Psalm 116 Acts 20:28-32 Revelation 2:1-7
The Sermons to the Seven Churches: The Church of Loveless Orthodoxy
I’d like to introduce you to Jack and Jill, a boy and a girl who had been dating all through high school but had decided to go to different universities. One day, Jack received an email from Jill.
Dear Jack
I am so busy here! The professors give us tons of readings and assignments – way more than we ever had in high school. I have hardly had any free time to spend with my new friends. But I went out anyway last night with my roommate to a local hangout just to get away from the school scene for a while.
The letter went on to describe the rest of the evening and how much she enjoyed spending time with her new friend…and after an apology for not writing more, because she was tired and needed to get some rest, she simply signed off:
Love Jill
Now, on the surface this letter would not sound strange to those who don’t know Jack and Jill well…but for Jack it was devastating. Firstly, all her previous emails began using the superlative Dearest instead of simply Dear Jack. Secondly, she used to begin her emails by telling him how much she missed him and how sad it was that they were at different schools and only then would she tell him the more general things about university life, work load, and other students. And then, finally, there was her signature. Whereas she used to end her emails with Love Jillie, a name only Jack used for her, in this email she simply signed off as Jill.
Dr Jeff Weima, in his book, Paul the Ancient Letter Writer, used this illustration to demonstrate how “variations in habitual or expected ways of writing letters can communicate information in and of themselves, and that such changes are therefore important for a correct understanding of what the letter writer was intending to say.”
But it is not only the variations or omissions that we need to be aware of when we read ancient letters and documents. Every age and every culture had its own form of communication shaped by their own respective worldviews, their societal customs, their philosophies, their fables, myths, stories, and writings, their own idiomatic speech, their physical surroundings, their climate, and their own historical backgrounds, that would influence their writings in ways that later readers might miss or misunderstand.
Now, we have many tools today that help us bridge this chasm between our time and that of the ancient civilisations. The field of archaeology, where the physical remains of material culture left behind, such as tools, buildings, and artifacts, are analysed, providing us with insights into how people lived at that time.
The field of epigraphy where the ancient inscriptions on monuments, tombstones, and other durable materials are identified, deciphered, and interpreted to understand the language, culture, and history of the people who created them. Closely related to this field of study is palaeography in which old manuscripts, scrolls, and other historical documents are also analysed and deciphered to understand the use of language, dating of events, and the conventions used by scribes.
If you use all these studies alongside your studies of the biblical texts, you may be rewarded with a pretty comprehensive tool that will help you understand much of what can sometimes seem to be unclear.
So, let’s see what we can come up with as we dive into the seven sermons to the seven churches using these tools, shall we?
First, let’s look at the overall structure of the letters:
Internal Structure:
Each letter contains some or all of the following eight points.
1. The Commission: “(And) to the pastor of the church of (whatever city) write…”
2. The Christ Title: A description of Jesus taken from 1:9-20, usually with more than one title except for Pergamum. This description is generally linked to later references in each sermon.
3. The Commendation: An acknowledgement of the positive features of the church, omitted only in the sermon to the Laodiceans.
4. The Complaint: A statement that highlights what is wrong with the churches, which is omitted in the sermons to Smyrna and Philadelphia.
5. The Correction: A gracious solution to the fundamental problem. Here, the imperative “repent” is omitted in the sermons to Smyrna and Philadelphia.
6. The Coming of Christ or the Consequence: The purpose of his coming to each of the churches was to exact punishment if they did not repent. It is omitted in the sermon to Smyrna and in the sermon to Laodicea.
7. The Consequence or the Conquering Formula: This is a promise that Jesus gives to those who conquer and the Greek word used here is one we are all familiar with! (nikao = NIKE).
And then finally…
8. The Call to Hear: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
But there is also an external structure that is equally important for us to observe.
