7 Churches of Revelation
Kathee and I completed this section last night.
Here's a good link on the seven churches (of Revelation 2 & 3): Gotquestions.org
Quote from this page:
Question: "What do the seven churches in Revelation stand for?"
Answer: The seven churches described in Revelation 2-3 are seven literal churches at the time that John the apostle was writing Revelation. Though they are literal churches in that time, there is also spiritual significance for churches and believers today. The first purpose is to write to the literal churches and meet their needs at that time. The second purpose is to reveal seven different types of individuals/churches throughout history and instruct them in God's truth.
A possible third purpose is using the seven church to represent seven different periods in the history of the church. The problem with this view is that each of the seven churches describes issues that could fit the church in any time in its history. So, although there may be some truth to the seven churches representing seven eras of the church, too many people go into far too much speculation in order to determine which church fits which era. Instead, our focus should be on what message God is giving to us through the seven churches
Here's my take:
- The seven churches were 7 literal churches in the first century
- They do not represent 7 ages of church history (a belief that I held 30+ years ago)
- There are lessons for every church in every age and every Christian in the church age about rightly responding to Christ. Note the refrain of "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches"
The seven churches are:
- Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7) - the church that had forsaken its first love (2:4).
- Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-11) - the church that would suffer persecution (2:10).
- Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17) - the church that needed to repent (2:16).
- Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29) - the church who had a false prophetess (2:20).
- Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6) - the church that had fallen asleep (3:2).
- Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7-13) - the church that had endured patiently (3:10).
- Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) - the church with the lukewarm faith (3:16).
Where I don't want to be spiritually: "Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love" (Revelation 2:4)
Father, help me to love my Savior wholely! Help me to worship and adore and serve and live for Him. This world has its temptations and its lures, but help my eyes to be fixed fully on my Savior!
Cold Fusion Guy wrote: Though they are literal churches in that time, there is also spiritual significance for churches and believers today.
ReplyDeleteMichael: This concession acknowledges each letter represents a noteworthy spirit and temporal circumstances of a particular church and such a concession leads to the irrefutable truth that only one general spirit or zeitgeist (the general moral, intellectual and cultural climate of an era) personifies the general body of the church in any era—as only one time can fulfill the actual eve when Yahshua returns “as a thief”—the Day of the Lord. And only one period accompanying one zeitgeist can fulfill the actual eve of “the hour of temptation, which shall come upon the entire world to try them”, also the Day of the Lord (Revelation 3:10). In other words, there were seven limited spiritual conditions and circumstances personified by seven congregations in the first century—but only one general spirit could have conveyed the general moral, intellectual and cultural climate of the general body of the church and it certainly had to reflect the contemporary reformation of Yahweh’s people (Hebrews 9:10).
The aforementioned immediately rules out the spiritual conditions and circumstances of Sardis or Laodicea as the zeitgeist of the general body of the first century church because that time personified great ardor for the ministry and the brethren. Of the remaining spiritual circumstances and conditions personified by the letters those of Ephesus are found in the extant reports of the Ante-Nicenes, especially concerning the Nicolaitans. We have the reports of church elders such as Irenaeus on the struggles against the Nicolaitans in the first century that exposes the zeitgeist of the general body of the church in that era as that of the church of Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-6). Further, the other circumstances and conditions conveyed in the letter to Ephesus are best met in the zeitgeist of the first century such as its ability to discern Apostles (1 Corinthians 12:10). It is by the zeitgeist and circumstances that the successive eras of the churches are revealed; the spiritual conditions and temporal circumstances written to Ephesus best represent the zeitgeist of the first century and this is not by mere coincidence.
The zeitgeist of the general body of the church in the next era is best personified by what is written to Smyrna because of its great material poverty, tribulation, persecution and imprisonment, especially for a ten year period, adhering to the day for a year interpretation discovered in the scriptures by the Historicists. The extant history of the second through the beginning of the fourth centuries reveals that the tribulations of the church increased and culminated in ten years of severe persecution under the decrees of Diocletian and Galerius (303-313 AD). The persecutions ended by Constantine’s edict granting the church legitimacy through the state which leads to the next zeitgeist which is best personified in the letter to Pergamos.
