@ 2021-12-14: IS “PHILADELPHIA” PERFECT (REVELATION 3:7-13)?

Brethren, is the prophetic “Church of Philadelphia” (Revelation 3:7-13) perfect? Does “Philadelphian” mean the same thing as “overcomer”? Was the Church at Philadelphia the standard by which Jesus Christ measured the six other Churches of Asia in Revelation 2-3?

The answer to these questions rests partly on the answer to this question: Does the Greek noun philadelphia mean the same thing as the Greek noun agape?

For sixty years and more, the plain and simple answer to all these questions—no—somehow has evaded most of us. Our brand of spiritual pride—yes, you read that correctly—has kept many if not most of us from seeing the spiritually obvious: the Work of Philadelphia is not perfect, it has not fully overcome human nature yet, it is not the standard by which all other Churches of God are measured, and philadelphia is not a synonym for agape! 

The Plain Truth About the Human Condition 

Now when I say that “the Church of Philadelphia isn’t perfect”, or that “Philadelphians aren’t perfect”, I am not speaking about the common, unwitting sins and mistakes all humans—including all Christians—fall into making. I am speaking of the plain truth about the human condition: even when led by God’s Spirit, there is no such thing as a human being—or an organization of human beings, such as a church—with all fundamental strengths and no fundamental weaknesses! Rather, “for every strength there is a weakness, and for every weakness there is a strength.”

I had to learn this truth not from the Worldwide Church of God and its heirs, but from sound-minded “type psychology”. Once I did, I realized in hindsight that the Bible states that truth in its own terms. The legitimate heirs of the WCG do teach that truth when they discuss Paul’s analogy in 1 Corinthians 12:4-27. Leaving aside differences in spiritual office, different members of the Church—like different parts of the human body—have different strengths and weaknesses, fitting them for different roles in God’s Church.

But the Bible states this plain truth about the human condition in even more fundamental terms. When Jesus Christ gave the Beatitudes, plus His words on “you are the salt of the earth” and “you are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:2-16), He summarized the relationship between character and personality in the normal, “converted” human mind as led by God’s Spirit.

Thanks to deliberate and destructive abuse of the subject by certain heretics among us, “psychology” has been a “dirty word” in the modern Church of God for far too long. There is such a thing as a biblically based, sound-minded psychology—that is, a study and description of the human mind. By giving Matthew 5:3-16 in the first place, Jesus Christ anticipated by 1900 years the “psychological type” models of Jung, Myers and Briggs, Berens, Beebe, and others. He did so by describing not only how God’s Spirit guides the “spirit in man”, but how it guides the human brain in the way it perceives and makes decisions, how it relates emotionally and socially to others, and how it governs actions by the body.

Already by Jesus’ day, the Greeks understood that people use their bodies to do “good works” (or “evil works”) in four fundamentally different ways—ways which underlie the works themselves. This fact relates to the ancient and modern concept of the four human temperaments.[1] For example, while Peter and John both kept God’s law, Peter was far more apt to take spiritual action “in the moment”, while John was far more interested in spiritual knowledge and competence. The difference was one of temperament—of what drove these apostles humanly to do “good works”—not of obedience to God’s law as such.

What about “evil works”? Vanity, jealousy, lust and greed are also matters of temperament. Whoever taught Herbert W. Armstrong about this fourfold list, he understood the fundamental flaws of the four human temperaments!

But let us return to the Beatitudes. Had the early Church not been sidetracked by heresies about God’s law and the nature of Jesus Christ relative to the Godhead (cf. Jude 1:3-4), they could have realized that Christians fall into sixteen different categories (no more, no less) as to how they approach the Beatitudes. Leaving aside the First Beatitude, every Christian most naturally understands and most easily applies two of the last eight Beatitudes—and always in a particular order. In my case (assuming I truly understand and apply the First Beatitude), “Blessed are the merciful (i.e., the compassionate)” and “Blessed are the pure in heart”—in that order—are my strengths in understanding and applying the Beatitudes. “Blessed are those who mourn” and “Blessed are the meek”? In those two Beatitudes, I am by far the weakest! 

