SAINTS IN ACTS, APOSTATES IN REVELATION? REALLY? - "LET'S STOP BEING SO CRITICAL" (PART 6 OF 6)

The Ninth Wave by Ivan Aivazovsky

Can you name the first European convert to Christianity? You say Lydia, the seller of purple from Thyatira? Very good.

Where else is Thyatira mentioned in Scripture? You say it sounds like one of the seven churches of Asia Christ gave letters to in Revelation? Again, correct answer. And you may remember that in that letter, Jesus condemns them for allowing an apostate woman called "Jezebel" in their midst.

Who is this "Jezebel?" Most don't consider that to be her real name. The leading views is the pastor's wife (based on the reading of some manuscripts) and an unknown false teacher. 

Yet some say that woman is Lydia, the first European convert, is that Jezebel. Any Biblical proof she fell away from the truth? Ab. So. Lute. Lee. None! 

I don't have to hide the identity of the minority who smear Lydia's reputation because I never have read that view - rather, I read another book that mentioned this theory and dismissed it.

However, there's another person mentioned in Acts that is associated with false teaching, even though it isn't clearly stated. That is Nicolas, one of the seven deacons, a proselyte from Antioch. Should we be leery of him? I see NO hints of that from the text.

But let's return to Revelation. In the letter to Ephesus, they're praised for hating the deeds of the Nicolatians, which Jesus hates. A few verses later, the church in Pergamum is condemned for allowing those who teach the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which Jesus hates.

What do we know for sure about the Nicolatians? Basically, nothing outside of these two mentions. They're not mentioned anyplace else in Scripture. There is no mention of that sect in any writings except commentaries of Revelation.

One question I have. Is this word supposed to be transliterated and treated as a proper noun? Or should it be translated and treated as a common noun? If you take the second view, you'd come up with "Controlling the People." If that is what Nicolatianism is, it should be condemned, though it is practiced both religiously and politically. 

But others - unfortunately a majority - assume that this was a Gnostic group formed by Nicolas. This is an ancient view, going back to the 2nd Century, and held by some of the Church Fathers. But is there Biblical proof that this Deacon went astray? Not a shred of evidence. Could it be named by somebody else named Nicolas? After all, later there was St. Nicolas - obviously not him, since he wasn't born yet, but still a sign others had that name? But no. They mimick the unprovable theory of the past and say this person had to be an apostate.

Does it make you mad when people jump to negative conclusions like this? It makes me mad. After all, we're commanded to love, and Paul says love thinks no evil (1 Corinthians 13:5). 

Why do we assume negative things when there are other options that are not negative? That's not Christian love. And we should be slow to make such assumptions of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
 

BOOK REVIEW - LETTERS FROM JESUS: STUDIES FROM THE SEVEN CHURCHES OF REVELATION (GREEK FOR THE WEEK) BY CHRIS PALMER

 

Several weeks ago, I stated leading a men's Bible study on the Seven Churches of Asia Minor (Revelation 2-3). One of the books I read to prepare for the study was Letters From Jesus: Studies from the Seven Churches of Revelation by Chris Palmer. 

One important thing in looking at this book is that this is more of a devotional than a commentary. You may have noticed it reads "Greek for the Week;" the Greek refers to Palmer getting into the original languages, while the week points out that it's a weekly devotional, divided into 52 parts so it can last a year. Each chapter is four pages, starting with the verse in both English and Greek with the focal thought highlighted, an anecdote that goes through most of the second page, the Biblical thought for the third, and the final page including a prayer, projects for the week, and some cross references. (Since I was using it as research, I treated it as a daily devotional.)

Sometimes I think of devotionals as being a lighter study than a sermon or a commentary. This is not true of Palmer's approach. He tries to get into the meaning of the original Greek (I shouldn't assume that it's common knowledge that the New Testament was written in Koine - i.e. common - Greek, with the Old Testament written primarily in Hebrew with a few Aramaic segments). He succeed in getting into what the text is saying to the original audience and how it applies to today.

Following an introduction looking at "why Greek" and "why these seven churches, Palmer spends the first chapter looking at the image of Jesus in Revelation 1. He divides the remaining 51 chapters into looking at the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, with eight chapters each on Ephesus and Smyrna and seven each on the remaining five churches. He gives each basically equal treatment, from the four verses given to Smyrna to the dozen for Thyatira.

I will admit that I was disappointed in Palmer in a couple of points. One is that in he either missed or avoided dealing with Revelation 3:10, where Jesus tells the church in Philadelphia they would be spared from the hour of trial coming on all men. The other is more bothersome. I expected with his focus on Greek that he would give a good explanation of the compound Greek word "Nicolatian", with the Greek words for control and people (laity). But no! Palmer not only takes up the traditional theory that one of the 7 deacons in Acts 6, Nicolas, went rogue and became a Gnostic teacher and formed a false group, but even embellishes what Nicolas thought; other books have correctly pointed out there's no Biblical nor historical proof for that hypothesis other than the similarity of the names (not a strong argument). But remember this book is a devotional, not a commentary.

In conclusion, I recommend this book. Allow me to break said recommendation into two parts: 

1. It is a very useful devotional. If you have the discipline to do it weekly and use it as Palmer designed it, go for it - you'll be blessed. You'll also be blessed if you make it a 52 day study  instead of 52 week.

2. Should you consider using this for research? Yes. There are other books I think are better for that role because unlike this volume, they are written as commentaries. But you definitely will learn more in this book as well.