In Revelation 2-3, the glorified Christ confronted 7 pastors of 7 literal first-century churches in Asia Minor. We learn many truths from His dealings with those leaders and their churches.

The following paragraphs treat three such truths.

What Churches are “Biblical” Churches?

Of the 7 churches, Christ did not have any rebuke, condemnation, or other negative remarks for 2 of the churches. His dealings with the other 5 varied in their intensity concerning the problems in those churches.

Even though He strongly condemned some of the things that were taking place in some of these churches, Christ still referred to them as churches in exactly the same manner that He spoke of those churches for which He did not have any negative assessments. The notion, therefore, that only certain churches are “biblical” churches because they do not have any serious sin problems among the people in the church or in the leadership of the church is not a biblically supported notion.

All 7 churches were “biblical” churches even though some of them had leaders in the churches who were either tolerating serious sins or promoting them themselves. Remarkably, this was true even for a church that had in it at least some people and some in leadership who had come to know certain so-called deep things of Satan!

It is not necessarily true, therefore, that a church is a “biblical” church only if it is without any (serious) sin problems in it.

Which Pastors Are “Biblical” Pastors?

When Christ confronted the angel (that is, the pastor) of each of these churches, He addressed all of them in the same manner. Whether He had strong condemnation for what was taking place in the church or not did not change how He addressed the top leader of each church.

From this aspect of Christ’s dealings with the pastors of all 7 churches, we learn conclusively that a pastor is not a “biblical” pastor only if everything in His life and in His church is exactly what God wants it to be. Christ still addressed the pastors of some very compromised churches as “the angel of the church” even though very serious sin was being tolerated in his church.

It is not necessarily true, therefore, that a man is a “biblical” pastor only if both he and his church are free from any (serious) sin problems.

Is Confronting Compromised Pastors by Name Always a Necessity?

Christ addressed each of the 7 letters to the 7 churches to “the angel” of that church. Remarkably, Christ did not name any of the pastors of the 5 churches that He confronted concerning problems in their churches.

This was true even when the sin problems in the church were very serious. Christ, did not, therefore, deem it necessary or appropriate to call out such pastors of such churches by their names.

It is not necessarily true, therefore, that we must always warn people about sin problems in churches by naming the names of the pastors of the churches when we speak about the sin problems in the churches.

Conclusion

Revelation 2-3 reveals to us Christ’s perfect dealings in His confronting 7 pastors of 7 literal churches late in the first century AD. From His dealings with those pastors and those churches, we learn that both churches and pastors are not “biblical” churches and pastors only if they and their churches are free from all sin.

Furthermore, it is not always a necessity that we must make known the names of pastors of churches with serious sin problems in them in order to properly warn others about those matters. In fact, based on Christ’s not naming the pastors of the churches that He confronted about their sin problems, we should learn that we should be very careful about doing what Christ Himself did not do in such matters.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

Exodus 32 reveals a terrible incident in the history of God’s people. God wants believers to interpret it correctly and learn much from it. This post addresses a few key truths that God wants us to learn.

The people engaged in idolatrous worship of a golden calf that they asked Aaron to make for them (Exod. 32:1-4). Some have wrongly understood whom or what the calf represented and who the object of their feasting was:

Some have tried to show that the bull represented one of the gods of Egypt, but that doesn’t fit the text, because Aaron called a feast to the Lord (Yahweh) and said that it was the god(s) which brought them out of the land of Egypt.

This understanding is incorrect for several reasons.

First, and most importantly, the NT makes plain that they did not make the calf to be or to represent Yahweh:

Acts 7:39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, 40 Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. 41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.

The word gods in Acts 7:40 is the plural form of the Greek noun theos. The NT never uses any plural forms of theos when it speaks of the true God. They did not ask Aaron to make a representation of Yahweh.

Second, the Bible never says that Aaron said the following about the calf, “It was the god(s) which brought them out of the land of Egypt.” Every time that the Bible reveal any such statements about the golden calf, the speakers of the statements are the people and not Aaron:

Exodus 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Exodus 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Nehemiah 9:18 Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, This is thy God that brought thee up out of Egypt, and had wrought great provocations;

Finally, Scripture makes clear that the feast that the people engaged in was in actuality not a feast to the Lord. It does so in several ways:

1. Scripture says that they “forgot God their savior, which had done great things in Egypt” (Ps. 106:21). This revelation shows that they were not feasting to the Lord.
2. They were “rejoicing in the works of their own hands” (Acts 7:41)—they were not rejoicing in Yahweh.
3. The sacrifices that the people offered were in reality sacrifices to demons (Deut. 32:17; 1 Cor. 10:20). When the people ate and drank what had been offered to the calf and then rose up to play (Exod. 32:6; 1 Cor. 10:7), they had fellowship with demons (1 Cor. 10:20) and not with God. Their feasting in actuality was not feasting to Yahweh.

Conclusion

God wants believers to properly interpret the Golden Calf Incident in Exodus 32 and learn much from it. Learning what He wants us to learn from it and properly applying what it teaches us is vital for consecrated believers (cf. 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; 10:20-33; 11:1).

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

We must solemnly consider that Scripture reveals the horrific extent to which demons can corrupt humans in a passage that makes several key revelations about an ancient sorcerer:

Acts 13:6 And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: 7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. 9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, 10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

This profound revelation is noteworthy for many reasons because of what it reveals about the fearful malignity of a professional occultist.

First, it says that he was a professional occultist (who was also a false prophet) who sought to turn away from the faith an unbeliever who wanted to hear God’s truth. Such people thus are profoundly dangerous to unbelievers.

Second, it infallibly reveals key truths about the sorcerer by infallibly recording what the leader of the apostolic company being filled with the Spirit said to the sorcerer. This shows that the statements that Paul made about the sorcerer were exactly what the Spirit directed him to say about the sorcerer. None of Paul’s statements about him were in any way just his own thinking, perspectives, or even possible biases against a particular kind of person because of that person’s ethnicity or any other important aspects of his person.

Third, it shows how consummately this human being was a corrupted human being.

Elymas was “full of all subtilty and all mischief.” He was a profoundly crafty and fraudulent person who used deceit to accomplish his objectives.

He was an “enemy of all righteousness.” He actively opposed everything that was an aspect of righteousness before God. He thus openly fought against the doing of anything that was righteous in the sight of God.

He also would “not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord.” This man continually did whatever he could to corrupt the doing of something in a way that was right before God.

Fourth, and most disturbingly, he was a “child of the devil.” Through his involvement and participation in the occult, this man whom God made in His image had become so corrupted that he was now a child of the most evil being in the universe. In effect, the image of God in him had been completely overcome so that he effectively was a human being who was at least in some respects in the image of the devil!

This passage thus shockingly reveals that there are occultists (at the very least those who are sorcerers) who actively and passionately seek to promote demonic interests in every possible way!

Application

As believers, we must soberly and solemnly heed what God has revealed to us about the fearful malignity of this professional occultist. May God grant all of us grace to have nothing to do with such people and to have no fellowship with their unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11).

In this post, I have used much of the same material about Elymas that I presented in this earlier post: Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians: The Importance of Daniel 1:20 and 2:2 for Interpreting Daniel 3

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.