The Beatitudes and the Seven Churches 

But only some 1900 years’ worth of spiritual hindsight could have told anyone that the Nine Beatitudes are also the key to understanding not only the strengths and weaknesses of the prophetic Seven Churches of Revelation 2-3, but also of those Christians suffering the two periods of persecution[2] that will follow the “seven Church eras”.[3] Each of the first seven Beatitudes correspond to each of the Seven Churches, one after the other. That is, each Beatitude corresponds to a special strength or emphasis of a particular “Church era”. And remember, with each strength comes a corresponding weakness!

True, Jesus Christ does not say to the Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia, “I have something against you.” But does this mean He finds no fault with them at all? Of course not! Otherwise, why would He say to them—as He does to all the other Churches—“He who overcomes”? All by itself, this implies that both Smyrna and Philadelphia have some fault to overcome, both individually and corporately!

On the other hand, never did God and Jesus Christ found a Church of God to fail! Every one of the “Seven Churches” started out well. But inevitably, God’s people always have “let down”, turning their strengths into weaknesses—and then is when Jesus Christ addresses each of the Seven Churches. Let us consider some examples of this.

“Blessed are the merciful” is the Sardian Beatitude. Not many of my readers have had the privilege—as I have had recently—of reading the literature of the “Sardian Era”, mostly dating from the mid-to-late 1800’s.[4] Far from being “dead”—then—Sardis was rediscovering much biblical truth that had been lost, even as it tolerated much more division and error than it should have in the name of “mercy” or “compassion”. This led, inevitably, to the state described in Revelation 3:1-6.

In like manner, “Blessed are the peacemakers” is the Laodicean Beatitude. Being a “peacemaker” is a great Christian virtue—and so is being “wise as serpents and harmless as doves”. But “making peace at any price” leads to improper compromise—including trying to please both God and the world and to serve both God and Mammon! This leads to the state described in Revelation 3:14-22.

I hope that this explanation finally will stop any (real or alleged) Philadelphians from “pointing unrighteous fingers” at Sardis and Laodicea! These prophetic churches have real strengths—just as prophetic Philadelphia has a real weakness!

So, given that “Blessed are the pure in heart” is the Philadelphian Beatitude, how has prophetic Philadelphia “let down”—and how is that fact reflected in Jesus Christ’s words to the remnant of that era, in Revelation 3:7-13? 

Philadelphia and Agape 

First, let us correct a false equation which has misled many people. When Jesus said to the apostles, “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (cf. John 13:34-35, 15:12-14), He spoke of agape—not of any form of philia, including philadelphia. Philadelphia and agape are not synonymous! Any form of philia (and there are many) is affection—chiefly, a matter of the heart. Philadelphia is fraternal affection, whether literal or spiritual. Agape chiefly is a matter of the head—of the will. Strong’s Greek Dictionary, entry #G5368 [phileō (φιλέω)], describes the difference very well.

Agape is the kind of outgoing concern which enables one to die for one’s friends—and even to forgive one’s enemies! Philadelphia has no hope of enabling either. It can, however, enable one to live and even die for God’s truth—just as the use of the word in the apocryphal Books of the Maccabees (especially 4 Maccabees) illustrates.

The Maccabees and their heirs the scribes and Pharisees had philadelphia—of a particular kind. Their fraternal affection rested in their obedience to God’s law as they understood it. The sect of the Pharisees itself was a fraternity! But like the Maccabees, the Pharisees extended that affection only to fellow Jews who shared their values and beliefs. Theirs was not simply “love of the brethren” for those who happened to share their descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. John 7:49 and other verses, concerning their attitude toward those not of their fraternity). 

Philadelphia Is a Goal, Not a Motivation 

The second fallacy we hold is that philadelphia is a motivation to reach out to the unconverted world. One argument is that the very name of the City of Philadelphia points symbolically not only to “brotherly love” toward fellow Christians, but toward the “unconverted” in national Israel and Judah.

