In any case, these promises are all to be understood as eschatological, and the new name written on each individual white stone, which is known only to the one who receives it, seems to anticipate the further promise in 3:12 (cf. 22:3–4) that Christ’s own name will be written on the foreheads of the redeemed. For now each has his or her own “new name,” known only to the individual believer. In a cultural context where naming carried a great deal more significance than it does in most Western cultures (the exceptions are when people are named after someone of importance to the family involved), this eschatological promise is an important reminder that Christ knows his own and gives them their new name. In John’s day, and for a church that had already known a degree of persecution, this was surely intended to be a means of considerable encouragement.
To the Church in Thyatira (2:18–29)
18“To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.
20Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. 24Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets, ‘I will not impose any other burden on you, 25except to hold on to what you have until I come.’
26To those who are victorious and do my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—27they ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’12—just as I have received authority from my Father. 28I will also give them the morning star. 29Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
Although Thyatira was probably the least significant of the seven cities/towns to which John wrote, the letter they received is the longest of the seven. The town itself was founded as a military outpost by the Attalid rulers of Pergamum, lying about fifty miles on its southeastern flank. By the time of John, however, it had become a town of trades and crafts, especially well known for its purple dye industry and its fine bronze. Significant for understanding the present letter is the fact that all such trades had guilds, which were very close-knit clubs—a kind of local union—that served as the primary social structure for the artisans and their families. Each of these guilds had their patron deities, and the primary social events among the guilds were the festive meals, where food was served in a context where it had been sacrificed to the patron deity. Very often these meals became an occasion for sexual immorality to flourish, where “girls” were made available at the male-only meals.
These kinds of religious practices had a long history before they flourished in Thyatira and elsewhere in the Roman Empire. One encounters them for the first time in Scripture when Israel sinned in the incident of the golden calf, where the primary expression of their idolatry did not involve direct worship of the calf, but as the biblical text narrates it, “they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry” (Exodus 32:6). This same thing happened again in Moab, where we are told that “the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, [and] the people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods” (Numbers 25:1–2).13 This is the same issue Paul dealt with in 1 Corinthians 8–10, where in 10:7–8 he alludes to both of these Old Testament texts. It was the perfect religion for the sexually indulgent; create gods who were lustful and sexually promiscuous, and then worship the gods that have been created in our own fallen image. It unfortunately re-emerges from time to time, sometimes even within an alleged Christian venue.
God’s own attitude toward such sin—the reality in which we most strikingly share the divine image (the creation of another human being in our own image)—is among the strongest of the seven letters. John begins by reminding his readers that Christ is none other than the Son of God, whose depiction in this case picks up from 1:14b–15a the side-by-side images regarding his eyes and feet: whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. Thus the living Christ has eyes that will penetrate to the heart of the false worship that is being promoted in Thyatira, and feet that “will strike [Jezebel’s] children dead.”
Even so, the Lord himself does not begin there, but with a return to the phrase that appears in the first letter, and will recur in the following three: I know your deeds. As with Ephesus, this turns out to be a considerable commendation. First, they are recognized for their love and faith, a striking reversal of the normal—and thus expected—order of these two virtues. The apparent reason for this is found in what comes next, where your service and perseverance appear intentionally to correspond to the two virtues—their love had led to service and their faith to perseverance. The third commendation, that you are now doing more than you did at first, is somewhat ambiguous from our distance; most likely the “doing more” is related to their “love,” which has produced their “service.”
This opening commendation, therefore, leaves one quite unprepared to hear14 next, Nevertheless, I have this against you. The reason such commendation could be forthcoming in light of what follows lies with the verb you tolerate. Thus what emerges next is not the strong condemnation of a church that has capitulated to false teaching; rather it has allowed such teaching to go on unchecked. The imagery in this case is especially striking and therefore powerful. The woman responsible for promoting the false teaching styles herself a prophet, so that she misleads [apparently some, but not all of] my servants. What they are being misled to believe is that one can follow Christ and at the same time engage in some of the pagan practices as well. Most likely this would have been done for the sake of accommodation, so that one could be a part of the believing community in Thyatira without losing one’s friends and (especially) one’s position in the trade guilds. The argument in this case could apparently be made quite persuasively: one is merely eating, not worshiping the god in whose honor the meal is being eaten. And as for sexual immorality, this is biblical language altogether; very few in the Greco-Roman world ever have considered sexual relationships outside of the marriage bond (at least with temple prostitutes) to be a form of wrongdoing.
Christ’s response to “Jezebel” and her false teaching has several dimensions to it. First, he tried to rescue the woman herself: I have given her time to repent of her immorality. This suggests that the present letter is not the first time Christ has tried to deal with her. But as with most such false teachings, repentance is neither sought nor wanted; thus she is unwilling. As a way of catching her attention, Christ intends to bring her low by physical suffering. What follows, therefore, is to be understood as a warning—both for the false prophet herself and for those who would pay her any attention. The first step will be to cast her on a bed of suffering, which will also be extended to those who have chosen to follow her: I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely as well, but only if they do not repent of her ways. Very likely the phrase “cast her on a bed” is intended as irony: her “bed” as the place of harlotry is now a place of illness, since she is playing the role of a harlot with regard to the truth.
The second step in her judgment, I will strike her children dead, is one of the more puzzling moments in the book, as to whether, or to what degree, this language is to be understood literally or figuratively. The first dimension of the puzzle lies with the words “her children.” Does this refer to literal physical children of Jezebel herself, where the implication is that she is the wife of someone in the community? Or is it an allusion to her “spiritual children,” those who have become so by being persuaded by her palaver? Although one cannot be sure, in