In each of the seven letters, Jesus first offers praise and approval to the church before any criticism or condemnation, after which He gives his advise and warnings. In the first verse of the Book of Revelation, God told John that the things he was about to write down were shortly to come to pass. As he received the revelation somewhere around 80AD, we can safely assume that the first church to be addressed - at Ephesus - symbolises the church of 80AD or soon thereafter; this would be the very first church, the church that came into being on the Day of Pentecost, the church of the first century.
Subsequent messages to the other six churches should therefore refer to the Church of subsequent eras, right up until today, and perhaps beyond, depending upon where along the timeline of sevens we are today. Utilising the many records that have been kept of Church history over the past 2,000 years, we can see how accurate the letters to the churches are in identifying the state of the first century church and subsequent eras in church history.
Ephesus, the first Church to which a letter was written, was historically the first Church founded by Paul and one of the biggest in the region then known as Asia (later to be known as Asia Minor), which is the location of all the churches to which the Book of Revelation and the seven letters within it were addressed.
When I first began searching to find the true meaning of the Book of Revelation, I was reminded of a question that had puzzled me for many years; why did Jesus give his Revelation to only the churches of Asia, of which Ephesus was the leader? Why didn't the churches in Corinth, Galatia, Phillipi or Rome get a letter from Jesus, since they were all worthy enough to get at least one letter from Paul? The opening verses of the letter to the Church at Ephesus in the Book of Revelation gives us a clue, but a little background on the relationship between Paul and the church at Ephesus helps paint the picture.
Paul's first visit to Ephesus, at which time he stayed for three months, is recorded in Acts 18:19–21. The work he began on this occasion was carried forward by Apollos [18:24-26] and Aquila and Priscilla. On his second visit early in the following year, he remained at Ephesus "three years," for he found it was the key to the western provinces of Asia. Here "a great door and effectual" was opened to him, [1 Cor 16:9] and the church was established and strengthened by Paul's diligent labours there. [Acts 20:20,31] From Ephesus the gospel quickly spread abroad "almost throughout all Asia." [19:26] The word "mightily grew and prevailed".
But things went terribly wrong between Paul and the churches of Asia, including Ephesus. In 2 Timothy 1:15, Paul writes, "This you know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes." Asia! All of them! And the reason of this fall-out? Paul's teachings.
The Trial of Paul by the Church at Ephesus
So how did Jesus respond to the churches of Asia for rejecting Paul and his teachings? Did he admonish them? On the contrary, he praised them for their actions: "I know your works, and your labor, and your patience, and how you can not bear them which are evil: and you have tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars" (Rev. 2:2). Not only did Jesus commend the churches of Asia that had rejected Paul and his gospel, they were the only churches to whom he gave His prophetic Revelation of things to come.
Try to grasp the profound significance of all this. Here, in the book of Revelation, we have God commending the Ephesian church for rejecting someone who claimed to be his apostle but who really wasn't one. So how do we know it was Paul, given that his name is not mentioned here? The New Testamant indicates that Paul was the only Apostle to be rejected by the church at Ephesus. Paul himself laments the fact that he has been rejected by the Ehesians!
Read New Testament and you'll see that Paul was the only person other than the twelve original apostles who claimed to be an apostle - he in fact made this very claim to this same Ephesian church in his letter to them (Ephesians 1:1). Later in the Revelation there is confirmation that God recognises only 12 apostles - not 13. Eleven of the apostles were appointed by Jesus himself; the 11 appointees selected the twelfth as a replacement for Judas to complete the twelve. Paul is the self-appointed thirteenth. There is no record anywhere in the New Testament of anyone but Paul himself declaring that he was an apostle. Even Paul's close friend, Luke, who documented Paul's ministry in the Book of Acts, never actually referred to him by that title.
To add fuel to the fire (and a little more evidence that it was indeed Paul who Jesus was talking about), the Ephesians are commended by God for finding these false apostles to be liars also. Read Paul's espistles and you'll find that telling lies was a way of life for him. He not only manipulated people to get what he wanted by lying, he actually boasted about it! (see the my separate study). No other apostle is recorded as having been caught out lying. And if it wasn't Paul and his associates that God had commended the Ephesian church for rejecting, then who was it? The pages of both the Bible and 1st century church history point to no other person.
I realise that this accusation against Paul and the doctrines he taught will be hard to swallow for the majority of Christians. When I was first challenged with the notion that Paul might be a false prophet who preached a different gospel to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, I defended Paul vigorously, but when I was prepared to lay aside my pre-conceived notions about Paul, and look with a completely open mind at the evidence found in both the Old the New Testaments, I began to see what I didn't want to see - that Paul was perhaps not the wonderful messenger from God that I thought he was.
The findings of my quest to prove that Paul was not a false prophet are contained in a series of studies I have done (follow the link below). I implore readers to read them with an open mind and draw their own conclusions.
Paul - Hero or Villian?
It would appear that the "sevens" of the Book of Revelation follow the different eras of the Christian age, with the letters to the seven churches identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the church of each era. For us, who live around 2000 years after it was written, it should be easy to prove whether or not this is so, as we have 2,000 years of documented world and church history to compare the Book of Revelation with, and see whether it did accurately predict "the things that would come to pass shortly and speedily" as the first verse of the Book promised.
As Jesus established his church in the early part of the first century, we will start on the assumption that the first era commenced at that time, and will use both the Book of Revelation and recorded history to determine when each era finished and the next began.
Design by W3layouts
