The church confuses many people. Viewed as a worldwide reality, she seems too complex and diverse. Compared to Christ, who is often portrayed as a simple preacher from Galilee, the church is too many things all at once. Liturgically, she is high, low, and no. She has members who seem to live in the atmosphere of the miraculous, and other members who can apparently get along without the supernatural. She has members who reflect their socio-economic and political background almost identically to their non-Christian neighbors, and members who rebel against their culture at every point.

Granted, there are some individuals who consider themselves part of the church of Christ who are not. Some extremists are either deluded, or hypocritical. Some “churches” are missing vital elements which put them outside the parameters as well. But given that, there is still a staggering amount of difference within the churches who claim allegiance to Christ.

tradition

This complexity within the church and churches of Christ is sometimes explained by reference to various traditions which have emerged through her long history. A denomination, for example, can be traced back to a movement where some believers adopted a fellowship among themselves based on shared beliefs, standards and experiences. In most cases, the denomination formed does not seek to deny the validity of other traditions and other churches. Instead, the urgency of the perceived mandate from the Lord encourages the believers to form into a distinct unity amid the diversity.

In the case of the Advent Christian denomination, that mandate was to preach the imminent return, — the second advent of Christ. We were products of several diverse traditions who came together as Adventists because we believed that Jesus was going to literally return to this planet, and soon. In the mid nineteenth century, many of the mainline churches considered the Adventists fanatics, and would disassociate from them. This resulted in more denominations forming, Adventist denominations. This, of course, added to the complexity of Christendom as well.

evolution

Some see a parallel between the changes taking place in the churches and those that evolutionary theory suggests happens in biology. Over time, minute differences become more prominent, and eventually result in the creation of new species. At any given time, there are strains of DNA which are in the process of mutating, and hold promise for the emergence of some new variety or species. In evolutionary biology, there are two major factors at work in these mutations: the coding within the DNA itself, and the environment with its various promptings acting on it. One does not have to be an atheist or secularist to see that something similar to that happens to churches.

pragmatism

Another way that people try to explain why churches emerge and change, thrive or die, unite or divide, is pragmatism. Things change because the way things are does not seem to work well. When the dissatisfaction over perceived uselessness reaches critical mass, churches split, people relocate, new organizations form. When the present structure is no longer serving its intended function, the usual solution is to form new structures, or stay the same, and eventually cease to exist.

explaining diversity

Neither of these comparisons explain fully all of the dynamics of ecclesiastical diversity, but each is a component to the explanation. There is within each individual believer an impulse to rebel and a separate impulse to preserve. There is a fierce drive to preserve the code, and an urge to mutate. There is comfort amid similarity, and a desire to try something different – something that might work better.

In the church cosmos, we use different terms for these realities. We talk about orthodoxy and heresy, traditional and conservative, radical and old-school, and use a host of other labels. Whatever terminology we avail ourselves of, it is clear that we are describing a complex and diverse corpus, which is undergoing a constant process of change.

Here, then, is the puzzle. How can we reconcile this picture of what the church is with all of the other descriptions of the church revealed in the scriptures? The church is one body, chosen from among the nations, saved from among the lost, transformed into a new unity by one Holy Spirit, gathered into a unified fellowship and purpose, calling out to the world with one voice, proclaiming the one gospel. With all of these emphases of unity, how do we explain biblically the constant splitting, forming and reforming that has characterized our history?

For some, the only explanation is that we (at present) are right and they (in the past) are wrong. The current rediscovered tradition is biblical, while all that came before are unbiblical, and all current challenges to change are of the devil. They spend their lives defending the code against mutations. They know what works, and will not listen to evidence to the contrary. Others are equally convinced that the old traditions are what is killing the church. They see a fresh start as the only way to preserve the species. They see themselves in a congregation of Pharisees, and seek rescue in change. The conflict among these two polar opposites within the church often repels people.

church government

The competing methods used for church government has long been an example of how this polarization has affected us. Some of the major movements that have produced large and long-lasting denominational entities have focused on a particular method of church government. The Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches emphasize a structure where each local assembly is under the guidance and control of leaders in a military-like chain of command. The Presbyterian denominations have championed a leadership of delegated elders who lead by consensus and cooperation. Congregationalist churches have stressed the need for democracy, and the protection of the rights of individuals against their potential abuse by those in power.

