The Church That Left Its First Love
Reprinted from The Spiritual Sword, 1997
David R. Pharr

It was Christ himself who wrote these letters to the seven churches in Asia.  Though all of the Bible was written by men guided by the Holy Spirit, meaning all is actually from the  Lord (cf. I Cor. 14:37), there is a special emphasis that these letters came from Christ, the one whose glory and power are so wonderfully described in the vision of chapter one.  This underscores his concern for the churches, his intimate knowledge of their affairs, and his authority both to chastise and to reward.

The first of the letters, in Revelation 2:1-7, was addressed “unto the angel of the church of Ephesus.”  Various conjectures have been offered as to the identity of the angel, but whether this means an actual angel, a human messenger, or the spiritual character of the churches,^[i] there appears to be no distinction whatsoever between what is said to the angel and “what the Spirit saith to the churches” (v.7).

Each of the churches received all seven letters as part of the entire book (Rev. 1:4, 11),  with particular attention given to specific needs in each place.  The collection summarizes things right and wrong with churches of Christ both then and now.  Significantly, each congregation is considered separately, with no generalizations regarding the brotherhood at large.  Here is the wisdom of autonomy.  As with individuals, each church either stands or fails on its own.  And the character of each congregation is no more than the character of the persons who are in it.  This clear from the fact that while were things that “the Spirit saith unto the churches,” they called for personal application: “He that hath an ear, let him hear.”

In our own time, some congregations which once were celebrated for their faithfulness and zeal now appear to have lost their way, having moved away from sound doctrine into compromising positions and practices.  Claiming a new level of spirituality, whether feigned or misconceived, they have gone beyond the authority of scripture.  On the other hand, congregations may claim loyalty for the truth, but be lacking in passion for the Lord and in compassion for others.  While holding firm to certain tenets, including things which are certainly important, their love for God and for others may be more in words than in heart and deeds (cf. I Jn. 3:18).  The latter is exemplified in the church at Ephesus.  They had a great history.  They tolerated no form of evil and exposed false apostles.  Who could doubt their soundness?  "Nevertheless I have somewhat ought against thee, because thou hast left thy first love" (v.4).

The Ephesian Church

The remarkable history of the work in Ephesus includes Aquilla and Priscilla’s correction of the eloquent Apollos and Paul's conversion of the dozen who had previously accepted John's baptism (Acts 18:18-19:7).  Paul had a three-year tenure in Ephesus. It was there that penitent believers renounced their superstitions by burning books of black magic worth fifty thousand pieces of silver (Acts 19:18-19) and there that the gospel was so effective that  alarmed idol craftsmen caused a citywide riot (Acts 19:23-41).

The elders of the Ephesian church met Paul at Miletus, where in a scene of tender pathos he reminded them of his work among them and warned of dangers they would soon face (Acts 20:17-38).  When in Revelation 2:2 we find that Ephesus had tried and exposed false apostles, we might assume that they remembered Paul's warning in Acts 20:29-32.  It appears that after his first imprisonment Paul may have made a later visit to Ephesus (I Tim. 1:3). Tradition holds that the aged apostle John also at one time made his home in that city.

Paul's epistle to the Ephesians does not indicate the problem addressed later in the Lord's Revelation letter.  He does urge them to be "rooted and grounded in love" (Eph. 3:17), to speak "the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15), and to "walk in love" (Eph. 5:1).  But there is no intimation that they had "left their first love."  Timothy was located at Ephesus (I Tim. 1:3) and what the apostle wrote to him also concerned the church.  There were areas of concern, including false doctrine and heretics, but there will not be found any rebuke of the congregation so blunt as in the Lord's indictment in Revelation 2:4-5.

What Was Wrong?

