Speaker 1Welcome to the Naked Bible Podcast, episode 360, Revelation.
Speaker 22, 1 through 7. I'm the layman, Trey Strickland, and he's the scholar, Dr. Michael Heiser. Hey, Mike, how you doing?
Speaker 3Pretty good. You know, Trey, we have been in Florida now for a little over a year. I'm a Floridian. I'm Florida man now.
Speaker 2Yeah, you mentioned that last time, and then I just need to know if you've got a tan since then.
Speaker 3No, no. Again, I don't know if I'm proud of that or not, but I do not have a tan. That might change next year. The place we got did not have a pool, and that was sort of by design. There were things that we needed to work on and fix up. It's taken six months, but we now have a small pool in the backyard. Of course, it's too cold to use it, but that's just how things worked out. It just took overly long to do this. Sure enough, my only fear with the pool is Maury, because I don't think for a minute that Maury can swim. Yes, I know dogs are supposed to be able to swim by nature. You have not met Maury, okay? Sure enough, I got a text this week from Drina, and she says, guess what? I opened the door, and Maury charged out and went right into the pool. She had to jump in. With the water? With the water. I'm glad the water was in it, or else he could have broken a leg or something. It's only five, six feet deep. It's a small pool, but he went right in the water, and she said he just sank like a rock. I'm getting the narration here. He's starting to come up to the top, but she jumped in and got him. He was fine, but we've now decided that we cannot just let Maury out to do his thing without being on a leash until we arm him properly, until we clothe him properly. So I bought a dog floaty this week. It has not gotten to the house yet, but I can't wait. I can't wait to put it on him, because then he can run around, and if he just happens to charge into the pool, he'll be okay. He'll bob right to the top. What if he goes in? I got one for Norman, too. Norman, she didn't say whether he went upside down or not. He just sank. Yeah, well, I mean, if you put the floaty on, you know, I mean, what if he floats to the top?
Speaker 2We'll find out.
Speaker 3Yeah, well, it shouldn't. I mean, if the thing's, it's a dog life jacket, so it's not just like a Walmart floaty, but it's supposed to be a life jacket for dogs, okay? So we got him one of those, and it should be here today or tomorrow. And I also got, Norman I know can swim. Okay, he'll love it. So we got his with a little shark fin on it. You know, he'll just be trucking around, but Maury, that's a hazard. Well, was Maury able to swim at all?
Speaker 2I mean, was he at least?
Speaker 3Not according to Drina. So what we're going to do is, you know, when it gets warmer, we're not going to dip him when it's cold, but we'll put this thing on. I mean, I'll put it on him just in case he jumps in again, okay? We'll do that right away, but like in the summer, we'll put him in just to see if he can kind of do it, like the motion, you know? But I, even if he can, he's going to need the flotation. So yeah, there we go. Maury's big adventure.
Speaker 2Are you sure you didn't get that pool just for the dogs, or did you get it for y'all today? Are you going to use this pool? I did. I can't imagine you out there.
Speaker 3That was my motivation. We had a pool when I was growing up, and I never got, I never went in it, because I don't really swim. I could probably tread water for a few hours, you know, to save myself, but I'm not a swimmer, so I never went in the thing. And I'm not planning to go in this one unless it's to just to have fun with Maury or the dogs, you know? But everybody else, you know, they're more into it than I am, so all I want to see is pugs in the pool. Then I'm happy that it was worth the investment.
Speaker 2Yeah, there you go. That's a good visual.
Speaker 3It was easy to talk me into it, you know, okay. Pug in the pool, value the property. I don't really have to use it. If I got those two things, it'll be good.
Speaker 2Well, that's a sweet image, pugs in the pool, as we go through the book of Revelation here.
Speaker 3It's kind of apocalyptic. Is that your point?
Speaker 2No, it's pretty cute. It's the opposite of apocalyptic.
Speaker 3Right. Something to balance all the disasters. The disaster stuff in Revelation, okay.
Speaker 2Right, absolutely. Okay, yeah.
Speaker 3If you get frightened, listeners get frightened as we go through the book of Revelation, just think of pugs in a pool.
Speaker 2So there you go. That'll calm you down. Absolutely. Well, I'm excited to get back into Revelation. We had a nice little break, and I'm ready to get back into the Bible.
