(18) And unto the angel of the Church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of G_D, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; (19) I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. (20) Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (21) And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. (22) Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. (23) And I will kill her children with death; and all the Churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. (24)But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. (25) But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. (26) And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: (27) And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. (28) And I will give him the morning star. (29) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches. (Revelations 2:18–29)
Letter to Thyatira Components
Image of Yeshua: Son of G_D, eyes like fire and feet like fine brass
Positives: works, charity, service, faith, patience and thy works (the last to be more than the first)
Negatives: Thou tolerates Jezebel, the so called prophetess who teaches and seduces Yeshua’s servants to eat things sacrificed to idols.
Extras: Yeshua gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.
Warning: Repent of their deeds or Yeshua will cast her and those that adulterate with her into bed and bring upon them great tribulation. Yeshua will kill her children with death.
Extras: Yeshua searches the reins and hearts and will give unto each person according to their works. But those that are not of this doctrine and have not known the depths of Satan as they speak no other burden will be put upon you.
Reward: He who keeps the works to the end Yeshua will give power over the nations and they shall rule them with a rod of iron as they are like the shattered pottery vessels. And Yeshua will give them the morning star.
* * * * * * *
Letter to Thyatira Commentary
In beginning this Church era message it should be noted the previous Church era spanned an approximate time frame between 313 and 1250 Ce. The author is cautious in the latter dating because it is not so clearly definitive given certain identifiable activities during the third Church era, such as the crusades and inquisitions, continued to a later date. As we will see however in reviewing this fourth Church era, this latter date will be clarified more succinctly.
The city of Thyatira known as the “City of Purple and Trade Guilds” was a great commercial center, in particular of the wool trade and of the dyeing industry. Lydia, seller of purple, came from Thyatira, Acts 16:14. The province was called Lydia, as was the purple garment woven whole at Thyatira. Purple dye was extremely expensive; it was made from the madder root, which grew prominently around Thyatira, as well as from the murex shellfish. Thyatira subsequently was a place of great commercial prosperity and wealth. It was distinguished by its number of trade guilds, which threatened the existence of the Church in Thyatira. The present name of the city is Ak-Hissar, “white castle,” and today has a population of about 30,000.
The symbolic connection between Thyatira and the Church era to be reviewed would seem then to be one of commerce, wealth or to an even broader extent simple materialism.
In looking at verse eighteen we are provided with the image of Yeshua as being the Son of G_D with eyes of fire and feet like fine brass. As we have seen throughout each Church era message, these redundant elements of the blessed vision of Messiah are meant to provide contextual application to each specific Church era being depicted and are not simple introductions. As such we will begin by reviewing this image of Yeshua.
Interestingly enough the “Son of G_D” is not a declared literal element of the vision of John and is in fact not used in a literary string at all within the Revelation of Yeshua the Messiah. The only direct reference to Yeshua being the Son of G_D can be found in Revelation 1:6 where Yeshua is the one who makes us priests and kings unto G_D and his Father. We can conclude then this is certainly a presentation deviation and is probably significant with regards to fully understanding this Church era message.
We have already covered in much detail the issue of Messiah’s divine nature and unity in G_D, and we have already covered the nature of heresies which attempted to defile this truth. This being the case however it should be noted that heresies, primarily of Gnostic nature contrary to G_D’s plural unity doctrine, i.e. Socinianism, Tritheism, Albigenses, would re-emerge once again in the late Middle Ages. Yeshua’s introduction then as the Son of G_D could be viewed as an emphatic declaration against these heresies foreseen during this Church era. This is one viable interpretation!
There is another likely possibility which should certainly be considered; this scenario would deal with Yeshua the Messiah declaring to his Church it is he and only he who is head of his Church and the Scriptural cornerstone upon which the Church has been built.
In light of the developing Church it should be noted the issue of Papal primacy and Apostolic Catholic Institutionalism as briefly discussed in the previous discourse, was a major issue which ultimately was the basis for the Great Schism between the Latin/Western and Greek/Eastern Church components in the eleventh century. As the reader is probably aware Papal primacy by the Roman Vicar/Bishop is exerted out of the belief that this position and authority was divinely ordained by Yeshua and passed along to Peter the Apostle and subsequently to those succeeding Vicars that hold “the seat of Peter” as head of the Universal Church of Messiah.