The tendency has been for these major ecclesiastical movements to attack the others and defend themselves on the grounds that only one method of church government can be the biblical method. Behind that argument is the assumption that the early church had only one method of governance. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Evidence from the New Testament suggests that there were many methods of governance used simultaneously among local fellowships and in the body as a whole.

Pentecost

Already, at the very genesis of the New Testament church, there was an overlapping combination of governance systems in place for believers. The eleven apostles who had been appointed by Christ himself added to their number in order to replace the betrayer. These appointed missionaries continued to serve as leaders throughout the early church, and other apostles appear to have been appointed by the Holy Spirit in that role as well.[1]

But the Pentecost saints were Jewish believers, who were used to being represented by elders within their communities and in the synagogues. It is clear from the book of Acts that elder rule continued to play an important role throughout the early church.[2] So, already there are at least two systems, with no clear chain-of-command among them. The elders of the Jewish/Christian communities were not forced to denounce their role, nor were they gathered together and burned at the stake. The more complicated dual method of governance was allowed to exist, with no need for correction implied.

the diaconate

Within a matter of days, the rapidly growing church, reaching out to the Hellenist communities, felt the need to further expand its leader structure.

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing

in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against

the Hebrews because their widows were being

neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve

summoned the full number of the disciples and said,

“It is not right that we should give up preaching the

word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers,

pick out from among you seven men of good repute,

full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will

appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves

to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what

they said pleased the whole gathering, and they

chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy

Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and

Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of

Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and

they prayed and laid their hands on them.[3]

The leadership dynamics revealed in this incident are very telling. The apostles were seen as spokesmen for the body as a whole, but there was already a group of godly, Spirit filled men who were serving as heads of the bodies within the body. Although not mentioned by name here, it seems clear that these were the elders. But the influx of an entirely different group of believers from a different cultural context has lead to a need for a different kind of leadership, or at least a modification of the existing system.

It appears that the people are suggesting that the apostles take over the role of overseeing the distribution of funds/food. They were not willing to do this, since it would involve less time preaching and teaching – work within the original parameters of their call. The better response to the people’s appeal was to establish a new leadership structure.

Now, the apostles could have responded to this appeal for reform by rejecting it. They could have told the complainers that they have elders and that is all they are going to get. Instead, they saw the current crisis as an opportunity to improve on the system by making it more complex, thereby more flexible. They appear to have been more motivated to meet the needs of their people rather than to preserve their standard operating procedures.

These new leaders are not given titles in the text. While some see this as the beginning of the office of deacon, the new leaders are not specifically titled as such. More likely, they were called elders. Yet, it is obvious that the role of deacon, which would become more prominent later in the New Testament, has its beginning here. These early deacons were elders, but had a specific administrative role. At least one New Testament text indicates that this became the case for other churches in the New Testament period: Paul addresses his letter to the Philippians “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.”[4] There is no mention of elders, presumably because by that time the position had divided into two roles: overseers (with spiritual authority) and deacons (with practical administrative authority).

Acts 6 shows a kind of evolutionary process occurring in church government. As the needs develop, the church is allowed to adjust itself to meet those needs. There is an interplay between several different types of authority structure here. There are appointed apostles, delegate elders, appointed administrative elders/deacons, and there is the congregation as a whole, or “the whole gathering” which is allowed to have its say as well.

Council

A few chapters later, another example of this multi-faceted leadership displays itself. A Council convenes in Jerusalem to decide how Jewish one has to be to qualify as a Christian. When the decision is made, it is announced as the result of a collaborative effort from three groups of leaders: “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church.”[5] So, although the apostles are appealed to, the leadership roles of the community elders are not side-stepped, nor is the will of the entire body. Throughout history, there will be many councils convened. Sadly, some of them will not seek the kind of consensus that was evidenced at the one recorded in Acts 15.

complexity breeds confusion

The evolution toward more complex leadership structures has resulted in some negatives. The original meaning and purpose behind some of the early titles has been lost or replaced. Elders (presbuteroi) were not merely lay leaders whose responsibility was to keep the clergy honest. Bishops (overseers: episcopoi) were not originally one level above local church leadership, but had oversight of local congregations. Deacons (deaconoi) were not one rank below elders, but elders with a different function than that of overseers (episcopoi). Both deacons and bishops were elders. Apostles (in the generic sense, roughly equivalent to the modern term missionary) were not limited to the twelve. Yet, in each of these cases, the meaning of the term has become obscured or changed as new leadership structures emerged, and roles changed for those who took on the titles.