Speaker 3Yeah, me too, to be honest. I mean, I like doing interviews, but, you know, I kind of like to build a little momentum too. So I'm glad we're back. And we are jumping into Revelation 2. There's one item, reader or listeners may recall, we skipped the death in Hades part of Revelation 1, and we're going to pick that up when we hit that phrase again later, which I, of course, when we were going through Revelation 1, I mentioned that, but just to mention it here again. So we're moving right into chapter 2, and we'll wait to pick up the whole death in Hades thing, which I think people are going to find real interesting. But for today, it's really the first seven verses. You know, I don't know. I think next time we'll probably just finish the whole chapter, but for right now, the first seven verses, which I'm going to read, and then we'll jump into it again. Our point here is, you know, how does the Old Testament get repurposed? You know, how does the Old Testament contribute to what we're reading, understanding what we're reading? So this is the letter to the church in Ephesus. It's the first seven verses, and I'm reading ESV. It says, To the angel of the church in Ephesus write the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. 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. But I have this again, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember, therefore, from where you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. Yet this you have, you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers, I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. So, I mean, there are. There are lots of things we could sort of point out here. You know, there's the reference to my name's sake, which ties in with the name theology. Again, we've spent a good bit of time on name theology in the podcast, so I'm not going to, you know, dig in there at all. You know, we could. It's very obvious, the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand. Again, this is ostensibly the source, the origin point of the message, and this is Jesus, who we've seen in prior, you know, lessons here, prior episodes, is identified with God. And then at the very end here in verse 7, he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. Ah, so now the Spirit is the one giving the message. Well, is it the Spirit? Is it Jesus who is God, or God? And the answer is, yep. Again, this is another. You get another one of these indications where, you know, the Trinitarian thought comes from, this co-identification. And again, we've spent a lot of time on that in other books and, you know, different ways. So I want to focus on some different things here that actually have some sort of specific root in the Old Testament that we haven't, you know, spent so much time with, you know, in earlier episodes or other episodes of the podcast or even my books. So before we do that, though, I think it's probably reasonable since we've had several interviews. And I think it's probably reasonable since we've had several interviews in between here to kind of review where we've been. You know, to this point in the series, we've discussed Revelation 1 except for verse 18. That's the keys of death in Hades reference. And we'll get to that later when we get into chapter 3. We've looked at seven spirits or stars or angels identified with seven churches. This is all Revelation 1. And the term lampstands is looped into that. The seven churches are identified as these lampstands per Revelation 1.20. We've seen Jesus, the glorified Son of Man, is in their midst. That's Revelation 1.13. And we looked at how the exalted son of man figure comes from daniel 7 familiar passage to this audience where the son of man gets the deity epithet the one who rides in the clouds or comes with the clouds in that chapter again daniel 7 has the ancient of days with the hair and clothing white as snow and pure wool with a throne of fire but revelation 1 you know attributes that imagery also to the son of man where daniel 7 doesn't do that daniel 7 has these two characters ancient of days son of man revelation 1 john merges them and we talked about why john does that and you know again to identify jesus and god and so on and so forth so jesus we have in revelation 1 god is man in the midst of the seven spirits and the stars the seven you know angels identify with the seven churches now the lampstands again point to churches but we've also seen in earlier episodes that the seven lamps seven lampstands really lamps menorah branches you are an allusion to zechariah 4 1 and 2 where we have one standing lamp with seven branches again this the classic menorah figure these seven lights these seven you know lamps in zechariah are further identified in zechariah 4 verse 10 as quote the eyes of the lord which range through the whole earth and we've seen in earlier episodes that these are divine beings this is divine council imagery members of the heavenly host we looked at eric and carol myers their commentary on hagai and zechariah 1 to 8 for that where they talk about the eyes of yahweh being language that's used of god's omniscience and omnipresence and that's true but there's more to it because how does god you know how is god described as doing that keeping tabs on everything well that's through the agency the members of the heavenly host which gets you into the heavenly books idea that god has agents that travel to the heavenly hosts and that's why we're talking about the heavenly hosts and that's why we're talking about the heavenly hosts and that's why we're talking about to and fro throughout the whole earth as the eyes of the lord keeping tabs you know keeping track of everything that's going on we looked at uh a leo oppenheim's article on that very subject the eyes of the lord from the journal of the american oriental society back in 1968 this is all episode 355 so this is the these are the paths that we've gone through or down and so to try to simplify here the eyes of the lord again yes it's an expression of god's omniscience but the extension of that omniscience seems to be that the eyes of the lord are his heavenly agents and the churches the angels the lampstands again all this language is bound together you can't really talk about one of these things the churches the angels or the lampstands without talking about the others they are different yet inextricably linked okay by the language now all that's necessary in terms of review because of a line we're going to encounter it later in revelation 2 the message for the church at ephesus so again let's jump back into revelation 2 and the first line you know to the angel of the church in ephesus right so ostensibly john is instructed to write to this angel whatever whoever whatever or whoever that is now the language here is why some interpreters think the angels are the pastors or the human leaders of these churches i mean john's writing a letter to that guy okay or whoever now that might sound right but it's actually problematic and you probably have already sensed that because of the identification of the angels and the lampstands and the churches and the stars you know it can can you really neatly separate the people in the church from the church collectively from you know the the eyes of the lord i mean how do you parcel these things out the answer is you can't really do it neatly they're inextricably linked even though they're inextricably