“Seven Church Ages”
William Branham claimed that God revealed the meanings of many Biblical “mysteries” to him including some of the more significant mysteries in the book of Revelation.
One such mystery is the “mystery of the seven stars” and “seven golden candlesticks” in Revelation Chapters 1-3, which had already been revealed to St. John by the Angel of the Lord as follows,
“The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” Revelation 1:20.
Those seven churches are seven churches in Asia to which John was to write and send a book, as is evident in Revelation 1:4 and 1:11,
“John to the seven churches which are in Asia” and “I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea;”
The Angel of the Lord's instructions to John of what he was to specifically write and send to each of those seven churches in Asia are provided in Revelation 2-3 and can be read here.
Notwithstanding the above, Branham claimed that the “seven churches” of Revelation 1-3 are not real or literal churches, but instead are only figurative and symbolic of seven “church ages” or time periods in history that had the same characteristics of the “seven churches” in Asia.[1] Branham also claimed that the “seven angels” are seven angel “messengers” of those “church ages” who had the exclusive “message of truth” for each of their respective “church ages.”[2]
Even though John was instructed to write and send the book of what he saw to the seven churches in Asia, Branham never demonstrated how John could have written and sent the book to the seven churches if they were not real or literal churches, but were only figurative and symbolic churches (i.e. seven “church ages”).
Footnotes:
[1] “Now, we find out that each one of these churches, church ages, expressed the characteristic of that church. It told what the church was and the characters of the church, the characteristic, rather, of the church.” The Philadelphian Church Age (60-1210).
“Now, the history of this Book, or the--the context of this Book was directed to the seven churches in Asia Minor that then was. It was directed to those seven churches. There were more churches than those seven at that day, but each one of those churches were significant--significant about the characteristic in that church that would follow it down through the age, the characteristic of that church. Like of Ephesus, it had a characteristic; Smyrna, Pergamos, and on down, Philadelphia, each one of those churches had a characteristic in it that would appear again in the ages to come.” Branham Sermon, Revelation Chapter One (60-1204M).
[2] “From the Ephesian Age on down to this Laodicean Age each messenger brought the message of truth to the people, never failing to keep it the Word of God to that particular church age. Each one held to it.” Branham, Church Age Book, p. 58.
The origins of the “Seven Church Ages” concept and Branham's related teachings.
The concept of the “seven churches” in Revelation 1-3 not being real churches, but being figurative or symbolic of “seven church ages” did not originate with Branham.
It originated with John Darby, Cyrus Scofield and Clarence Larkin who were “the leading proponents of dispensationalism in the preceding generation.”[3] All three men had published works equating the “seven churches” to “seven church ages” before Branham adopted the theory into his ministry and claimed his related teachings came from God.
Branham, in fact, owned and referred to a copy of Scofield's best-selling annotated Bible, which popularized futurism and dispensationalism and promotes the idea of “seven church ages.”[4]
Branham also used and relied significantly on Clarence Larkin's, 1909 “Dispensational Truth” publication when formulating his “Seven Church Age” teachings. In fact, most of the dates that Branham used as the seven “church age” time periods came directly from that publication of Clarence Larkin. (See table that is three pages below.) And Branham did so without recognizing or crediting that work of Larkin for those ideas.
Branham not only improperly used Larkin's dates as the “church age” time periods, but he also failed to recognize that those dates do not even align correctly with the lives of all of the men he chose as the seven angel “messengers” of Revelation 1-3, as is clear in the pages below.
Once Branham accepted and adopted the ideas of other men as his own, he then proceeded to incorporate them into his own teachings and led countless people around the world to believe that they were new illumination and revelation from God,
“Like the first burst of a Roman candle, the Church Ages come forth with a mighty initial illumination, without which there could be no further light. But once the brilliance of the Seven Church Ages is given by Divine revelation, light upon light follows, until the whole of the Revelation opens wide before our wondering eyes; and we, edified and purified by its Spirit, are made ready for His glorious appearing, even our Lord and Saviour, the One True God, Jesus Christ.” Branham, Church.Age.Book, Introduction.
