In the bible there are passages where the immediate application is local, but the language then proceeds far beyond the local situation. Isaiah 14, the oracle against the king of Babylon, which then goes on to describe the career of Lucifer is an example. I believe the letters to seven churches of Revelation 1-3 are such a case. There have been various levels of interpretation proposed, but one that I find intriguing is the interpretation that suggests time is passing as we read these letters to particular "local churches" which were contemporary at the time of the original writing. One example is Rev. 3:10, where Jesus promises to keep a particular church from "the hour of trial that is coming to test the whole world." If the "hour of trial" which is "coming" (future) tests the "whole world," and one church is kept from "that hour," then it appears to have left the scene by the time that hour arrives. Time is passing. I would like to examine other examples within these texts that indicate time is passing. If any of our readers have done a study of this, I would like to see your findings.

Arimathea

Originally posted by Arimathea

In the bible there are passages where the immediate application is local, but the language then proceeds far beyond the local situation. Isaiah 14, the oracle against the king of Babylon, which then goes on to describe the career of Lucifer is an example. I believe the letters to seven churches of Revelation 1-3 are such a case. There have been various levels of interpretation proposed, but one that I find intriguing is the interpretation that suggests time is passing as we read these letters to particular "local churches" which were contemporary at the time of the original writing. One example is Rev. 3:10, where Jesus promises to keep a particular church from "the hour of trial that is coming to test the whole world." If the "hour of trial" which is "coming" (future) tests the "whole world," and one church is kept from "that hour," then it appears to have left the scene by the time that hour arrives. Time is passing. I would like to examine other examples within these texts that indicate time is passing. If any of our readers have done a study of this, I would like to see your findings.

Arimathea

I think your observations are accurate Arimathea. It sounds like you are leaning towards historicism. You spoke of different levels. That's my own view of the seven churches. You might read through my post about Revelation and see if it makes sense to you.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=51960

Originally posted by eschaton

I think your observations are accurate Arimathea. It sounds like you are leaning towards historicism. You spoke of different levels. That's my own view of the seven churches. You might read through my post about Revelation and see if it makes sense to you.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=51960

Thank you Eschaton--I did read your article, most enlightening. I had already seen some sense in the 6000 year age/prophetic theory, and to my understanding, it had also been taught by Jewish Rabbi's long before the Christian writers were on the scene. Your list of references from the early fathers is most useful in showing the orthodoxy of something that might otherwise be considered speculative.

From what I know of Historicism, I do make use of some of its principles, just as I also make use of Grammatical/Historical hermenuetical methods, but if you have been following my other post, you know that I have serious misgivings about how that method is applied today. I have read some of "Historicist"s posts explaining the historicism, and can see the sense in it. I am not at all afraid of Typology, for as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and a well placed Type can fill in dozens of details that would be painstaking to derive from narrative text, if it be possible to find them there at all. I've got another method brewing, however, that I believe would fill in some more gaps and leave us with an even more reliable method. I don't yet have it clear in every detail, but it utilizes what I might call, "Thinking with God," that is to get into harmony with God's mind on a particular subject or text (as the Apostles did in interpreting the Old Testament in the NT)and by that with one fell swoop overwhelm many smaller complications that we may argue about, and get us on to the more important job of applying the Word, as your article referred to. What I see missing in historicism, is a way over the same hump that G/H stumbles on, which is, how to authoritatively move an interpretation from the "possible" category, to the "this is that" category. I don't think either method can do that, even when and if they are in fact correct.

As for the 7 churches, Scoffield (and others) gives these four levels of interpretation:

1. Local, to the churches addressed.
2. Admonitory, to all chruches in all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state in the sight of God.
3. Personal, in the exhortations to him "that hath an ear." and in the promises to him "that overcometh,"
4 Prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, A.D. 90 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the church period there should be no such foreview...

...and he goes on with more explanation.

I would certainly like to hear from any who have found textual/grammatical evidence for the 4th level.