linked and you can't really talk about one without talking about the others so that's the general problem you know to this point when writing about churches up until chapter two there's been no mention by john of specific human leadership only supernatural guardians or supervision again the eyes of the lord recall again that john associates with he associates the menorah light branches the lampstands with the angels spirits and the churches and that association plus the supernatural nature the eyes of the lord strongly suggest the angels of the churches are not human leaders that's the other side now in his revelation commentary uh own writes this he says the term angel messenger occurs 77 times in revelation in both singular and plural forms only eight of these references are problematic those that refer to quote the angels of the seven churches that's revelation one twenty and the seven occurrences of the singular term angelos as the particular addressee of each of the seven proclamations to the churches you know the first one we've run into here is revelation two one but there's others you know throughout these two chapters since most of the sixty-nine occurrences you know that are left of the term angelos or angeloi that's the plural refer to benevolent supernatural beings who serve as mediators and messengers between god and his creation on notes you know the seven occurrences of the singular term angelos or angeloi that's the plural refer to benevolent supernatural beings who serve as mediators and messengers between god and his creation on notes you know the seven occurrences of the singular term angelos or angeloi that's the plural refer to benevolent supernatural beings who serve as mediators and messengers between god and his creation on notes the only ones that aren't are the or when the term is linked to the churches here so on saying well look you know you know odds are pretty good that maybe we're better off you know looking at that the the angel of the church in you know fill in the blank is also a supernatural being now in my angels book i also note that the notion of supernatural agents assigned to or watching over churches is quite possibly a new testament adaptation of the deuteronomy 32 worldview i have to stop here and say if if you're listening to the podcast maybe you just started listening to the podcast you have no idea what the deuteronomy 32 worldview is i can't go through it here on the front page of the podcast there's a tab or a button at the top it says start here and there's a video explaining what the deuteronomy 32 worldview is so again back to the angels book in the in that book i discuss the angels to the church's issue and my you know one of the suggestions is that we may have a new testament adaptation of the deuteronomy 32 worldview specifically within that worldview you have the nations other than israel assigned to lesser sons of god okay lesser elohim and they become corrupt and so on and so forth again if you've read unseen realm this is all old news to you and so all the nations besides israel that god disinherits at babel are under dominion of some other supernatural beings and this is where you know the old testament how the old testament explains why there are other gods of the nations and where we get pantheons and all this kind of stuff for these nations israel though okay prior to the book of daniel israel is yahweh's property okay this is his domain it's his inheritance all right it's his possession it's the nation he takes according to deuteronomy 419 through 20 for his own now in the book of daniel we we read and you know there's scholars speculate on why this is i'm not going to go down this bunny trail too far but in the book of daniel we learned that michael again one of one specific you know angel who is one of the chief princes okay michael is the guardian if you will of israel and some people think that this is because we it god is sort of distance here because of the exile and all this kind of stuff and this is why you know israel now has a placeholder like all the other nations and it's not directly with god because we have it's a sense it's another way to communicate israel and again i'm not going to go down that bunny trail too far but this is the situation you get in daniel and so the idea of a supernatural being assigned a guardianship or a supervisory role of the people of god is a biblical one when you get to the new testament what you have is you don't have the people of god associated with one geographical place or entity okay a national israel you have people of god scattered everywhere in little groups called churches and so the notion that you would have a church playing some sort of guardianship role or again supervisory role it you know very well could be you know a new testament adaptation of the deuteronomy 32 worldview and i think in this case because elsewhere angel is is clearly a supernatural being and also because the angels of the churches are tied in with the lampstand imagery which are the eyes of the lord which are clearly supernatural beings i think this is probably the best way to go okay so that i i'm sort of fronting where i'm where i'm going to go with all this uh so that you you kind of are able to track with me early on now i also noted in the angels book that the answer again to this question you know are the angels human leaders or supernatural agents is ultimately answered i think you know this is a big element to bring alongside the deuteronomy 32 worldview that it's ultimately answered by the grammar of revelation one through three in the immediate context of each letter so what do i mean by that well let's use revelation to an emphasis as an example okay this will be a little more detailed than what you might find in the angels book so again just heads up so we have here Revelation 2.1, to the angel of the church in Ephesus write, the words of him who holds the seven stars in his hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. Now, if you notice, the angel is addressed. The Lord tells John to tell the angel, whoever or whatever that is, that the message is coming from God, or Jesus, the one with the stars in his hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. Again, this is divine counsel, heavenly throne room imagery. None of that means anything to a human leader, okay? If a human leader is being addressed, it makes less sense to sort of loop the human into that picture, or that imagery, or remind them of that imagery, as opposed to if we have a supernatural being, that this is like, this is the headquarters place, okay? This is where you were tasked. If the addressee is an angel, in other words, one of these lampstands, there's seven lampstands, the seven churches, Ephesus is the first one. So, Jesus walks among these lampstands, who again, are the eyes of the Lord, which is, again, divine counsel members, and so on and so forth. It just doesn't seem to fit a human being. But if this is a supernatural being, all the imagery makes sense. The language makes sense. You know, if the addressee is an angel, one of the seven lampstands, and so on and so forth, it just doesn't seem to fit a human being. One of the stars that are with the lampstands, so on and so forth, that would be in concert with the Zechariah material, Zechariah 4. I would also say, we don't have to think of the semantic of the phrase, to the angel, you know, right, to