Original Meaning

IF EPHESIAN CHRISTIANS were tempted by rigidity and lovelessness, Smyrnean Christians by persecution, and Pergamum’s Christians by persecution and prophets of compromise, economic pressures were inviting compromise on the part of Thyatira’s Christians. The Asian churches may well hear in Jesus’ biblical title “Son of God” (2:18) a direct challenge to the imperial cult. Emperors claimed to be deities and saviors in Asia; some commentators have further suggested a specific contrast with Zeus’s son Apollo, a patron deity of Thyatira, with whom the deified emperors were linked.1 Apollo’s link with Helios, the sun god, also could amplify the contrast implicit in Jesus’ fiery features here, though these would be relevant to any readers familiar with the biblical prophets (cf. 1:14–16). Although the matter is uncertain, it may be more than coincidence that Jesus reminds hearers of his feet like bronze (1:15) specifically in a city where metal-working was a prominent industry.2

Jesus knows that the Christians in Thyatira, in contrast to those in Ephesus, are doing his works more than they have before (2:5, 19), but one flaw in the congregation proves serious enough to offset this praise: Unlike Ephesus, they are tolerating a false teacher of compromise (2:2, 20). Thyatira was known for its merchants, crafts, and their guilds (cf. also Acts 16:14).3 Those who participated in this aspect of public economic life would risk a substantial measure of their livelihood by refusing to join trade guilds. The guild meetings, however, included a common meal dedicated to the guild’s patron deity—a meal thereby off-limits to more traditional Christians (Acts 15:20; 1 Cor. 10:19–22). Starting in this general period, aspects of the imperial cult also began to affect nearly every trade guild.

A large number of commentators envision this situation as a primary contributor to “Jezebel’s” appeal.4 Not surprisingly, a prophet or prophetess who tells people what they want to hear can become readily popular (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3–4). Yet as some in Ephesus falsely claimed to be apostles (Rev. 2:2), some in Smyrna and Philadelphia falsely claimed to be Jews (2:9; 3:9), and the Laodicean Christians claimed to be rich (3:17), this Jezebel falsely claims to be a prophetess (2:20) and to offer “deep secrets” (2:24). Like Satan (12:9; 20:2, 8, 10) and the world system (13:14; 18:23; 19:20), she is a deceiver who misleads God’s servants.

Like “Balaam,” this false prophetess receives a nickname undoubtedly not of her own choosing. Jesus’ title for her, “Jezebel,” immediately calls to mind multiple associations. The biblical Jezebel was not a “prophetess,” but sponsored 850 false prophets (1 Kings 18:19; Josephus, Ant. 8.318); she also sought to take the lives of God’s true prophets (1 Kings 18:13; 19:2; Josephus, Ant. 8.334, 347). She is never accused of literal harlotry, but she sponsored spiritual harlotry by leading Israel away from its God (2 Kings 9:22, where her religious activity is also compared with witchcraft; cf. Rev. 9:21; 18:23). Babylon the prostitute later in this book is probably modeled partly on “Jezebel,” Thyatira’s local embodiment of the larger system of “Babylon,” because she advocated participation in local civic and commercial life even where they demanded compromise with paganism.5

Early Christians were familiar with godly prophetesses (Acts 2:17–18; 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5), and as early as the mid-second century writers speak of a first-century prophetess named Ammia in the Asian church of Philadelphia.6 But they also knew of both false prophetesses and false prophets (Neh. 6:14; Ezek. 13:17); pagan and Jewish religion in Asia also respected female prophetic figures.7

The primary female prophetic model in Asia was the ancient, mythical Sibyl (often associated with Asia, cf. Strabo, 14.1.34), who supposedly had been granted both oracular abilities and a long life without perpetual youth.8 Sometimes ancient writers associated other women developed in oracular arts with Sibyls or even gave them this title. Both Roman and Jewish Sibyl traditions located a significant number of Sibyls in Roman Asia, and some scholars have argued that the local goddess Sambathe was identified with Sibyls, providing a local prophetic cult with possible Jewish involvement that may have affected how some Christians in Thyatira understood prophetism.9 For John, the true prophets are those who confess the truth about Jesus (Rev. 19:10; cf. 1 John 4:1–2); signs are less decisive, because they may accompany prophets true (11:5–6) or false (13:13–14).