“Now, I would not undertake, or did I think myself [Blank.spot.on.tape--Ed.]... undertake to [Blank.spot.on.tape--Ed.] this great Book of the Revelation... [Blank.spot.on.tape--Ed.]... of the Seven Church Ages. But I am depending solemnly upon God for--for to reveal it to me just as I come to it.” Branham sermon, Revelation Chapter One (60-1204M).
Footnotes:
[3] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Branham
[4] “Brother Branham is not the only christian minister to teach "ages" of the 7 churches given in Revelation chapters 1-3. Dr. Scofield gives a strong argument for 7 church ages in his "Scofield Bible" which can be purchased at any christian book store.” Source: http://the_wordbride.tripod.com/critics2.html
And Branham said he had a Scofield Bible, "I got a small Scofield. And I'm used to the Scofield Bible, its markings." 57-0828 Hebrews Chapter Two #3.
The main construct of Branham's “Seven Church Age” teachings.
On December 4-11, 1960, Branham preached a series of sermons that are collectively known as his “Seven Church Age” sermons. In 1965, he also published a 381-page book entitled, “An Exposition Of The Seven Church Ages” (a.k.a. the “Church Age Book”) that expands on those sermons. Therein, he provided the names of the alleged seven “church ages” and their corresponding time periods, as well as the names of six of the alleged “angel messengers”, as follows,
Branham omitted the name of the seventh angel “messenger” and did not explicitly identify the seventh angel “messenger” by name. However, he implied and led countless people around the world to believe that he was the seventh angel “messenger.” He did so by claiming that the “seven seals” of Revelation 5-6 would be opened by the seventh angel “messenger” and preaching a series of sermons on March 17-24, 1963 to allegedly open the seals.[5]
Branham was not the first alleged “seventh angel messenger” of Revelation 3:14 & 10:7.
Although Branham presented his “seven church age” teachings as new “revelation” from God,
Jehovah Witnesses' founder, Charles Taze Russell, who lived from 1852-1916, had already adopted the theory into his ministry and persuaded his followers to believe that he was the “seventh angel” messenger of Revelation 3:14.[6]
Russell, however, used different dates than Larkin and Branham and assigned different “angel messengers” to the “church ages”, as shown in the table below,
Like Branham, Russell also led his followers to believe that he was the “seventh angel messenger” of Revelation 10:7,
“But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he began to sound the trumpet - Pastor Russell was the seventh angel (Rev 3:14). He began to blow the trumpet in the autumn of 1881, ...”[7]
Footnotes:
[5] “We all know we're living in the Laodicea Age. There will never be another age to it. It can't be. So, we're living in the Laodicea Age. And these Seven Seals that's held that Book, is a mystery to people, should be opened at that day.” The.Rapture_Yuma.AZ V-5 N-14 Saturday_ 65-1204.
“And at that day of the sounding of the last church age, the seventh angel, the mysteries of God should be made known in that day. The Seven Seals would be broken. The mysteries of all these churches and things, how they happened, and what tak-... how, what taken place” Spiritual.Food.In.Due.Season Jeff.IN 65-0718E.
“And he had in his hand a little book opened:... (Now, the Seals had done been broke here. We're breaking them now; but this, the thing's opened.)” Branham sermon, THE FIRST SEAL, 63-0318.
[6] Russell, Charles T. Studies in the Scriptures, Volume VII, The Finished Mystery, “The Winepress of God's Wrath” and the Fall of Babylon (1917). [Ebook #46016], June 2014 (p. 53) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46016/46016-h/46016-h.html.
[7] Russell (p. 169). See also: 1917 - Writing Studies - Vol 7 - The Complete Mystery, page 190,
http://temoinsdejesus.fr/DOCTRINES/Mystere_Accompli_1917_Apo_10-7_7e-ange-Russell.jpg
So convinced were Russell's followers that he was the “seventh angel, Laodicean messenger” of Revelation 3:14 that they erected a marker at his gravesite in Pittsburgh, PA after his death in 1916 with the inscription “The Laodicean Messenger” on it. They also erected a pyramid memorial several feet from the marker.