The letter begins with such gracious praise that at first we might assume that nothing was wrong at Ephesus.  They were a working, enduring, sound church that opposed evil doers, fake apostles and hateful practices (vv. 2, 3, 6).  Meanings overlap as he commends their “works,” “labor,” and “patience” (cf. I Thess. 1:3).  Another translation commends “what you have done, how hard you have worked, how you have endured."^[ii]  Even with the demands of discipline, they had not grown weary.  Robertson quotes Moffatt regarding verse 3: “The Ephesian church can bear anything except the presence of imposters in her membership."^[iii]  Today, when false teachers are often tolerated rather than being tried, when discipline is more disdained than demanded, when there seems to be so little labor for Christ, and when people would give up the Lord before they would give up their leisure—in such a time, we would feel, no doubt, that Ephesus was a great congregation.

But “The Lord looketh on the heart”  (I Sam. 16:7).  He “searcheth the reins and hearts” (Rev. 3:23; cf. Heb. 4:13).  Jesus “knew all men” and “he knew what was in man” (Jn. 2:24-25).  He once said to certain ones, “I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you” (Jn. 5:42).   Religious formalities cannot disguise a heart grown cold.  They were not charged with error in doctrine, nor of unscriptural innovations in practice.  Immorality was not the problem.  But the one who held the stars and walked among the candlesticks said that he had looked into their hearts and saw that love was gone (cf. Matt. 24:12).

“Thou has left thy first love” makes a useful preaching text and is often used to stir up members to greater service.  It may be, however, that our applications fall short of the standard set by Christ.  We talk about regular attendance, how much to give, etc., as measures of faithfulness, but these things may not have been lacking at Ephesus.  In fact, the opening commendations might suggest to any preacher and elders that here was an ideal congregation.  “Nevertheless,” the Lord found a most grievous shortcoming.

So Short a Time

Paul's work in Ephesus was circa A.D. 55-58 and his epistle to them was written circa A.D. 60-62.  The letters to Timothy were not long before his death in about the year 68.  Whether we assume an early or late date for Revelation, there was a relatively short period between the time of Paul's close association with Ephesus and the time when Jesus said their love had waned.  In just a generation or so they had become a church of orthodox activities without being a church of passion and devotion.  Their heart had so shriveled that unless they responded to the urgent call to repentance they would not survive (v.5).  If such a rapid deterioration seems unlikely, compare Paul's frustration with the Galatians, whose loyalty had changed "so soon" (Gal. 1:6).

It is often warned that the church is always just one generation from apostasy, reminding  of the need to teach the fundamentals and to always be always vigilant.  The church at Ephesus was close to divine excommunication—“else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place”—but it was not because of false doctrine and sinful practices.  Their apostasy was within, a digression of the soul.

First Love, First Works

One fault is enough to ruin a church, especially if that fault is the absence of love.  "Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels . . . and have not charity [love] . . . I am nothing" (I Cor. 13:1-3; cf. Jas. 2:10-11; Mk. 10:17-22).

Love is an emotion, but the symptom of their "first love" being lost was in their failure to do the "first works."  They had “fallen” and repentance required restoration of those works (v. 5).  Exactly what works were missing is not specified, but they were works which demanded love as their basis.  Love cannot be separated from actions (I Jn. 3:18).  The one who said, "I know thy works" (Rev. 2:2), is the one who knew their lack of love.

Hailey cites Alford as comparing this first love to the conjugal love of a newly married bride.^[iv]  Another suggested that their problem might be described: "The honeymoon is over!"^[v]  Jeremiah and Paul make similar comparisons (Jere. 2:2; II Cor. 11:2).  More literally, we have often observed the sad difference between the zeal of new converts and the complacency of some longtime members.  We need not speculate as to what works had been abandoned.  If they would "remember," they would know.

Balance is Critical

Usually “love” (v.4) and “hate” (v.6) are contradictions.  As used in this text they represent two sides of balanced character.  Both were necessary virtues, but these brethren were zealous for one to the neglect of the other.

