It is interesting that only seven churches are mentioned, and only these in the province of Asia. There were certainly more churches even in that province than the one’s mentioned in Revelation 1:11. Therefore, we need to ask, why did the Lord pick out these seven churches, and why only from the Roman province of Asia? First of all, it may prove significant that the seven churches seem to be situated in an ancient Roman mail route to various distribution centers. Beginning in Ephesus, the capital of Asia, the mail would have traveled north to the other distribution centers: Smyrna and Pergamum, then southeast to Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. So, communications would begin in Ephesus and go inland to the other cities (churches), and, considering the direction (inland) of the communication, it might be inferred that important news would spread until the whole province (taken for the world) would be reached.
Secondly, we need to keep in mind that the Apocalypse is a book written to Jews, in particular, and Jesus specifically sent his Apostles to Jews (Matthew 10:5; cf. Galatians 2:9) Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles, but the General Epistles (James, 1 & 2 Peter; 1, 2 & 3 John; Jude) plus the Book of Revelation were specifically sent to Jews and would contain Jewish perspectives, rather than those of the gentiles. This is why we have references to Old Testament figures like Balaam and Jezebel (Revelation 2:14, 20) contained in the messages to two of the seven churches mentioned by name. It was expected that John’s readers would recognize these figures and understand why they were mentioned, as it pertained to the context of what Jesus wanted to say to them.
Therefore, the Apocalypse had to have been written when issues like “eating things sacrificed to idols” were both controversial and a present danger, and this would certainly be true only before 70 AD and particularly in the Diaspora. Such things were not very controversial issues in Judea or Galilee where the Torah was the law of the land for every Jew, and where pagan temples were not built or sacrifices made to pagan gods. Nor would they have been controversial issues in the latter part of the 1st century or during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, because the believing gentile communities had become the majority of those who had received Jesus as Savior. With Judaism dispersed and believing Jews unwelcome in the synagogues, the number of Jews becoming believers in Jesus as their Messiah had reduced to a trickle. The believing community was then being largely populated through conversion of the gentile populace, and “eating things sacrificed to idols” as an unclean thing was a moot issue.[1]
We also need to understand that most of the Jews of the northern and southern Kingdoms of Israel never returned from the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. They migrated elsewhere, which, no doubt, included the Roman province of Asia. Not only so, but Antiochus the Great removed about 2000 Jewish families from Mesopotamia and Babylon to Asia Minor,[2] showing that there was a large and growing Jewish community there. Therefore, this area would have been of particular interest in the ministry of the original twelve Apostles.
Finally, the province of Asia and other provinces in Asia Minor seem to have been a hub for ancient Christianity. There are more Christian churches mentioned in the New Testament from this area than any other region in the ancient world. Besides Paul’s three letters to this region, both James and Peter wrote their letters to Jewish believers living in Asia and Asia Minor. So the reason Asia was chosen was probably due to the large Jewish population concentrated there, and the reason only these seven churches were chosen above the other churches there is probably due to their being united by an ancient Roman mail distribution system. These combined reasons make them a fitting symbol of the whole church (the seven churches together) bringing the Gospel to the world (cp. Matthew 28:19-20), represented in the province of Asia.
_______________________________________________
[1] If the seven churches and the Apocalypse are taken out of this context, then the reason why the province of Asia and these particular seven churches were chosen by Jesus to address would have to remain a mystery, and opinions as to why these particular churches were chosen would be purely subjective, having nothing objective one could point to as evidence to support such opinions.
[2] Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews 12.3.4.
Smoodock's Blog 
8 responses to “Why These Seven Churches?”
Sorry, didn’t mean that to be so long winded. I did appreciate the background on the Jews from the Babylonian exile winding up in Asia Minor and later becoming believers, especially since we tend to read the book of Acts with the perspective that Paul and Barnabas were going into Asia Minor and mostly converting gentiles.
I kind of feel unsatisfied about this post as an answer to the question, “Why these 7 churches?” I have asked that question myself before. Though it helps somewhat to know it was written so early there weren’t as many churches, yet. Still it feels odd when so much of the prophecy was concerning Jerusalem, that it wasn’t written to them or other older churches such as Antioch or Damascus. It seems like a bit of a let down to think God spoke to those 7 churches for no other reason than their proximity to John sitting on an island off the coast of Asia Minor and path of the local postal route. Feels like there should have been a Revelation written for churches in other postal districts, too, you know what I mean?