When Branham died forty-nine years later in 1965, a similar, but lighter-colored pyramid memorial was erected at his gravesite in Jeffersonville, IN. As is evident in the picture below, Branham's pyramid memorial has an engraved book on it like Russell's. It also has a smaller unfinished part at the top of it, which is not unlike the Masonic symbol.
Branham's followers were also so convinced that he was the “seventh angel, Laodicean messenger” of Revelation 3:14 that his name was inscribed as such on his pyramid memorial.
Despite Branham not being the first alleged “seventh angel, Laodicean messenger” with a pyramid memorial and his name being indicated as such at his gravesite, was he the real seventh angel “messenger” of the alleged Laodicean “church age”?
For him to have been that messenger, the “revelations” he allegedly received from the Holy Spirit about the different mysteries in the Bible (including the “seven churches” and “seven angels” of Revelation 1-3), unquestionably would have to be entirely true. It is not possible for the Holy Spirit to lead a person into untrue revelations or understandings because the Holy Spirit will only lead a person into all truth. As Jesus Christ said in John 16:13,
“...when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...”
Although Branham claimed that his “Seven Church Age” teachings “come from God” and were “not from” his “thinking”, the facts and evidence below demonstrate that those teachings of his are, in fact, untrue, contradictory and erroneous and therefore could not have emanated from the Holy Spirit or the Almighty God.[8]
How Branham chose the duration of each of the seven “church ages.”
Branham claimed the Holy Spirit helped him find “the duration of each age”, as follows,
“With this key, so simple, yet so wonderful, I was able, by the help of the Holy Spirit, to read the Book of Revelation and the histories and find therein each age, each messenger, the duration of each age, and the part each played in the purpose of God from Pentecost to the consummation of those ages.” Church.Age.Book, p. 68.
However, that claim of Branham is false because he actually copied the duration of the “church ages” directly from Clarence Larkin's “Dispensational Truth” publication, as is evident by a comparison of Larkin's dates to the ones he used in the table below.
Branham's use of Larkin's dates is also misleading because he used the dates as his own without ever recognizing or crediting Larkin as his actual source.
With the exception of only two years in the table above, Branham took and used all of the same years from Larkin for his “church age” teachings.
Instead of using Larkin's date of 70 A.D. to mark the alleged start of the first “church age”, Branham said the first “church age” started in 55 A.D. for the following reasons,
“Can anybody say right off who the angel or the Light was (minister) of that church age? Paul. The Ephesus Church Age, A.D. 55 to 170. The reason I picked up 55, that's when he started his missionary journey, and it was then when he established the Ephesian church and the — and the different churches along there.” 60-1210 The.Philadelphian. Church.Age.
Footnote:
[8] “You all seen in my book, it'll all be drawed out in the "Seven Church Ages" [Distributed by the William Branham Evangelistic Association--Ed.] which He told me; which I stand by as a witness to God to be judged at the day of Judgment for it. It come from God, not from my thinking. Notice, here. I thought--I thought different from that, if I was going to have my own thought.” Trying.To.Do.God.A.Service Shp.La 65-1127b.
The only other date Branham did not use from Larkin's publication is the date marking the alleged end of the sixth and start of the seventh “church ages.” Larkin used 1900, but Branham changed it to 1906, which coincides closely with the year of his own birth.
How Branham chose the angel “messengers” for his “church age” teachings.
Branham claimed to have chosen the different angel “messengers” for each “church age” using the following methods,
“The key given me of the Lord whereby I was able to determine the messenger for each age is a most Scriptural one. In fact it might be called the Keystone of the Bible. It is the revelation that God never changes, and that His ways are as unchangeable as He is.” Church.Age.Book, Introduction.
“With this key, so simple, yet so wonderful, I was able, by the help of the Holy Spirit, to read the Book of Revelation and the histories and find therein each age, each messenger, the duration of each age, and the part each played in the purpose of God from Pentecost to the consummation of those ages.” Church.Age.Book, p. 68.