But the Lord will not allow those leading his people astray to go unchallenged; he will strike “Jezebel” with sickness (2:22). (The punishment probably fits the crime: a “bed” often described the place of intercourse [cf. Heb. 13:4], but it was also the place of one bedfast from sickness.) He will also kill her “children” (2:23)—undoubtedly her disciples, perhaps members of house churches under her guidance (cf. 2 John 1:1).10 Killing with “death” (the phrase rendered in the NIV “strike … dead”) reflects a familiar Greek translation of a Hebrew expression for the divine judgment of a plague or pestilence, a judgment sometimes associated with blasphemy (Num. 14:36–38).11 Repayment according to one’s deeds will also occur at the Lord’s return (Rev. 22:12).

The presence of this false teaching in the church at Thyatira is the Lord’s only criticism here (2:23; for “not … any other burden” in 2:24; cf. Acts 15:28), but this challenge alone is substantial enough to require warning that the believers must hold firm their faith until Jesus comes (Rev. 2:24). As searcher of hearts and minds—that is, as God—Jesus knows what is in their hearts (2:23; cf. John 2:24).12 By “deep secrets” (lit., “deep things”) Jezebel and her followers undoubtedly mean “profound things” likely obtained by revelation (1 Cor. 2:10; 1 En. 63:3; 3 En. 11:1).13 But as the true searcher of hearts, Jesus notes the source of their revelations: Satan (2:24), who has also authored opposition from the synagogue community (2:9; 3:9).

Jesus promises those who overcome this threat of false teaching that they will share with him in his reign over the nations (2:26); they are not only a kingdom and priests (1:6; 5:10) but those who will reign with him (5:10), both during the thousand years (20:6) and eternally (22:5). They will share in Jesus’ rule with an iron rod (2:27), a hope derived from the messianic promise of Psalm 2:9. Like the most popular Greek version of the Old Testament, Revelation speaks not merely of “ruling” the nations with an iron rod but of “shepherding” them, emphasizing again that they will share Jesus’ authority (Rev. 7:17).14 The frequency of “giving” language in the Greek text of these letters underlines the promises to overcomers (2:7, 10, 17, 26, 28; 3:9, 21).

Although Psalm 2 addressed God’s messianic viceroy alone (see also Ps. Sol. 17:23–25), Jesus shares his rule with his people, for God has delegated rule over the earth to humanity (Gen. 1:26–27; Ps. 8:6; cf. Dan. 7:14, 22). Jesus will also give those who overcome the morning star (Rev. 2:28). Ancients emphasized the glory of the planet Venus, the “morning star” (Sir. 50:6–7), and could apply the image to magnificent rulers (Isa. 14:12).15 Romans associated Venus with triumph and reign, hence praised this goddess for their conquests.16 In Revelation, however—although one might not catch this until one’s second time through the book—Jesus is himself the morning star (Rev. 22:16), probably alluding to the promised star of Numbers 24:17, which many ancient Jews understood messianically.17

In other words, Jesus’ promise to the church in Thyatira suggests that he will share not only victory in an abstract sense (2:26) but himself as the morning star with his people (2:28). He is greater than the stars, who are angels of the churches (1:20).

Bridging Contexts

SOME MERCHANTS IN Thyatira, certain that God did not want to limit their ability to function within society, apparently dismissed the concerns of more traditional Christians about participation in guilds and associations dedicated to pagan deities. It “was economic suicide to reject the minimum requirements for guild membership,” and “every generation of Christians must face the question: How far should I accept and adopt contemporary standards and practices?”18 Do we look ultimately to the world for our survival, or to the God who supplies manna in the desert (12:6, 14; 13:17)?

