Looking at the messages to the churches as a picture of the successive conditions of the professing Church of God on earth, from the day when she left her first love till the day when she is spued out of Christ’s mouth, thus showing the final result of losing the first love; we have Ephesus, the church in her coldness; Smyrna, the church under persecution; Pergamos, the church in her worldliness; Thyatira, the church in her corruption, and a remnant separated; and Sardis appears to be the church in her deadness; Philadelphia, the church in weakness, but faithfulness; and Laodicea, the church in lukewarmness.
The whole gives a successive picture of the state of the professing church during the last 1800 years, from the day she left her first love till the day she is rejected by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Coldness is succeeded by persecution, persecution by worldliness; worldliness is followed by corruption-a state which runs on to the end, but which has running alongside it a condition of deadness, one of weakness, but faithfulness, and another of lukewarmness. These last four run on side by side to the end—that is, to the day the Lord deals with the Church in judgment.
Thyatira is the corrupt state. It is generally referred, and I believe justly, to Popery. It reminds us of the Popery of the present day, just as Sardis gives us Protestantism, and Philadelphia what we have at the present time; while Laodicea sets forth the state of lukewarmness which has crept over Christendom.
There may be something in the names of these churches. Ephesus means “Desirable;” Smyrna, “Myrrh,” which may give us the thought that when the pressure of persecution comes there is a special fragrance to the Lord; and it is remarkable that there is not a word of complaint or rebuke addressed to the saints in that condition. Pergamos means “Elevation,” and corresponds with the tree of Matt. 13 It gives the thought of the Church exalted by the world. Pergamos answers to the state of the Church in the days of Constantine, and his son, Constans, when Christianity became popular, and was patronized by the world.
Thus the term, “Elevation,” seems a very suitable one.
Thyatira means “A sweet savor of labor,” and it is interesting to remark that the Lord speaks so much of her works. There was a fragrance attaching to her labor in which the Lord could delight. Sardis means “That which remains,” in keeping with the exhortation in the Epistle, “Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain.” The connection, at any rate, is rather remarkable. Luther’s preaching of justification by faith was such according to God. It is to that, probably, that the Lord refers when He says, “Remember what thou hast heard.”
It is well known that Philadelphia means “Brotherly love,” “The love of the brotherhood.” When we are on the ground of the truth, brotherly love can be in the fullest exercise; there is no hindrance to it.
I suppose it is true that a vision appeared to Constantine or his son? It is stated so. It is only mentioned as the common report. The Church histories say so, and we will take the report at its value.
Laodicea is compounded of two words, “people” and “righteousness.” The description seems very appropriate, for they were a very self-righteous people. “Thou sayest,” says the Lord, “I am rich and increased with goods,” &c. “I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire”—that is, “divine righteousness.”
The names seem very appropriate to the condition of each. Surely there was in Ephesus that which was desirable in the sight of God, while there was surely a precious fragrance to the Lord when persecution was going on (Smyrna). And the condition set forth by Pergamos was certainly elevated in a new and extraordinary way. So in the period included under Thyatira there was a sweet savor of labor to a certain extent.
The angel is the representative of the assembly, the one standing before God in the assembly; as “I am the angel Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God.” The word “angel” is not used merely for a heavenly being, but for a man also. When John sent messengers to Christ, they are called angels. In each assembly there was one person whom the Lord specially addresses, and who represented the whole, He was one whom God could trust to hear what He had to say to him, and to convey the message to others. He is one representing the whole, and who had an ear to hear what God had to say to him.
Do you think the angel must necessarily mean a single person?
Sometimes the word “angel” is used when there is not a person meant. We read about “their angels,” referring to children.
When it says their angels, it means real angels.
I question if any particular angels are referred to at all.
What is the meaning of that passage, “Their angels do always behold”? &c. (Matt. 18:10) Do you not think that each little child has its special angel according to that passage?
It may have; very likely it has. But I have sometimes thought that it simply meant a representative, which might be addressed to an assembly when no particular person was referred to.
In the Epistles the saints are directly addressed; here the addresses are through an angel. There is a distance noticeable; things are not in their primary condition. Failure has set in, so God has to keep them at a distance. He retires into an atmosphere of reserve, and deals with them by means of the spiritual.
The angel is one to whom he could communicate his mind.
Probably: one representing the whole, and one calculated to understand and convey the message entrusted to him.
Do you think that this one had a prominence above the others?