“Since the church ages were foretold by God and their very conditions revealed, then of necessity, the history that would follow would be as the Bible sets forth. Now with all this I have not simply been a student and a historian, I have sought to be a Spiritual-minded man, and it was only with the definite approval of the Spirit of God that I chose the men I have chosen. This is true as God knows my heart.” Church.Age.Book, pp. 110-111.
“Using our God-given rule for choosing the messenger to each age, that is, we choose the one whose ministry most closely approximates that of the first messenger, Paul, we unhesitatingly declare the Pergamean messenger to be Martin.” Church.Age.Book, p. 159.
From the quotations above and below of Branham, it is apparent that God did not speak or tell the names of each angel “messenger” to him, but Branham himself chose the “angel messengers” for each “church age.”
In no part of the Scriptures (and likely nowhere else in the world) is there an instance and record of God giving a “key” or “rule” to any person to use for a specific purpose. Consequently, Branham's meager claims that God had done so with him are just too weak and far-fetched to believe.
If Branham used a Lord-given “key” and a God-given “rule” to choose the angel “messengers” there certainly would not be the significant errors and discrepancies or untrue and problematic aspects in his different “messenger” choices that are fully demonstrated in the following pages.
Although Branham said his “Seven Church Age” teachings “come from God” and not from his own thinking, it is apparent from his statements below that he did, in fact, use his own thinking and deductive reasoning to pick or choose the seven “angel messengers” of Revelation 1-3.
“And the star, the Angel of this church, by all that the Holy Spirit would let me do, I have picked Saint Martin. It was the--the revelation given me on it, because reading of the other saints during that time. I picked Saint Martin because that he was a godly man;
to my opinion he was ten times more apostle than Saint Patrick was. Now, Saint Patrick was Saint Martin's nephew; Saint Martin's sister was the mother of Saint Patrick. And Saint Martin was... Of course, that was Saint Patrick's uncle. Now, his life was from A.D. 315 to 399. Now, here's the reason I picked him in preference to other saints of that day because the way that he held himself. And under the inspiration of God, I do not believe that...Now, the Catholic church did not canonize him; they did not recognize him, and that's another reason I picked him. Uh-huh, uh-huh. And all these that we're seeing, that's got the spiritual ministry, the early church turned down.” The Pergamean Church Age (60-1207).
“Now, this great saint here was Columba. He was a great man of God. Now, I've got his history kinda written down here. First, the fourth church age, "Thyatira," it means "to be laxed, loose, or hazy." See, it was just a illegitimate time from 606 to 1500. . . . He never did accept the Roman doctrine. He was a great man of faith. He rejected the Roman teaching, never did go to Rome, and rejected it altogether. As I couldn't see where they'd ever canonized him, like they did Saint Martin and them; they didn't canonize him and Irenaeus because they were still in that church that had signs and wonders of Pentecost, but believed. He never took the Roman teaching, on their teachings. He took the Bible for the teaching after his godly mother, the sister of Saint Martin, and never took the Roman teachings at any time. He taught that signs of Mark 16 should follow every believer. Amen. I... That's the kind of guy I like, believers. Yes, sir. He--he heard God's audible voice calling. That's another good sign too. See? Then nothing could stop him after that; he was gone...?... he was on the road when he heard the audible voice of God.”
. . .“And he protested and highly hated the hierarchy of Rome.” The Thyatirean Church Age (60-1208).
“Now, remember, I don't... I didn't say, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterian they're in all. But the real, genuine article of God was Pentecost; was, is, and will always be. That's where the church begin, right here with Pentecostal power.
Now, you say, "Is that right, Brother Branham?" I'll ask you to take the histories, and look down through the stream of time to here, and find out if every one of those real true children of God didn't hold onto that Pentecostal blessing, spoke in tongues, interpret tongues, had signs and wonders, baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Everything that the apostles did, they did too, right down through there. That's the reason in there, reading the history, I took Paul, and Irenaeus, and--and--and down to Saint Martin, Columba; every one of those men, plumb down into this age here, had signs and wonders.” The Sardisean Church Age (60-1209).