Although both of these interpretations seem plausible it should be noted the latter interpretation is the only one of the two which is directly applicable to the Church angel or messenger, more broadly defined as the Church authority. Taking the construct one step further it may not be too much of a jump to consider this introduction by Messiah as a direct declaration to the ecclesiastical institution and more specifically the Papacy itself. This will be discussed in greater detail within this chapter.
Regarding the eyes of fire, as previously detailed during the “Messiah as Judge” discourse, we saw the association with fire and judgment and how the fire is used to clean out the sinful, as in “burning the chaff ” and “making the fat lean.” It would seem the clear indication would be a judgment of sorts was impending upon this Church within this historical era.
Finally in verse eighteen we have the reference to Yeshua having feet like fine brass. As was previously detailed in the “Messiah the Righteous One” discourse, the predominant symbolism is representative of cleansing and purification through obedience to G_D and self-sacrifice. In essence being dead to this world!
We could certainly look at this last reference to be conjunctive or connected with the previous reference regarding the judging eyes of flame. In this context it would make sense to interpret the judgment to be against the Church then for lack of pure and righteous behavior.
We cannot however ignore verse nineteen where Yeshua applauds what we can only translate as pure and righteous behavior: faith, charity, patience and works. So it would seem then the reference of the righteous Yeshua with feet like fine brass is indicative of or at least noteworthy to activities or elements of this Church era.
As such then it would seem we should be able upon historical review to see a historical era where the Church will exhibit these pure and righteous behaviors while at the same time suffer a judgment for sinfulness. Continuing with the judgment theme briefly we must not forget Yeshua warned the previous Church era he would come quickly and fight against them with the sword of his mouth if the Church did not repent.
We certainly did not see any real indications that Yeshua made good on this promise within the previous Church era so we could only presume either the Church repented or it would be this fourth Church era in which Yeshua would come quickly and fight against his Church.
Because we have history to tell us there were no major changes regarding the issues needing repentance, relative to the third Church era, we could logically presume then Yeshua will come and fight against his Church during this fourth era. Or at least this is how the author is interpreting “quickly.”
But what does Messiah really mean by this reference? We really can only look at it in two likely perspectives. First it could mean physical and brutal warfare, or secondly it could be a symbolic fighting in which case we would have to understand how this symbolic fighting would take place. During a previous discourse regarding the two-edged sword we saw where the symbolic nature of the sword protruding from Yeshua’s mouth was to be translated as judgment and more specifically judgment by his truthful word.
So thus far during this discourse, without even getting into the main body of the Church era message, we see tell-tale leads which a historical review will either uphold or refute.
Moving attention now to the positives we have already exposed in verse nineteen where this Church era should in significant respects be associated with great works of faith and charity. It would seem of course this should indeed be the very nature of the Church’s output, regardless of time era, but the fact Yeshua so notably applauds these activities leads the author to believe the nature of these Church era works to be extraordinary.
Conversely the primary negative declaration by Yeshua for this Church era concerns the tolerance of Jezebel, the so-called prophetess, who leads the servants of G_D astray by fornicating and eating things sacrificed to idols. As was the case with Balak and Balaam, it will be prudent to at least summarize the Scriptural account of Jezebel so that we have some contextual reference.
The account of Jezebel is recorded in 1 Kings around the 870 BCe time period. Jezebel was the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians whom King Ahab of Israel had married. According to Scripture Ahab was a very bad King and did not rule in accordance with G_D’s Ways. Jezebel had seduced Ahab to introduce the false god Baal into their midst. In fact the true prophets of Israel had come under persecution while the prophets and priests of Baal had been elevated.
As the account progresses we see G_D call to service the prophet Elijah, who curses Israel with a severe drought. This puts Elijah on the death list and sets the stage for a confrontation which takes place a few years later between Elijah and Jezebel’s prophets of Baal. Ultimately Elijah prevails with the miraculous intervention of G_D. The prophets and priests of Baal are executed by a reinvigorated lay population. As for Jezebel and Ahab?
Another story is recounted in Scripture which has a direct bearing on their respective fates. Apparently Ahab was covetous of a particular man’s property, more specifically a vineyard which belonged to Naboth the Jezreelite. Naboth cared not to sell the property to the King. So Jezebel had conspirators bring a false case against Naboth. This did happen, and Naboth was stoned to death by the elders, the nobles and the people. Jezebel then sent Ahab to take possession of the land.
For this activity Jezebel and Ahab were personally cursed by G_D specifically through Elijah: “The dogs shall eat Jezebel in the moat of Jezreel,” and as for Ahab—”In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine” (1 Kings 21:23–24). These things came about and ultimately the extended family of the King and Jezebel were utterly wiped out as foretold by Elijah.
