As indicated previously, the idea of the seven Church messages representing a prophetic Church of Messiah historical path is not new. In fact it is an idea which has actually lost momentum over the last few decades. This “Church era” dynamic, in light of the evidence produced herein, should however reinforce earlier contentions and be considered a most reasonable and still further only logical exegetical approach.
Before the interpretive analysis of the individual Church messages from Yeshua is undertaken, we should first recap some earlier developed materials within this work regarding these messages to the Churches.
The reader should recall the significance of “seven” with respects to the Seven Spirits of G_D, the Sacred Shabbat, the Seven Sacred Festivals and G_D’s Sacred Torah; these aspects just cannot be ignored. Ultimately seven cannot be separated from either a time or path construct when viewed in a Scriptural Hebraic context. The correlation of the sacred “seven” to the seven Church communities and delivery path/road taken cannot simply be ignored or viewed as being sheer coincidence.
These connections seem fairly obvious when viewed in the proper Hebraic context. On the other hand, with the Church of Messiah seemingly incapable of thinking in this manner, it also is apparent why then these connections remain mysterious. From one perspective it could be presumed the failure to see this connection is strictly a function of culture, tradition and embedded theological doctrine. From another perspective however one needs to entertain the possibility that discerning this connection is simply not expedient or convenient for the modern Church of Messiah.
The author will also point out that previous attempts to interpret these seven Church messages have not withstood serious scrutiny simply because these efforts failed to develop the proper contextual framework which in essence represents the supporting foundation for the ultimate interpretation put forth.
Within this work contentions have been made which indicate the Earthly Gentile Church of Messiah will eventually run a designed course and ultimately give way in the end days. The author has asserted that the Gentile Church of Messiah has not replaced Israel within the auspices of G_D’s eternal covenant with his chosen people, but rather, have become a part thereof. The author has contended the Gentile Church of Messiah has strayed from the Hebraic roots and Scripture handed down by G_D to the Hebrew oracles. Ultimately it is the author’s conclusion that the Gentile Church of Messiah has become something other than what Yeshua imparted to his first apostles and is in need of repentance.
Once again the author will reiterate this last declaration certainly is not to be translated to mean that “salvation” for individual believers cannot be found within the Gentile Church of Messiah. Undoubtedly there are some individuals from nearly all Christian belief systems who have been gifted the Holy Spirit through genuine faith in Yeshua. Of this the author is confident.
In looking at Holy Scripture however we must accept the reality and truth of the prophecies which are contained within, regardless of the implications. We see from Holy Scripture where order will not be restored by G_D until the time of the Gentiles comes to an end. We see from Holy Scripture where the end times will be one controlled by the beast and where the beast himself will attempt to usurp the place of the Most High G_D and ascend to his very throne. We see from Holy Scripture where the end times will be dark and dreadful days of retribution upon a sinful and unrepentant Earth. When the Son of Man returns in the end days we can objectively see from Scripture that the “Church age” is simply nowhere to be seen. These times will be the time when the Earth is under judgment and the Son of Man has come to exact G_D’s retribution on the sinful world.
So the great questions then are: What happens to the Gentile Church of Messiah which culturally and historically is inextricably connected with modern Western Civilization? What happens to a collective Gentile Church of Messiah that currently comprises approximately one third of the planet’s population?
These are the great questions we seek the answers to by reviewing the messages to the seven Churches.
Remembering this is a “Church era” construct whereby Yeshua is prophesying about the general conditions of his Earthly Church in a future time, it will be incumbent upon the author to establish the following key aspects: the time frame and general welfare of the Church during each of these Church eras. To this extent the individual Church messages will be interpreted keeping in mind this incumbent requirement.
For purposes of structure and systematic discourse the author has reviewed the seven Church messages in search of a uniform literary approach. The seven messages can in effect be categorized as having all or a subset of the following components:
1) Image of Yeshua,
2) Declared Positives,
3) Declared Negatives,
4) A Warning,
5) Declared Reward, and lastly what the author will call
6) Extras. These extras are additional positive or negative commentaries which are found out of place or seemingly ambiguous commentary apparently meant for an alternative purpose.
All of these Church message components are meaningful and subsequently where applicable each will be reviewed.