the angel, as speaking of a literal recipient. It's not like John's writing a letter, he's going to go hand it to an angel. That's an over-literalism that doesn't make any sense on one hand, and isn't necessary on the other. You could read the phrase this, you could read it this way. The Lord tells John to write concerning the angel of the church in Ephesus, or in regard to, or with respect to, the angel of the church in Ephesus. Okay, those are semantic options that don't require John literally handing off a letter to a supernatural being, okay? The wording loops in the angel, though, with what follows, and I think that's important. And what follows are comments about the state of the church in Ephesus, the group of human believers that the angel is overseeing, or at least watching, keeping tabs on. So verse 2, 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. Now, all of these things are what you'd expect Jesus to say to human believers who are struggling to remain loyal to Jesus. The pronouns used here, your, you know, your works, your toil, your patient endurance, and then verbs, you have tested, you are enduring, all this stuff, they're all grammatically singular. So you would ask, well, doesn't that mean that we have to opt for John writing to a human leader of the church at Ephesus because the verbs here are singular? The answer is no. No. Singular Greek grammatical forms are used of collective entities, in this case, churches. I'm suggesting here that the Lord instructs John to write things in his book in regard to the believing community, which is overseen by a supernatural agent, akin to the Deuteronomy 32 worldview, where Michael was God's agent in spiritual warfare over his people. You know, at that time, it was one community called Israel, now it's churches. So you see, if you look at it that way, it blends the supernatural aspect, a supernatural being overseeing this congregation, and it also loops in the church collectively. And by the way, it doesn't make it really any sense to have one individual, one leader, one pastor as the subject of your works, your toil, your patient endurance. You know, it's not just one guy that's being commended. It's a whole church. It's a collective entity. And likewise, when churches get blamed for things, it's not just one person. It's them collectively. So how do we merge the collective sense of this evaluation? Because all these letters are going to be evaluatory of these churches. How do we, you know, loop the collective sense of what is being said to these churches, the entity, the body, the congregation, with this angel? And again, I think the, the best way, I'll just say it again, I think the best way to merge them together is that God is instructing John to write things in Revelation in regard to the whole church, the believing community, which is overseen by a supernatural agent, an angel, akin to the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. I think that's the easiest way to marry these two things together and make sense of the language. Let's go to verse four. But I have this against you, and that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember, therefore, from where you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. Well, I think verses four and five make the perspective I just sketched out pretty clear. These are all singulars again, against you, you have abandoned the love, you have fallen, repent, a singular command. To me, it defies credibility to think that the point of this language is for one, is for, you know, either one supernatural agent assigned to the church that they're getting blamed, or one human being. And I think that's the best way to do it. Rather, it's one group that is getting evaluated here, the church, which is at Ephesus. I think Revelation 2 begins very clearly. I mean, who does it say that the letter is actually and ultimately to? It's to the angel of the church in Ephesus, right? So we've got the angel, the supernatural guardian, and the church collectively. So, how do we marry those two things together? To me, it just makes little sense to say that one human being is being isolated out as the recipient of this letter and getting the credit or the blame. And it just doesn't make very, very good sense for me. To me, on the other hand, it makes good sense for the singulars to be pointing to the body of believers at Ephesus, the whole church, that they need to, you know, here's what you're doing well, here's what you're not doing well. Now we get to this line. Okay, he says, you did it first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place unless you repent. So what is the threat? There's a twofold aspect to this. Since the lampstand and its star or its angel are inextricably linked, again, because the lampstand imagery in Revelation applying to the church, but in the Old Testament being used of supernatural beings, again, these things are merged. You have to look at this in two ways. The lampstand and the star are linked. Okay, the church and its angel are inextricably linked. The church and its supernatural guardian, you can't really distinguish them neatly and separate them. Basically, if the church at Ephesus doesn't get its act together, the Lord is going to recall its lampstand, its supernatural agent, its guardianship. That's the threat. We're going to call this guy home, which means the church's effective presence in the world. I mean, if the angel here is supposed to be a helper or a guardian or an overseer, I mean, all these things, you know, angels do lots of things, okay? The threat to say, well, I guess your work is done here. Come on back. That would be, to me, it's the New Testament church. It's the Revelation 2 of Judges chapter 2, where the angel of the Lord, in that case, shows up, you know, and says, hey, you failed at the conquest. I'm leaving. You're on your own. I'm out of here. So it has that kind of flavoring. It's a judgment, you know, for God to remove the guardianship or, you know, the angel who is there to assist in some way or observe or whatever, you know, whatever the angel is going to do at any given point. It's judgment. It's judgment. It's judgment. It's judgment. It's to treat his people at Ephesus as though they are not his. Their job is over. It's a chastening. And by the way, the connection to Israel there should be apparent. I mean, God does do this to his people. He withdraws, you know, his presence. I mean, the glory leaves Israel before the exile. I mean, we're familiar with these passages. And, you know, the angel of the Lord in Judges 2 says, I'm out of here. I'm no longer going to lead you. So again, mapping these ideas over to each other, the concepts are not foreign. The concepts are present in the Old Testament. The lampstand, you know, being removed from its place, that is, this supernatural agent will cease to play a role in you people being a kingdom of priests and a priestly witness at Ephesus. I mean, because that's your job. That's your job. And if you think about, again, parallels to Israel again, here we go again. It's the Deuteronomy 32 worldview seeping into the New Testament context. Okay. When the angel of the Lord leaves, then you get the period of the Judges, which is a disaster. And God, he doesn't forget them. He intervenes in a number of places, raises up judges and so on and so forth. But the whole point is that this is going to be even more of a struggle. It's