Another social aspect of this conflict remains no less familiar to us today. Who of us has not been tempted to dismiss warnings from more traditional Christians on some matter or another as simply culturally naive, whether over music styles, dress codes, or excessive rigidity in relating to other believers? At the same time, we often find ourselves on the other side of the equation, warning Christians we think are straying from the central truth of the gospel into the uncertain reefs of liberal relativism. What one group regards as a legitimate, compassionate concern another regards as legalism and cultural irrelevance. Where should we draw the lines?

The Bible is clear that we do not have to draw the line on matters of cultural preferences, even when they may be theologically informed (Rom. 14:3–10). Moreover, even the apostles did not agree among themselves on every point beyond the gospel, although they seem to have reserved public rebukes only for the most serious matters (Gal. 2:11, in this case rebuking an apostle for valuing the cultural sensitivities of his colleagues over those of Gentile converts, who were being treated as second-class Christians). No matter how strongly Christians feel on various sides of the debates on end-times teachings, women’s ministry, spiritual gifts, and other such matters, we must recognize and publicly affirm that those who sincerely hold different views can be committed Christians, brothers and sisters for whom we should lay down our lives.

At the same time, other matters involve spiritual life and death, such as participation in idolatry. Jesus’ deity, for instance, is an implication of his lordship, a teaching central to the original apostolic proclamation of Christ recorded in the New Testament. To my knowledge, this view is not disputed in many churches today, certainly not in evangelical ones. But other matters do involve life and death issues and are becoming increasingly matters of concern in our churches, matters that can no longer be ignored (see Contemporary Significance section).

Jesus’ promise to this church would hearten all the churches in Asia Minor: They would shepherd or rule the nations with an iron rod (2:27). In their day, Rome ruled the nations, and the church suffered accordingly.19 To apply this promise most relevantly, we should consider the various ways that today’s world inhibits the spread of the gospel and practices injustice; we should remind ourselves and our fellow believers that in the end God will reward those found faithful to his Word.

Contemporary Significance

ECONOMIC TEMPTATIONS. BECAUSE part of the temptation to compromise in Thyatira may have been economic, we may wish to consider applications first of all with an economic component. Of course, every time we buy groceries, we participate in an international economic system that includes inequities; in many Caribbean countries banana workers have been paid less per day than what is necessary merely to feed their families a survival diet, in order to provide more competitive prices for North American consumers. In 1954 the U.S. government responded to a perceived threat to one of its fruit companies by helping to overthrow a democratically elected government in Guatemala. When banana workers in 1975 demanded fairer wages for their workers, the large companies that controlled 90 percent of the banana market starved most of them into submission, bribing a government to silence the rest.20

But boycotting bananas would probably only make the situation worse, and even if all consumers united and demanded a rise in banana prices (an unlikely event!), we would have little guarantee that the extra profits would go to the banana workers. It is right to address such inequities by whatever ethical means possible, but for individuals not politically adept, perhaps it is most practical to use the economic advantages we have as North American consumers to invest in Christian economic development programs that will alleviate the need to work for substandard wages (hence require banana companies to pay more competitive wages).

On the personal level, however, the implications of economic temptations become still clearer. To whom do we ultimately look for our well-being? In many of the projects, a young man can make hundreds of dollars more in a day dealing drugs on the corner than working at McDonald’s, often the next best-paying alternative. In some corporations one can advance only by sacrifices likely to destroy one’s family or credibility as a Christian witness. Certainly in academia those who do not toe the correct party line of an institution risk their job (not only in some conservative schools but also in some allegedly open-minded secular university religion departments). Jesus’ approval on the Day of Judgment has to matter more to us than wealth or status in this life, or we will succumb to the temptation of the Thyatiran believers.21

The gospel and modern pluralism. In a broader sense, the principles of temptation to compromise here go beyond economic temptations, and many applications we note here continue the basic themes evident in the letter to the Pergamum Christians. Rome was tolerant of religions as long as they did not make universal claims that might ultimately compete with loyalty to the state; but a universal religion was a threat to Rome, and “such a religion must conquer or die.”22 A praiseworthy aspect of modern pluralism is that it provides more of a voice for minorities—whether for ethnic minorities, religious minorities like committed Christians, or others.