The reader should be forewarned with all of these prophetic messages; there will typically never be the discrete “smoking gun;” as previously detailed this is not the way G_D works. What we do have however is the luxury of two thousand years of history on our side. As such, history will play a key role in establishing the chronology of the messages. Furthermore we do have the contextual framework which has been laboriously developed within this work. Ultimately then we have a method of check and balance. Because the contextual framework has been exposed, as well as the review of “The Vision” components, it will be easy to identify interpretations which are not supported by the framework. Ultimately the author will not have the luxury of taking liberties with fanciful interpretations which cannot be supported by the established framework!
Without the proverbial smoking guns the supporting arguments will be made by examination of the total body of circumstantial evidence presented within each Church message. Circumstantial evidence, as will be seen however, can be very convincing and in most cases overwhelming.
* * * * * * *
(1) Unto the angel of the Church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; (2) I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: (3) And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast labored, and hast not fainted. (4) Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. (5) Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (6) But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate. (7) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of G_D. (Revelations 2:1–7)
Letter to Ephesus Components
Image of Yeshua: He holds the seven stars and walks amidst the seven golden candlesticks.
Positives: Works, labor, patience and cannot bear them that are evil! … Have tried the false apostles and found them to be liars. … Hast worked and labored without fainting in Yeshua’s Name.
Negatives: Thou hast left thy first love.
Warning: Remember from whence thou art fallen and repent; do the first works or else Yeshua will come quickly and remove thy candlestick out of his place.
Extras: Thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes which Yeshua also hates.
Reward: To him that overcomes Yeshua will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of paradise.
* * * * * * *
Letter to Ephesus Commentary
In opening we see Yeshua the Messiah as the one who holds the seven stars and walks amidst the seven candlesticks. As previously noted the stars are representative of the Church messengers while the candlesticks are representative of his Earthly Church. This is the only Church message where Yeshua presents both the seven stars and the seven candlesticks together.
Utilizing the “Church era” context we see Yeshua, in holding all seven stars, declaring to his Earthly Church that this message is in fact for all messengers and therefore all of his Church. Because Ephesus is the first Church message, and hence the first Church era, the clear indication is this message is in no way limited to Ephesus and therefore is pertinent in some manner to all the Church eras. This of course can only be accurate if the message is one of prophecy thereby making the message important to ensuing Church periods.
We should not lose sight that Messiah walking amidst the seven candlesticks is clearly indicative of a complete Church. In context of the “Church era” theme it should then be seen that this represents the beginning of the journey where the entire delivery path, or seven Church eras, is declared.
Moving now to the positives which Yeshua declares, we see a recognizable Church laboring greatly; producing many works while at the same time putting up with much evil and dealing with false apostles.
Interestingly enough we see in Revelation 2:3 a near repeat of the positive applause in 2:2; we see patience, labors for the namesake of Yeshua the Messiah, the unwillingness to falter/faint and also that the Church has “borne.”
The reader should recognize the repetitive nature of passages is typically seen throughout Scripture to indicate emphasis. Subsequently we are seeing by this redundancy the emphatic description of the extremely hard working and patient Church of Messiah. Additionally the use of the word “borne” can also provide us insight to the time frame when viewed in more detail.
When we look at this word we see a variety of meanings:
“Borne:” 1) To hold up/support; 2) To carry from one place to another; transport; 3) To transmit at large; relate; 4) To carry (oneself ) in a specified way; conduct; 5) To be accountable for; assume; 6) To give birth to; 7) To produce; yield; To offer; render. (26)
The use of this word by Yeshua to this Church, a word not associated with any other Church era message, is clearly descriptive of the very early Church of Messiah. Supposedly one could argue that this term might apply to other large growth periods of the Church of Messiah, but ultimately we are left with the natural and common sense implication of the word “borne” representing a birth or beginning.
In a short sighted sense, the word could be translated strictly as “persevere” however in a broad sense, as more appropriately defined by the various meanings listed above, one should readily see that only the early Church of Messiah really fits this description.
The author implores the reader to ask oneself: if “borne” does not best describe the early Church era of Messiah then what possible one word descriptor more appropriately does?
In light of this birthing effort we can then view the reference to “not fainting” with a clearer understanding. When coupled with the tireless efforts of witnessing and bearing the burden without fainting, what we are left with is only the early Church that did indeed birth and persevere against all odds. Persevere in a way of a mother laboring to give birth. In no other time period could the Church of Messiah be under more duress nor need an effort of astounding proportions to survive.