True, the scribes and Pharisees “traveled land and sea to win one proselyte” among the Gentiles (cf. Matthew 23:15)—but was it philadelphia that motivated them to do so? Let us see.

While this is another subject, each name of the Seven Cities points out something specific—and positive—about each of the Seven Churches at its founding. This includes even Laodicea, which name has been mistranslated grossly by some who are ignorant of Greek and of history. It means “pertaining to (Queen) Laodike”, whose name means “justice for the people”—not “the people decide”!

What then of Philadelphia? While some historical sources give the city name as Philadelphia (Φιλαδελφία), Revelation 3:7 and other historical sources agree that the original name was Philadelpheia (Φιλαδέλφεια). The name means “pertaining to Philadelphos (Φιλάδέλφος)”: Attalus II Philadelphius, a king of Pergamos. The title Philadelphos means “one who is fond of a brother”. How did Attalus gain this title? By showing loyalty to his brother and predecessor, King Eumenes II, even at considerable personal cost. Eumenes founded the city in 189 BC and named it for the love shown by his brother to him.

So close were the two brothers that coins minted in Philadelphia portray them as twins, who yet look together to the Temple of Diana in Ephesus. So even in antiquity, no one thought of Philadelphia as “setting the standard” for the other cities of Asia Minor. Ephesus set that standard—just as the apostolic and prophetic Church of Ephesus set the standard for all the “Church eras” that followed.

But as Sir William Ramsay pointed out in his book Letters to the Seven Churches, the City of Philadelphia was founded to “evangelize” the province of Lydia to Hellenistic culture, as subject to the rule of the City of Pergamos. Philadelphia was an effective teacher. In time, the Lydian culture and even language had all but perished in the province, to be replaced by Hellenistic culture and the Greek language.

But here is my point: then and only then did the Lydians share philadelphia with their Hellenistic teachers. Philadelphia can only exist—in the figurative sense—between those who share the same values, regardless of ethnicity. This was true for the Hellenists, and it was true for the Maccabees and Pharisees. We see this even more clearly in the New Testament, among Christians of any ethnicity.

In the Epistles of Peter, we see that philadelphia and agape are not the same—and that the first must be attained before one can attain the second. Notice that in passing, Peter assumes philadelphia and agape alike are shared with Christians—not with non-Christians—even though elsewhere, we see agape being shared with non-Christians also.

“Having purified your souls [another way of saying, purified your ‘hearts’] by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love [fraternal affection: philadelphia], love [show agape to] one another [fellow Christians] earnestly from a pure heart” (1 Peter 1:22, ESV).

“Blessed are the pure in heart” is the Philadelphian Beatitude! Such purity of heart—and the philadelphia that comes with it—comes from obedience to God’s truth. Now we see why the Philadelphian Era—more than any other since the Ephesian Era—has been known for its emphases on “recapturing true values”, taking “the Word of God as the foundation of knowledge”, and “restoring original Christianity”!

But Christian philadelphia, like Hellenistic and Pharisaic philadelphia, is the goal of outreach to the world—not the motivation of outreach to the world. Agape is our motivation for Christian outreach to the world, as it is a matter of the will—of our wanting others to share Christian philadelphia with us—but no one shares Christian philadelphia with anyone who is not already a Christian!

What Peter says elsewhere confirms this, even as another point is being made. “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature….For this very reason…supplement your faith with [virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection (philadelphia), and finally love (agape)]” (2 Peter 1:3-8, ESV).[5]

And if one lacks all these qualities mentioned by Peter? He “is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins” (verse 9, ESV). This may not be the “treatable blindness” that prophetic Laodicea has after it “lets down” (Revelation 3:17-19). Indeed, it sounds more like the “all-but-incurable blindness” that many Pharisees had (e.g., John 9:39-41). At least prophetic Laodicea, even at its lowest point, “keeps the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 12:17; 14:12). The same could not be said in truth of these Pharisees, for all their self-righteous attempts at commandment-keeping and belief!

In sum, Christian philadelphia is a goal of Christian outreach. Never is it shared, nor can it be shared, with non-Christians. Other places where the word is used confirm this (Romans 12:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:9; Hebrews 13:1). Now if one has agape, one also must have philadelphia (1 Thessalonians 4:9-10), but one may have philadelphia without having agape! 