From the statements above, it is apparent that Branham believed his angel “messenger” choices for his “Seven Church Age” teachings needed to be men who were not Catholic and had been “turned down” by the Catholic Church. Although Branham portrayed St. Martin, St. Irenaeus and St. Columba to be such men, they actually were not and his related claims about them are therefore false and misleading.
In particular, Branham's claim that “all these that we're seeing, that's got the spiritual ministry, the early church turned down” is false and misleading. His claim that the Catholic Church did not recognize and canonize St. Martin is also false and misleading, as well as his claim that the Church did not canonize St. Columba and St. Irenaeus “because they were still in that church that had signs and wonders of Pentecost, but believed.”
St. Martin, St. Columba and St. Irenaeus were so highly regarded by the Catholic Church that it ordained them all as bishops. None of them were ever “turned down” or rejected by the “early church” in those ministerial roles or for canonization after their lifetimes.
The reason they were not formally canonized was not because they were not recognized or “turned down”, it was because canonization by the pope was not a practice of the Catholic Church in the early centuries after Christ's death when they lived. The saints were, however, canonized informally by the voice of the people (i.e. vox populi).
“In the first centuries the popular fame or the vox populi, sometimes called canonization by acclamation, represented the only criterion by which a person's holiness was ascertained.”[9]
“St. Martin of Tours, who died in 397, was the first non-martyr venerated as a saint. The first official canonization by a pope for the universal Church was that of St. Ulrich by John XV in 993.”[10]
Saints Patrick, Brigid, and Columba, “are saints, as it were, by acclamation of the local Church, before the official papal canonisation process was established.”[11]
“Without doubting that S. Irenaeus is a saint, it may be noticed that he was not canonized by the Church by the regular process which obtains at present. He was proclaimed a saint by the vox populi of his own country-side. Modern canonization was gradually introduced in the middle ages, to stop the abuse of this local custom.”[12]
Thus, it is clear that St. Martin, St. Columba and St. Irenaeus were not “turned down” by the Catholic Church, but they were all actually recognized and canonized by acclamation. Because Branham chose them to be angel “messengers” against his own criteria, it is doubtful that he chose them “with the definite approval of the Spirit of God” as he claimed he had.
Footnotes:
[10] Source: https://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu200.htm
[11] Source: https://www.catholicireland.net/saintoftheday/all-the-saints-of-ireland/
[12] Source: The Apocalypse of St. John: a commentary on the Greek text, by By James Joseph Louis Ratton.
In addition to Branham falsely claiming that the Catholic Church “turned down” all three saints, he also falsely claimed that St. Columba, “never did accept the Roman doctrine”,
“rejected the Roman teaching”, “rejected it altogether” and “never took the Roman teachings at any time.”
St. Columba not only did not reject the Roman Catholic Church's teachings altogether, he was also an ordained Catholic priest who founded churches and monasteries in different parts of Ireland and Scotland, as is evident by the following,
“Columba studied under Saints Finnian of Moville and Finnian of Clonard and was ordained priest about 551. He founded churches and the famous monasteries Daire Calgaich, in Derry, and Dair-magh, in Durrow” and “Columba and his 12 disciples erected a church and a monastery on the island of Iona (c. 563) as their springboard for the conversion of Scotland. It was regarded as the mother house and its abbots as the chief ecclesiastical rulers even of the bishops.”[13]
What's more, St. Columba founded an abbey in Scotland for the purpose of spreading Catholicism,
“Around 563 he and his twelve companions crossed to Dunaverty near Southend, Argyll, in Kintyre before settling in Iona in Scotland, then part of the Ulster kingdom of Dál Riata, where they founded a new abbey as a base for spreading Catholicism among the northern Pictish kingdoms[5][6] who were pagan.”[14]
If St. Columba would have rejected the Roman Catholic Church “altogether” and “never took the Roman teachings at any time”, then he certainly would not be recognized by the Church as one of the three patron saints of Ireland as he is to this day.