Yes: from God’s point of view. There was no appointment. There can be no question that God has His own special messengers for His own special service. I am sure one would repudiate the worldly system of Bishops; still the thought of one specially in prominence is not contrary to God’s mind.
I suppose it is always the case that spiritual power will commend itself?
I suppose so. I think anyone would acknowledge Paul.
Christ is called here “the Son of God,” which comes with wonderful power when we consider the state of things in the midst of which He is seen. He appears here as the Son of God, that is, in the fullness of divine glory, the One who is Son over His house, and the one who is the true foundation, though the superstructure is decaying rapidly. It is a comfort to see that, in the midst of all the corruption of Thyatira, Christ is still Son over His own house. Observe the use of the term in Heb. 3:6. In Matt. 16:15,16, we see that the foundation of the Church of God is the Son of the living God. Whatever corruption may set in, the Son of God is still the resource of the faithful.
Does “the Son over his own house” take in the thought of priesthood?
I do not think it does. It is an accessory glory there. He is Son, as the Apostle and High Priest of our profession; and then comes an additional glory, He is Son over His own house. It is a distinct glory from the Apostleship and High Priesthood.
What is meant by the words, “His eyes like a flame of fire?”
The thought of fire is judgment, and the thought of the eye is intelligence. His intelligence as to the state of things results in an indignation suited to His glory. Then as to His feet being like fine brass. His feet, that upon which He stands, and by which He comes into connection with things, are characterized by righteousness dealing with man responsible.
It is judgment in connection with righteousness? Yes; intelligence resulting in unsparing judgment.
I suppose gold, being “divine righteousness,” man has nothing to do with it?
Yes; it is imputed to him.
What is meant by “committing fornication, and eating things sacrificed to idols?”
Worldliness, and recognizing centers not of God. It is civil evil, as one may say, and religious evil. Fornication is the friendship of the world, which is enmity against God; and eating things sacrificed to idols, is turning away from God’s center and identifying one’s self with human centers. Observe: He takes the fullest notice of the condition of things. He first of all praises what He can, and then blames what He has to blame. It is blessed to see that the praise always comes first—a principle which you will find all through the word of God. In the Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul, in the first chapter, praises what he can, and afterward shows them where they are wrong. It is the same in the Epistle to the Colossians. If you read only the first chapter, you would not think anything had gone wrong; but when you go on to the second, you find he shows them the error of their ways. In the nineteenth verse of this chapter the Lord recognizes all He can, and in the twentieth He says, “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee,” &c.; “the last more than the first”-that is, as evil increased, they had been doubly diligent.
What difference would it make if we read faith before service?
Perhaps that is the proper order. It is natural that faith should come before service. It is interesting to connect the nineteenth verse with the twenty-fifth. In the former we find faith and love, but we do not find the other cardinal virtue, hope. He gives them that which produces it in the twenty-fifth verse. In 1 Cor. 13 you have the three. So in Rom. 5 you have faith in the first verse, hope in the second and fourth, and love in the fifth. In 1 Thess. 1:3, you have the three combined. It would seem that the Thessalonians had not the true thought as to the hope, and He gives it to them, as here. The first two chapters are Paul’s recollections of them, and in the third chapter he begins a new date, “Wherefore, when we could no longer forbear,” &c. If you notice, he does not say anything about hope. The first two chapters, in which we find faith, hope, and charity, refer to the condition in which he left them when he planted the gathering; he left them exhibiting the three graces in all their brightness. But during his absence the Judaizing teachers got among them, and when Timothy re turns to him, bringing his report as to their state, he has nothing to say about their hope, but confines himself to their faith and love. He takes occasion, in chapter 4, to deal with the question of hope in the fullest way; and it is interesting to see how the assembly is looked at as recovered in the fifth chapter, where we have the three again spoken of.
We find the same in Ephesians, Colossians, and Galatians, as, for instance, in Gal. 5:5, “We, through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith;” and 22nd verse, “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.” So in Eph. 1:15-18, Col. 1:4,5, Heb. 10:22-24 (where “profession of our faith” should read “ confession of the hope,”) and 1 Peter 1:22. It shows us that Christianity is not complete without the three; in its complete form it embraces faith, hope, and charity—i.e., love.
I suppose one could have two without the third?
Yes; but if so, one is not walking in the power of the Holy Ghost.
If one possesses faith, must he necessarily have some measure of love?
Yes. We read of faith working by love.
Will one have hope also?