going to be even worse. Okay, so you need to go back to, quote unquote, your first love. And I think the interpretation of that phrase derives from this discussion. You know, the ESV has, you have abandoned the love that you had at first. Now, this first love imagery certainly has Old Testament echoes. It seems to come from passages like Jeremiah 2. Let me just read that real quickly. Jeremiah 2.2. The word of the Lord came to me saying, go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem. Thus says the Lord, I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed me in the wilderness. In a land not sown. Okay, so this first love, this bride, you know, God's bride in the Old Testament. But again, in Judges chapter 2, God, in the form of the angel, says, I'm leaving. You know, you obviously are not, you're not showing allegiance. You're not showing loyalty to me. And again, in the conquest situation, going back to the book of Judges. That doesn't work well. So they have ceased to, you know, there's a question mark there about their, are you getting the job done or not? And in Israel's case, no, you're not. Ezekiel 16.8 is another one of these where you get this, you know, love language, this bride language for Israel. When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine. And it's this marital marriage imagery used of Israel. So a number of scholars think that the first love idea has some attachment to these passages. Beale, in his Revelation commentary, he writes this, and I think appropriately, he notes that the, quote unquote, loss of love should not be understood as generally, a lack of love for Jesus. Okay, verses two and three really defy that. Let me read verses two and three. And this is how you'll often hear the passage preached, unfortunately. But verses two and three pretty much deny it. I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil. I mean, they haven't switched sides. But you have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not. Okay, they're not swayed by false teaching. You have found them to be false. I mean, they're believing. They haven't buckled under the threat or the specter of unbelief. That is not what's going on here. Okay, that is not what's going on here. I think Beale is right to point this out. Again, to summarize him, he says the issue isn't that the Ephesian believers are falling away or rethinking their loyalty to Jesus. Again, I'm just summarizing Beale's thoughts. Jeremiah 2.2, Ezekiel 16.8, both have the covenant relationship between God and his bride in view. So verses two and three have the Ephesian believers hanging on to their faith. They're not severing from it. They're not going after somebody else. They're not committing spiritual adultery or anything like this. They're not succumbing to unbelief. So what's the problem? In what respect are they failing? And Beale, what he does is he directs people, his readers, to Matthew 24, 12-14. Given the apocalyptic context of Revelation, Beale brings this passage up. Here's what it says. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to, all nations, and then the end will come. The lawlessness referred to in that Matthew passage, again, summarizing Beale's thoughts here, is not the worldliness of believers. They haven't become worldly. They haven't given up. Rather, the context is the persecution of believers and the deception of believers with false teaching. Back in Matthew, it is, in a word, opposition from unbelievers. But more importantly, back in Matthew, verse 14 links the love of many tapering off. It links that idea, not with succumbing to heresy or false teaching or worldliness. I mean, they're enduring under that, just like in Revelation 2. Rather, it links the love of many tapering off to God's desire that the gospel be proclaimed throughout the whole world. That's both the reason the church is opposed, but it's also the mission. I mean, Beale suggests that the waning love of the Ephesians is not their own believing loyalty. That's secure, but their lack of witness to the people of Ephesus, to the nations. If you look at the wording of Revelation 2.4, the antidote to abandoning the love they had at first is to, quote, do the works they did at first. And Beale comments, quote, this explains the loss of love as unfaithfulness to the covenantal task, not the covenantal theology. The belief system, who the true God is, that's not in question. It explains the loss of love as unfaithfulness to the covenantal task of enduring in preaching the gospel for a witness. So I think that that, to me, that makes sense. It makes sense out of the Matthew passage. It makes sense out of what the church in Ephesus is commended for, but they still lack. Again, you have to take off the table the things, the things that they are certainly not being blamed for. It's not, they don't have a problem with unbelief. They don't have a problem with, you know, being duped by false teachers. Yes, they see all that stuff. Yes, they're under persecution, but they're holding up. Okay, they're suffering for the Lord's name's sake and all this kind of stuff. They're holding up. Nevertheless, I have something against you. You know, you've left your, you know, this first love idea. And again, if you go back to the Matthew passage, this idea is linked to, to taking the gospel to all the nations. And so Beale wants to tie that knot here. And I think that makes sense. I think that that's consistent thinking. By way of a modern analogy, you know, let's, you know, let's talk about current, you know, current events here in the current context. By way of a modern analogy, when our political culture begins to persecute the church in the years to come, and it will come, will your impulse be to bring them to the Lord, to bring your enemies? To the Lord, or to get revenge? Is it, well, you're headed for hell. The Lord, you know, the Lord's going to judge and he's going to take care of you anyway. That could very possibly, especially in Ephesus. I mean, considering the book of Acts, what happened in Ephesus with Paul and the riots and all this stuff. That could very well be the context of the early church in Ephesus to whom John is writing. They were targets. And Jesus wasn't of the mind to let an attitude that wasn't about winning them over to his family go unchallenged or unchastised. You're here to expand the kingdom, not win an argument and not be comfortable. The church, again, around the world, we're going to need this message in the years to come. I just know we will. The church around the world is growing. It's growing under persecution and the church in America needs to follow suit. We're not an exception. And the mandate of the Great Commission, you know, Jesus, it's not going to change. So when, you know, when you're put in situations like the people of the church of Ephesus, you know, I mean, you know, when life just becomes either hard or irritating or, you know, I mean, whatever level of severity, is your first impulse going to be, we need to win these people to the Lord because this is why we're here. This is why we're here on earth. This is what God wants us to do. This is what, this is the, this is the mandate Jesus gave us before he left, before he ascended. Or is it, we're going to get revenge. We're going to show you, you know, it, you know, it's just something we're all going to have to think about. And if we go back to Ephesus, they are in a