A. Ephesus: unhealthy church
B. Smyrna: healthy church
C. Pergamum: unhealthy church
D. Thyatira: unhealthy church
C1. Sardis: unhealthy church
B1. Philadelphia: healthy church
A1. Laodicea: unhealthy church
The sermons to Smyrna and Philadelphia are unique as they “are the only two sermons that omit the complaint unit, and both churches face attacks from ‘those who call themselves Jews and are not but are (of) the synagogue of Satan”, a striking expression found nowhere else in the Bible.”
Now, I’d like to address two more introductory items before we begin to examine the sermon to the church in Ephesus, and that is the interpretative principle I will be using for these sermons and a very short history of Ephesus.
In 1641, Thomas Brightman, perhaps following in the footsteps of the Medieval Catholic Mystic Joachim of Fiore who divided history into three “ages” or “eras”, taught that the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 represented seven successive stages or seven dispensations in church history, ending, of course, in his own contemporary England. This was later redeveloped by John Nelson Darby in the late 1820’s and early 1830’s and was popularized by his influence on the Plymouth Brethren and even later by works like the Scofield Reference Bible in the early 20th century.
The general divisions, although the adherents disagree about which historical periods the churches supposedly represent, are as follows:
Ephesus: The Early Church Period
Smyrna: Persecution during the Patristic Period
Pergamum: The Period of Constantine
Thyatira: The Middle Ages
Sardis: The Protestant Reformation
Philadelphia: The Period of Missionary Expansion
Laodicea: The Modern Period
This method of interpretation is fraught with many difficulties as any church historian will be able to tell you, because it simply lacks any supportive or conclusive historical or theological evidence, plus it is very late in the interpretive history of the Church and has no support from theologians up until the 17th Century (this is and always should be a red flag unless we are willing to believe that the Church has been wrong from the time of the Apostles until then)…but it is especially problematic since there are many local allusions and images and references in the sermons that only make sense when applied to the seven historical churches in Asia.
So, I am taking a forthtelling approach to the interpretation of these sermons rather than a foretelling (or prophetic) approach, in which we will examine each sermon in its original historical setting and then, once we have established the original meaning for its original recipients, we will examine the possible contemporary application(s).
Now, Ephesus has a long history. The port city was founded by Greek settlers from Athens in the 10th Century BC. The Temple of Artemis, to which Ephesus owed much of its fame, was founded about 600 BC. It was considered the most important Greek city in Ionian Asia Minor and then later, under Caesar Augustus, in became the first city of the Roman province of Asia. In Roman times it was situated south of the Caister River, the silt from which has since formed a fertile plain but has caused the coastline to move ever farther west.
The Book of Acts tells us that Paul (after having left Priscilla and Aquilla in charge of a fledgling mission in Ephesus when he returned to Jerusalem and Antioch from his second missionary journey) returned to the city in about AD 53. He then ministered there for about two to three years and wrote several letters from there, including the letters to the Corinthians. He left Ephesus roughly in the year AD 57 and travelled first to several cities in Macedonia and Greece before returning to Jerusalem where he was arrested and imprisoned.
We know that Timothy was in Ephesus with Paul and that he was later stationed there probably around AD 62 because Paul sent him there, specifically to deal with false teachers (1 Timothy 1:3-8; 4; 2 Timothy 2:14-26) and he later wrote two letters to him, namely 1 & 2 Timothy. Church tradition tells us that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus and that he was martyred there in AD 97 during the reign of Emperor Nerva. Onesimus, one of Paul’s converts, then became the 2nd bishop of Ephesus. The apostle John also served in Ephesus for a time.
The Goths destroyed the city in AD 262, and it never recovered its former splendour. But the emperor Constantine, however, erected a new public bath there, Arcadius rebuilt at a higher level the street from the theatre to the harbour, two Church Councils were held at Ephesus in AD 431 and AD 449, and the emperor Justinian built the magnificent basilica of St. John there in the 6th century. But by the early Middle Ages the city was no longer useful as a port and therefore fell into decline.
