Revelation 2

Revelation Chapter 2

2022 - Frankly, these letters to the churches have always been the "boring part" of Revelation. I have always blasted right through them. Maybe this year will be different...but it doesn't seem so as I start...

2023 - After reading the notes, and before starting the text, I am going back to see which scene, if either, the description of the speaker to each church is tied. To clarify, note that each letter begins with something like “To the church at xxxxxx write, “The words of….”. After “The words of…”, in each case, there is a short description of who is talking. Now back in chapter 1, vss 4-8 had descriptions of both the Father and the Son. In these verses, we are given some attributes of Father and Son, but not really physical descriptions. This verse, for instance: 4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, [Rev 1:4 ESV]. The Father is described as “him who is and who was and who is to come” – so this is about his everlasting presence, but has nothing to do with his physical appearance. We know this is referencing the Father because vs 5 starts with “and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness”. Again, Jesus’ appearance is not described, but instead this attribute that he is the faithful witness…sort of a title. We have descriptions of Father, seven spirits before his throne, and Son. Father and Son have attributes.

Then, in vss 12-18, John turns to see who is speaking to him, and we get a description of a scene presumably in heaven. These verses include a physical description of Jesus, what he is wearing, and what is in his hands. The description here is very visual, and is full of symbolism, some of which is explained precisely and some not at all.

So below, what I am attempting to do is determine whether “The words of…” refers back to the descriptions (titles) in the greeting of vss 4-8 or to the vision of vss 12-18. And if it refers to vss 4-8, is it about the Father or the Son, or the seven spirits?

First, let’s break up the sections of vss 4-8. Perhaps this should have been done as we covered Chapter 1, but covering it here instead will give us some immediate usefulness in interpreting the letters to the churches.

1:4a tells us that this letter is from John and to the churches. Nothing controversial here. Next, John opens the letters with a salutation conforming to formal Greek correspondence of the time. He pronounces a blessing on them from the Father, and describes some attributes/titles of the Father, AND, vs 5, also from the Son, and John details Jesus’ actions and current position. We do get a bit of scene setting in 1:4 when we are told that those seven spirits are before the throne. God is on the throne, and these seven spirits are before him. We ought to see these spirits as angels, in my opinion. Angles are spirits, and the Greek word used here is pneuma. Note that the details about the Son are not at all visual descriptions.

Here are the verses:

4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, [Rev 1:4 ESV].

Then…

5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth…[Rev 1:5a ESV].

In the next part, again in the fashion of formal Greek correspondence, (Paul always does this), beginning in 5b, John pronounces a blessing on the Son, as follows:

5 …To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. [Rev 1:5-6 ESV]. Here we have a description of the relationship of Christ to those receiving the letter.

Beginning in 1:7, John reminds the churches that Jesus is coming back.

7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. [Rev 1:7 ESV].

And then the very last section, in vs 8, is a further description of the Father and his position:

8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." [Rev 1:8 ESV]. The word for God here is the Greek Theos. I would note then, that it is the Father who is the Alpha and Omega, and it is the Father – or perhaps more accurately the Father ALSO – who is to come.

The vision of the Son that John sees when he turns is in these verses:

12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. [Rev 1:12-16 ESV]. This is what the Christ within the vision looked like. We are told specifically that this vision is of Christ: 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. [Rev 1:18 ESV]. (A good side study...Doesn't this say that Death and Hades are different places? Or...maybe death is not about a place...Sticking with the original subject though...).

2025 - So there are seven spirits before the throne, and Jesus is seen among the seven golden candlesticks. These are two different sevens. The spirits, I believe, are the angels in charge of each of the seven dominions. The candlesticks are the seven churches, each lighting the world with the gospel of the New Covenant. I do not have a good "picture" of how the scene at the throne and the scene of Jesus among the candlesticks are related. Are they seen in the same direction or are they separate?

As I recall it as I write this, the specific addresses to each church include some common phrases:

1. To the church at xxxxx, write: Just tells us which church we’re talking about.

2. “The words of…”, tells us who is speaking to that church. The words are never from John. They are from Father, Son or both, and we can tell, for the most part, by whether they are “pulled” from 1:4-8 or from 1:12-16.

3. “The one who…” is a promise given to each church.

We will look at the second and third of these three items in the address to each church.