Not necessarily. A soul walking in the Spirit will have the three. It is by the Spirit we cry— “Come, Lord Jesus.” If we walk in the Spirit we will answer to the Spirit’s cry.
“Every man,” we read, “that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, as he is pure.” I suppose living in the power of the hope would have that effect?
Surely.
Faith may be in exercise apart from hope; but hope scarcely can apart from faith?
No: faith must come first.
I suppose many are exhibiting a considerable measure of faith, who have not hope at all?
Yes, who have never heard of it. But there will always be love if there is faith.
Is there any stress to be laid on the “now” in 1 Cor. 13:13. “And now abideth.”?
Yes; it is a present thing. The force of the text is what we have now-not what will abide, but what abideth.
Can there be love apart from the truth?
I do not believe there can be true divine love.
I suppose there might be love in the measure of the truth we have?
“This is love, that we walk after his commandments.”
We frequently hear persons say that they love every child of God, and yet they themselves may not be walking in the truth any more than those they profess to love. Is that divine love?
That love may be of the lower order. We are told by Peter to add to brotherly affection the love of God. Brotherly affection includes everyone, but the love God applies to those walking after His commandments, being a corrective of brotherly affection. In 1 John 4:20, we read, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar;” but it does not stop there. It tells you who to love. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments.” Thus the circle that looks wide in the twentieth verse, narrows itself when we come into the next chapter. There can be no love apart from the truth.
Is it not true that we love every child of God, whether they walk in the ways of God or not? And do not we show our love to them, not by walking with them, but by walking with God
Quite true. It is an injury to our brother not to walk according to God’s commandments. It is a stumbling-block to him, and tends to draw him aside.
We see many unconverted people exhibit amiability, kindheartedness, and all that. What kind of love is that?
It is natural character, natural affection.
Is it not of God?
Yes, it is, according to the first creation. The young man that came to Christ exhibited traits of natural character, which caused Christ to love him. We are right to recognize everything amiable and lovely in the first creation as of God.
Then natural affection is right?
Of course. It struck me as remarkable that, in 2 Timothy, where we are specially warned of the evil of the last days, and where the absence of natural affection is spoken of as one of their characteristics, that Paul specially refers to Timothy’s tears of affection for him.
Had this remnant in Thyatira taken the place of separation?
No: I think they were godly within. Like the Hebrews, they had not gone without the camp. They were apart, but apart within. In verse 20, the word “few” ought to be omitted. The case of Thyatira is worse than that of Pergamos. In the latter it was Balaam, but in the former Jezebel. Things we had enough in the days of Balaam, but in the days of Jezebel evil had reached a climax.
In 1 Kings 16:29-34, you have a description of the state of things in Israel in that day In the very worst time of Israel’s history Jezebel appears. So here we find the very darkest period of the Church’s history is come. Balaam has been displaced by Jezebel. Balaam was the man that commenced the evil. In Jezebel we have the woman, as it were, that hid the leaven in the three measures of meal.
What is, or has Jezebel been in the Church?
A special evil influence, corrupting everything.
Was not disregard of God exhibited in the re-building of Jericho?
Yes. It is remarkable that the two things go together.
I suppose this is a woman taking the place of authority?
Yes. It is an exercise of authority contrary to the command in 1 Timothy, “ I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” Christ says — “Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel to teach.” In Timothy we have God’s order when things were set up in the earth; here we see that order subverted.
He does not recognize her in the character she takes to herself?
She is responsible for the place she occupies. She was self-ordained.
God always binds the responsibility on those that take it upon themselves. I suppose that is a universal principle?
Yes; just as in the case of the servant in Matt. 24. Perhaps Lot might be taken as an instance. He took the place of one who had the heavenly calling.
We see it in all the systems. Men have taken upon themselves the responsibility of overlooking the flock of God. Well, God binds it upon them. So Christendom has been professedly Christianized in a wrong way.
I suppose you would say that Jezebel was akin to Popery? Yes. I suppose this refers to Popery before the Protestant element was introduced.
Do you not think that it goes on?
Yes, but here there is nothing but Thyatira.
Quite so. The time for Sardis has not come yet in the historic view.
In the case of Naboth, Jezebel seems the principal mover. So with the murder of the prophets. She usurped authority in these cases.
Yes. I think that “calling herself a prophetess” is a usurping a, place of authority to which she had no right. Besides this, she also teaches.
