Considerable discussions are taking place regarding how to determine whether or not a church is still a church, i.e., has a lampstand (Rev 2.4-5). Having raised some questions myself in an earlier post, I thought perhaps the most valuable contribution I could make at this point would be to provide a couple of quotes of by two men who have written commentaries on the passage (Eph 2.1-7) in question.

The first commentary is from Robert Mounce, who earned a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen. His commentary is part of the New International Commentary on the New Testament, edited by F.F. Bruce. Mounce writes:

As one who walks in the midst of the churches, Christ is able to say, ‘I know thy works’ . . . The works which Christ knows are not so much separate acts as they are an overall manner of life. The two nouns which follow (toil and patience) give the active and passive sides of this lifestytle. The Ephesians had toiled to the point of exhaustion and borne patiently the hostility of a society at odds with their goals and efforts . . .

“Every virtue carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It seems probable that desire for sound teaching and the resulting forthright action taken to exclude all imposters had created a climate of suspicion in which brotherly love could no longer exist. Barclay conjectures that ‘the eagerness to root out all mistaken men had ended in a sour and rigid orthdoxy’ . . . Good works and pure doctrine are not adequate substitutes for that rich relationship of mutual love shared by persons who have just experienced the redemptive love of God. The Ephesian church had left its first love. The expression includes both love of God and love of mankind at large, but seems to refer mainly to their love for one another . . . A cooling of personal love for God inevitably results in the loss of harmonious relationships within the body of believers. Jesus had made it clear that ‘by this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another’ . . .

“The church is called upon to remember the earlier days in which love abounded in the congregation . . . First love is pictured as a height from which the church had fallen. The present imperative, ‘remember,’ stands in contrast to the aorist imperative, ‘repent,’ and suggests a continuing attitude over against a decisive break. Bear in mind the loving relationships you once enjoyed and make a clean break with your present manner of life! . . . The love that John requires is not an ‘undiscriminating amiability’ (Kiddle, p. 24), but an attitude toward the brethren which expresses itself in loving acts. Moffatt remarks that ‘the way to regain this warmth of affection is neither by working up spasmodic emotion nor by theorising about it . . . but by doing its duties’ (p. 351). Repentance is an active step.”

The second quote is from Alan F. Johnson, Th.D. (Dallas Theological Seminary), writing in the Expositors Bible Commentary, edited by Frank Gaebelein.

The speaker’s verdict shows, on the other hand, that however much had been gained at Ephesus by resisting the false apostles, not all was well there. They had ‘forsaken,’ or ‘let go’ (aphiemi), their ‘first love.’ This was a serious defect. If uncorrected, it would result in their loss of light bearing (v. 5). The majority of commentators take the first love to refer to the original Christian love the Ephesians had for one another. Paul’s exhortation to the Ephesian elders to ‘help the weak’ (Acts 20:35) and the warm commendation he gives them in their early years for their fervent love of one another (Eph 1:15) may lend support to this view.

“Other commentators, however, see the ‘first love’ as a reference to their inner devotion to Christ that characterized their earlier commitment, like the love of a newly wedded bride for her husband John R.W. Stott, What Christ Thinks of the Church [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958], p. 27; Alf, 4:563). This interpretation is supported by the fact that the letters to the other churches reveal problems of inner betrayal to Christ as subjects of his complaint. Neither view necessarily eliminates the other. Loving devotion to Christ can be lost in the midst of active service, and certainly no amount of orthodoxy can make up for a failure to love one another. ‘First’ (protos) love would suggest that they still loved, but with a quality and intensity unlike that of their initial love.

“The speaker’s command further exposes the problem and offers a way to correct the fault. The imperatives are instructive: ‘Remember…. Repent … do.’ The Ephesians are called on to reflect on their earlier works of fervent love (like the Sardians [3:3]), to look in comparison at the present situation, to ponder how far they have fallen from their former devotion and enthusiasm, to humbly ‘repent’ (totally change) before God, and to do the former works motivated by love. These imperatives are all part of a single action designed to keep the Ephesians from the judgment of Christ, which would effectively remove them as his representatives in the world.

“How many churches today stand at this same crossroads? Do we sense the importance to Christ of not only honoring his name by our true confession but also reflecting his life by our loving relationship to others? This threat of loss of light bearing (or witness) applies doubtless equally to the other four churches, to whom a similar exhortation to repent is given (Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea).


2 Cor 1:13