2024 - There is a fourth. Why did I leave out the "correction" promised if the problems revealed do not lead to repentance! I need to include those also!

Map is from MSB.

Ephesus, 2:1-7

2. The words of "him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands". These words are from Jesus, as John saw him in heaven, as described in parts of vss 12, 13, and 16. So the words are from Jesus, as John sees him “currently” in heaven.

3. To the one who conquers, I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. When could this be? The tree of life is off limits and guarded for now, when will it be available again? We see this three times in Rev 22:

2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. ...

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. ...

19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. [Rev 22:2, 14, 19 ESV]

So the tree of life “reappears” in the New Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem comes down from heaven after the Millennial and after the GWT judgment is completed, at the beginning of eternity. So in summary, Jesus promises the church at Ephesus that if they conquer, they will someday walk in the New Jerusalem.

2024 - This: 5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. [Rev 2:5 ESV]. The lampstand represents the church, arrayed around the Son. So removal would be banishment from the presence of Jesus? A loss of closeness? Remember that their problem was that they lost their first love, they were distanced already from it. Perhaps this means their distance would increase, and they would drift away into just a social club?

2022 - John writes first to his "home church". He writes to an angel. I don't think we are to understand this as a spiritual being. Angels do not have PO boxes. We are nowhere told to pray to angels, to appeal to angels, to send messages by angels. They do not work for us. So what does angel mean? Well we did see back in 1:20 that the "seven stars are the angels of the seven churches". Jesus held these stars in his right hand. What John is seeing is symbolic, in that the stars represent angels, and the lampstands represent churches. It says "the stars are..." and "the lampstands are..." The Greek word translated angels is "angelos". It is used 186 times in the NT, and is translated straight up as "angels" 179 times. 7 times it is translated messenger. Three of those seven refer obviously and unambiguously to John the Baptist. Three others refer obviously to people - not spiritual beings. The one exception is this verse: "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." [2Co 12:7 KJV]. So I think the point is that sometimes messenger can absolutely mean angel, as in spiritual being, but it is not in the least unprecedented for it to be used of mortal men. Any time it is used of men, the context is of a message being carried and/or delivered via the "angelos". A message is involved, a message is conveyed. So perhaps each church had sent a "messenger" to the isle of Patmos, perhaps at John's request, and perhaps in the right hand of Christ to insure safe passage in both directions and to endorse the message as scriptural. The message would need to be written. If we go all the way back to 1:11, we see that each church was to receive a written account of what John saw. They all got this. And additionally, the messengers sent to retrieve these copies also received a message from God through John to return to their specific church. So we can see these messages as relevant to the time when they were received. They may have something to do with the church through the ages, in a prophetic sense of things to come, but they also had immediate application in the churches that received them.

I do not see that the angelos here in Chapter 2 ought to be seen as the pastor of the church at Ephesus. That word is nowhere used – that I have seen - as a reference to the pastor of a church. But we still have that an angel received a message from Jesus to give to John. That angel was a spiritual being.

This church has tested those who claim authority as apostles and found them to be false. We know these tests, they were given to us - most of them in 1,2, 3 John! Test them by scripture, and by their deeds and by their testimony under direct questioning. Perhaps a "committee", like we use to question potential deacons, elders, and pastors. This would be the way to set that up. Would it need to be a standing committee, or one chosen according to each situation to be tested? In any case, it goes on to say they have abandoned the love they had at first. They were testing, they were enduring, and they were not weary.

But they abandoned their first love? Does that mean they were good at all the "rules", but their "youthful passion" in their relationship to Jesus had waned and they were just going through the motions? Were they were coping as they should, but were no longer "on fire" about the message of Christ? Still, they hated the Nicolaitans, as did Jesus. Like what Balaam taught. Nicholas was an elder but he was an unbeliever and later became apostate. He was found out at some point. We know this from the writings of the early church fathers. Nicholas led the people into rank immorality. Clement of Alexandria says "They abandoned themselves to pleasure like goats, leading a life of self-indulgence". Their teaching perverted grace and replaced liberty with license. 2021 - Must have been a lot that went on from this letter - when they hated the Nicolaitans - to the time when Nicholas led the people into rank immorality? Or was he a "clique" within the church, and they all kept coming, even while they were unwelcome? Really don't know the details of all that went on here. Surely these things must have happened while John was away.