the “biblical”pattern

As a result of this evolution, and the confusion that exists about the meaning of leadership titles, it is a very dangerous thing to argue for only one kind of leadership structure on the grounds that it is the biblical pattern. Vast amounts of time and effort have been wasted attempting to do just that. The assumption that the LORD wants us to return to some original design for leadership as depicted in the New Testament churches is flawed for two reasons: 1) there is no monolithic leadership structure ever revealed in the New Testament as a whole, 2) the New Testament reflects a pattern of change within its leadership to respond to the needs of the churches’ members, and to reach the world with the gospel.

the body

The best explanation of this reality is found in a metaphor the New Testament uses to describe the church. She is the body of Christ.[6] A body has one head, but it is also a combination of inter-related systems, with different purposes and functions. The Church government puzzle cannot best be solved by means of tradition,evolutionary theory, or pragmatism. The best answers to the puzzle come when believers take the body of Christ metaphor seriously, and see themselves as a combination of interrelated systems designed not to have dominion over each other, but to equally submit to the head. When we ask the question of who among the members is in charge, we risk belittling someone’s role and function.

For the body does not consist of one member

but of many. If the foot should say, “Because

I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,”

that would not make it any less a part of the

body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am

not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that

would not make it any less a part of the body.

If the whole body were an eye, where would

be the sense of hearing? If the whole body

were an ear, where would be the sense of

smell? But as it is, God arranged the members

in the body, each one of them, as he chose.

If all were a single member, where would the

body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet

one body.[7]

The multi-systemic approach, allowing for multiple different types of church government (operating simultaneously) best preserves the body analogy. It also allows for all-important checks and balances against tyranny and spiritual abuse. It also allows different church organizations, missions, and conferences to emerge which function within their cultural norms, instead of being forced to operate the way their parent church or mission did.

There will be dangers in such an approach. A church which is constantly redefining herself can be distracted from her primary mission. A multi-systemic approach can lead to fighting for prominence among the various types of leaders. Confusion can occur as to who is responsible to whom. Yet, all of these problems existed in the early church, and still she was remarkably successful at her mission. The genius of a multi-systemic approach is that it is flexible enough to adjust to the needs of the present, instead of being trapped in outdated structures inherited from the past.

A body changes over time. At certain phases in a body’s development, certain functions become more important, more protected. When those phases are over, other functions take the lead. This fluidity and flexibility is what makes growth possible. It preserves the organism, and prevents stagnation and decay. It allows the body to continue to be what it is. A flexible approach to governing the church will ensure that she continues to be the LORD’s chosen, saved, transformed, gathered body, speaking with his voice.

---

[1] Acts 1:2, 26; 2:37, 43; 4:33, 36; 5:12, 18, 29, 40; 6:6; 8:1, 14; 9:27; 11:1; 14:4, 14; 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4; Rom. 1:1; 11:13; 16:7; 1 Cor. 1:1; 4:9; 9:1f, 5; 12:28f; 15:7, 9; 2 Cor. 1:1; 11:13; 12:12; Gal. 1:1, 17, 19; Eph. 1:1; 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 2:6; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:1, 11; Titus 1:1; Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1; 3:2; Jude 1:17; Rev. 2:2; 18:20; 21:14.

[2] Acts 4:5, 8, 23; 6:12; 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 22:5; 23:14; 24:1; 25:15.

[3] Acts 6:1-6 ESV.

[4] Philippians 1:1 ESV.

[5] Acts 15:22 ESV.

[6] 1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 4:12.

[7] 1 Corinthians 12:14-20 ESV.

John’s Revelation describes (among other things) the conflict that believers will have in this age before Christ’s return. He depicts that conflict as a battle between them and a great dragon, representing Satan. John reveals that the battle will be won by Christ. Christ will return and depose the great dragon from his usurped place in heaven. John explains that there will be three key elements to the church’s endurance, which will overcome the dragon:

“And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying,

“Now the salvation and the power and the

kingdom of our God and the authority of his

Christ have come, for the accuser of our

brothers has been thrown down, who accuses

them day and night before our God. And they

have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb

and by the word of their testimony, for they

loved not their lives even unto death.”[1]

Those key elements can be described this way: 1) the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, 2) the things proclaimed by the church as Christ’s voice on the earth, 3) the courage and selfless devotion of the church in the face of demonic opposition.