This introspection however is not all the evidence pointing to an early Church era. The reference to battling false apostles should without argument place this time frame within the earliest of Church eras. Certainly from a historic perspective the Apostolic Age and shortly thereafter is the time frame when the term apostle is most readily applied. Although the term apostle has been utilized throughout the ages, from a common sense perspective one should inevitably think of the very early Church when the term “apostle” is invoked.
These so noted references represent the overt indications of which Church age is being alluded to but as we will soon see these references are certainly not the most convincing elements of the evidential body. The author would like to turn the reader’s attention to a few additional and less overt references in this Church letter for review.
We have already seen where Yeshua walking amidst the seven candlesticks is representative of his Universal centricity. We may also view this from a Church era message as a declaration that Yeshua’s presence or impact would be most prominent or profound within this first Church era.
When we think in terms of conviction and strength of faith associated with the infantile and early Church of Messiah, without knocking contemporary people of today, we surely must admit that we cannot know what it must have been like to be alive in the early Church days. To hear preaching from those who personally knew Yeshua; to witness divine healings and miracles right before our eyes; to possibly even have seen and heard Yeshua himself. There can be no doubt this would have been the era with the strongest faith and most conviction. This would have been the era with the most zeal. This would have been the era where Yeshua was most profoundly in their midst!
Moving now to Revelation 2:6, Yeshua declares his hatred for the Nicolaitanes, an author dubbed “extra,” while applauding the early Church for their similar disdain of them. As should be seen this identifiable “positive” for the early Church seems to be an after-thought given its placement in the message; or perhaps not.
The placement of this reference within the message to the Church seems odd and out of place, does it not? Obviously this positive reference for the early Church logically should have been placed in verses two or three of chapter two where the other applause from Yeshua was given. But the reference is made even after the warning to repent was declared.
It would seem then this reference is separated and positioned in such a way as to be given prominence. Subsequently the author believes this reference to “Nicolaitanes” in fact needs some further review.
To begin some scholars would contend, with minimal historical support, that the Nicolaitanes were the followers of an early Church notable, one Nicolas of Antioch. Nicolas was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles—see Acts chapter six.
These Nicolaitanes purportedly lead lives of unrestrained indulgence without spiritual concerns, due to their belief that all sins were covered under the blanket of grace once a believer accepted Yeshua as Messiah. (27) Of course this ran contrary to early Church belief.
Although there theoretically may be some merit to this “Nicolaitane” explanation, one should consider the following arguments against such a position.
Nicolas was appointed directly by the apostles themselves to his position. Therefore he would have personally been known and as such presumably his character known as well by the apostles.
Secondly there is no historical evidence of this group or any record of writings, etc. Furthermore the Church of Antioch was a cornerstone community within the early Church outside of Jerusalem. Antioch was historically where early believers were first dubbed “Christians.” Antioch in fact held the highest position of prestige within the early Church for a few centuries. It seems very odd we have no record of such activities associated with such a prominent and esteemed Church.
The author brings up these issues to stress the very high probability that the postulated inference to the Nicolaitanes as a sect spawned from Nicolas of Antioch does not really hold up under close scrutiny.
The reader will recall that in Revelation 2:2 Yeshua has already declared he knows the early Church cannot stand that which is evil. Certainly licentious and promiscuous behavior, purportedly practiced by the unsubstantiated Nicolaitane sect, would fall within the category of evil given the sinful nature of such activities. We have also covered in detail the problem the early Church had with various heresies of which finding records and evidence of is typically not a problem. But Yeshua mentions these heresies or alternative doctrines not at all. So if the issue was one of heresy it would seem Messiah could have addressed this issue more clearly than referencing a rogue and mysterious sect as the Nicolaitanes.
Ultimately it would seem the use of this term is symbolic and was not meant to depict a minimally referenced cult of licentious behaving believers. It would seem the Nicolaitanes is a more important lead that needs to be pursued further.
So what else could the word “Nicolaitane” be referring to? The term itself derives linguistically from two Greek words: Nikao which means to conquer, and Lao which means the people or laity. Nicolaitane in essence linguistically translates as, “to conquer the laity.” (28) What this really alludes to of course is probably not a physical or war-like conquering but rather a “separated ecclesiastical body/bureaucracy that rules over, and is set apart from, the regular Church body or laity.” This being said would not however preclude the possibility of physical or political subjugation.