Philadelphia Has One Serious Fault 

Now recall that Jesus Christ addresses each of the Seven Churches after it has “let down” in some way. He does not address prophetic Philadelphia at its beginning, or while it is strong in absolute terms, as Herbert W. Armstrong thought.

Why do I say this? First, when Jesus Christ says, “I know you have but little power” (Revelation 3:8, RSV and ESV), He is not paying a compliment! Verbally, the word translated “little” is comparative and diminutive; accentually, it is relative. Second, Jesus Christ is not comparing Philadelphia to the churches of this world, but to other Churches of God—to other “Church eras”. Compared to this world’s churches, the Church of God always has been a “little flock” (Luke 12:32). But when the Worldwide Church of God was at its height, it was by far the numerically largest (as far as we can prove) of any Church of God in history. It also had an outreach like no other Church of God ever.

Now let us consider some biblical background. In a.d. 17, a severe earthquake devastated twelve cities in Asia Minor—including Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Sardis never regained its former glory, despite having an outward appearance of having done so. Laodicea refused Roman help and rebuilt using its own financial resources. And Philadelphia? Much could be said about how the real-world history of the city illustrates the prophetic history of the Church era.[6] But here is my point: the earthquake of a.d. 17 was followed by multiple aftershocks which continued to devastate Philadelphia. It seemed as if every time the city was rebuilt in part, some aftershock would come along to destroy what was rebuilt. Thanks to this, many former residents stayed outside the city walls and took up farming, not participating in rebuilding the city. When Jesus Christ addressed the Church in the early 90’s, its members still had either living or historical memory of these real-world events.

Does this sound familiar? It should. Many still “keep their distance” from the Work of Philadelphia because of the “earthquake” and “aftershocks” it has suffered. So many things which happened to the City of Philadelphia, in its long history, are perfect types of what has happened to the Worldwide Church of God and many of its heirs!

Multiple catastrophes have happened, then, between prophetic Philadelphia at its height and prophetic Philadelphia when Jesus Christ addresses it. Jesus alludes to this indirectly in Revelation 3:8. “I have set” is perfect active indicative. This state of being, while not a verbal participle, nevertheless is ongoing—not just an action simply done, no trimmings, sometime in the past, as the aorist tense-aspect would indicate. Some time has passed since Jesus’ original placing of the “open door” to preach the Gospel before Philadelphia (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:9; 2 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 4:3).

“I know you have but little power”, then, reflects the fact that Jesus Christ speaks to a remnant—to those few who have remained faithful and committed to Christ’s Work against all odds. But, they have not fully “overcome” yet! Jesus says so!

Spiritually, then, what has been the cause of so much catastrophe in the Work of Philadelphia, in prophetic fulfillment? Why did this Work “fall away” so far so fast, and its remnant “splinter” into so many competing sects, perhaps unlike any “Church era” of which we have record?

Jesus Christ tells Philadelphia the cause in plain language. No, He does not say “I have this against you”—but He warns against the problem directly nevertheless! Why would He say, “Hold fast what you have, that no one seize your crown”, if doing so were not in fact the single greatest challenge that prophetic Philadelphia faces? 

Why Many of Us Have Not “Held Fast” 

How has that challenged manifested itself? First, it is so easy to confuse “purity of heart”—to confuse “recapturing true values” and “obedience to the truth” of God—with mere “sincerity”! As Mr. Armstrong and others have put it, “A man can be sincere, yet sincerely wrong!” Certainly, the American Protestant world—which Worldwide sought so hard to rejoin—is “sincere” in its values. So are those who reject American Protestantism, and who claim to be part of God’s Church, but who have a Pharisee-style self-righteousness based on their own wholly personal values. Both positions are wrong—they “miss the mark” of God’s truth.