In reviewing this message component it is impossible not to also consider Church message verses twenty-one through twenty-three as well where we see how Jezebel was given space to repent but repented not. The result was she would be cast into a bed with those that commit adultery with her and then will be subjected to great tribulation. Ultimately her children would be killed with death! Then all will know that it is G_D who searches the reins and hearts of people and gives each according to their individual works.
Needless to say this Jezebel construct needs to be reviewed for contextual understanding given the prominent nature of the content within this Church message. To begin we see from Scriptural review the warnings within the message have quite the literal connotation with regards to Jezebel and Ahab. We see where Ahab and Jezebel were literally given opportunities to repent; in the case of Ahab the kingdom was tormented with drought and famine whereas Jezebel had her prophets humbled by G_D during the “test of the sacrifice.” We literally see where Jezebel’s children, heirs to the throne, end up executed and wiped out. We also see where Jezebel’s idolatrous children, the prophets and priests of Baal, are executed and wiped out. We see where the individual actions of Ahab and Jezebel literally bring personal judgment and punishment.
From a Church of Messiah perspective however what does the account of Jezebel and Ahab imply? How should we view the references to Jezebel in a symbolic fashion regarding the Church of Messiah?
In looking at the workings of Jezebel we see where she successfully usurped the chosen people by political conspiracy. It was not through a religious movement or efforts that she wooed the children of Israel but through the sexual seduction of the kingship.
In the case of Balak we saw a direct seduction of the men of Israel by the Moabite women. In the case of Jezebel this attack or seduction of Israel was not direct but indirect. Jezebel in essence “back-doored” the Israelites by political conspiracy with Ahab! The idolatrous practices passed along to Ahab then filtered down by practice and decree most assuredly from the kingship. The author believes the fornication of Jezebel referred to in this Church message should be viewed as an illicit league or “politic” between the secular and the religious sectors.
We also see in Jezebel and Ahab for that matter, the desire and covetousness for wealth and material. It would seem that leading the sheep of Israel astray was not the only problem with their reign. It is apparent greed and usury, among other faults most likely, was their modus operandi.
So how then can we translate this context into some definable aspects which the Church within this era might exhibit? For one thing we certainly need to look closely for any potential Church and secular power relationships which developed to determine if we see this Jezebel construct emerge, or not. Secondly we need to look for historical evidence where wealth, power and usury, etc. are traits which can be associated with the Church, or not. The author would note politicizing of the Church as well as wealth accumulation should certainly qualify as fornicating and eating things sacrificed to idols in the symbolic sense of not following G_D’s Ways.
If the author has developed an accurate construct we then also would need to seek historical evidence of a scenario where the Church is given a definitive and identifiable chance to repent of the sinful aforementioned activities.
The last real lead provided within this Church message that can assist us in discerning the proper era, is the aspect of great tribulation and the children being killed with death. Within the construct the author has developed, the reality of this reference would translate to great tribulation for both the Church and those political co-conspirators with the Church. The reference of “killed by death” seems odd in as much that being killed of course means death is the result. The reference seems to be indicative of something far more ominous and in all probability indicative of some sort of catastrophic event wherein the cause of death is the result of something horrible or perhaps unexplained. We should therefore seek within this applicable Church era a situation where we can find evidence of such an event or events.
Objectively it should be noted there is no absolute conclusive indicator this horrible retribution from G_D will take place during this specific Church era. Subsequently it might be necessary to examine multiple potential scenarios in which the scenarios reflect a present and future Church era punishment.
In review then we will be seeking historical evidence for the listed leads below to help us identify this fourth Church era time frame:
#1 A time period where elements of the Church need to be reminded that Yeshua is the Son of G_D and the cornerstone upon which the Church is built;
#2 A time period where elements of the Church are in political league/conspiracy with secular powers;
#3 A time period where elements of the Church are accumulators of wealth and power;
#4 A time period where elements of the Church exhibit great works of charity, service and faith;
#5 A time period where the Church is given clear opportunity to repent of their specific Church era sins but does not;
#6 A time period where members of the Church and members of the secular political realms will be killed by some ominous “death”
* * * * * * *
Issues #1–3 The Imperial Church
As the author previously indicated it would seem this “Son of G_D” declaration by Yeshua was strictly meant as both a reminder and a rebuke to the Church that it is he alone who is the Son of G_D. As a modern day believer this would seem to certainly be an unnecessary declaration by Messiah, but the reader must remember that Papal primacy within the Church was and remains to this day a source of contention and separation within the greater body of Christian belief systems. There are many Christians that quite frankly view the Papacy as an affront to Yeshua the Messiah.