Ironically this is just the scenario Yeshua himself had to deal with, during his own glorious ministry, with the Jewish religious establishment. Subsequently Yeshua’s hatred for this dynamic becomes very understandable and in reality makes more sense within the context of this Church message. Most likely Yeshua’s declared hatred of the Nicolaitanes’ deeds was a direct reference to the bureaucratic and elitist nature of the Jewish religious establishment which had set itself above and over the flock of Israel. The Establishment was a well-oiled bureaucratic machine that took pride in the elevated and elitist status which had been forged over a long period of time. This same Nicolaitane body politic was of course continuing to hamper the sheep of Israel from coming to Messiah.
On the other hand Yeshua’s declaration may have been implying this early Church was confronting this type of activity from within and apparently did not stand for it. What should be kept in mind is that Nicolaitane does not represent a status or condition of the Church at this time. Yeshua’s revelation only indicates the Church of this era hates the deeds of the Nicolaitanes.
Of course the previous insight would dictate the reader accept the use of the term “Nicolaitane” as being used in a symbolic manner? This symbolic use of “Nicolaitane” should not represent a burden upon a reader and furthermore when the concept of a separated Ecclesiastical body is introduced to the Church of Messiah in a historical context; it really makes sense this is indeed what Yeshua is discussing within this message.
In viewing “Nicolaitane” with regards to the developing Church of Messiah the author has very little choice but to sum up the overall situation in brief. A thorough review of the development of the ecclesiastical organization within the Church of Messiah would easily demand a comprehensive work of its own which is certainly not feasible within the confines of this work. However a summary review is in order.
By the turn of the first century the early Church communities were not operating like today. Churches were less centralized, ministered or lead primarily through the authority of the elders of the Church and functioned very much independently by today’s standards.
From the end of the first century the Church of Messiah was beset with organizational difficulties and was certainly under duress to rein things in so to speak. As we have previously detailed it was a time period of explosive growth but the growth was not necessarily controlled which subsequently led to diversities in doctrine, beliefs and practices.
In reaction to this growing organizational need there naturally developed different schools of thought on how best to organize. Fundamentally the issue of authority and control came down to either centralizing control under one individual, a bishop (overseer), or maintaining leadership via the body of presbyters or the group of elders.
As history declares, the former school of thought ultimately became the preference and the standard. What this movement actually created was the beginnings of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In the earliest of times this would have basically consisted of: bishop, presbyter and deacon/priest. Prior to this classification, a “bishop” would not have necessarily ruled over a body of presbyters and would have probably been a presbyter himself. Outside of these positions there is no mention in B’rit Chadasha Scripture of other ecclesiastical positions. In essence the early Church was what we would consider organizationally flat consisting of possibly a bishop but certainly elders and priests/deacons and of course the people or laity. This was it!
What we do know historically from early Church writings is the movement to organize and create infrastructure was begun earnestly between the years 110 Ce and 150 Ce. We also know according to Catholic Church history: Victor (Bishop of Rome c. 190–198 Ce), according to Jerome, was the first Christian author to write about theology in Latin but is best remembered for the intolerance he displayed towards any lack of uniformity in the Church. It was Victor who excommunicated bishops, such as Polycrates of Ephesus, who opposed Victor’s views on Easter.
Until Victor’s time, Rome celebrated the Mass in Greek. Victor changed the language to Latin, which was prevalent in his native North Africa at the time. (29)
History tells us between the end of the true Apostolic Age, (death of John the Apostle) approximately 100 Ce, until the turn of the next century there had evolved a position of power for the Bishop of Rome sufficient enough to implement “excommunications” upon other Bishops and even change the language of the Mass. For this scenario to evolve there can be no doubt a significant organizing of some sort had taken place and the early Church communities of Messiah had become subjected to a higher authority outside of the local bishop and/or body of elders. Centralization with a bureaucratic tone was certainly beginning to emerge.
The importance of pointing out the organizational development just referenced is for two distinct purposes. First it is imperative to set the stage for further discourse regarding “Nicolaitanes” in as much that the second century Ce was when decisions were made which would ultimately lead to subsequent Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy. Secondly this will lead into the last real indicator of the Church time frame relevant to this Church message.