2021 - He writes first to Ephesus. He was given the order back in 1:11, but it is interesting that this was John's "home" church.

2023 - I have heard sermons about what precisely is meant by abandoning their first love. As I sit here this Sunday morning, it seems to me that it might be evangelism. They were doing all sorts of good works in their community. They were helping their own, helping the poor - really spectacular social justice workers. But perhaps they were doing it because of earthly philosophy and not as a means of spreading the gospel. Maybe they were no longer sourcing their efforts in the grace of God, but worked in the name of benevolence. Reminds me of Methodists, though I know they are not all like that. Still...this morning, this is how I'm interpreting losing their first love.

2022 - How serious is it if a church loses their "first love"? We find this warning:

"Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent." [Rev 2:5 ESV]

Several things...they have fallen. This is a departure from the proper way. The word for fall is "pipto", which is a very common word in the NT. I note especially that this word is used by John in Revelation 20 times, but not once in his letters. Here are the uses of the word by John elsewhere in Revelation where it goes beyond a physical fall:

"Another angel, a second, followed, saying, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality."" [Rev 14:8 ESV]

"The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath." [Rev 16:19 ESV]

"they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while." [Rev 17:10 ESV]

"And he called out with a mighty voice, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast." [Rev 18:2 ESV]

Babylon fell. Kings have fallen. In these two cases, the fall is from prominence to memory.

John uses the word 3 times in his gospel, and it just means "fall". Generally, it is a plain simple straightforward word for fall. Common uses are "fell at his feet", we see that seed "falls on rocky ground", Eutychus "fell" from a third story window. So fall means to move from a higher spot to a lower spot. It is a physical change of location.

This is the first place in the NT where we see "pipto" used in a symbolic rather than a physical sense. None of the gospels use it so, but Paul does:

"So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous." [Rom 11:11 ESV]. Paul distinguishes between a stumble and a fall. These two words have different roots. So they are about different things. It seems clear that to fall is a much more serious thing than to stumble, as used here. I submit that in the same way the Jews had stumbled out of God's special provision and protection but did not fall forever from their place as God's chosen, so the Ephesians had lost their first love.

If we go with that back to 2:5, then, losing your first love is a more serious problem than getting bored with church services. Losing your first love has permanent implications. The lampstand being removed is to be torn from God's sight, put away as if you were never there. So what exactly does "lost your first love" mean? Given the word study, it seems to mean that the gospel they were originally taught, the true gospel, had been "left" and they had changed and manipulated it into something that had no effect on them at all. This was a church population where the unsaved were outnumbering the saved, and the unsaved don't even realize their situation. They are still ministering and forming committees, and playing as a church in the city softball league, but they are no longer distinctly noticeably different than anyone else – except perhaps in benevolence. They have eschewed the true gospel and its requirement of Christ as Lord, and are therefore not saved, and in danger of not being a church at all. I think you have to see it this way because the only way a lampstand that is clearly said to be a church would be removed is if it was no longer a church. And if a church is a collection of believers, then Ephesus had very few believers. Perhaps they had all been led into some kind of false gospel by Nicholas. Maybe this was a huge problem.

Next,

Smyrna, 2:8-11

2. The words of "the first and the last, who died and came to life." From vs 17 and 18, the Son, within the vision.

3. The one who conquers, “will not be hurt by the second death.” MUCH more discussion below, but the short version is that the second death will be a part of the GWT judgment. So Ephesus was AFTER this judgment, now we back up a bit to what happens during that judgment.

This church was being severely persecuted by the local Jews, so much so that these Jews are labeled a "synagogue of Satan". Some are about to be thrown into prison. The reference to ten days means it won't be for long. Then it says to be faithful unto death...maybe they'll be given 10 days to recant Christianity, and if they don't they die at the end of that time. Doesn't say that, but could be that I think.

I don’t see any criticism of this church at all.

2022 - This letter is so very specific as to what the immediate future holds for this one local church. Sure, it can be generalized as an encouragement to any church facing external persecution from a powerful source, but to say it is about an age the whole church will go through? If that is what these letters are about, then they would have been sent to ALL the churches, including those in Rome, in Jerusalem...no, Jerusalem wasn't there anymore..., Ethiopia maybe, and all those churches in Greece! Corinth would surely have been included. So no, these messages are specific to those churches at that time, and warnings to us of the various ways Satan may come against a church to destroy it. I reject the "church history prophesied" interpretation.

