Building the house of God in troublesome times

Ezra 5:2 - Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them.

Building the house of God arises from God’s revelation, 5:1.
  a. Haggai 1:1 

  b. Zechariah 1:1

Building the house of God requires leadership and cooperation, 5:1-2.
  a. Men of God rise up and encourage God’s people to work. Haggai 1:4-5, 7; 2 Timothy 4:2
  b. Leaders stand with God’s men (e.g. Zerubbabel, governor; Jeshua, priest) 5:2
  c. Workers started and did not cease, 5:5

Building the house of God incites opposition, 4:1-2, 5; 5:3.

  a. Zechariah 3:1

Building the house of God emphasizes the servant nature of the workers. Phil. 2:5ff.; Matt. 20:25-28; John 15:5; Zech. 4:6.
  a. Names are unimportant, 5:4, 10-11; Gen. 24:2, 9-10, et al.

Building the house of God exhibits the sovereignty of God, 5:12-13; 6:14, 22; Zechariah 4:6. God uses the wicked, indifferent, and others as:
  a. instruments of judgment, 5:12
  b. resources of blessing, 5:13-14

1 Timothy 3:15 - but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Matthew 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

1 Corinthians 3:9 - For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

Trumpet Blasts

"The same God who by the hand of the prophet wrote on parchment, by the hand of the storm has written on the rock...Science and revelation are the bass and the soprano of the same tune." -- T. De Witt Talmage

"The great temple of nature has two orchestras--the orchestra of Revelation and the orchestra of Science. The orchestra of Revelation has its musical instruments all strung, and it is ready for a burst of eternal accord. Science is only stringing its instruments." -- T. De Witt Talmage

But God...

This morning I heard a portion of the radio program 'Discover the Word'. The hosts discussed that the Bible is first of all a revelation of God -- not just a revelation by God about various things, but God revealing Himself -- and only secondarily a guide for living.

During the discussion, Haddon Robinson told of a hearing a sermon in which Moses was used as an example of principles of leadership. (Most everyone thinks Moses was a great leader, so that makes sense to most everyone.) After the sermon Robinson told the preacher that he had missed a couple of principles. Intrigued, the speaker asked what they were. Well first, Robinson said, you need to be raised in a home of privilege as was Moses. Second, he continued, you must have a temper as Moses had. The speaker replied that those two did not fit. Why did they not fit? Possibly because the speaker determined what the principles were before studying the life of Moses?

On the radio program Robinson went on to make this point. Too often, if we are preaching on a topic we read a book on that topic first. So, for example, we read a book on leadership to learn principles of leadership and then go to the Bible to confirm them, or find examples of them. We are elevating the secondary reason of the Bible over the first. While the record of Moses may teach us something about leadership, it first teaches us about God and what He is doing in His unfolding drama of redemption (as well as of the world, its history and God's place in it).

The Bible is not primarily a "how-to" book, but rather a "But God" book.

Exodus 13:18   But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.
Psalms 49:15   But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.
Psalms 75:7   But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.
Jonah 4:7   But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.
Luke 12:20   But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
 Acts 13:30   But God raised him from the dead: 
1 Corinthians 2:10   But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1 Corinthians 3:6   I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
Ephesians 2:4   But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us

The synagogue of Satan

Rev. 2:9b I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Rev. 3:9   Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.


What do we know of the synagogue of Satan? As with the Nicolaitanes, there is plenty of supposition. John Gill believes they "were false Christians, nominal professors, and shunned persecution for the Gospel." Matthew Henry says that "the devil has his synagogue...Those assemblies which are set up in opposition to the truths of the gospel, and which promote and propagate damnable errors..." H. A. Ironside thought it referred "to the Judaizing movement that came into the church in the early centuries." In the IVP New Testament Commentary Series,  J. Ramsey Michaels wrote "that the synagogue of Satan consisted of Gentile Christians who had Judaized, that is, who adopted Jewish ways or even converted to Judaism, perhaps in order to avoid persecution by the Romans. These represent some of the more "sane" interpretations. (I ran across some really wild ones scattered across the internet.)

The specific term "synagogue of Satan" is used on two times in the Bible, both in the book of Revelation. From those passages we are able to learn:
1. The synagogue of Satan is an identifiable people known to the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia.
2. The synagogue of Satan say they are Jews but are not.
3. The synagogue of Satan are liars.
4. The synagogue of Satan are blasphemers.
5. The synagogue of Satan were enemies of the churches.
6. The synagogue of Satan will be judged, will worship God in the presence of the Philadelphians, and will know whom God loves.