The reader will recall previous discourse was undertaken regarding the Synod of Ephesus (190 Ce) and the problem of the Quartodecimans. Much more than an issue of the dating of Passover/Easter the real issue was a fundamental question of the Church of Messiah being a religion which was ultimately rooted in the Hebrew tradition or rooted in some other manner.
The ultimate excommunication of the Quartodecimans in effect settled this issue once and for all. So the reader may ask: “what does this have to do with the Church message to Ephesus?” In Revelation 2:4 Yeshua rebukes the Church for leaving the first love and continues with a warning in verse five to repent and do the first works or risk losing their candlestick.
From the author’s perspective the rebuke is a condemnation of the early Church’s separation from their inherent Hebraic roots. Why would the author make this contention?
First let us once again revisit the idea of Scriptural and Covenantal Continuums. When we view peoples’ relationship with G_D it is impossible to do so without thinking in terms of the eternal covenant and the chosen people. Furthermore it is absolutely impossible to think in terms of the covenantal relationship without thinking in terms of G_D’s divine plan for mankind as defined in Holy Scripture. Subsequently Yeshua’s reference to leaving the first love and doing the works of the first love can only logically imply a separation from G_D’s Sacred Torah in which the very nature of people’s behavior, or the first works, are defined.
As we have already covered in much detail there can be no doubt the early Church in effect turned its collective back on G_D’s sacred and eternal festivals. There can be no doubt the early Church in effect turned its collective back on G_D’s sacred laws and statutes. There can be no doubt the early Church in effect turned its collective back on the Scriptural roots which had been planted from the beginning of creation by G_D.
We know from historical evidence reviewed within this work that the Synod of Ephesus, near the turn of the second century, certainly marked an official Church of Messiah stance on the celebration of Passover or more appropriately not celebrating Passover. Passover of course being the very first scripturally mandated festival of G_D and representative of the original covenant. In so many respects is Passover representative of G_D’s love and mercy for his chosen people be it considered under the auspices of the original or renewed covenant as perfected in Yeshua the Messiah.
The author can only note the irony of this Church message being sent to Ephesus given the nature of the issues dealt with by the Synod of Ephesus, approximately 100 years after Revelation was authored. The decisions of the Synod are historically linked to the rebuking Yeshua made to the early Church and these decisions essentially represent the official declaration by the Church that they had abandoned their first love.
If for some reason the reader is still not yet convinced “the first love” is a reference to G_D’s Torah, then the author would turn the reader’s attention to Revelation 2:7. In this verse Yeshua exhorts believers to overcome presumably that of which needs to be repented. If so then he will give to them to eat from the tree of life. Is there any insight which can be ascertained from this declaration by Yeshua? As always it is incumbent to look to Holy Scripture for guidance.
Genesis states: And the Lord G_D said: ‘Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.’ Therefore the Lord G_D sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (Genesis 3:22–23)
We must remember that Adam and Eve were sent forth from the Garden of Eden because of disobedience to G_D’s command.
Proverbs states: my son, forget not my teaching; but let thy heart keep my commandments; for length of days, and years of life, and peace, will they add to thee. Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that obtaineth understanding. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her, and happy is every one that holdest her fast. (Proverbs 3:1–18)
We clearly see in Scripture the connection between the tree of life and G_D’s commands and statutes which undoubtedly represent the first works. There should be no doubt that Messiah’s rebuking of the early Church concerning the loss of the first love is a direct reference to drifting away from scripturally ordained Hebraic roots and G_D’s Torah!
* * * * * * *
The author is confident the interpretations and contentions put forth in this “Letter to Ephesus” discourse are rational and well supported. The reader should have no recourse but to conclude that this Church era is comfortably dated within the time frame of the first two centuries Common Era.
Beyond making a solid case for a definitive Church era time frame it should be noted the spiritual temperament or defined historical movement has also been identified. In the case of this Church era the spiritual temperament, both positive and negative is indeed supported by historical review.
The author does not believe a critical case can be made asserting the author has simply used historical evidence to make the prophetic revelations of Yeshua fit a desired argumentative position. The author indeed has history as a valuable guide but ultimately the author’s positions fit cleanly. The positions fit tightly because we are dealing here with the perfect and divine Revelation of G_D.
Although the review has indeed produced a reasonable interpretive output, the author would like to relate one more important insight to the reader before proceeding to the next Church message.
In Revelation 2:5 Yeshua warns the Church that if it does not repent then he will come quickly