All this to say that the church in Ephesus was founded and maintained by some of the best Christian leaders at the time…Paul, Priscilla and Aquila, Timothy, John, and Onesimus…one would therefore expect them to be orthodox, wouldn’t you?
And that’s exactly what Jesus commends them for: their orthodoxy. Now, let’s look at the 1st part of the sermon itself.
To the angel(messenger/pastor) 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. “‘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.
First, the Commission. Depending on your theory on when John wrote the Revelation, the messenger or pastor of the church in Ephesus could have been either Timothy or Onesimus or someone under their authority. However, it is also possible that the seven messengers were seven delegates sent from the seven churches to John on the island of Patmos and they are therefore the messengers who take the messages back to the churches. But alas, I could not find any reference in my limited collection of commentaries that address this (which always makes me nervous), so take this as my speculative, overactive mind at work.
Second, the Christ Title. Repeating a description already used in Revelation 1, Jesus described himself as the one who holds the seven stars (which we already know are the seven messengers or pastors) in his right hand but also as the one who walks among the seven golden lampstands.
Now, some commentators say that for ancient readers and hearers, the “seven stars” would have evoked several associations – the seven known planets, the seven stars of Ursa Major, or the seven stars that make up the Pleiades. The last is possible as in both Job 38:31-32 and Amos 5:8 God is described as the Creator or Lord of the Pleiades or the seven stars. Others have linked the description of Jesus holding the seven stars in his right hand with claims by some Emperors to be divine. None of these explanations are conclusive however, and it is best to simply focus on the authority and power of Jesus (the right hand in Scripture does signify both, see: Exodus 15:6; Psalm 16:8; 44:3; 63:8; 98:1; 118:15; 139:10; Matthew 22:44; Acts 2:34; 7:55; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 1:3) and on the caution and comfort it offers those who are in those powerful hands.
The description of Jesus walking among the golden lampstands, that we now know are the seven churches, emphasized his presence with them which is at once both comforting and yet also challenging. On the one hand to know that Jesus is always present with us is reassuring, especially if we feel abandoned or alone…but on the other hand to know that Jesus is always present is also perplexing, especially if we are not walking in step with the Spirit. He knows everything about us, the good, the bad, and the really ugly.
Third, and this will be the last point we look at today, let’s look at the commendation…or, at least should I say, the five commendations!
Commendation number 1. ‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance…” This is a rather general commendation simply acknowledging that they walk the talk and are not easily deterred or discouraged. In our own present church atmosphere where compromise seems to be the order of the day, this commendation is laudable and desirable. Like the Ephesians, we ought to walk the talk and not be swayed by what is contrary to God’s Word.
Commendation number 2: “…and how you cannot bear with those who are evil…” This is a little more specific as it tells us that the Ephesian church did not avoid conflict nor did they simply put up with sin in the church. They refused to tolerate any wicked people. In our contemporary pluralistic and relativistic society, this seems unkind, but the Old Testament is full of stories of what happens when we begin to tolerate evil people in our midst…we become desensitised and eventually we succumb to the same wickedness. So, we would do well to learn that lesson and to apply it vigorously.
Commendation number 3: “…but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not and found them to be false.” Apparently, this track record of defending orthodoxy was celebrated well past the writing of the Revelation. In a letter to the Ephesians, the Early Church Father, Ignatius of Syrian Antioch quoted Onesimus, who had succeeded Timothy as the bishop of Ephesus, as praising the Ephesian church because “all of you live according to the truth and no heresy resides among you. On the contrary, you no longer listen to anyone, except one who speaks truthfully about Jesus Christ.”
In that same letter, Ignatius wrote, “I have learned that some people have passed through on their way from there with an evil teaching. But you did not permit them to sow any seeds among you, plugging your ears so as not to receive anything sown by them.” Somehow, the Ephesian church managed to actively and aggressively test those who claimed to be apostles (in other words, those who claimed divine commissioning and authority) to make sure that no heresy was ever taught in their congregation. The application is rather obvious, I would think.