A good many take the synagogue of Satan to mean literal Jews in the flesh, thinking there may be some comparison  with John 8:33-45, where Jesus speaks of those who take pride in being Abraham's seed. He says they really are of their father the devil. Also compare verses such as Rom. 2:28-29; Rom. 9:6-8; Matt. 3:9; etc. This could be in view, as Paul demonstrates "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart." But this is a theological and spiritual understanding held by the churches of God. Why would some Jews in the flesh outside the church claim to be spiritual Jews when they would have no reference point for such a claim? On the other hand, Gentiles who had passed through the churches and then embraced a sort of Judaism would have more reason to "claim" they are Jews, though they are not.


Regardless, the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia had real enemies who made a false Jewish claims. These synagogues (assemblies) belonged to Satan and did his work. They opposed the churches of God. God knows what will come and will be with His people. In Smyrna He commands them to endure persecution, trials and tribulations. Be faithful even to the point of death. He who commands this is He who was dead, and is alive. Fear not! The church in Philadelphia must also suffer tribulation, but God has set an open door that no man can close. No not even those of the synagogue of Satan can do so. In the end these false assemblies will be humbled, and know whom Christ has loved and whom He has not.

The Nicolaitanes

Revelation 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
Revelation 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.


Who are the Nicolaitanes? Some ideas are:
1. A sect who followed the teachings of a man named Nicolas.
2. Those who believe in exerting hierarchical authority over the church/people/laity, from the meaning of the name “one who conquers the people.” The word Nicolaitanes (Greek: Νικολαΐ́της) is made up of Nikos/conquest, victory and Laos/people, with the ending making a proper name.
3. A sect named from the Greek word Nicolah (meaning "let us eat") who encouraged the eating of things offered to idols.


The second view is the one that I have heard most, but that is probably just my limited experience. From the information given in the Scriptures we cannot establish any of the preceding views. But we can gather the following:


1. The Nicolaitanes were an identifiable group/sect/people known to the churches in Ephesus and Pergamos.
2. The Nicolaitanes had doctrines and deeds known to the churches in Ephesus and Pergamos.
3. God hated the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.
4. Those of Ephesus hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes.
5. Those of Pergamos tolerated the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.


Is it possible that we spend so much time and energy trying to identify exactly who these people are that we weaken or miss the clear point of the passages? God hates the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitanes!


We should not tolerate the things which God hates. We should hate what God hates and love what God loves.

Stars are angels

Rev. 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Rev. 2:1, et al. Unto the angel of the church of....write...

Who are the ‘angels’ in Revelation 2-3? A common interpretation -- perhaps the most common -- is that the seven angels represent the seven pastors of each of the seven churches of Asia. Baptist, Evangelical and Protestant commentators provide some examples:

“The candlesticks represent the churches; the stars represent the messengers or pastors of the churches...” -- B. H. Carroll, The Seven Churches of Asia
“...the seven stars which John saw in Christ’s right hand, represent the angels, or pastors of the seven churches of Asia, and in them all the pastors and ministers of the churches in all the periods of time until Christ’s second coming.” -- John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible
“These messengers were probably the pastors of these churches or prophets through who the message was to be delivered to the congregation.” -- John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ
“With the meaning of the seven stars, that they are the ministers of the churches...” Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible
“But by Angel in this and all the other epistles written to the seven churches in Asia, we are to understand the episcopacy, presbytery, and ministry in each particular church, unto whom the charge, oversight, care and government thereof was committed by the Holy Spirit...So the word ‘Angel’ in all these seven epistles, is a noun collective, comprehending all the bishops and presbyters, called elders, in this Church of Ephesus, so in all other churches of Christ in Asia, and elsewhere.” -- Hanserd Knollys, An Exposition on the Book of Revelation

The notion that angels represent pastors runs very deep in the mindset of many. But the deep-seated nature of that interpretation may disguise a lack of proof that pastors are angels or that angels are pastors.

Revelation 1:20 is “epexegetical” -- that is, it interprets itself; or (perhaps more technically) it is a verse in which the explanation or interpretation is supplied. John hears a voice, sees a vision. It is the Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end, He who was dead and is alive forevermore. In the vision John sees Him -- the Lord Jesus Christ -- in the midst of seven golden candlesticks, holding seven stars in His hand. The vision ends with a command to write -- and an explanation of the mystery of the seven stars and seven candlesticks. The seven candlesticks are the seven churches of Asia to whom John is commanded to write. The seven stars are the angels of those seven churches. Now at once we must decide: has Jesus given the interpretation of the mystery, or has He only interpreted half the mystery and left the other half for us to decide? All seem to agree that the interpretation of churches is churches. Yet perhaps only a minority accept that Jesus’s interpretation of stars as angels actually means the stars are angels. Some may accept angels on the surface. But rather than understanding angels as the spiritual beings we most commonly think of when we hear the word, they interpret them in regard to the basic meaning of the term -- a messenger. 

