The Seven Church Ages view of Revelation 2-3

[This theory I've semi-abandoned, I'm planning to revise it.]



I'd previously said that I'd come to grow skeptical of the Seven Church Ages view of the Letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 because of how dependent it is on a Western Bias of how we view Church History.  I however have developed an interesting new variation on the theory that makes it less of an inherently Western viewpoint.  It's largely based on making it also a sort of genealogy of churches.

But a reminder, this should not be the main application of this part of Revelation.  I believe they accurately described the states of these Churches at the time the Book was written, and can be applicable to many churches in any era.  You should not assume the characteristics of an individual local Church based on what their denomination is identified with in this theory.

Also this sort of genealogy of denominations doesn't include any sects I see as guilty of damnable heresies, for example no Ebonites or Gnostics.

Ephesus is the New Testament Church, that remains the same.  After the Second Church rises however I believe the continuing Church of Ephesus is first the pre Bar Kochba revolt Jerusalem Church and the Nazarenes, and then later on possibly groups like the Waldensians and various Anabaptists, and then today the House Church and Non Church movements and maybe also some Independent Baptists and Makuya.

Smyrna is the Church that I see as sort of founded by Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna.  The Church that faces varying degrees of Martyrdom under Rome.  But after the Edict of Milan the continued lineage of this Church is the Antiochene School and it's offshoots in Nyssa/Edessa and in time the Church misleadingly known as the Nestorians, the Ancient Church of the East/Assyrian Orthodox Church.  A Church that has also at many times faced persecution under the Sassanian Persian Empire and in China and in recent decades as the main Christians being targeted by I.S.I.S.

Pergamon is the era of the first three Ecumenical Councils and even all the way up until the Fourth.  An era during which I've already argued the Alexandrian Bishops were the center of the Roman Church. When I last talked about Pergamon I made interesting arguments regarding it's connection to Rome. After Chalcedon it's continued existence is the Coptic and other Miaphysite Churches.  They never ceased being a State Church somewhere, they've ruled Axum/Ethiopia since the 4th Century and for over a Thousand Years had Kingdoms in Nubia.

Thyatira is the era of the Last Four Ecumenical Councils all the way up to the Great Schism.  I have two possible theories about who "Jezebel" is in this context.  Since she is cited as an influence of one of the Sins of the prior Church, perhaps she's Theodora during the time of Justinian.  But since I also see this Sin as connected to Iconophilia, she could be Empress Irene who could interestingly be compared to the Old Testament Jezebel.

The tricky thing is my view here being that after the Schism it is the Catholic not Orhtodox church that continues to be Thyatira.  In a post from last December I already linked to in this thread I argued for viewing the Great Schism from the Orthodox POV, and I still do in certain technical ways.  But I feel a lot of what defines Thyatira, both good and bad, is more Roman then Byzantine after they fully split.  The fact is the Bishop of Rome wanting to be seen as Bishop number 1 (ironically the two earliest Latin Church Writers wrote specifically against the Bishop of Rome on this issue) and other Catholic bad ideas were already around even in the Pre-Nicene era, and then Pope Leo I who is important to the History of Chalcedon played a big role in making the Pope a key player in the west.  And before the schism the Roman Bishops did at times wield influence in the west, often being the sort of tie breaker vote at the Ecumenical Councils.

Now to talk about Sardis

Viewing the era from the Schism to the Reformation primarily through the Greek Orthodox lens rather then Catholic is the biggest break with the Western Bias of the traditional seven ages view.  Western Europe was Catholic during this era, but most of the Lands the Bible took place in, including the region of these Churches, were chiefly Greek Orthodox.

Revelation 3:4 shows there are good people in Sardis, people like Brad Jersak.

Philadelphia is the Protestant Reformation in the sense that it begins with Jan Hus and ends when Bohemia fell under Stalin's control.  And the Lutherans are "they who say they are Jews but are of the Synagogue of Satan".

It's funny because I've spent some recent blog posts sounding like I'm becoming less Protestant and more Catholic/Orthodox on some doctrines, yet here I am calling the most praised Church the Protestants.  But as I've stressed before, neither Smyrna or Philadelphia are praised for their doctrines.

The Church of the Laodiceans is the Prosperity Gospel (Revelation 3:17), or to put it more aptly the American Church of Capitalism.  Inspiring Philosophy did a video called How America Destroyed The Gospel.

The Prosperity Gospel refers to more of mainstream Christianity then you might think it does, it's more then just exactly what Joel Osteen preaches, you might be surprised to lean that Jerry Fawell is considered a form of the Prosperity Gospel.  But I don't limit it to the political right, Neo-Liberal Churches are guilty of it in their own way.

I've seen some interesting secular Video Essays mentioning the subject.  Wisecrack mentioned in a recent video, what annoys me is of all the Bible verses to refute the Prosperity Gospel, they chose the cleansing of The Temple, that isn't actually relevant.  Renegade Cut and others I feel are a bit unfair to Kirk Cameron Saving Christmas (the movie is mainly about refuting the Christmas is Pagan conspiracy theory).  But it's not the only Kirk Cameron film accused of being influenced by it.

The Prosperity Gospel is older then you may think as well.  Obviously a form of it was prominent in first century Laodicea.  But as far as the roots of it being the American Gospel goes, that begins with how many puritans believed that wealth was a sign of being "Elect" (in the Calvinist sense) and being poor as sign of being "hated" by God as he "hated" Esau (ignoring how Esau was in fact a very rich man).