: “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” This admonition, in fact, is used at the close of each letter showing that every Christian is responsible for the message he has heard. Each letter, then, is a challenge to believers to ascertain what “characteristics” are true in their lives.
Here is truly one of the most fascinating things in all the Word of God. These seven churches also present the entire history of the Church (Christ’s body) from its beginning in the first century right to the time of Christ’s return for His Church at the Rapture. I spent countless hours studying Church History in light of these seven letters and saw this fact unfold before me. The Church has gone through seven distinct periods in her long history. The number “7” is “the number of perfection” in Scripture, and Revelation 2 and 3 are, indeed, the “perfect historical record” of Christ’s Church. To emphasize this fascinating application, the “Prophetic History” of each letter will appear in a shaded area in the chapters that follow.
It should be said at this point that there are, of course, Bible teachers who do not agree that the seven churches picture Church History. There are various reasons for this skepticism, but one of the main ones is that some feel that the parallels are not close enough to prove this idea. I think, however, that as our study unfolds the reader will quickly see that just the opposite is true.
Others do not agree with this historical presentation because they are not ready to face the conclusion that we find in the letter to the church at Laodicea. Many simply do not want to face the sad condition of the Church today. While most people in Christianity today think the Church has never been in better shape, the very opposite is true. The Church as a whole has never been further away from the absolutes of Scripture since the Reformation.
While it has been observed that only Dispensationalists hold this view, that seems quite irrelevant in the final analysis. From Pentecost till now, Church History is Church History. The more one studies these letters and Church History, in fact, the more glaringly obvious it becomes that these letters anticipate that history. I for one simply do not understand how someone can miss this application or why they would want to argue against it. Having said that, however, some interpreters, such as Postmillennialists and others, miss this simply because they don’t take a literal view of the Book of Revelation. And in point of fact, if we reject the literalness of Revelation, as well as all Bible prophecy, the Bible becomes virtually incomprehensible. In such a case, we can’t know what’s literal, what’s allegorical, what’s mystical, what’s real, what’s false, or anything else.
So, as one commentator writes:
Obviously these churches were specially selected and providentially arranged to provide characteristic situations which the church has faced throughout its history. . . . There are some remarkable similarities in comparing these letters to the seven churches to the movement of church history since the beginning of the apostolic church.[4]
Another writes: “It can be no mere coincidence that these Epistles do set out the salient characteristics of the Church through the centuries, and no one can deny that they are presented in historic sequence.”[5] Commentator William MacDonald also observes the obvious: “The letters give a consecutive preview of the history of Christendom, each church representing a distinct period. The general trend of conditions is downward.”[6] And even a cursory viewing of Church History proves that statement to be absolutely correct.
Most importantly, however, we must accept these churches as a picture of Church History because of Christ’s words to John, “Write the things which are in this age.” These words indicate that our Lord is speaking of the entire age, not just a limited geographical area. I submit that our Savior was being much more farsighted than to be looking only at Asia Minor. Are we to think that while the great prophets of the Old Testament looked centuries into the future, our Lord was looking only at the contemporary scene? Surely not! He was concerned about His Church throughout the centuries to come. As another commentator observes, while there were hundreds of churches in existence at that time, only seven letters were sent. Our Lord
knew the entire history of the Church from the beginning. . . . He saw in seven of them conditions which were in embryo, the condition through which the whole church on earth would pass, so that we have in these seven messages, which uncover the state of the different churches, the spiritual and religious history of Christendom.[7]
Why would anyone want to ignore the obvious? Why would we wish to close our eyes to the deep significance of this “Prophetic History?” We do so, in fact, at our peril. As the notable quote goes, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”[8] As we will see, this “Prophetic History” explains much of the error that has existed the Church through the centuries and explains where the Church is today.
Before embarking on our study, a word of how we shall conduct our study is in order. The title of each of the following chapters reflects the major characteristic of each of the seven churches. The Lord Jesus used a definite format in addressing each church. Over the years there have been various ways of presenting this; we shall present five principles in each letter.
First, we’ll look at the Root of the letter, which itself involves three emphases: (1) Each letter contains some feature of Christ that was emphasized in the vision of chapter 1. (2) An examination of the church itself, that is, its background and condition; 3. A look at the city in which the church is located, its cultural and historical setting.
Second, we’ll observe the Regard of the letter, that is, the praise Christ gave of the church. In most of them there are, indeed, things to praise. But as we’ll also see, it’s noteworthy that one church has no regard at all.
Third, we’ll examine the Rebuke of the letter, the complaint Christ had against the church. As mentioned earlier, two churches have no rebuke.
Fourth, we’ll note the Requirement of the letter, in which Christ shows the church the solution to the problem and the consequences for ignoring His rebuke.
Fifth, we’ll then study the Reassurance of the letter, where the Lord Jesus gives his final encouragements to the church, that they still belong to Him, that He will reward them for their obedience.
The truth of these seven letters is simply tremendous! The applications are staggering! These messages comprise one of the most powerful influences in my own Christian life and ministry for over twenty-five years. Let us each prayerfully consider the message of each letter and allow the Holy Spirit to apply it to our hearts.
[1] The Bible Knowledge Commentary.
[2] Zodhiates, p. 68.
[3] Newell, pp. 33-34.
[4] The Bible Knowledge Commentary.
[5] R. H. Clayton. Cited in Strauss, p. 33.
[6] MacDonald, p. 2355.
[7] Gaebelein, p. 33-34.
[8] George Santayana, Life of Reason, Ch. 12, “Reason in Common Sense” (Scribner’s, 1905), p. 284.