With the legitimacy of the church came the general body’s dwelling with the state fulfilling the conditions and problems of dwelling in the seat of Satan best personified in the letter to Pergamos. Each succeeding letter personifies the zeitgeist of the next era as to the general spirit and temporal circumstances and cannot be mere coincidence, which supports the “successive era” interpretation beyond reasonable rejection.
Let me proceed to the final church; it is irrefutable that the Day of the Lord or Yahshua’s return takes place at a specific time and event in the intra-advent age that is accompanied by the zeitgeist of a great falling away, a lethargic spirit exemplified in the letter to the Laodiceans (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Peter 3:1-1; James 5:1-8; 2 Peter 3:3-4). Yet, this zeitgeist or general falling-away that accompanies the Day of the Lord is also addressed in the preceding letter to Sardis that is warned of imminent intercession in the explicit language of the Day of the Lord. And this imminent intercession of the Day of the Lord is also addressed in the succeeding letter to Philadelphia that is promised to be kept “from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (3:10). The language is unmistakably eschatological or indicative of the Day of the Lord.
How was the first century church kept from “the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth”? The language is unmistakably intercessional or eschatological. Again, the only proper interpretation is the successive era interpretation in which the letter and church is to the remnant seed of the women (Revelation 12:17) in the end times that keep the commandments of Yahweh and have the testimony of Yahshua against the zeitgeist of great apostasy. In the greatest sense the letter to Philadelphia is to those in the last days who remain faithful in a rebellious and apostate civilization.
Scripture can have more that one meaning. Jerusalem in the literal sense is a city in Palestine; Jerusalem is also an allegory for Yahweh’s people in both Testaments; it is also a tropologic for just souls as well as fallen souls; and an anagogic for the church triumphant. Clearly, a case can be made that supports all of the aforementioned senses are used in the introduction of the last chapter of Isaiah concerning Yahweh’s house. This has direct relevance to the immediate issue, for in what sense was Yahshua’s return imminent to the first century churches of Ephesus, Pergamos and Sardis (Rev. 2:5, 16; 3: 3, 11)? It was not the literal sense; Yahshua did not return at the time of the aforementioned first century churches. Yahshua is seated at the right hand until his enemies are made his footstool (Matthew 22:44; Acts 2:34-35; Hebrews 1:13; 10:13). The only sense in which the return is imminent to these churches is if they did not merely reflect first century conditions but are applicable to the last period in the intra-advent age. Again, if one concedes that the conditions set forth in the letters are applicable to all ages then it is tantamount to acknowledging that only one can be the zeitgeist in any age and, as previously stated, only the letter to the Laodiceans fulfills the zeitgeist accompanying the antitypical Day of the Lord. But at the time the church falls into this general lethargic condition it must be warned that it has justified divine intercession and only the letter to Sardis fulfills this zeitgeist (Amos 3:7). Moreover, as previously stated, what also accompanies this age of intercession is the limited spirit of the Philadelphians; the letter to the Philadelphians in its true sense is to the remnant seed of the woman in the last days that remain faithful in a rebellious and apostate civilization. Consequently, the crucial meaning of the church letters by the author, Yahweh, was the spiritual sense. Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea are typical and antitypical of end time conditions that must accompany the Day of the Lord or Yahshua’s return. Sardis’ condition justifies intercession in contrast to the previous four and the Philadelphians and Laodiceans endure the trial part of the intercession depicted in the seals, trumpets and vials.
The anagogical sense, according to Aquinas, concerns the church triumphant or the highest heavenly things in which we are led upward and judgment day, the Day of the Lord, the age preceding Yahshua’s return exemplifies the truest meaning or sense. We have the allegorical sense denoting spiritual conditions and earthly bound events in the letters of the first four churches and then a shift to the anagogical, heavenly intercession or the judgment preceding Yahshua’s return, in the next two. Philadelphia and the seventh zeitgeist undergo the trial of the Day of the Lord depicted in the seals, trumpets and vials. There is support for this in Old Testament as well as the seals, trumpets and vials. Amos is but one example.