It is evident that St. Martin also actively supported and practiced Catholicism by the fact that he was an ordained bishop in the Church who founded monasteries,
“Martin eventually settled in what was still the Roman province of Gaul, at Tours, where he was acclaimed as bishop in 371” and “He also founded monasteries at Ligugé and Marmoutier” in France.[15]
Perhaps the strongest evidence that Branham chose a Roman Catholic as one of his angel “messengers” against his apparent objective and criteria is his choice of St. Irenaeus.
St. Irenaeus actively stood for, practiced and taught the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church as is evident by his own statements below,
Footnotes:
[13] Source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Columba
[14] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columba#cite_note-FOOTNOTECharles-Edwards2000303-6 footnote [5] citing Charles-Edwards, T. M. (2000). Early Christian Ireland. Cambridge University Press, p. 303, and footnote [6] citing Wagner & Konstam 2012, p. 14: states the Northern Pictish nations were still pagan while the southern Pictish kingdoms were Catholic.
[15] Source: http://imaginemdei.blogspot.com/2015/11/saint-martin-of-tours-european.html
“When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported. . .” (Against Heresies, 5:2).
In harmony with the Catholic belief of Mary as the “mother of God”, St. Irenaeus also wrote,
“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1).
St. Irenaeus even regarded the Roman Catholic Church to be the preeminent church with which all churches should agree,
“. . .[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful every-where, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (Against Heresies, 3:3:2).
St. Irenaeus also helped establish the principles of the Catholic Church's doctrinal traditions,
“At a time when Gnostic sects threatened to undermine Christianity by a perversion of Christian thought, St. Irenaeus vigorously denounced all heresies and safeguarded unity of belief by laying down the principles of the doctrinal tradition of the Church.”[16]
Although Branham believed his angel “messenger” choices needed to be men who rejected the Catholic Church and were “turned down" by it, St. Martin, St. Columba and St. Irenaeus clearly were not such men. Because Branham chose them to be angel “messengers” using an untrue and erroneous basis against his own criteria, he contradicted and invalidated his claims that he used a “rule from God” and a “key from the Lord” to choose the “messengers.”
In addition, Branham's use of an untrue and erroneous basis to choose them to be angel “messengers” is not consistent with him being guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.
Branham's choice of St. Paul as the first angel “messenger” is unworkable.
It is apparent that St. Paul could not have been the first angel “messenger” of the “angel of the church of Ephesus” (i.e. the “first church age) as Branham claimed because the entire Book of Revelation is a book of prophecy about future events and St. Paul was already dead when the
Footnote:
[16] Source: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2016-06-28
Angel of the Lord in Revelation 2 instructed St. John to write to that “angel.”[17] (St. Paul was martyred between 68 and 73 A.D. and St. John wrote the Book of Revelation while on the Isle of Patmos in or around 95-96 A.D.)
The Angel of the Lord in Revelation 2 certainly was not instructing St. John to write the following admonition to St. Paul or any other past, non-living saint about needed (future) actions and a possible (future) consequence,
“Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.”
Consequently, the “angel of the church of Ephesus” could have only been someone to whom St. John could have written who was either living at the time or would be living in the future and not St. Paul or other past, non-living saint.
Despite the apparent conflict and problem with Branham's choice of St. Paul as the angel “messenger” of the first “church age”, Branham offered no reasonable explanation or evidence to show how St. John could have been instructed by the Angel of the Lord to write to St. Paul (a non-living saint).
Instead, Branham merely offered a less than persuasive claim that although St. Paul was dead, he had to have been the first angel “messenger” because “the messenger to every age, regardless of when he appears or goes, is the one who influences that age for God.” Here is the claim in full,
“At the time of the giving of the Revelation, according to tradition, Paul had already died a martyr, but John was carrying on in his stead exactly as Paul had done in the days of his ministry. The death of Paul, before the Revelation was given, does not at all annul the fact that he was the messenger to the Ephesian Church Age, for the messenger to every age, regardless of when he appears or goes, is the one who influences that age for God by means of a Word-manifested ministry. Paul was that man.” “Church Age Book”, p. 76.
Branham's choices of St. Martin and St. Columba as the third and fourth angel “messengers” are also unworkable.