If you celebrate Christmas, I wish you a blessed one. If not,

Shalom,

Ari

Thanks for the helpful comments Ari. I suppose I shouldn't be too critical of Grammatical/Historical methods. Without a literal level we wouldn't be able to understansd anything at all, as I think Ted pointed out.

I was a little surprised to see what Scofield wrote. I've probably read it before, but had completely forgot about it.

Anyway, I do indeed celebrate Christmas, and I say Merry Christmas to all on our Lord's birthday. Or at least what somebody declared was the Lord's birthday.

I'd like to see a biblical justification for separating the churches into ages. I can't find one.

Ted

Hi Ted,

If you are looking for proof in the scientific sense, I don't think it exists, but God never confined His scriptures to the limits of our scientific proofs. The Seven Church Ages, if they are to be seen, must come from a realization that God "winks" as He sets forth the textual account, letting you know there is somthing much larger going on than meets the eye.

For example, in the Isaiah 14 passage, the context begins locally, with the king of Babylon, but then zooms way out into the eternities where Lucifer's actions are described by comparison.

In the case of the Seven Churches, the context starts out in the grand eternities, and then surprisingly applies these grand themes and symbols to a small group of relatively insignificant churches in Asia. If you were a Jewish Christian in Jerusalem reading Revelation for the first time, you would surely scratch your head. You are carried into John's vision of the heavenly temple, where you see what appears to be MEnra, the Seven Golden Lampstands, and the Seven Stars representing "THE" Seven churhes. So far so good, you understand those symbols, but then you are forced to apply these grand themes solely to a few small churches in Asia, and reckon with the omission of many more important churches from this seemingly expansive beginning. Where is the church in Jerusalem, for example? Where is ITS Lamp and Star? How about Antioch, where Christians were first named? Where is Rome? Surely these great churches should find a prominant place in any such vision. As God sends His final message to the churches as He is about to close the cannon, does He have nothing to say to Jerusalem, or Antioch? He is going to send a message to "seven" and only "seven" no more no less, and these humble little groups are the ones?

Then as you get into the letters themselves, you find them rich with symbolism woven through the more simple language, which continues to raise more questions that seem designed to make any Christian stop and ponder. Where is "Jezebel" in the church? Where is "Balaam?" Where are the "Jews" who make up a "Synagogue of Satan?" You learn that a Lamp can be removed from its place. But I am in the church in Jerusalem, you think--so I don't have a Lamp to worry about being removed, right? But that can't be, that would be inequitable treatment--these principles have to apply to everyone, not just the church that is mentioned.

If that is the case, just how far does the application project? To all churches everywhere? To all Christians? To wherever the "shoe fits" as they say?

These things are God's "winks" telling us to not have "tunnel vision" as we read these mysterious letters, but look out and around, and see the bigger picture. The first century Jewish Christian only had the local situation to go on, but he could see hints at at a larger application in the text already. We now have 2000 years of church history to look back on, and the perspective of Revelation as a prophetic book, the final book of the cannon, where we might find--if we are to find it anywhere-- a love letter to equip the church for all the challenges that it would face as it begins its long and unexpected journey through the centuries.

Then we notice that there are many things in the letters that seem to roughly sketch the progress of church history, down into the dark ages, and back up through the reformation into the present. Given the mysterious nature of the letters, perhaps God meant for us to probe this a bit, and see if in the end, there is a letter that applies specifically to us, and to our situation, when the coming of Christ is near, even right at the door-- knocking as it were, so that we may know and perform the most important and necessary response in our time.

None of that proves there are Seven Church Ages, but yet, I believe the better part of prudence would instruct us to examine this possibility very closely, for it could be that our own fate and destiny as a church is at stake here. If so, the letters to the churches are lifted out of the realm of old dusty history, where we may study them from our safe cozy place "behind the glass," to the surprising revelation that we are in fact living the story ourselves, and the applications we find are no longer merely academic, but desperately important to us.