The first of these three key elements is what Christ did for us on Calvary’s cross. It cannot be changed, and its results are ours to enjoy. We know that whatever happens to us in this life, another awaits us at Christ’s return because the sin that would keep us from eternal life has been atoned for. The tree of life is once again available for redeemed humanity to partake in. What’s more, any victory we might experience over the devil in this life is contingent on that victory already accomplished.

The latter two elements in the success of the church in enduring Satan’s attacks are conditional. Believers must have the courage to deny themselves and follow Christ wherever he leads, even if we, too, must go to our deaths. Believers must also take up the task of testifying to the existence and significance of Christ. We overcome the enemy by testifying of Christ. We, the church, must be the current earthly voice of our risen Lord.

The Church has not exhibited an unbroken succession of centuries dedicated to the high ideals established for her in scripture. Rather, the current earthly voice of God has often struggled with Satanically orchestrated political antagonism from without and religious apostasy from within. The marks of the true Church have not always been evident, but have never been completely hidden. One place where the Bible shows that reality is Jesus’ letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3.

letters from Jesus

John was the last of the apostles who had trained under Jesus, and had been witnesses to his resurrection. He had been instrumental in establishing a number of churches throughout the Roman province of Asia Minor. The Roman emperor had John banished to the island of Patmos, but allowed people to visit him. These visitors could bring messages from the churches to their elder, John, and receive messages that they could bring back to the churches. The Greek word for messenger is angelos, so our English bibles usually refer to these messengers as “angels.”[2] They were not. They were human messengers, and often Jesus condemned their sins as well as those of the churches they served. These letters to the churches described the state of the church in general in the late first century, but they also serve as a pretty good description of the church in general down through the ages.

A survey of these letters can give believers a good glimpse at the kind of struggles that await us as we seek to be Christ’s earthly voice in this age of conflict. Jesus has some very high praise to give to some who were victorious in the conflict (in the first century), and some severe warnings to those who did not quite measure up to that aspiration. Readers today are left to determine which category they should be placed in.

Ephesus – the orthodox voice

The letter to Ephesus begins: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.”[3] The salutation reflects back on the vision of Jesus revealed in 1:12-16, where our Lord is pictured holding stars in his hand, and walking among seven lampstands. Revelation 1:20 leaves no question as to what these images stand for: “As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels (messengers) of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” Both lampstands and stars are images which suggest the shedding of light, which is often used in the Bible for the passing on of knowledge.[4] As believers, the messengers were responsible to take the message of Jesus, the light of the world,[5] to the world. The churches they represented had the same responsibility, because all believers are also the light of the world.[6] Jesus stands amidst the lampstands, ready to remove any church that refuses to remain lit with the knowledge of the gospel.

It can be reasonably assumed that Ephesus had remained orthodox. They were continuing to teach the gospel message, unadulterated, in spite of challenges they had faced. This is actually encouraging news, because the city of Ephesus was known for its paganism, and Paul warned Timothy that he would have to confront false teachers as he ministered there.[7] Jesus commended them for their endurance under this pressure to paganize. He told them “I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary.”[8] He also commended them because they “hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which (he) also” hated.[9] It is not clear whether this refers back to those who falsely claimed apostleship, or another group. Regardless, it is clear that Ephesus had a reputation of remaining orthodox in spite of the challenge of false teachings.

But Jesus did have a warning for these stalwarts of orthodoxy. He told them “I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. 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.”[10] His complaint was not that the church in Ephesus had abandoned the truth, but that they had abandoned the work. They were theologically accurate, but missiologically flawed. They had stopped doing the things that they were still teaching. Jesus warned them that if they did not turn back and do the things that they had originally done – their first love — they were in danger of being replaced.