“Thus saith the Lord; For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes; That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name: And they lay themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge by every altar, and they drink the wine of the condemned in the house of their god.” Amos 2:6-8
One must note that there are no transgressions written about the era of Smyrna. Consequently, the age of Sardis represents the fourth transgression that leads to Yah’s intercession. The preceding ages represent a probationary time prior to the judgment noted as the “hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Rev. 3:10).
In Amos above the prophet forewarns ancient Israel (and Judah) of cataclysmic events, the trial by the Assyrians and Babylonians some 150 years (or five months given a day for a year) before the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity that followed as punishment for their sins and rebellion: their punishment was the heavenly intercession dubbed the Day of the Lord by Yahweh (Amos 5:18-27). Further, the final chapter reveals the punishment for the purpose of sifting the sinners out of Israel to ultimately restore a remnant that overcomes, regains temporal sovereignty, are never plucked-up from their land again and they possess “all the heathen” called by Yah’s name (Amos 9:8-15), which the New Testament disciples interpreted as fulfilled “allegorically” or in part during their time (Acts 15:15-17). It was fulfilled allegorically because the church at that time did not literally receive their inheritance of earth and the tabernacle of David was not built in any strict literal sense and neither where the exiles returned from captivity. Consequently, the heavenly intercession and sifting at the first advent was also typical of the ultimate or anagogical day of the Lord—the “times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21). When Yahshua returns the anagogical fulfillment of the Day of the Lord is fulfilled in the church triumphant.
In light of the above, the idiom of the Day of the Lord has more that one expository sense and fulfillment. Its meaning is allegorical or typical as well as anagogical or antitypical in that it had a typical fulfillment in the age and the destruction of the first temple and again at the time of the first advent—but in the age preceding the return of Yahshua its meaning is anagogical or antitypical, for “the Day of the Lord” that precedes Yahshua’s return is the object of the types. (The typical autumnal ceremonial oblations of Rosh Hashanah, Yum Kipper and Sukkoth were all typical of the same time.) In essence the ancient historical events of judgment or intercession, the trials resulting from the armies sent by Yahweh against His people and His mercy upon a remnant, were precursors or types of the actual anagogical “messianic woes” preceding the return. At the same time, the idiom does not have multiple senses to represent any and “all tribulation which the church may experience at the hands of the world”, as George Eldon Ladd asserted. Where it is upheld that Yahweh chastises every son (Hebrews 12:6) the intercession dubbed the Day of the Lord is fixed to transitional periods as the scriptures verify. It preceded the transition from the first temple age to the second temple age and again at the first advent, the transition from the second temple to that built without hands (Acts 7:48; 2 Corinthians 6:16). Both these judgments and transitional periods dubbed “the Day of the Lord” prefigured the antitypical judgment at the return of Yahshua. In essence each aforementioned age had its judgment time dubbed the Day of the Lord. Again, this is also supported by Paul who confirmed the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy at Pentecost concerning the Day of the Lord.
“But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Acts 2:16-21
The language by Peter in Acts is unmistakably eschatological for the Day of the Lord and we find this same language in the seals, trumpets and vials; yet, the seals, trumpets and vials are not typical but antitypical—attending the final era of the fallen church of the Laodiceans preceding the return. Peter used figurative language, the darkening of the sun and the moon into blood, to predict the cataclysmic destruction of the second temple in 70 AD attending the fallen condition of the second house, but the same language in the sixth seal predicts the antitypical “Day of the Lord” as it applies to the household of Yahweh, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:1-22). It is this exposé that debacles all of the eschatological paradigms with the exception of the Historicism and while this article is a correction of the Historicist’s paradigm it is not a rejection of it. The Historicist’s paradigm that interprets the Revelation as an actual anticipation of veritable history in the inter-advent age, without any gap, is correct; nevertheless, it is the correct placement of the seal, trumpets and vials in the inter-advent age that exposes the scriptural inconsistencies of the other paradigms: Preterism, Futurism (modified and Dispensationalist) and Idealism.