Shalom,

Ari

The reason I discount the 'church ages' theory is because it only works if you have a very superficial idea of church history. In almost any decade I'm sure you could find an example of each of the 'ages' and in different locations the progression is different - France and England, although geographically close, have very divergent ecclesical histories... Also every model I've ever seen has 'now' as being "good church" which is something that I'm not entirely convinced of either and it seems that the rationale is "conservative evangelical christianity=good; Catholism=bad". Maybe that is the case, but when people advocate a theory which shows them as being the 'good guys' and their enemies as being 'the bad guys' you have to be a little sceptical, right?

Arimathea,

I heartily agree that the “he who hath an ear, let him hear” implies a universal application. Also, “the seven churches which are in Asia” implies a larger unity, since there are clearly more than seven. As we see “seven” used, it implies the complete and perfect amount in the apocalypse.

There is nothing in the text that implies any application to church “ages.” Unlike Isaiah 14, where the text itself clearly elevates the context to a larger stage than Babylon, the messages to the church simply lack such content. And, as James Peter notes, only a superficial reading of history allows such an application.

We should allow ourselves to be guided by the content of the passage. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 contain such “large” material. Revelation 2-3 does not.

Ted

Originally posted by James Peter

The reason I discount the 'church ages' theory is because it only works if you have a very superficial idea of church history. In almost any decade I'm sure you could find an example of each of the 'ages' and in different locations the progression is different - France and England, although geographically close, have very divergent ecclesical histories... Also every model I've ever seen has 'now' as being "good church" which is something that I'm not entirely convinced of either and it seems that the rationale is "conservative evangelical christianity=good; Catholism=bad". Maybe that is the case, but when people advocate a theory which shows them as being the 'good guys' and their enemies as being 'the bad guys' you have to be a little sceptical, right?

James

Really? Every model I've seen places our time in Laodicea, one of the most questionable of all the churches. Perhaps we should trade sources!

Thanks for your comments too.

Shalom,

Ari

If those were intended to be a chronological progression than that destroys Scofield's beloved and utterly false doctrine of the "imminent return of Christ." It amazes me that futurists do not obviously see this fatal flaw.

Originally posted by Arimathea

Hi Ted............


In the case of the Seven Churches, the context starts out in the grand eternities, and then surprisingly applies these grand themes and symbols to a small group of relatively insignificant churches in Asia.

Why is that surprising?Don't all the NT epistles do the same thing.Pauls letter to the Corinthians;James to the 12 tribes scattered abroad;John to the seven churches;Anonymous to the Hebrews(in Jerusalem and around about?).

If you were a Jewish Christian in Jerusalem reading Revelation for the first time, you would surely scratch your head. You are carried into John's vision of the heavenly temple, where you see what appears to be MEnra, the Seven Golden Lampstands, and the Seven Stars representing "THE" Seven churhes. So far so good, you understand those symbols, but then you are forced to apply these grand themes solely to a few small churches in Asia, and reckon with the omission of many more important churches from this seemingly expansive beginning. Where is the church in Jerusalem, for example? Where is ITS Lamp and Star?

Unless you also had Hebrews which has already told you that Jerusalem is on borrowed time.Actually I think its more likely that the letters were read in public at this point and expounded but I suspect the first century Christians were far more able to unpackage Revelation than us.

How about Antioch, where Christians were first named? Where is Rome? Surely these great churches should find a prominant place in any such vision. As God sends His final message to the churches as He is about to close the cannon, does He have nothing to say to Jerusalem, or Antioch? He is going to send a message to "seven" and only "seven" no more no less, and these humble little groups are the ones?

Oh I think God has plenty to say to Jerusalem in the pages of Revelation.I think the answer here might be as simple as that John has oversight of that area.....just a thought...

Then as you get into the letters themselves, you find them rich with symbolism woven through the more simple language, which continues to raise more questions that seem designed to make any Christian stop and ponder. Where is "Jezebel" in the church? Where is "Balaam?" Where are the "Jews" who make up a "Synagogue of Satan?" You learn that a Lamp can be removed from its place. But I am in the church in Jerusalem, you think--so I don't have a Lamp to worry about being removed, right?

No...the church in Jerusalem is at this point on the run I would say...presupposing an early date as I do...Johns "message to Jerusalem" is not the same message as it is to Asia.

