Revelation 2:4

But I have this against thee, that thou didst leave thy first love.

What a shocker is such a statement as this. The charge is not that they were in danger of leaving their first love, but that they had already done so! A lot of ink has been wasted on the explanation of "what" exactly was their first love. The first love of every true church is our Lord himself; and what is indicated here is the departure (in heart) of the Ephesian church from their Lord who had redeemed them. Oh yes, they were still busy with all kinds of tremendous works; but, significantly, these were not designated as "the work of faith." They were running their religion from a center of affection, not in the Lord, but in themselves. Of course, they were still advocating and defending all of the great doctrines of the faith, but the love of the Saviour was missing.

Some very interesting postulations have been presented regarding the situation here, such as the following:

Their intolerance of imposture and their hatred of heresy had bred an inquisitorial spirit which left no room for love. They had set out to be defenders of the faith ... only to discover that in the battle they had lost the one quality that really matters.[14]

While true enough, in a sense, such an interpretation seems to imply that it was their very loyalty to the faith that resulted in their lapse. Their hatred of heresy "bred" their defection; and that cannot be true. Whatever caused their failure, it was not intolerance of imposture, nor hatred of heresy. "Only the pure Word produces a pure faith, and ... pure love."[15] To suppose that brotherly love could exist without a hatred of heresy and intolerance of imposition is to suppose that apples can grow where there is no tree. "Love itself is misconceived when it is supposed that it can be great and strong without faithfulness to the Word."[16]

Some of the interpreters of this passage seem to be of the opinion that love of the brothers is here contrasted with sound doctrine, and that, of course, the latter is more important; but such teaching is not in the passage. As a matter of fact, it is an addition to the word of God to affirm that, "A slackened sense of the obligation to mutual love formed the cardinal sin at Ephesus."[17] That such a lessening of mutual love had indeed occurred is doubtless true, but it was not the cardinal sin; that was "their leaving their first love, who is Christ." A failure in the Christian's heart of his love for Christ results quickly in all of the other failures.

We should not pass this verse without noting the allegations often based upon it to the effect that this slackening of love and zeal must indicate that at least a generation had elapsed following the days of Paul before such a defection could have occurred. Almost all of those who prefer a 95 A.D. date for this book rely heavily upon such an assumption. However, as Plummer said, "This verse is certainly no obstacle to the theory that the Apocalypse was written about A.D. 68."[18] The notion that many years must have elapsed prior to the failure of the Ephesians does not take account of many facts given in Scripture. The Galatians defected from the gospel within two or three years (at the most) after they were converted. The frequent apostasies of Israel in the Old Testament often occurred at once after periods of loyalty. Only a few days elapsed while Moses was on Mount Sinai, but that was plenty of time for Aaron to make the golden calf. Not only do the theories of many years preceding the lapse ignore such Scriptures, but they are grounded in an ignorance of human nature. The same city that welcomed Jesus Christ on Sunday with palms and hosannas shouted him to the cross on Thursday! No "thirty or forty years" was necessary to produce that!

[14] G. B. Caird, op. cit., p. 31.

[15] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 86.

[16] Ibid., p. 87.

[17] James Moffatt, Expositor's Greek New Testament, Vol. V (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 351.

[18] A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 68.