2024 - No chastisement is given here. Note that Smyrna is not indicted for ANY shortcoming, and so there is no need for correction. They are about to be subjected to severe persecution. They are to endure.

2022 - a few days later....This verse:

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.'" [Rev 2:11 ESV] So this verse is the reward promised to those at the church in Smyrna, if they conquer.

What is the second death? We find that here:

14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. [Rev 20:14 ESV]. This verse from Rev 20 is about the GWT judgment, so those in Smyrna who conquer will not be subject to this judgment AT ALL.

Who else might be exempt from the second death? This verse from a little earlier in Rev 20:… 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years. [Rev 20:6 ESV]. We need to decide if the promise to Smyrna is that they will be included in the first resurrection, or that, like those in the first resurrection, Smyrna’s conquerors will also escape the second death. Perhaps we can get some clarification by looking at the whole earlier passage from Rev. 20:

2023 - Expanding on this a little, here are the three times in Revelation that we find the term "second death":

4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years. [Rev 20:4-6 ESV]. First, if we go and look at the context, we see that Rev 20:1-6 are about a judgment that will take place after the second coming, and before the start of the Millennial. Second, look who is present in this scene. First, those beheaded for Jesus’ name, second those who did not worship the beast or its image and who didn’t take the mark. This second item – the mark of the beast refusal – could only have taken place at some point during the 70 Week of Daniel, the last seven years before Christ’s return to assume his physical kingdom on earth. So these people, that verse 5 tells us came back to life in THE FIRST resurrection, had all been through some or all of trib and great trib (t/gt). Based on this, I would argue that Smyrna will not be resurrected in the first resurrection of Revelation 20, but like those who are resurrected at that time, Smyrna will escape the second death. I think the real way to read this is that Smyrna will be part of another whole group, besides the faithful of t/gt, that escape the second death. That other group will be those who are raptured. I would use this same argument as a point in making the case that only the church will be raptured, and NOT the OT saints. The Jews will be resurrected for the GWT judgment – a second resurrection that will include OT saints, OT lost, NT lost, and t/gt survivors who are nevertheless lost. To reiterate the original point, those in Smyrna who conquer will be raptured out, and like all others who are part of the rapture, they escape the second death. And lest me let one slip by, NOTE that the rapture and the first resurrection are NOT the same event!

2023 - Or...could we see this as saying that all martyrs from the church age, not just those from tgt, need have no fear of the second death? He wrote it to a current church, and the told THEM they would not need to worry about the second death. Does Rev. 20:4-6 allow for such an interpretation? I read somewhere that the first phrase is vs 4 came to be a sort of "catch all" for those martyred in the early church. Can't remember where I saw it, but I am certain I read that. So perhaps this is exactly what it really means. ALL martyrs for Christ and for God escape the fear of the second death. But I think the first explanation is very sound, and I believe it is correct.

2024 - So...what if they do not endure? What if they are not "faithful unto death"? Do they miss out on the crown of life? Do they have to worry about the second death? Do they lose their salvation? No! Of course not! Just because a reward is promised for success does not mean their will be a forfeiture for failure. If you come in second, you don't get the gold medal, but you still finished the race. And even if you drop out injured or unprepared, you still raced. The losers are not executed, they just don't get a prize.

Pergamum, 2:12-17.

2. The words of " him who has the sharp two-edged sword". Christ, within the vision, in vs 16.

3. The one who conquers, “I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.” So quite a list here this time. When will this occur? I cannot find many references. Perhaps the closest is here: 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." [Jhn 6:49-51 ESV]. So…rather than the physical manna God gave Israel in the desert, the hidden mana – the living bread – may refer to salvation accomplished by belief in Christ. MSB says the white stone was given to athletes who won, and was a sort of ticket to the victory celebration after the games. In like manner, the new name, given by Christ to those who conquer, might be seen as their admission pass into eternal glory. I really don’t like any of these because unlike the promises to the first two churches, this one is pretty “disconnected” from any specific time frame.