Love does more than just say “I love you.” Love proves itself by works. Faith that does not work is dead faith.[11]

If Ephesus passes this test and goes back to practicing what it preaches, Jesus promises them this: “To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.”[12] Readers will remember that the Garden of Eden had two prominent trees in its midst, one forbidden, one not. The forbidden tree was that of the knowledge of good and evil. After eating of this tree, our ancestors were banished from the garden so that they would not have opportunity to partake of the tree of life, and live forever.[13] God prevented humanity from having immortality because immortality would be a curse in our fallen, sinful condition. Jesus promises the Ephesians that if they continued to do the works of the gospel, as well as proclaim its truth, they would have access to the tree of eternal life. In the final vision of Revelation, we discover that this tree will be present in the New Jerusalem.[14]

At many times throughout its history, the church of Jesus Christ has resembled the church at Ephesus. We have often gone to war with ourselves over doctrine rather than obey his teachings about loving one another. We have acted like the Pharisees, whom Jesus said would “travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, (they) make him twice as much a child of hell as (themselves).”[15] Good theology is important, but it can never be the only goal. We were commanded to make disciples, not merely converts. A convert knows, a disciple does.

Smyrna – the tested voice

Jesus introduces himself to the church at Smyrna as “the first and the last, who died and came to life.”[16] He is the first of the children of Adam who would be raised from the dead, and the last of the children of Adam who would ever need to fear death, because now he has the keys to death and Hades (the grave).[17] Death is a prison that we all await, but we need not fear it, because Christ came before us, conquered death, and has a set of shiny keys dangling from his belt. No one need ever fear death again, because he can rescue us from it. He will do that by raising us from the dead when he returns.

If anyone needed to keep that picture before them, it was the believers in Smyrna. Notice how what Jesus says to them is sandwiched by the word “tribulation.” He says “I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation.”[18] Believers in Smyrna were about to undergo severe trial, persecution, accusation, imprisonment, and would be threatened with death itself.

As a missionary, I have at times struggled with just what to say to people who are putting their lives on the line by preaching the gospel in a hostile culture. I want to encourage believers to keep being salt and light in their contexts. At the same time, I have questioned my own motives, because I have wondered how vocal I would be if living in a nation that forcefully opposed that voice.

Jesus told the believers in Smyrna to “Be faithful unto death, and (promised to) give (them) the crown of life.”[19] Their ordeal of testing was likened to an Olympic game, in which the winning contestants would have undergone great testing, but would emerge from it victorious, wearing a crown. The crown would be the same thing that Jesus had promised the victorious church at Ephesus: life itself. To wear the crown of life is the same thing as taking from the tree of life: it is to be raised from the dead when Christ returns. In the end, that is the only victory that matters.

The believers at Smyrna could also take solace in the fact that Jesus promised their time of testing to be limited. What those ten days of testing were, we can only speculate. We do know that at least some would pass the test. Some would live to see the time of testing completed, and gain victory over the apostate Jewish community by surviving their attacks. Others would gain victory by martyrdom, as all of the other apostles besides John had already done. In either case, Jesus warned that this time of testing was coming, and urged the believers in Smyrna to be like their brothers in Ephesus, who had been famous for their endurance.[20]

The church of Jesus Christ has never known a time when not put to the test. Although some speak of “the tribulation” as if it is some special event that will happen in history, Jesus told his disciples that in the world they (and we who follow them) would have tribulation.[21] He spoke of some professing Christians whose lives have no root, who fall away in time of testing.[22] The sad fact is, many who claim to trust in Christ will give in the temptation to abandon that faith if it is challenged. The voice becomes the voice of the accused and incarcerated. It is then that we need to hear the encouragement of the apostle:

“Who shall separate us from the love of

Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or

persecution, or famine, or nakedness,

or danger, or sword? As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the

day long; we are regarded as sheep to be

slaughtered.” No, in all these things we

are more than conquerors through him

who loved us. For I am sure that neither

death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor

things present nor things to come, nor

powers, nor height nor depth, nor any-

thing else in all creation, will be able to

separate us from the love of God in

Christ Jesus our Lord.”[23]

A voice that keeps proclaiming the gospel of life in the midst of threats of its own death is an authentic voice. There can be no suggestion that this voice is being sounded out of ulterior motives. The gallows and chopping block have a way of purifying the church. It is no wonder that history records many of these times of testing. While it is improper for Christians to pray for persecution, it is quite possible that without it, the earthly voice of Christ might have been muted.