difficult, difficult situation. Again, they are trying to, you know, we've got the civil authorities, the Roman world, again, Christians get targeted time. You know, time and again, they're, you know, some of the persecution gets really bad in, in pockets, you know, historical pockets. But Christianity, again, newsflash, Christianity is not legalized in the Roman empire until the late three hundreds AD. That's, that's over 200 years later. Okay. This is not a, a, an officially politically recognized belief system or sect. They are viewed with suspicion for any number of reasons. You know, and you probably, we probably all, you know heard you know background information about the situation you know with the early church how the romans thought the early christians were atheists because they wouldn't you know offer sacrifices to the gods you know it was a goofy thought but you could see where how they would get there you know that you had you had christians that either resisted going into the military in the early church or if they were there you know they had divided loyalties because of their allegiance to jesus as opposed to you know their commanders in certain situations so that put them in a bad you know reputation you know it there were just any number of reasons why if you were an early believer and this is this is post nero okay nero's you know again in the 60s so regardless of your view of the authorship of revelation you're in a post nero context why bring that up because nero villainized the christians all over the roman world there's nobody that's embracing these people so they're in a tough spot and yet you know the letter you know here addressed to the ephesians doesn't say that they're fainting and failing or succumbing to unbelief they're not none of the above but apparently again if we loop this passage back to the one in matthew that beale brings up apparently they've let the mission slide their love for the people they are left to win is disappearing it's waning they're losing enthusiasm for doing ministry among these people and again before we beat them up too harshly it was a serious thing to reveal to someone that you were a christian and to talk about jesus you know and and to you know you don't do i do i want to let let them know that there's a church here in town you know you know this is this is very much a there's an underground flavor to a lot of these situations there could be any number of reasons why the early churches get losing enthusiasm for what they're supposed to be doing and this is what the lord is concerned with because this is why you're here we could go to passage in the gospels were any passage in the gospels that talks about you know hey don't don't be amazed if people hate you you know jesus says they hated me you know you're not going to be better off you made it this this whole sense of co suffering and we peter's letters are full of this this is the context for the early church and any and to me it makes sense that in view of what they're not failing at that this particular thing makes sense again to to sort of target or zero in on uh. as far as the lord having a problem with with what's going on you know in the church of ephesus uh. again to to me it makes good sense of all the options now before hitting the nicolaitans that's verse six i want to jump to verse seven so in in revelation two five you have the removal of the lampstand again that's sort of like a negative motivation to remember you're supposed to be the the new testament version of a kingdom of priests here again tying it back to israel because we're tying it back to the deuteronomy thirty two world view again and revelation uses this language of the churches you're supposed to be a kingdom of priests and so on and so forth and we we've seen that language in in other episodes so that the negative motivation is i'm gonna remove your lampstand just gonna call your your angel back you know you're gonna be on your own as positive motivation though for returning to one's first love john is instructed to write in verse seven he who has an ear let him hear what the spirit says to the churches to the one who conquers i will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the paradise of god uh. it's really obvious in this verse the old testament antecedents are very transparent this is about the future destiny the believer the new earth modeled after the pre fall eden you know since the great commission is linked by paul and romans nine to the gentiles being brought in the people that the ephesian christians are supposed to be witnessing to and that in turn is linked to the lord's return the awakening of israel the healing of the nations and the new eden the warning here given to the ephesians actually matters in in other words if you don't be about the lord's business you are contributing to the forestalling of all that's yet to come and all that's yet to come is is just lots of good stuff the lord's going to get his way we're going to have a new earth new eden you know the lord will return if you don't do the job then that contributes to this getting stretched out and so we have a negative and a positive you know impetus to get with the program again and remember the program now to verse six and the whole issue with the nicolaitans now i have to be honest i wouldn't really spend any time on this except for the fact that it has a peripheral or at least a theoretical Old Testament connection. Let me just read the verse before we jump into this. Verse 6 says, Yet this you have, as a commendation, you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate, the Lord says. So who are these people? Now, Owen, in his Revelation commentary, writes this. He says, The Nicolaitans are mentioned explicitly only in Revelation 2.6, in the proclamation to Ephesus, and in 2.15, which is the proclamation to the church at Pergamon. In 2.6, it is simply said that the Ephesian Christians hate the works, i.e., the behavior of the Nicolaitans. In Revelation 2.14 and 15, the, quote, teaching of Balaam, unquote, is apparently identical with the teaching of the Nicolaitans and consists of eating meat previously sacrificed to pagan deities and the practice of eating meat. So let me read Revelation 2.14 and 15. It says, But I have a few things against you. This is to the church in Pergamon. I have a few things against you. You have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. So either those two things are different or, you know, Ahn suggests, his opinion is that it's two ways of pointing to the same problem. Okay, he wants to merge these things. So Ahn goes on to wonder if Revelation 2.20 and 21, which refers to that woman Jezebel, another Old Testament allusion, might also be linked to the Nicolaitans because both that description, the woman Jezebel, and then back here with the Nicolaitans, in verses 14 and 15, are described in relation to eating meat sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality. These are common threads between both these passages. There is also speculation, and, you know, Ahn believes it's really not coherent, that the Nicolaitans are to be linked to the Jews and the so-called synagogue of Satan, also in Revelation 2. That would be verse 13. I would agree with him. I think that's utterly incoherent. You know, since the synagogue of Satan idea doesn't have an Old Testament context in view or, you know, that phrase isn't used