For now, let’s go with this passage as the explanation: 11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. [Rev 19:11-13 ESV]. This is a reference to the second coming of Christ, on a white horse, as he goes to Armageddon to make war after which he will assume his earthly kingdom. If we take it to mean this, then we still are moving backward in time with each church – from after the GWT, to during the GWT, and this one would take us all the way back to before the Millennial reign. That seems too much of a jump…but we shall see.

These are faithful Christians, who held fast even when one of their number was martyred. MSB says probably their pastor, and tradition says he was burned to death inside a brass bull. So he was roasted. I cannot imagine such torture. You'd scream for death to relieve the pain...

But there is something against them. This church too has the doctrine of Balaam, described above under Ephesus. They are immoral, the tolerate too much worldly indulgence. Some who hold to the Nicolaitans are also mentioned. Both in Pergamum and Ephesus then, these teachings were prevalent enough for John to call them out.

2023 - These verses:

14 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. 15 So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. [Rev 2:14-15 ESV]. This seems to divide those who follow Balaam from those who follow the Nicolaitans. I comprehend Balaam. He encouraged the pagans to invite Israel to their sex orgies, and so lure them away from the Law with the pleasures of the flesh. I see that. So...I am not sure we ought to be saying that's what the Nicolaitans were doing also. The language used here contrasts the two, indicating that there had to be some significant differences between them. The teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans are serious, but definitely different, problems.

2022 - This vs:

"Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth." [Rev 2:16 ESV]. If one had participated in these doctrines, repentance was required. Therefore, the doctrines were sinful, and need to be “put away” by the faithful. Repentance is not just about being sorry for doing something, it includes a resolve to never do that again, to leave it behind. So does this verse imply that Jesus will himself come and war against the "backsliders" with a deadly sword? I guess maybe, but it seems much more likely that those who hold these doctrines, again, are unsaved and yet inside the church, and following false teachers there who must surely be propagating these false doctrines. John has been very specific in his letters about these teachers, and by inference, those who follow them. These are dangerous to the church, and need to be put out. They are NOT good people gone astray, but unsaved people undermining the gospel of Jesus Christ. These are serious deadly problems within these churches. Satan is very busy inside them.

We ought to see the “war with the sword of my mouth” as possibly the canonization of the writings of the apostles and Paul and all of the New Testament. This is the sword that was coming in the very near future.

2024 - I agree with the little paragraph above, and add this: 21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh. [Rev 19:21 ESV]. Sometimes this phrase means that Christ can kill with a word. He speaks and it is done. So this correction at Pergamum may be a promise of death. We might even expect that if they did not put out the Nicolaitans and Balaamites, that they weren't really saved anyway, and when they are swept up in the coming persecution, they might be killed no matter what they say. The unsaved would surely not endure the persecution.

Thyatira, 2:18-29.

2. The words of “the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze." "Son of God" does not appear in Chapter 1 anywhere. Son, capitalized, is entirely new. The eyes and feet are inside the vision, in vss 14, 15.

So in these four churches, we find references back to 1:12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. At least some phrase from each and every verse that is within the vision, PLUS, we have the introduction of the title “Son of God”, which does not come from either the greeting section or from the vision section.

3. The one who conquers, “to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron…even as I myself have received authority from my Father. AND I will give him the morning star.

This verse:

Now here are three verses about the rod of iron:

9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." [Psa 2:9 ESV]. This reads almost exactly like the verse in Revelation, and we see who that Psalm is about in the next verse:

5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, [Rev 12:5 ESV]. The description is of Christ – both in Psalms and Rev 12:5.

15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. [Rev 19:15 ESV]. This verse again is a description of the rider on the white horse, the second coming of Christ to earth, as conquering King. SO. In some way, those who conquer in Thyatira, and by extension those in the whole church, will do some of the ruling during the Millennial reign. So…we can probably apply this to the raptured, and to those in the first resurrection.

We previously saw that in this verse:

6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years. [Rev 20:6 ESV]. So…the first part of this promise references the time just before the Millennial begins, just as the promise to Pergamum seemed to do…but we doubted. Now we see it again here, at Thyatira.

But what about the second part? “I will give him the morning star”??? This verse perhaps:

16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." [Rev 22:16 ESV]. There are two other quotes, both in the NT, that talk about “morning star”, but I do not believe they are relevant. Perhaps in the same way that he was hidden manna – the bread of life – to the church at Pergamum, he will also give himself as the morning star – the guiding star – in the Millennial.