A danger of modern pluralism, however, like that in the Roman empire, is that it can inadvertently appear to lend credibility to the claims of philosophic, moral, or religious relativism.23 Seventy-two percent of Americans in the 18–25 age bracket believe there is no such thing as absolute truth; this view appears to be shared by over half of those who claim to be born-again Christians.24 Much of our society has absolutized relativism (how is that for oxymoronic thinking?) as the only nonnegotiable truth, in essence arguing that everyone is right unless one claims to be. One commentator cautions, “For some people today tolerance is the only real virtue and intolerance the only vice”;25 another that “while the message to Ephesus warns the church about the dangers of loveless orthodoxy, the message to Thyatira warns against the dangers of a ‘soft’ love that tolerates all things and judges none.”26 Many non-Christians no longer deny the possibility of miracles or of Jesus being a way to God. But to them the Christian way is only one way among many; they bristle at the claim that Jesus is the only true way.

Yet the world is not alone in its excessive tolerance. Like the Thyatiran Christians, we may tolerate some who falsely claim “deep” teachings that directly undermine the gospel or Christian ethics. As noted above, few evangelicals today are tempted to question some cardinal Christian teachings like Jesus’ deity or resurrection. But because relativism has become increasingly popular in our culture, the absolute necessity of faith in Christ for salvation has become a more uncomfortable position for many to hold. “Over nineteen centuries of Christian missionary activity hinged on this belief alone,” but studies reveal that this remains “the single most socially offensive aspect of Christian theology,” and that this has been the most prominent impact of theological liberalism.

This trend toward accepting relativism is likely to take its toll in evangelical circles and will probably become a primary battleground of early twenty-first century evangelicalism. Among students at “elite” evangelical liberal arts colleges and seminaries, one third believe that other ways of salvation may be possible for those who have never heard of Jesus Christ.27 Most will not go so far as a Hindu acquaintance of mine who acknowledged Jesus as a legitimate but not the only path of salvation; they simply claim that God may have a special plan for those who have never heard the gospel.

Yet even this more modest claim guts the very heart of the saving gospel. The standard Jesus-is-the-only-way texts aside (e.g., John 14:6; Acts 4:12), what kind of heavenly Father would send his own Son to the cross if the plan of salvation was actually multiple choice (Gal. 2:21)? The New Testament presents the apostolic preaching of salvation from a variety of complementary angles: rebirth by the Spirit, justification by faith, passing from death to life or from darkness to light, and so forth. Yet all these models share the common element that the criterion for transition from one state to another is dependence on Christ; all humanity remains alienated from God until saved through this gospel (John 3:17–18; Rom. 10:13–17). In practice, the apostolic gospel demands from us a nonnegotiable commitment to missions.

To suggest that God has other means of salvation in addition to faith in the message about Christ, then, runs counter to the center of the Christian faith. While Christians may divide from one another on many issues (see comments on 2:4), some of us have proved too tolerant—or too lacking in backbone (Prov. 25:26)—on matters that directly affect people’s salvation. Jews suffered in the Roman world for insisting that God is one; Christians merely compounded the offense by insisting that even their fellow monotheists were unsaved if they did not come through Christ.28 The ancient challenge of idolatry was a denial that God is one and demands correct worship; that challenge has appeared in a new guise today, and Christians must be ready to fight it even at the cost of our lives.

Remaining faithful to the end. The necessity of remaining faithful until the end (2:26) fits historic Calvinist and Arminian belief: The former argue that those who fall away were never converted, whereas the latter argue that they have lost their salvation—but both concur that they will not be saved. Verses such as this one and countless others (Acts 14:22; 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:23; 1 Thess. 3:5; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 2:1–4; 4:1–2; 6:4–8; 10:19–31; 12:14–17; James 5:19–20; see comment on Rev. 3:5), however, may prove uncomfortable to those who think that merely praying a prayer without truly persevering in Christian faith is adequate for salvation.29 The threats to perseverance vary among the churches, however, from persecution to lovelessness to compromise with paganism—enough warnings to summon the entire church worldwide to spiritual vigilance.