Pergamum – the compromised voice

Jesus introduces himself to the messenger from Pergamum by again referring back to the vision that John had just seen of him. He describes himself as “him who has the sharp two-edged sword.”[24] In the vision, Jesus is not holding that sword. It is coming out of his mouth.[25]

In the Old Testament, God’s people were pictured as wielding two-edged swords, executing his vengeance on his enemies.[26] Fathers warned their sons to stay away from forbidden women, because although their lips seem to drip honey, and their speech be as smooth as oil, in the end they will prove to be as bitter as wormwood, and as “sharp as a two-edged sword.”[27] The common denominator in these two references is that of impending judgment.

In the New Testament, apart from the two references in Revelation, the two-edged sword appears in a passage from Hebrews:

“So then, there remains a Sabbath rest

for the people of God, for whoever has

entered God’s rest has also rested from

his works as God did from his. Let us

therefore strive to enter that rest, so

that no one may fall by the same sort of

disobedience. For the word of God is

living and active, sharper than any two-

edged sword, piercing to the division of

soul and of spirit, of joints and of

marrow, and discerning the thoughts

and intentions of the heart. And no

creature is hidden from his sight, but

all are naked and exposed to the eyes

of him to whom we must give account.

Since then we have a great high priest

who has passed through the heavens,

Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast

our confession. For we do not have a

high priest who is unable to sympathize

with our weaknesses, but one who in

every respect has been tempted as we

are, yet without sin. Let us then with

confidence draw near to the throne of

grace, that we may receive mercy and

find grace to help in time of need.”[28]

The church at Pergamum is in danger of some kind of heresy – some kind of compromise. They live in a place so well-known for its evil that Satan himself is said to live there. A church living in such a place is bound to be tempted to contextualize a bit too much.

Jesus identifies two different teachings that were prevalent in Pergamum. First, he spoke of the “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.”[29] Most of us remember this prophet for his tendency to speak to animals. Jesus reminds his readers of another incident in Balaam’s life, when he tricked the Israelites into sinning. Pergamum apparently had some prophets who were leading the church astray.

The second group Jesus refers to as “some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans.”[30] Jesus had commended the Ephesians for hating the works of the Nicolaitans, but did not explain what those works were. Both the Ephesians and the believers in Pergamum knew full well what the Nicolaitans were teaching. While the Ephesian Christians had been able to resist their influence, the church at Pergamum had not. They had been compromised by – not one, but two heresies.

It is possible that the reference to the two-edged sword is a clue to the nature of the problem at Pergamum. The author of Hebrews spoke of the grace of God as a new Sabbath rest for the people of God. Believers can trust in God’s completed work through Christ and rest in his grace, with no need to prove their worthiness by works of their own. Christ is our high priest, interceding for us, and because of his atonement, we can now enter into God’s presence by his merit, not our own. Probably the heresies being propagated in Pergamum were adding some kind of works for personal merit to grace.

Jesus commands the church at Pergamum to repent. This is significant because Jesus has not charged the entire church of heresy. He had merely stated that some within the church were holding the teaching of Balaam, and some (others) the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Yet, Jesus warns that he is coming soon, and will actively “war against” those heretics “with the sword of (his) mouth.”[31] He promises to actively intervene in the affairs of this congregation and execute his vengeance on those who have fallen away from grace. The implication is that if the whole church does not repent and rid itself of these heresies, the whole church is in danger of losing its lamp-stand.

The church in history has – at times – sought to eradicate itself of heretics. Many have turned away from religion altogether because of stories of hangings, drowning, torture, burnings and beheadings in the name of eradicating heretics. It sickens people to know that such things have been done in the name of Christ, and rightfully so. Jesus has never commanded such action. His one command in the face of heresy – so evident here – can be summed up in one word: repent. The problem is not that such teachings exist. The problem in Pergamum was that the congregation was allowing them to exist within it. A Church that repents of false teachings, disassociating herself from them, is a church that overcomes this test.

Jesus promises that those who overcome this test will be given some of the hidden manna, and “a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it”[32] These references probably also identified the particular teachings Jesus was warning against. He wanted the believers to realize that the promises of these false teachers were false. Throughout its history, the church has been inundated by esoteric teachings which promised some secret blessing to their adherents. By speaking out against this kind of thing at Pergamum, Jesus is warning us all against falling for that kind of deception. The true gospel is not a secret. It is a message for everyone.