I believe the stars are angels:

1. Because of the interpretation of Jesus. If the stars are not angels, but rather pastors, that leaves the interpretation provided by our Lord as no interpretation or explanation at all. Stars are angels. Candlesticks are churches. The mystery is revealed. Or not?

2. Because the most common use of “angel” (Gk. angelos) means angelic/spiritual beings, ministering spirits. According a search engine I consulted (if done correctly), angel or angels occur 75 times in the KJV English version of the book of Revelation. 67 occurrences clearly refer to angelic beings. If 1:20, 2:1,8,12,18, 3:1,7,14 do not refer to angelic beings, they are exceptions to the rule throughout the book. Chapter 1 opens with an angel who is an angel. Chapters 2-3 do not clearly indicate any reason for a difference from the other usage throughout the book. The following chapters continually portray angels who are angels. It is unlikely that angel differs only in chapters 2-3, with no explanation. Everywhere in the book of Revelation the angels are angels.

3. Because the stars who are angels in Rev. 12: 3-9 are angelic spirit beings, not human beings. The dragon drew a third of the stars of heaven, verse 4. In verses 7 through 9 we find that the dragon is the Devil, and the stars are angels!

I do not believe the stars are angels who are angels who are pastors:

1. Because the interpretation breaks down. Rather than following the interpretation given by the Lord himself, one must continue on to reinterpret it. Jesus says the stars are angels. Men say the stars are pastors who are only called angels. If pastors are called angels here, we find no confirmation of it elsewhere in the Scriptures. Pastors/elders/bishops are not called angels in the Bible.

2. If the angels are pastors, the greetings/salutations of the letters to the seven churches of Asia are inconsistent with the greetings of other church letters found in the New Testament. No other New Testament church letter was written to the pastor alone. Rather, they were written to the church, i.e., the entire local congregation of saints in a particular place. Compare some of the salutations given by Paul in his letters: 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; and Philippians 1:1.

3. If the angels are single pastors the condition of these churches in Revelation is not consistent with the rest of the New Testament praxis. In Acts 20, for example, the church at Ephesus had several overseers/elders: Acts 20:17 “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” They were preaching/teaching elders: Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” During these days, there was a plurality of elders in every church (Acts 14:23). These elders were bishops, or overseers. Local assemblies in the Bible are consistently portrayed as led by elders, plural.

The popularity of the angel=pastor interpretation may arise for two main reasons: 1). The angels as pastors just “makes sense”. Why would God send the message to the church to an angel? When Jesus’s simple explanation of Rev. 1:20 finds hard ground, it is carried away and another substituted for it. 2). Familiarity and commonality breeds popularity. It is the interpretation we hear most; it is the interpretation we are taught. It “makes senses” and isn’t challenged, so why should we seek another interpretation?

Does it make any sense that the Lord would address the letter to the church to “the angel”? Does it matter whether it does? The Lord said the stars are angels. The star is the symbol. The angel is the interpretation. Perhaps there is a lesson here to accept what the Lord says at face value even if it doesn’t “make sense”!

No new revelation

In another blog, a brother writing against the idea of near death experiences stated the following:

Since the Bible has been completed and while the church is on the earth today, a person receives NO revelation outside of the general revelation and specific direct revelation of God's Word which is assigned to all men...a person can not receive revelation outside of the general revelation (displayed in nature and in men's laws) and specific direct revelation (God's Word and the preaching thereof.)

I thought this would make an interesting discussion.

Is there NO revelation outside of general and direct revelation (the Bible)? I equate 100% truth and accuracy to God's revelation through His Word. And most of us agree that there is general revelation -- through God's creation, for example. What revelation is the Spirit giving when He guides us into all truth? What about revelation through God's providential guidance? Do we not learn of things that are not revealed in the Word in specifics through His opening & closing of doors and other providential factors in our lives? What about the "call to preach"? Is there one, or is it just a professional decision? If you are a preacher, why are you? We cannot read our names in God's Word. It does not say "_Your name_, you have been called to preach." How do you know? Was it just an occupational/professional decision, or do you believe there was some kind of spiritual guidance? If so, why was it not a "new revelation"? What about changing pastorates? Again, just a business decision, or perhaps some spiritual guidance there? Is this "new" revelation, or something different?