in the Old Testament, I'm not going to land on it specifically in a future episode, but, you know, this isn't a verse-by-verse series. You have to remember that. But for our purposes here, though, the Jews can be safely ruled out with respect to the Nicolaitan problem in Revelation 2.6 or 20 through 21. Why? Well, the reasons are pretty straightforward. They can be ruled out with respect to the Nicolaitan problem in Revelation 2.6 or 20 through 21. Why? The crimes, the concerns are idolatry and eating meat sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality. Okay, when you're talking especially about idolatry and meat sacrificed to idols, these are not Jews, okay? That ought to be really obvious. We're not talking about Jews here. So this synagogue of Satan idea is not the Nicolaitan problem. So let's go back to the Nicolaitan stuff. The sin of Balaam is clear enough, okay? Revelation 2.14 and 15. Israel was led to worship idols and commit sexual immorality as a result of his influence and counsel. We can read about that in Numbers 22.5 all the way through Numbers 25.3, a whole section of the book of Numbers there. It also gets picked up in Numbers 31.8 and 31.16. And Beale writes of this whole Nicolaitan thing, this issue, this problem of identification. He writes this, Balaam was a pagan prophet hired by Balak, king of Moab, to pronounce a curse upon the invading Israelites. God prevented Balaam from doing so and caused him to issue a blessing on them instead. It's Numbers 22.5 through 24.25. However, Balaam subsequently devised a plan in continued disobedience to God, whereby some of the Moabite women would entice the Israelite men to, quote, defect from the Lord, unquote. That's Numbers 31.16. By fornicating with them and joining with them in the worship of their pagan gods. That's Numbers 25, first few verses. This plan was successful, and God punished the Israelites for their idolatrous involvement. Beale continues, Balaam became proverbial for the false teacher who, for money, as believers to enter into relationships of compromising unfaithfulness, and who was warned by God to stop, and who was finally punished for continuing to disobey. And biblically, we see that in Numbers 22.7, Deuteronomy 23.4, Nehemiah 13.2, 2 Peter 2.14-16, and Jude 5-12. But Philo talks about this in some of his books, and Beale gives you the citations there. So this is what Balaam's known for. He became proverbial for the false teacher who, you know, for money influences believers to do all this stuff. Beale continues, the episode from Numbers is applied to a group of false teachers in the church of Pergamum because a principle of theological continuity was discerned between the two situations. Let me read that again. The episode from Numbers, all the Balaam stuff, is applied to a group of false teachers in the church of Pergamum because a principle of theological continuity was discerned between the two situations. The false teachers were arguing that believers could have closer relationships with pagan culture, institutions, and religion than John thought proper. This is the significance of the expression, quote, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to fornicate, unquote, which applies here not only to the Numbers account, but also to the problem in Pergamum, as is evident from the application of the identical phrase to the situation later on. in Thyatira, Revelation 2.20. Although some contend that Adolathutan can refer to meat which has been dedicated to an idol and then sold in the marketplace, look at what Paul says about that in 1 Corinthians 8, 1 Corinthians 10, 23-30, even though some contend that that's how we should take what's going on here. It's meat which was dedicated to an idol and then sold in the such food in the context of idolatrous worship, which was also a problem in Corinth. We learn that from 1 Corinthians 10, the first 22 verses. This is clear, Beale says, from the parallels drawn with Balaam and later with Jezebel in Revelation 2.20, both of which concern blatant idolatry. Now, as a sidebar here, Beale, in a footnote, draws attention to something that Ben Witherington III has written, and he notes this, Ben Witherington has now shown that all uses of Adolathutan in the New Testament, including 1 Corinthians, refer to, quote, meat sacrificed to and eaten in the presence of an idol or in the temple precincts, unquote. And that citation is from an article by Witherington entitled, Not So Idle, I-D-L-E, Thoughts, Not So Idle Thoughts. You know, the Ben Love puns. Okay, those of you who caught our interview with him way back here on the podcast know that. So he does it again here in an article titled, Not So Idle Thoughts. And basically, the point is that, look, we don't have a contradiction here between what John is saying in Revelation 2 and what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10. Because in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul says, look, don't eat meat sacrificed to idols because you're going to enter into fellowship with demons, okay? That's 1 Corinthians 10, 21, 22. So back in chapter 8, 1 Corinthians 8, Paul says, hey, look, you know, we're believers. We know that an idol is nothing for us. There's only one God and so on and so forth. And then, you know, you get to verse 10 and he's freaked out, like, you know, don't do this. You're going to be in a fellowship with demons, okay? And what he's talking about is eating the meat in participation with a ritual or in a, you know, on unholy ground, so to speak. And in 1 Corinthians 10, a few verses after he warns them about fellowship. He says, look, you know, if the meat, if you find it at the marketplace, okay, yeah, it was sacrificed to an idol, but now, you know, you find it at the marketplace, that's not so much of a problem. You know, that's okay. You know, it's permissible. Actually, he said, you know, in 1 Corinthians 10, he's talking about issues of conscience, okay? 1 Corinthians 8 through 10. So there's a difference there. And what, you know, Beale is saying, what Witherington is saying is, look, what John is concerned with is not a contradiction of Paul's allowance to eat the meat that had been sold in the marketplace. That's not the case. The people who take that trajectory are wrong. And he, again, Beale is citing Witherington's work, saying everywhere that this term is used, you can connect it to the non-sacred, the sacred space of another, of a foreign god, again, pagan turf, so to speak, or again, some ritualistic involvement. That is the sin of Balaam, okay? That's participation in and with idolatry. So that's what John's after. That's what Paul was after. And Paul's allowance in 1 Corinthians 10 about eating meat that was sold in the marketplace, it's not the same thing. So to mop up, does this really help us identify the Nicolaitans? You know, what's in a name? Now, on notes that the Nicolaitans do get discussed by a number of church fathers, most of them, if not all of those references, seem to be based on Revelation 2.6, Revelation 2.14 and 2.15, the verses we're talking about. But it gets combined with a specific name, Nicolaeus, who was one of the seven deacons, according to Acts 6.5. So the church fathers are looking at this name, they're looking at Revelation 2, Nicolaitans, and basically says, what the references in Revelation, taking this name in Acts 6, and then basically, I'll use his wording, using a