But that can't be, that would be inequitable treatment--these principles have to apply to everyone, not just the church that is mentioned.

this misses the point.

If that is the case, just how far does the application project? To all churches everywhere? To all Christians? To wherever the "shoe fits" as they say?

The application is to all churches everywhere just as it is in Acts.The judgement of the harlot is good news to the Israel of God

We now have 2000 years of church history to look back on, and the perspective of Revelation as a prophetic book, the final book of the cannon, where we might find--if we are to find it anywhere-- a love letter to equip the church for all the challenges that it would face as it begins its long and unexpected journey through the centuries.

Amen

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

If those were intended to be a chronological progression than that destroys Scofield's beloved and utterly false doctrine of the "imminent return of Christ." It amazes me that futurists do not obviously see this fatal flaw.

Good point Dee Dee. But watch what you say about futurists pale face. (Have you heard the Tonto joke?)

Originally posted by Arimathea

James

Really? Every model I've seen places our time in Laodicea, one of the most questionable of all the churches. Perhaps we should trade sources!

Thanks for your comments too.

Shalom,

Ari

Well, I'm seen this described as both Philadelphia and Laodicea. When we're Laodicea though the situation is always that the church as a whole is bad and needs to go back to how things used to be...

I'd agree that the majority of churches today are 'Laodicean' but to be honest that could be true of almost any period in history, especially when dealing with the global church rather than the local church. Similarly there have always been 'Philadelphian' churches.

The problem entirely stems from the need to see all of Revelation as a prophecy to the entire church. It isn't, not in its entirity at least. It was written to specific churches at a specific time and looking for deep meanings 'for us' is speculative at best.

Originally posted by James Peter

Well, I'm seen this described as both Philadelphia and Laodicea. When we're Laodicea though the situation is always that the church as a whole is bad and needs to go back to how things used to be...

I'd agree that the majority of churches today are 'Laodicean' but to be honest that could be true of almost any period in history, especially when dealing with the global church rather than the local church. Similarly there have always been 'Philadelphian' churches.

The problem entirely stems from the need to see all of Revelation as a prophecy to the entire church. It isn't, not in its entirity at least. It was written to specific churches at a specific time and looking for deep meanings 'for us' is speculative at best.

Hi James,

Though I understand your point, this seems to me to be an example of "either/or" thinking--if its this, it can't be that. I think that's the wrong model to apply to some of the deepest and most mysterious portions of scripture. Though Scoffield mentioned only four levels, there may be many more, after all we are dealing with the thoughts of an infinite God. When you approach it from this vantage point, there is no conflict at all with seeing churches in all ages. For example, they were certainly all there in the first age, so they could certainly all be represented now, and at every point in history. None of that demonstrates that there are not also ages in which particular charactaristics apply to the age as a whole. With prophecy, both admonishional and predictive, it is often difficult to tell to what and how far it applies, until God gives the final verdict on His meaning. For that reason alone, it is unwise to eliminate from our thinking expansive views that are interesting, possible, and even speculative, just as we hold on to the local, and personal applications. We must be brave enough to leave these things on the table as history continues to unfold--more may come to light as time passes. But if we reject any possibility of it based on our current understanding, we are well set up to miss it, if and when key resolutions to our puzzling questions come forth--as men have always done with prophecies that concern themselves.

Shalom

Ari

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

If those were intended to be a chronological progression than that destroys Scofield's beloved and utterly false doctrine of the "imminent return of Christ." It amazes me that futurists do not obviously see this fatal flaw.

Hi Dee Dee,

That is because many of them are operating from a superficial understanding of both the coming of Christ and the coming of the anti-Christ. Correct that, and and it is clear that both aspects are immanent in every age.

Ari

Originally posted by Arimathea

Hi Dee Dee,

That is because many of them are operating from a superficial understanding of both the coming of Christ and the coming of the anti-Christ. Correct that, and and it is clear that both aspects are immanent in every age.

Ari

That makes John at best a misleading prophet