In Branham's “Seven Church Ages” teachings he also claimed that for all seven “church ages”, each one had a messenger who lived in their own age and had ministries for the age in which each lived as follows,
“Even in the church ages, we find out that each one had a messenger, and each one lived their age.” “The Evening Messenger” (63-0116).
Footnote:
[17] It is evident that the entire book of Revelation is a book of prophecy about future events from Revelation 1:3 which states, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.”
“The seven Spirits before the throne is the Spirit That was in each of the seven messengers, giving them their ministries for the age in which each lived.” “Church Age Book”, p. 17.
“From the Ephesian Age on down to this Laodicean Age each messenger brought the message of truth to the people, never failing to keep it the Word of God to that particular church age. Each one held to it. They were steadfast in their loyalty to the original light. As each age pulled away from God, His faithful messenger turned that age back to the Word.” “Church Age Book”, p.58.
“Only ONE messenger for each age receives what the Spirit has to say to that age, and that ONE MESSENGER is the messenger to the true church.” “Church Age Book”, p. 155.
However, each of those claims is entirely contradicted by the fact that the “messengers” he chose for the seven “church ages” includes two “messengers” who did not live and have ministries in their own age, but actually lived and had their ministries in the same age.
More specifically, Branham chose St. Martin and St. Columba to be the “angel messengers” of the third and fourth “church ages”, respectively, despite both Saints living and having their ministries only in the alleged third “church age” period from 312 A.D. to 606 A.D. (St. Martin lived from c. 316-397 A.D. and St. Columba lived from 521-597 A.D.)
Branham's choice of St. Martin and St. Columba as angel “messengers” who lived and had their ministries in the third “church age”, make it possible for only one of their “angel messages” to have been “the message of the hour” and what the Spirit had “to say to that age” and “the true church.”
With both “angel messengers” delivering their “angel messages” in the same time period, people who were receiving St. Columba's “angel message” when he was living would have been receiving the wrong “angel message” because St. Martin's “angel message” was the “message of the hour” and not his, according to Branham.
And because people receiving St. Columba's “angel message” would have been receiving the wrong “message of the hour”, it would not have been possible for them to receive the Holy Ghost according to Branham's teachings below.[18]
“The evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost today…is receiving the Word of Truth for the day in which you live.” 169-4, Church.Age.Book Cpt.5.
“There’s only one evidence of the Holy Spirit that I know of, and that is a genuine faith in the promised Word of the hour.” 64-0823E, Qs&As #2.
“Now we have been constantly saying that the true evidence of being baptized with the Holy Ghost is for the believer to receive the Word for the age in which he lives.” Church Age Book, p. 155.
Branham's erroneous placement of St. Columba into the fourth “church age” when he did not live also makes it impossible for Branham's claims to be true that, “each messenger brought the message of truth to the people, never failing to keep it the Word of God to that particular church age” and “turned that age back to the Word.” Church.Age.Book, p.58.
Based on all of the above, it is abundantly clear that Branham's choices of St. Martin and St. Columba as two of the seven angel “messengers” are not only both unworkable and nonsensical, but Branham did not receive and use a Lord-given “key” and God-given “rule” to choose the seven angel “messengers”, as he claimed.
Footnote:
[18] We know, however, that Branham's teachings above are completely contrary to the Bible for Acts 2:38-39 establishes that all that is needed to receive the Holy Ghost is to,
“...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
Branham's claims that the angel “messengers” come at the end of each age contradict and further undermine the veracity of his “Seven Church Age” teachings.
Branham's alleged Divine revelation about the “seven church ages” is further contradicted by the fact that he repeatedly claimed that all of the church age “messengers come at the end of the age.”[19]
However, it is apparent from the table below that most of the “messengers” he chose actually came at or toward the beginning of their respective “age.”
[19] “And, remember, the messenger is always comes at the end of the Message. We know in the church ages there how we got that.” Branham, 62-0909M - Countdown, para. 60.
“Remember, Paul come at the end of the age. All the messengers come at the end of the age. It's at the end time, when these things are—are brought forth.” Branham, 62-1230E - Is This The Sign Of The End, Sir?, para. 271.