It was not enough for the Maccabees and their heirs the scribes and Pharisees to reject Hellenistic values. They had to restore Godly values also—which in fact was the intent of the original Pharisaic movement. But as the New Testament, the Babylonian Talmud, and other Jewish literature illustrate, in time most of the Pharisees and their Rabbinic heirs missed the mark—they adopted their own personal values instead of God’s values, and often disagreed among themselves sharply in doing so.

But there is one other thing we must consider. In its historical usage—particularly in the very name of the City of Philadelphia and its background—the noun philadelphia implies personal loyalty, and in a governmental context! This is not a matter of definition, but of usage. Attalus was loyal to his kingly brother, who was over him, in a truly outstanding way—because they shared the same personal values. But, there is a danger in that kind of close relationship! Among Christians, certain people can speak on their own authority and seek their own glory (John 7:18, ESV)—and other people can follow their illogical argument from authority (“do this simply because I tell you to”)—and form factions among themselves, all the while insisting that they are “being loyal to God’s government over and through men” and “holding fast to the truth” thereby. This dangerous way of thinking and acting (cf. Galatians 5:20-21) has been a plague upon the Work of Philadelphia from its beginning to this day!

Even Herbert W. Armstrong—far too often, and under stress—fell into the trap of “argument from authority”. His naturally paternalistic way of dealing with “true values” was his path toward that error. Now, he did say in a sermon I witnessed, “Brethren, I don’t think half of you get it! I don’t think a tenth of you get it!” These days, he might well say not a hundredth of us really “get” what true conversion is—and I suspect he would be right! But, under his unintentional personal influence, too many of us in Worldwide became “Armstrongites” rather than true Christians. We were loyal to Mr. Armstrong, in the name of being loyal to Jesus Christ. So, when someone else came along, arguing from his own authority and seeking his own glory while undermining Mr. Armstrong’s authority, most of us just “went along” without really thinking through what the Scriptures say!

So, instead of boasting in our alleged righteousness as “Philadelphians”, and “pointing unrighteous fingers” at Sardis, Laodicea, or anyone else, we should recognize what philadelphia is—and is not. Godly philadelphia is no more and no less than the fraternal affection that arises among Christians, thanks to their obedience to God’s truth. But it is not agape, which is the hallmark of true and full conversion.

If we really are “Philadephians”, let us follow Peter’s sound advice. Let us attain philadelphia—but let us not stop there! Let us attain agape also, which will enable us to “hold fast to what we have”, to “overcome and endure to the end”, and to be known truly as Jesus Christ’s disciples. ###

---

[1] In the early Middle Eastern churches, these temperaments were symbolized by the Man, the Lion, the Ox, and the Eagle—that is, by the four faces of the four living creatures of Revelation 5. These four correspond (in the same tradition) to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in that order.

[2] Cf. Daniel 12:11-12; Matthew 24:9-14 and parallels with Revelation 12:13-17; and Matthew 24:15-28 and parallels with Revelation 13.

[3] I did not discover this biblical truth. A woman in a local church I attended spotted it first, and she asked me if her intuition was right. The more I have studied the facts of the case, the more convinced I have become of the rightness of that perception.

[4] I owe this privilege to Dr. J. Phillip Arnold.

[5] Lately I have become convinced that while having philadelphia is not the same as having agape—the second is required for true and full conversion—not having philadelphia keeps one for gaining that full conversion! Some people naturally have a very hard time asking themselves, “What is important to me? What is important to God? How do I reconcile the two?” They reject such questions as irrelevant. They try to run their lives (and to direct the lives of others) by logical decisions alone. They may know “church-speak” very well—but the personal commitment to God and Jesus Christ that real conversion requires seems to be lacking.

[6] The Roman emperor Tiberius relieved it of having to pay taxes (Tacitus Annales 2.47, cf. Strabo 12.8.18; 13.4.10; John Lydus De mensibus 4.115). Later, thanks to aid from several emperors, the city changed its name and had a cult of worship of the Roman emperor. By Byzantine times, however, it had regained its former name. Already we see something foreshadowed by Jesus’ warning to the Church of Philadelphia: “Hold fast what you have, that no one seize your crown”! Later history illustrates the steadfastness of the City against its enemies, however.