Still your final paragraph encourages one to think there was something special about the churches in Asia Minor, perhaps as the new center of the church. Based on the New Testament, do you see evidence that prior to AD 70 the churches of Asia Minor were becoming the base of operations or center for the church? I tend to view the church center being Jerusalem until it moved to Rome. But both places were hot beds of Christian persecution so I doubt that is accurate. Maybe Asia Minor was given special consideration and were being groomed as the new hub of leadership after AD 70. Maybe the reason that protestants are oblivious to the importance of these churches is because Protestantism grew out of the Roman Catholic church rather than the Greek or Eastern Orthodox church. It might prove interesting to read what a Greek Orthodox perspective on why these 7 churches might be.
Anyway, even if I sound argumentative, I have enjoyed reading and thinking over what you wrote to answer a question I’ve had for awhile now.
Greetings Shari, and thank you for your interest in my studies and especially for your comment. Lord bless you.
Concerning Daniel’s eating habits in Babylon, actually the Temple stood for roughly twenty more years after Daniel was first taken to Babylon (Daniel 1:1; 2Chronicles 36:5-11). He was among the first to be removed from his homeland, but three kings of Judah reigned, while he was there and before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. So, good Jews would have struggled to maintain the directions of the Law for at least as long as the Temple stood. Moreover, Daniel had the promise that the King of Babylon would reign over the Jews for only 70 years. After the conclusion of those years (20 of which the Temple was yet standing) Daniel prayed for the release of his people and the Lord promised the Temple would be rebuilt. Not so, the first century AD. On the contrary, in Deuteronomy 31:25-29 Moses spoke of the last days of the Jewish nation, and went on in Deuteronomy 32 to prophesy how corrupt they would become. The last days means just that. Once the Temple was destroyed cir. 70 AD the Old Covenant ended and the New Covenant was established in its place. There is no promise for a rebuilt Temple or a rebuilt Jerusalem over which the Lord would reign. There is no context for the reestablishment of the Law or for the Old Covenant to continue.
In this context the Jewish leaders met to redefine their religion **without** the direction of the Lord. What would that have looked like for the Messianic Jews? They were established in a New Covenant without the Law. While the Law of Exodus 20 does define sin, nothing is said of the dietary laws and laws of purification etc. in the context of sin under the New Covenant. There are no laws for priestly duties, for going to war or for things like how to live with one’s neighbor. The New Testament says obey the king (whoever that may be) and honor the Lord (WWJD). That is all.
In this context, how long would Messianic Jews maintain the customs of the Law? There were no tribes to maintain, so marriage with gentile brethren would not only be permitted but encouraged. How long would dietary laws survive after 30 years in the Church of Christ, when intermarriage with believing gentiles occurred? When I left Armstrongism, which taught the Law and the need to embrace the dietary laws of the Bible, they lasted one year. I ate a ham sandwich on the Day of Atonement to celebrate my freedom from the Law.
I have two sets of 30 year periods counting back from my life today. In the contest of counting back from 73 years of age that puts the beginning of those time periods at 13 and 43 or 1959 and 1989. As important as those years were in the beginning of those two periods, I was not in 1988 and am not in 2019 living the same way as I had lived in the beginning of those two periods—and I didn’t change covenants with God. The change for the Old to the New Covenant was very dramatic in 70 AD, and believers were vindicated at the hand of the Lord in the eyes of their enemies. This means what Jesus said was more important than the Law—period.
Don’t put yourself down, Shari. I wasn’t at all upset over what you had written or the length it took to present your argument. At the end of the day, you need to be satisfied before you can move on to other things. If you cannot accept my version of the period, that’s okay. Believe whatever you think supports your walk with Christ. He’ll teach you what you want to know. Something, sometime will ‘click’ and the light will spread over the shadows.
Don’t know if the churches in Asia ended up as the center of Christianity after 70 AD, but in the context of the church going on without Paul and the Apostles and all of the familiar names in the New Covenant Scriptures, why would that be significant? Political unrest, periodic persecution etc. (mostly after the turn of the century) would have changed any center or stronghold of Christianity. We are who we are in Christ, and his Kingdom is not of this world. We may have a safe haven in the United States (sort’a / kind’a), but at the end of the day, American Christians don’t define Christianity in this modern era; neither would Asian Christians define Christianity in the first century AD. That said, however, the Lord does choose to speak to the whole Church by using a microcosm of 7 churches that made up a single Roman mail route in the province of Asia. If anything, he would have chosen the least likely churches to have paved the way for Christianity in that age. The Lord always seems to use the most unlikely example to show the most important things. In other words, you and I would probably never have conceived of the idea to make these seven churches an example of the whole Christian community during the first century AD and in effect the whole Christian community throughout all ages. Jerusalem or Rome couldn’t be used for such a thing, because they bring along their own baggage that would hinder what the Lord wanted to say. Rather, he chose basically unknown churches in unimportant cities, as we consider them in a 2000 year rearview mirror.
Lord bless you, Shari.