As previously detailed herein by the end of the sixth century the Institutional Church, through the Papacy, had in effect declared its primacy outright and we saw with Gregory I the first formal use of the title Pontifex Maximus. We saw further yet how this declared Papal primacy did not really sit well with the eastern sector of the Church of Messiah and certainly provided fuel to the fire of separation which became official in 1054 Ce.
Unlike the leader of the Church in the east after the schism, whose adopted common title is “First Among Equals,” the Latin Pope, Papa, is without doubt a higher profile position and certainly more distinctive from a titular perspective. We have already covered the use of the title Pontifex Maximus but there are numerous other titles which have emerged throughout the course of history for the Pope!
The Pope’s full title is “Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of G_D.”
Vatican II (1962–1965) confirmed the titles “Vicar of Christ” and “Successor of Peter.” The term “Sovereign Pontiff” can be traced back to the end of the fifth century. The title, which has its origins in the title for the Roman emperors of an earlier era, was initially applied to all metropolitan bishops. Again it was in the eleventh century that the title came to be applied exclusively to the Bishop of Rome.
The Pope’s signature is usually in the format “NN. PP. x” (e.g., Pope Paul VI signed his name as “Paulus PP. VI”). The “PP,” stands for Papa/Pope or according to unofficial sources, Pater Patrum/Father of Fathers. The Pope’s name is frequently accompanied in inscriptions by the abbreviation “Pont. Max.” or “p.m.,” an abbreviation of the ancient title Pontifex Maximus, but usually translated as “Supreme Pontiff.”
Other titles used in some official capacity include “Summus Pontifex” or “Highest Pontiff;” “Sanctissimus Pater” and “Beatissimus Pater” or “Most Holy Father” and “Most Blessed Father” respectively; “Sanctissimus Dominus Noster” or “Our Most Holy Lord;” and, in the Medieval period, “Dominus Apostolicus” or “Apostolic Lord.” This last title however was not abandoned altogether: the Pope is still referred to as “Dominum Apostolicum” in the Latin version of the Litany of the Saints, a solemn Catholic prayer, and in some translations of it. Writing informally, pious Catholics will often use the abbreviation H.H. or “his Holiness,” as in H.H. John Paul II.
The Pope’s official seat is the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano, and his official residence is the Palace of the Vatican. He also resides in a summer palace at Castel Gandolfo. Historically the official residence of the Pope was the Lateran Palace donated by the Roman Emperor Constantinus I. (52)
Beyond the development of titles it should be noted such esteem was a direct result of the political power wielded by the Papacy or bishop of Rome dating back to Emperor Constantine. Historically we know the Western Empire had declined in power significantly with the collapse of the Roman Western Empire. By the end of the eighth century however the West would begin its inevitable climb back to power with an odd alliance of the secular and religious, known more commonly in history as the Holy Roman Empire.
Again this is a topic which really deserves a work of its own to adequately address. In short however this Empire was a confederation of the Latin Western Church and feudal state(s) whereby its organization and integration became so entwined that by 1356 Ce a decree known as the “Golden Bull” was issued to formalize the college of Kingly Electors. In order to be elected king, a candidate had to first win over the electors. This was usually achieved with monetary or land favors.
The empire comprised any feudal lands whereby ultimate authority of said lands was acquiesced to the Holy Roman Emperor. These feudal lands were spread throughout Croatian, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian, Polish, Serbian, and Slovene territories. Meanwhile during these geo-political turn of events there was also activity specific to Italy whereby the Papacy and Church itself were in effect rulers of large territories by virtue of the Church’s ownership of the “Papal States.”
In general there were three types of feudal land designations within the Holy Roman Empire:
• Feudal Territories governed by a prince or duke, and in some cases kings.
• Feudal Territories led by a clerical dignitary, who was then considered a prince of the Church. In the common case of a Prince-Bishop, this temporal territory (called prince-bishopric) frequently overlapped his often larger ecclesiastical diocese (bishopric), giving the Bishop both worldly and clerical powers.
• Imperial Free Cities—was a city formally responsible to the emperor only.