Some things ought to be hated.  Intolerance is a virtue when applied to either evil conduct or evil doctrine.  Paul had written to the same church that they should “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph. 5:11).  His own policy toward error was never to surrender the truth at all, “no, not for an hour” (Gal. 2:5).  Those who do not bring the doctrine of Christ are not to be received (II Jn. 9-11).  Hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans was righteous hate (Psa. 97:10; Prov. 8:13).  It is never wrong to hate what Jesus hates, to oppose what God opposes, to denounce what the Bible denounces, or to refuse to fellowship with what Heaven will not accept.

Almost nothing is known of the Nicolaitan heresy.  Irenaeus and Hippolytus identified them as followers of the Nicolas named in Acts 6:5.  Clement of Alexandria said Nicolas had been misunderstood by his followers, and that those who were called by his name had “abandoned themselves to pleasures like goats in a life of shameless self-indulgence."^[vi] Many scholars doubt the connection with Nicolas, though such licentiousness may have characterized the sect which had a similar name.  What is known is that they had doctrines consistent with their deeds (Rev. 2:15), which may have been akin to the “Balaamites,” who were antinomian in religion and morals (Rev. 2:14).

But spirituality is more than a negative.  It is not enough just to “abhor that which is evil,” we must also “cleave to that which is good” (Rom. 12:9).  Keeping orthodoxy must be balanced with passion and compassion.  Ironically, because of its very nature, those who are most likely to practice Phariseeism are the ones least likely to recognize it (Matt.23:23f).  Though some of his comments overstate the case, we agree with C.B. Caird in the following:

They had set out to be defenders of the faith, arming themselves with the heroic virtues of truth and courage, only to discover that in the battle they had lost the one quality without which all others are worthless. . . .  [Z]eal for Christian truth may obliterate the one truth that matters, that God is love.  John is a rigorist who shares the hatred of heresy which he attributes both to the church of Ephesus and to the church's Lord; but he recognized the appalling danger of a religion prompted more by hate than by love.^[vii]

The late Franklin Camp once observed that we can get so involved in defending the faith that we neglect preaching the gospel.  He did not mean, of course, that answering error is not a part of gospel preaching, but rather that obsession with various issues may overshadow the supreme mission of saving souls.  We have lost our balance when we are more enthusiastic for debate than for revival, when there is more passion for opposing sin than there is for saving sinners, when we choose to expose a brother before we seek to restore him, and when cold intellectualism is allowed to overshadow heartfelt devotion.^[viii]

Repent or Perish

When is a “church of Christ” no longer a church of Christ?  The mission of the “candlestick” (lamp stand) is to shine “the light of the glorious gospel of Christ” (II Cor. 4:4).  When the light fails, the lamp stand must be removed.  The ultimate consequences would be to be eternally lost, but the point in the text is that unless they repented this church would no longer be counted as one of the Lord’s congregations.  Churches then and now might appropriate Christ’s name to themselves, but unless a congregation has the soundness and good works of the Ephesians and also the love works they were lacking: such a church may soon cease to be his.

Christ’s coming quickly (v. 5) clearly is not a reference to his coming at the end of the world inasmuch as this coming depends upon their response to his call for repentance.  He warned that he would come specifically to this church in the sense of exercising  judgment against them. That judgment would be the removal of their candlestick—their disenfranchisement as a church of Christ.  However, for anyone in the church who overcomes there is the beautiful assurance that he will “eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God” (v.7).

Endnotes:
i. Homer Hailey, Revelation, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), loc.cit.

ii. William F. Beck, The New Testament in the Language of Today.

iii. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1933), Vol. VI, p.299.

iv. Hailey, loc. cit.

v. Ray Summers, Worthy Is the Lamb, (Nashville: Broadman, 1951),   loc.cit.

vi. H.L.Drumwright, Jr., “Nicholaitans,” Merrill C. Tenney, ed., The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1975), Vol. IV, p. 435.

vii. C.B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation fo St. John the Divine, (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 31.

viii. David Pharr, “What Was Wrong at Ephesus?” Revive Us Again, 16th Annual Lectures, (Knoxville, Tennessee: East Tennessee School of Preaching and Missions, 1990), p. 87ff.
 

Back to Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword