Do the seven churches in Rev. 2-3 symbolize seven "church eras" in church history?

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hi Carry_Your_Name

My take on the opening letters written for us as a testimony in the Revelation of Jesus, is that they are actual letters from the Lord given for John to write down for us about being careful what we believe and follow in our fellowship gatherings. They were written to bring out problems within our practices of fellowship that have been with us since pretty much the beginning of the 'church'. I don't believe that they have any reference to different ages or eras of the church but are rather cautions to us throughout the church age, which began when the Holy Spirit was released at Pentecost or thereabouts, that we be careful as to what we assimilate in our teachings and practices of pure worship for God.

That might be the case for Paul's letters, as each of his letters was his response to particular problems in each of these churches, but these seven letters from the Lord himself are more like a review of each church's job performance. Paul wrote from the perspective at the beginning of the church age in the 1st century, offering advice and guidance; what Jesus doled out in these seven letters, however, was his evaluation and judgement. These were written on the Lord's Day at the END of the church age, each church was reviewed retrospectively.

 

[miamited]

These were written on the Lord's Day at the END of the church age, each church was reviewed retrospectively.

That's some kind of weird time jump. The letters were written somewhere during the very end of the first century while John was exiled on Patmos. They were written fairly shortly after the beginning of the church age. Just a few dozen years after Paul's letters.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That's some kind of weird time jump. The letters were written somewhere during the very end of the first century while John was exiled on Patmos. They were written fairly shortly after the beginning of the church age. Just a few dozen years after Paul's letters.

Yes it might be weird, yet that was the case. John was in spirit on the Lord's Day, Rev. 1:10, that's the context. He was seeing end time events, i.e. what "must take place after this", go check it out yourself.

 

[miamited]

That's a sketchy interpretation. Mine says: On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,... I don't take that qualifier 'Lord's Day' because that would mean that all of this is over. Why would Jesus send a letter out to be put in God's testimony concerning the way the 'churches' in Asia and the Middle East had believed and practiced if it was all over? If, on the other hand, John, on the first day of the week, was in the Spirit to receive the warnings and atta boys of the early churches so that corrections could be made over the centuries of the times of Gentiles, then such a testimony would be of value to us as we were going to be living through the next centuries.

On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,

Then there's the matter that if this is the 'Day of the Lord', as opposed to the 'Lord's Day', then who would John be sending the letters to. His instructions were to send it to the churches, but they won't be there on the 'Day of the Lord'. Certainly won't be there long enough to get these letters.

So, your understanding is that John has been taken to the time of history that the Scriptures refer to as the 'Day of the Lord'. The day that Jesus returns in judgment against all mankind. And on that day, he's telling John to write down and deliver these letters to the various churches that likely won't even really exist by that name on that day. Letters that then tell them to keep on working out righteousness and to set aside wickedness in our fellowships. Honestly, I don't see why God would do it that way.

 

[Elijah7777]

This is a popular doctrine taught by William Branham, that Jesus's letters to the seven churches in ancient Asia Minor and modern day Turkey are a timeline of the entire church age from His ascension to his return

The Hasidic talk about there being up to 100 layers of meaning to scriptures. There are seven churches, seven angels, seven lamp stands. I think all churches today are one of those seven even though there are no two churches that are the same. They all have their strengths and weakness.

I remember when I was in Flordia for 6 weeks once and I attended different churches. One was very friendly and everyone in that church welcomed me and invited me to become a part of their church. Then another church was the opposite. NO one assigned to greet people, only one person even talked to me and I was wondering about him.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That's a sketchy interpretation. Mine says: On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,... I don't take that qualifier 'Lord's Day' because that would mean that all of this is over. Why would Jesus send a letter out to be put in God's testimony concerning the way the 'churches' in Asia and the Middle East had believed and practiced if it was all over? If, on the other hand, John, on the first day of the week, was in the Spirit to receive the warnings and atta boys of the early churches so that corrections could be made over the centuries of the times of Gentiles, then such a testimony would be of value to us as we were going to be living through the next centuries.

On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,

Then there's the matter that if this is the 'Day of the Lord', as opposed to the 'Lord's Day', then who would John be sending the letters to. His instructions were to send it to the churches, but they won't be there on the 'Day of the Lord'. Certainly won't be there long enough to get these letters.

So, your understanding is that John has been taken to the time of history that the Scriptures refer to as the 'Day of the Lord'. The day that Jesus returns in judgment against all mankind. And on that day, he's telling John to write down and deliver these letters to the various churches that likely won't even really exist by that name on that day. Letters that then tell them to keep on working out righteousness and to set aside wickedness in our fellowships. Honestly, I don't see why God would do it that way.

As far as I'm concerned, "the Lord's Day" and the "(great and terrible) Day of the Lord" are one and the same, there was no such tradition of Sunday service at the time John wrote the book, only regular Sabbath. "In spirit" means he was having a supernatural vision of Lord Jesus Christ and the end time events, similar to the OT prophets.

If you still think it's odd, ask yourself a simple question, do you read Revelation as a book of PROPHECY or not? If no, feel free to be a preterist by reading all of it as fast history in the first century; if yes, though, then please understand that John was witnessing the great tribulation of 3.5 years, what's really odd would be skipping 2000 plus years of the church age and jumping straight into the end.

 

[Elijah7777]

He was seeing end time events, i.e. what "must take place after this", go check it out yourself.

God declares the end from the beginning.

Isaiah 46:10, where God says: "I declare the end from the beginning, and from ancient times what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will accomplish all that I please.’"

This verse emphasizes God’s sovereignty—He knows the future and has a divine plan that will be fulfilled. It reassures believers that history unfolds according to His will, and nothing happens outside His knowledge or control.

 

[miamited]

do you read Revelation as a book of PROPHECY or not?

Well, I read the writing of the revelation of Jesus as just that. It's revealing all of Jesus and who he is and what his great sacrifice has done for us. Some of it is regarding future prophecy and some of it isn't. It actually starts from the birth of Jesus which is explained to us as the woman who gives birth to a son. It then speaks of how his death set Satan on a path to destroy all those who believe in the testimony of Jesus. So no, not all of it is prophetic to the time that it was written. I don't think that this accounting of the activities of seven fellowships that were established early on in the life of the 'church' age as being prophetic so much as showing us just how quickly we tend to get off track concerning what God asks of us.

I believe that when Jesus encouraged John to write down that the fellowship in Ephesus had forsaken its first love, that the fellowship of believers in Ephesus at that time was already having problems within their worship from forsaking their first love. He even recounts to the church in Pergamum that they did not renounce their faith in the days of Antipas. Antipas was a ruler who ruled before we get to the last decade of the first century when John was given this command to write these letters. That he was put to death in Pergamum. It is my understanding that all of the deeds and misdeeds spoken of in these letters to the first churches established by the Apostles were happening at the turn of the first century and Jesus had John write down these letters to correct them.

 

[miamited]

He was seeing end time events, i.e. what "must take place after this", go check it out yourself.

Prior to the writing of the letters Jesus says: “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later." After the writing of the letters, John says that he was taken up into heaven and then Jesus said to him: “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”

Check it out for yourself.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Well, I read the writing of the revelation of Jesus as just that. It's revealing all of Jesus and who he is and what his great sacrifice has done for us. Some of it is regarding future prophecy and some of it isn't. It actually starts from the birth of Jesus which is explained to us as the woman who gives birth to a son. It then speaks of how his death set Satan on a path to destroy all those who believe in the testimony of Jesus. So no, not all of it is prophetic to the time that it was written. I don't think that this accounting of the activities of seven fellowships that were established early on in the life of the 'church' age as being prophetic so much as showing us just how quickly we tend to get off track concerning what God asks of us.

I believe that when Jesus encouraged John to write down that the fellowship in Ephesus had forsaken its first love, that the fellowship of believers in Ephesus at that time was already having problems within their worship from forsaking their first love. He even recounts to the church in Pergamum that they did not renounce their faith in the days of Antipas. Antipas was a ruler who ruled before we get to the last decade of the first century when John was given this command to write these letters. That he was put to death in Pergamum. It is my understanding that all of the deeds and misdeeds spoken of in these letters to the first churches established by the Apostles were happening at the turn of the first century and Jesus had John write down these letters to correct them.

Those seven churches are seven archetypes of all churches to come throughout the church age, not limited to the seven first century churches in modern day Turkey which no longer exist. If they're only about those seven churches and nothing else, then ask yourself, why would you study Paul's letters to those various churches? Why were they not limited to the churches of Roman, Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, etc? Take the Ephesian church for instance, why is Paul's letter to the Ephesian church applicable today as timeless doctrine, while Jesus's letter to the Ephesian church is only limited to the Ephesian church in the first century?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Prior to the writing of the letters Jesus says: “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later." After the writing of the letters, John says that he was taken up into heaven and then Jesus said to him: “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”

Check it out for yourself.

Right, tell me if that's the beginning of the end, i.e. the great tribulation or not. If no, enlighten me when exactly does this take place; if yes, then explain why did the Lord skip 2000 plus years of the church age and jump straight into the end, suppose those seven letters were only written to the seven churches in modern day Turkey and nobody else.

And by the way, John's vision of the woman giving birth to a boy is not necessarily about the nativity of Jesus, that boy might be the complete church, of which Christ is the HEAD and the assembly, aka the Great Multitude is the body. In Rev. 20, Jesus didn't reign alone with a rod of iron, the resurrected saints were reigning with him. Jesus also described the end time events with "birth pang" analogue, that might be a reference of the birth of the complete church body, not just any birth.

 

[deepfaithpraise]

This is a popular doctrine taught by William Branham, that Jesus's letters to the seven churches in ancient Asia Minor and modern day Turkey are a timeline of the entire church age from His ascension to his return, the seven churches in Rev. 2-3 symbolize seven "church eras" in church history; specifically, these seven churches are characterized as the loveless (also legalistic) church; persecuted church; compromised church; corrupt church; dead church; faithful church; lukewarm church. William Branham matches them to the apostalic early church; persecuted Roman church; Roman state church; the Catholic church; the protestant church; the missionary church; the modern day rich apostate church, respectively.

I think there're some truth in that, first of all there's most definitely a church age, known as the "times of the Gentiles", in which Jews are dominated by the Gentiles, the gospel is also preached by the Gentiles and to the Gentiles. Both Jesus and Paul and perhaps some other prophets talked about it, so "church age" is legit, and we're near the end of it.

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt. 12:32)
See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Matt. 23:38-39)
And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Lk. 21:24)
For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. (Rom. 11:25)

This is also hinted in the context of the seven letters - "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this." (Rev. 1:19) In the context of the book of Revelation, "the things which are", also "what you see" (Rev. 1:11) is the times of the gentiles and the end of it, "the things which will take place after this" is the millennial kingdom and the New Jerusalem.

But is the church age divided into seven eras symbolized by the seven churches, and there's one overarching, dominant zeitgeist for each era? Not really. These seven churches are seven types of churches, and they co-exist all the time, throughout the entire church age. The lukewarm church might be the dominant kind of church in America, but not all over the world, you've got other kinds of churches in other countries. It might be a helpful teaching tool to divide the church age into these seven eras for the purpose of learning church history, just like using the doctrine of "seven deadly sins" as a teaching tool to understand what sin is, but that doesn't mean there's different biblical message applicable for different eras, and the Holy Spirit changes over time.

I love how you’re wrestling with the idea of the seven churches in Revelation and whether they map out a timeline of church history. You make a great point about the “times of the Gentiles” being a real thing in Scripture—it’s clear God has a plan for the church in this age, and your references to Jesus and Paul really ground that.

I hear you on being skeptical about Branham’s idea of seven distinct church eras. It makes sense to see those seven churches as different types of churches that exist all at once, not just a neat historical progression. Your comparison to the seven deadly sins as a teaching tool is spot-on—it’s a way to understand patterns, not a rigid rule. It’s encouraging to see you holding fast to the truth that the Holy Spirit’s work doesn’t shift with the times. Keep digging into the Word like this—it’s a blessing to see your passion for understanding God’s plan!