Do we not see here the worst elements of the world brought into the Church? Rome joined, for instance, the theater to the Church, and the Church was the patron of all sorts of amusements and pleasures. Would that be comprised in the teaching to commit fornication?
Well, it certainly is recognizing that friendship of the world which is enmity with God.
Yes; that may be in a modified form, but here it is in its worst Character.
I think in fornication you have the thought of that which God has forbidden. I should be a little sorry to have fornication limited to theaters and places of amusement. Do you not think the faintest letting down of the barrier between the Church and the world would be what is referred to here? It is the direct admixture with the world, bringing in what should be distinct and different. We have not only a contrast here, but more than a contrast. God’s commandment was that a Christian woman should not teach, but here is a woman teaching, who is not even a Christian.
Why is the order of the words “fornication” and “eating things sacrificed to idols” different in the twentieth verse from that in the fourteenth? In the fourteenth verse perhaps the owning of centers that are not of God leads to improper commerce with the world?
It might be so.
What is the form of evil in “eating things sacrificed to idols?”
It is identifying yourself with altars not of God. In the twenty-first verse we have the patience of God beautifully brought out.
Who are meant by “my servants?” Has it a more limited application than teaching this to the children?
It is teaching these things to the saints of God.
It was not merely the professing people, but Christ’s? Yes.
Would you think that such a thing as bishops having honors offered to them was included in it?
I daresay, what we see at the present day. It is the eating and drinking with the drunken; it is friendship with the world, and indifference to God’s centers and the recognizing of other centers. In verse 14 we have passive evil tolerated, but in verse 20 active evil sanctioned. In verse 14 they had there them which held the doctrine of Balaam; here there was an active energy of Satan with regard to his wiles, and that with respect to the children of God. “Behold, I cast her into a bed”—that is, into a place of sleep and ease. “They that sleep, sleep in the night”—that is, the very thing she is caught in. That very thing becomes her doom.
It is the Christians who are reproached when leading God’s servants astray. They look up to ministers, and forget that they lead them astray. Peter was led astray through fear of the brethren. The tendency of the people under the systems is to cast all their responsibility on the minister, forgetting that they themselves are responsible—that God holds individual Christians responsible for leading His servants astray.
The whole assembly was guilty of suffering such an influence to be brought to bear on those that took the lead. The whole meeting is responsible for the way in which the ministers were influenced.
That is, getting into ease and worldliness?
Yes. Christ says in effect, “The thing you desire I will give you.” I will cast you into a bed, the place of ease and rest; you desire rest, and you shall have it. Then He says, “Those that commit adultery with her,” which is worse than fornication, “into great tribulation.” He says, “That great tribulation is coming upon the world; you have chosen the world, and if you are to have the ease, you must have the consequences of the ease—tribulation which is coming upon the world.”
Has it more the force of, “I do cast,” than “I will cast?” Yes; it is present action. “I gave her space,” He says, “to repent, and she had no will to repent.”
Is not that a very forcible expression, “I will kill her children with death? “
That is a contrast to Pergamos. The doctrines existed in Pergamos, but they had been so active in Thyatira that children were the result— “I will kill the children with death.” There is a contrast between “my servants” and “her children.” It is absolute death from the presence of the Lord.
Are those that were to suffer tribulation the servants she had seduced?
No; the Lord removes the righteous from the judgment to come. No doubt they take warning by what is written. You see He does not say that they (the servants) commit adultery with her; they commit fornication and eat things sacrificed to idols. That is a different thing from committing adultery with her. In chap. 17 there is a key to this. He says, “with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.” There is the full form of the evil in chap. 18.
Who are her children?
Those that are the produce of her doctrines. Paul says, “I have begotten you through the gospel.” She has been so active in introducing her doctrines that children have been born to her-unconverted persons, of course.
“All the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts.” He takes that character in Jer. 17:10. That is what He was doing in the ruin of Israel, to give every man according to the fruit of his doing. In Rom. 8 we find, “He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to God.” Now Christ has come in and given us the Holy Ghost, and instead of searching the heart to give every man according to the fruit of his doings, He soon searches the heart to find out what is the mind of the Spirit.
When we reach this chapter in Revelation, we find evil and ruin have come in, and the Lord subsequently returns to the Jeremiah character, that is, as a Judge—a judicial Governor, and not as a Saviour. He “searches the reins and hearts, and will give unto every one of them according to their works.” The answer to the Christian character is in Psa. 139:23,24, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” We respond to Him in that character.