heavy admixture of legend and imagination. Basically, he says they just make up stuff to come up with an identity for the Nicolaitans that has no basis in either the New Testament or any other early writing as far as the identification of the Nicolaitans. You can't trace them back to this deacon in Acts 6, okay? It's his point. You know, who are the church fathers who do this? I mean, he own, you know, references Irenaeus and Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian. I mean, some famous church fathers, but he's like, they're just making it up. I mean, there's no basis to this. Now, On makes that observation and Beale follows him as well. I mean, Beale is of the same mind. They think that the name has nothing to do with Nicolaeus in Acts, but it's symbolic. And this explanation, I think, is a very important one. I think it's a very important one. I think it seems to have something to it. This isn't a specific actual group, but the name itself is symbolic. It's using etymology to create an association of the idolatry problem with Beale. So, again, another way of saying that is the terms, the names, you know, both of Beale and the problem of idolatry. You can break that name up etymologically, and then that was used to sort of. sort of, you know, create the linkage to what's going on in Ephesus that John is writing about. Let me just quote Beale's explanation. It's a lot more succinct and coherent. Some suggest, Beale writes, that Nicolaitans could be merely another name for the Balaam sect, since their teaching is emphatically equated with that of the other group. In the same manner, you have also some holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans in the same way, you know, later on at Pergamum. The two teachings are the same, but they're not the same. The two teachings are identified further by the similarity of the etymology of their names. So, here we go. Nica-laon means he overcomes the people. And in rabbinic literature, Baal-aam or Bil-aam was etymologized to Bala-aam or Bala-aam, which means he who consumes the people. That's rabbinic. That's from rabbinic writings. Or it could be construed as Baal-aam, he who rules over the people. So, you have part of the Nicolaitan name and the Balaam name, depending on how you divide the syllables and the etymology you use, they can mean kind of the same thing. Okay, this devouring of the people, overcoming of the people. The actual participation in idolatrous situations, it feels, sort of reflects that idea, that when the people are participating in idolatry, it overcomes them. The church at Pergamum gets, pardon the pun, swallowed up by, they get consumed by their idolatry. That's not so much true, obviously, of the church at Ephesus, which is our focus for this episode, because they're not going down this rabbit trail. They oppose the Nicolaitans. Okay, but there's a greater concern later on at Pergamum, you know, for the effect that this idolatry and the immorality is having on the church. And we'll get to that in the next episode as well, a little bit more. So Beale and Owen and, you know, other scholars are saying, the name is probably chosen in Greek, going back to the quote, "Nikalaon, he who overcomes the people, who conquers the people." So, whoever's teaching the Bible, if you're teaching the Bible, if you're teaching the Bible, whoever's teaching them to do this is starting, you know, to conquer believers. And since the term Balaam could be etymologized the same way, that's why John creates the connection. He wants his readers to understand that what's happening here in Ephesus and Pergamum and these churches, this is akin to what went on in the days of Balaam. So it's not that you actually have a sect that takes a name, Nicolaitans, they hang a shingle outside, the Nicolaitan, you know, first church of the Nicolaitans here. It's not an actual sect or people group. Rather, it's a label to put on those who are seducing believers into idolatry and immorality. And the connection with Balaam is done through the word meanings, the etymology. I think, again, that's better. I mean, I don't know that that's certain, but it's better than saying, oh, it's probably some followers of this guy Nicolaeus in Acts chapters, you know. Again, it'd be different if you had a textual record of that. But the church fathers don't have specific references textually to that. They just sort of glom on to the idea as, again, going back to Hans' quote, it's an admixture of legend and imagination. I don't really have anything to hang the hat on, but it sounded good. It was a way of explaining it. Whereas, again, if they had gotten into the Hebrew etymology, which is asking a lot for early church fathers who didn't know. If you're going to do that, then you can kind of see how the two things would fit together. So, again, that's an Old Testament relationship. Is it really repurposing the Old Testament? Well, you know, a little bit, kind of, sort of. I mean, if this is what's going on, you know, John seems to be aware of it and wants his audience, again, to think about the situation they're in. He's going to ask the church at Pergamum to do the same thing. Consider what's happening here. This ought to take your mind right back to Balaam. What a disaster that was. You know, both in terms of what was happening, boots on the ground, and God's response to it. You do not want to go down this road. So, again, we'll just wrap up Chapter 2, or at least the first seven verses with that. And, again, next time we're going to try to finish Chapter 2. We've already, you know, dipped into what, you know, the second half of it with some of the Balaam stuff. But we'll revisit that a little bit and pick up some of the other material. But that's where I'd like to stop for today. I think it's a good place to stop and sort of sets up. What we'll do next time.
Speaker 2All right, Mike, sounds good. I've got a few questions about the Nicolaitans, but we'll hold off on that. I mean, the only question I really got is, you know, who are they? But, like you said, how old do you think, how long ago do you think they existed?
Speaker 3Well, I don't, I'm with Beel and On. I don't think it's a specific group, you know, that would have identified themselves by that name. Yeah. I think it's a label given to them to, in Greek. I think, imitate what the term Balaam could mean in terms of its etymology, the parts of the word. He, you know, the one who conquers or the one who devours, that sort of thing. So I don't think it was a specific group. You know, I think it's, again, this is John's way of saying, of linking these people who are seducing believers in the church to idolatry, linking that back to Balaam. Because if you take Nicolaitan apart, it's, you know. Our people are getting consumed. And if you take Balaam apart and do the etymology there, it's he who consumes as well. So I think that's why he used the terminology, not to point to sort of a historical group.
Speaker 2All right, Mike. Sounds good. Well, we'll look forward to the rest of Chapter 2 next week. And I guess that's it, Mike. All right. We appreciate it. Well, with that, I want to thank everybody for listening to the Naked Bible Podcast.
Speaker 4God bless. Thank you for listening to the Naked Bible Podcast. To support this podcast, visit www.nakedbibleblog.com. To learn more about Dr. Heiser's other websites and blogs, go to www.drmsh.com.
PodcastTranscript AI