These are doing good works, even more now than at the first. They have much in their favor. But they have one Jezebel in their church, and they allow her to stay, and many follow her teachings. She claims to be a prophetess. She too is seducing the church with immorality. Some seem to use the freedom from sin that salvation brings to preach that forgiven sins need not be repented. They can instead be indulged, because Christ paid the price. What disrespect of Christ's suffering and death - and the pain our own sins individually caused him - and to think that we can cause him as much pain as we wish, because it's all in the past.

2023 - Think about such a doctrine. It essentially is saying that Jesus died on a cross so that we can do whatever we please, so we can indulge in all the things he preached against, so we can enjoy the world he told us to abandon. How does anyone fall for such a horrendous lie!?!?

It seems God was going to judge this woman himself, and bring trouble to all who have followed her teaching. This would be done as a lesson to other churches allowing such things. She was clearly NOT a prophetess if her teaching was in direct contradiction to God's commandments. Yet...they let her stay.

2022 - Again, a very specific and insidious problem festering inside this church. I maintain still - since there is nothing in the wording that indicates otherwise - that this Jezebel is a false teacher (Women teachers are prohibited. She should never have been given a platform in the first place!), proclaiming false doctrine and diverting (that is an excellent word for the effect of all these false teachings!) people from salvation through the true gospel into a false sense of security and freedom through indulgence in sinful things. (2023 - Freedom TO sin substituted for Freedom FROM sin! Misinterpreted liberty.) By this time, the letters of Paul were surely circulating. They knew the doctrine of the apostles concerning sexual immorality - and yet they were listening to it and practicing it. These were not saved people, but they must have been a large proportion of these churches. Keep in mind that immoral practices – temple prostitutes of both sexes and things like that, were practice by MANY of the pagan religions of that time. What Jezebel – and the Balaamites and the Nicolaitans – were doing was incorporating those practices into the worship services of the NT church in these places! And naturally, the false teachers were doing these things before the NT was canonized. It was just a letter from some guy claiming to be an apostle at this point. It was not yet “the Bible”. So to me, these letters are not about a few "bad seeds", they were about festering rotting sections of the whole apple threatening to corrupt it all. Big big problems. These ought to be searched for and rooted out in every true church. There ought to be a concerted, promoted, and supported "auditing" group charged with searching out false doctrine. But there is not, so far as I know.

2023 - This verse:

22 Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, [Rev 2:22 ESV]. We might see this as a disease striking her. It might be a venereal disease that would quickly spread through all her followers. That phrase about throwing into great tribulation could just mean a wave of persecution perhaps much more intense than any that had previously come to Thyatira, and since Jezebel and her followers would have “characterized” that church, they might be singled out for persecution.

2024 Addendum - Here is one of the three times in ESV the phrase "great tribulation" is used. I thought it was only used once in the whole Bible, and that in Matt 24. But there are three in ESV. If we tie "great tribulation" as an official name for the specific time between the recognition of the SoP and the rapture, which is squarely where I put it, then we would be forced to say the faithful church will avoid this time. I mean that just fits.

Looking at BLB, "I will throw" is in fact present tense, though it is worded here as if it is something to come in the future. That same present tense verb applies to "into great tribulation". We might say then that this warning was about the church at Thyatira, AT THAT TIME, and the great tribulation is NOT a reference to some officially recognized time period, but to a local persecution of that particular church. I find this interpretation much more likely. The next verse seems to confirm the "local" meaning of this warning.

2024 - This verse continues:

23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works. [Rev 2:23 ESV]. I expect that "children" in this sense is a reference to the disciples of this Jezebel. The threat here seems to be something similar to what happened to Ananias and Sapphira. They were struck down as a warning, and that seems to be exactly what was in store for Thyatira if they let Jezebel take over.

2023 - Never noticed this phrase before, in vs 24: "...who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan...". I don't think Jezebel, or the Nicolaitans, or the followers of Balaam were promoting their teaching by selling it as "the deep things of Satan". But I think this verse is telling us that these things were some of Satan's most useful, and therefore most successful strategies against the early church.

Pepper's Homepage

Revelation 2

Revelation Chapter 2