Commendation number 4: “I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary.” The Ephesian church was to be commended as they remained faithful despite the relentless attempts of false teachers and had not dropped their guard. Both John’s first and second epistles warned believers not to entertain teachers who did not acknowledge the Person of Jesus (1 John 4:1-3a; 2 John 7). Jude warned against false shepherds (Jude 4). Peter in his second epistle reminded his readers that just as there had been false prophets in Old Testament times, so there were false teachers in their time. And an Early Church document known as the Didache, provided instructions on how to recognise and deal with false teachers (Didache 11:3-11).
But it should not surprise us that the Ephesian church at the time John wrote to them had to deal with false teachers because…and here’s one of those beautiful reminders that John was writing to very specific historical churches…in Acts 20:29-31, Paul prophetically warned the Ephesian elders that after his departure “…fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert…” As we can see, not only were they alert but they had a good track record of defending the faith. Well done good and faithful servants…
Commendation number 5: “Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” Now, this commendation comes near the end of the sermon, but I’m going to deal with it here because of the similarity in subject matter. While the church managed to keep out the itinerant heretics, they seemed to have had a problem with a local group of people known as the Nicolaitans. Who were these people? Well there have been many guesses, but just not enough evidence to be sure.
What we do know is that in Revelation 2:14-15, in the sermon to the church in Pergamum (and perhaps also the reference to Jezebel in Revelation 2:20 in the sermon to the church in Thyatira) John linked the Nicolaitans with the behaviour of Balaam who taught King Balak that he could weaken the Israelites by enticing them to commit sin, specifically to practise idolatry and to commit fornication (Numbers 25:1-9, Numbers 31:14-16). So it is probable that the Nicolaitans encouraged others to participate in activities expressly forbidden in the Law as well as in the decision of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20, 29). Perhaps it won’t be hard for you to see how their behaviour mirrors the behaviour of the current revisionists in the modern church.
As in the Corinthian church, the claim seems to have been that participation in idolatry that involved both food and sexual activity did not have any effect on believers because the gods were not real gods. But whatever the case may be, the important thing for us to note here is that unlike some in the church in Pergamum who held to the teachings of the Nicolaitans (2:15) and in Thyatira who tolerated a woman Jesus called “Jezebel” (2:20), the church in Ephesus aggressively resisted this heretical group and were therefore once again commended for their uncompromising pursuit of orthodoxy.
So, in summary, the Ephesian church seems to have been a very “healthy” church in that they jealously guarded the faith by testing the teaching of false teachers and by rejecting the false practices of those who compromised the truth by indulging in the culture of the nonbelievers around them.
So, how would we shape up if this letter was written to us today?
Do we faithfully walk the talk or are we easily distracted, deterred, or discouraged?
Have we become desensitized to wickedness in the church?
Do we defend orthodoxy and reject the false teaching of the revisionists in our society?
Have we remained faithful despite the relentless attempts of false teachers, or have we perhaps dropped our guard for the sake of unity or peace or something else?
And then finally, do we hate compromise, or do we seek ways to excuse our involvement in the unlawful or sinful practices of our culture?
How do you rate us on a scale from 1 to 5? Are we on par with the Ephesian church? Are we somewhere in the middle? Or are we perhaps lagging behind?
But before you either beat yourself up or pat yourself on the back, in next week’s sermon we will learn that sometimes too much of a good thing can become a bad thing and what appears to be very healthy could very well be dangerously ill.
Stay tuned and come back next week for the next gripping instalment…
Shall we pray?
© Johannes W H van der Bijl 2025.
Weima, Jeffrey A.D., Paul the Ancient Letter Writer: An Introduction to Epistolatory Analysis. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016
Weima, Jeffrey A. D., The Sermons to the Seven Churches of Revelation: A Commentary and Guide. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021