Overall the number of territories at times was significantly large, rising to several hundred at the time of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. (53)
Once again the author simply cannot begin to provide a disclosure adequate enough to paint the full picture regarding Church geo-political activities during the thirteenth through seventeenth centuries simply for lack of space. The author will contend however the alliances between Church and feudal realms during this period are historically unquestionable. Furthermore, during this period, what little dispute there may have been regarding Papal primacy outside of the eastern empire would have collapsed in this environment because the Bishop of Rome had ascended to a position which was arguably more influential than that of the “emperor.”
History more than suggests in many sectors the ecclesiastical authorities in fact reigned like Lords and princes over geographical territories. In accordance with their positions, numerous clergy did indeed live in great splendor and wealth unlike the feudal peasants who made up the vast majority of the general population. The author believes at the height of the Holy Roman Empire historical evidence clearly depicts a Church of Messiah in which political conspiring with the secular realm and accumulation of wealth, land and power are prevalent beyond any reasonable doubt. It should be noted that the extreme excesses associated with the fourteenth century Italian Renaissance have not even been exposed herein and just mentioning this lavishness should suffice in bolstering the author’s contentions.
The author also is convinced that Messiah’s declaration as the Son of G_D is meant specifically as a rebuke to the Church ecclesiastical organization of this era. An organization where a bureaucratic empire had emerged and where the position of the Papacy itself had far eclipsed the position of authority meant for any individual but G_D himself.
This author quite frankly shudders to think of a Church titular position that grants the holder of the office a palace to live in, actually multiple palaces, and even further yet accords such dignitary prominence to the position where words such as “Lord,” “blessed” and “holy father” are mentioned in affiliation with the position.
Within Scripture Yeshua himself tells us that not one person is good and in another instance to call no man father but G_D himself. Throughout Scriptures we see instances where Yeshua chastises the proud, the mighty, the powerful, etc. We saw where Yeshua chastised the Jewish religious establishment for seeking the best seats and desiring prominence. It would seem that many members of this Church era ecclesiastical body did not recognize themselves when reading or hearing the Gospel. Within this Church era, having the clergy seek out the best seats at gatherings would have been the least of problems when we see numerous records of clerical fiefdoms and palaces being administered in the name of G_D.
The author genuinely believes Messiah was sending a clear message to the Church authorities to get things under control and remember who is really in charge and what the purpose of the gospel mission is meant to be. It would appear during this period in history that some prominent wings of the Church of Messiah had forgotten these most basic of truths and in fact capitalized upon their position in a mode that can simply be described as “usury.”
The author must also point out that the late middle ages is well known for construction of some of the most lavish and grandiose Church structures ever erected. Perhaps the most notable of these edifices was the Cathedral of Notre Dame at Paris completed in approximately 1345 Ce. The building spree undertaken by the Church of Messiah in many ways epitomizes the commercial and imperial nature of the Church during this period. Still further the fundraising modes of the Church of Messiah—taxes, sale of indulgences, etc.—must unfortunately be looked upon as supporting a modus operandi akin to “usury.”
In completing this “Imperial Church” discourse the author must objectively note from a positive perspective, that despite the rebuking given to the Church by Yeshua in this message, it was undoubtedly the Roman Catholic Church which primarily provided any sense of harmony, order and humanity in an otherwise lawless and barbaric society.
* * * * * * *
Issue #4—The Faithful Church
In light of these political contrivances of the Church era it certainly seems most strange that Yeshua would applaud the Church for its works of charity, service and faith but this he did.
As the reader may be aware the beginnings of the Church’s monastic movement can be traced back to the third century. The nature of monasticism is the religious practice of renouncing all worldly pursuits in order to fully devote one’s life to spiritual work. In essence the modus operandi of the monastic individual would be: piety, obedience to G_D’s Word, poverty and of course works of faith, charity and love.
Up until the thirteenth century the monastic movement was primarily restricted to separated communities where those pursuing a monastic life, usually referred to as monks or brothers (male) and nuns or sisters (female), would live secluded and usually solitary lives sheltered away from the outside world. Around the twelfth century, mendicant orders chose to live in city convents among the people instead of secluded in monasteries.
The Mendicant (Begging) Orders are religious orders which depend directly on the charity of the people for their livelihood. In principle they do not own property, either individually or collectively, and have taken a vow of poverty, in order that all their time and energy could be expended on G_D’s work. Essentially then evangelism through love and exemplary living was a major aspect of the monastic movement. The mendicant orders spent their time preaching the Gospel and serving the poor. Both of the two main new orders founded by Dominic and Francis during this Church era offered a model of service to G_D within the community which rivaled the works of the Cathars.