Thyatira – the seduced voice

The problems in Thyatira are very similar to those in Pergamum. False teachings have entered into the congregation, and threaten to cause the church to lose its identity as a source of the gospel. In Thyatira, however, the false teachings appear to come from a leader within the church itself. Jesus names her “that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants”[33] This woman has apparently gained some kind of position of authority within the group of churches, and is passing her false teachings on to other leaders within the congregations. In the Old Testament, Jezebel was the queen of king Ahab, a powerful woman who forced her pagan religion upon the Israelites. She took advantage of her position of authority to introduce syncretism and impurity into Israel. The New Testament Jezebel was doing the same thing.

Jesus introduces himself to the messenger from Thyatira as “the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze.” Unlike Jezebel, whose power was in her impurity and her ability to make others impure, Christ’s power is in his purity. He will invade the churches at Thyatira, first throwing Jezebel onto a sickbed, and giving her followers tribulation, unless they repent of her works. He will then strike her children dead, so that “all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”[34]

The members of the churches at Thyatira were, in one way, opposite of those at Ephesus. Ephesus had been commended for defending the truth, but criticized for not following their orthodoxy through with appropriate works. Jesus told the believers at Thyatira “I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.”[35] He does not call on this church to repent. He did call on Jezebel to repent, and she refuses to do so. He will visit those who have been seduced by her. To the rest, he simply encourages them to “hold fast” what they have.[36]

Sardis – the sleeping voice

Jesus told the messenger from Sardis that he was a dead man. He said “You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead.”[37] This was a church that was going through the motions, but was asleep to its own existence and calling. Jesus commands them to wake up, and warns that if they do not, he will come against them suddenly, like a thief.[38]

Philadelphia — the faithful voice

The only church that Jesus has no criticism for is that at Philadelphia. Instead, he tells them “Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.”[39] The churches and believers who remain faithful in spite of the challenges they face will become pillars in the temple of God, residents of the new Jerusalem.[40]

Laodicea — the lukewarm voice

Jesus condemned the seventh church because they were like lukewarm water, neither cold nor hot.[41] Since they had the things they needed in life, they felt no compulsion to be radical with their religion. They were just there. It is to this group that Jesus presents himself as a visitor, knocking at the door. That relationship that the church in Laodicea assumed they had was possible, but they had to pursue it. Taking it for granted was producing a tepid faith, and remaining in that lukewarm state would be disastrous.

ears and shoes

To each messenger and church Jesus repeated this same advice: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”[42] The advice is similar to the common expression “if the shoe fits, wear it.” Jesus challenges all churches and all believers of all ages to consider the plight of these seven churches in first century Asia Minor. The challenges they faced as they attempted to be Christ’s earthly voice are the same challenges we face. The church must not be distracted or sidetracked. The testimony must continue. The voice must not be allowed to be silenced.

---

[1] Revelation 12:10-11 ESV.

[2] Revelation 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,14.

[3] Revelation 2:1 ESV.

[4] Psalm 42:16; 43:3; Daniel 2:22; John 12:35.

[5] John 8:12; 9:5-6.

[6] Matthew 5:14.

[7] 1 Timothy 1:7; 2 Timothy 4:3.

[8] Revelation 2:2-3 ESV.

[9] Revelation 2:6.

[10] Revelation 2:4-5 ESV.

[11] James 2:17, 26.

[12] Revelation 2:7.

[13] Genesis 3:22.

[14] Revelation 22:2, 14, 19.

[15] Matthew 23:15.

[16] Revelation 2:8.

[17] Revelation 1:17-18.

[18] Revelation 2:9-10a.

[19] Revelation 2:10b.

[20] Revelation 2:2-3.

[21] John 16:33.

[22] Luke 8:13.

[23] Romans 8:35 39 ESV.

[24] Revelation 2:12.

[25] Revelation 1:16.

[26] Psalm 149:6.

[27] Proverbs 5:3-4.

[28] Hebrews 4:9-16 ESV.

[29] Revelation 2:14 ESV.

[30] Revelation 2:15 ESV.

[31] Revelation 2:16.

[32] Revelation 2:17 ESV.

[33] Revelation 2:20 ESV.

[34] Revelation 2:23 ESV.

[35] Revelation 2:19 ESV.

[36] Revelation 2:25.

[37] Revelation 3:1 ESV.

[38] Revelation 3:2-3.

[39] Revelation 3:10 ESV.

[40] Revelation 3:12.

[41] Revelation 3:16.

[42] Revelation 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22.