“Each messenger has had his message, and the—the message and the messenger of the age. And it is most remarkable that each messenger… We even found in the church ages (and tonight we'll go back in the Old Testament and find that it's the same thing) that God sends the messenger of that age at the end of the time; always at the end, never at the beginning. At the end!” Branham, 63-0116 - The Evening Messenger, para. 79-80.
“The angel of this Laodicean church, to end it up... Now, he will be at the end of the age, like the rest of them, like the Bible. He'll be at the end of the age. Not the first of it, at the end of it, because the angel always comes to rebuke them for what they done. "To the--to the angel of the church of Laodicea write these things." See?
"To the angel of the church of Smyrna write these things." See? Each one is to the angel at the end of the age. Paul, the end of the age. And on down, end of the age. The lapover, end of the age. End of the age, that's what makes it lap. See, "To the angel," speaking what it was. This laps over here, "To the angel," the end of that age. See, picking up right here, made the lap like stair-steps going up, the seven church ages...” The Laodicean Church Age (60-1211E).
Not only did most of the angel “messages” come at or toward the beginning of each “age”, contrary to Branham's own claims, but Columba's “message” actually came during the “age” of the preceding “messenger” as noted previously.
The “church age” time periods that Branham used are problematic and unworkable.
Branham's use of dates to represent the start and end of each of the alleged “church age” time periods is problematic for several reasons. God certainly is not a creature of time like man is and does not think in terms of time, time periods, dates and calendar years like man does. Consequently, it is simply too far-fetched to believe that God generated the “church age” time periods with specific calendar start and end dates and, in turn, revealed them to people like Larkin and Branham.
From Branham's own speculation about the start date of the Laodicean Age, it is apparent that God did not reveal the “church age” dates to him,
“The Laodicean Age began around the turn of the Twentieth Century, perhaps 1906.” Church.Age.Book, p. 321.
Branham's insertion of his angel “messenger” choices into Larkin's “church age” periods also results in there being “angel messages” that vary substantially in length and would have been “the message of the hour” for extremely long time periods. For example, the “angel messages” of the second, third and fourth “church ages” would have been for 142, 294 and 914 years, respectively. It is entirely unrealistic and unreasonable to believe that “each messenger brought the message of truth to the people” in such extremely long time periods that are so radically different in length.[20]
Branham's premise of angel “messages” being valid and relevant for more than a hundred years is contradicted by his own position that “manna” which is fifty-years old is too old and detrimental to the believer,
“We're in the last days. We're standing near the judgment. Why? They're trying to eat old manna that fell back yonder fifty years ago, the Pentecostal church. …They're trying to eat old manna. Oh, brother, that stuff is stagnated. It's contaminated. It's got…wiggle-tails in it, maggots. It'll kill you, to eat it.” Trying.to.Do.God.a.Service, Jeffersonville, IN, July 18, 1965.
Based on Branham's teaching that it is necessary for the believer to receive the “Word for the age in which he lives” in order to receive the Holy Ghost, each angel “message” would have needed to have been available to the Gentiles for the entirety of each respective “church age” or it would have been impossible for them to have received the Holy Ghost during part or some of the “ages.”
Branham's insertion of one his angel “messenger” choices into Larkin's “church age” periods
does, in fact, result in there being no angel “message” and Holy Ghost for the Gentiles in the early part of the third “church age.” (Larkin's third “church age” period starts at 312 A.D., but Branham's angel “messenger” choice for that period, St. Martin, was not born until 316 A.D. and did not begin his angel “ministry” until much later.)
[20] Regardless, there is no angel “messenger” and “angel message” for the extremely long 914-year fourth “church age” period anyway because the angel “messenger” that Branham chose for that age lived and had his ministry in the previous age, as demonstrated above.
Moreover, Branham's choice of 1906 as the start of the seventh “church age”, which coincides closely with the year of his own birth, also results in there being no angel “messenger” and “message” available for the Gentiles in the early part of the seventh “church age” because his ministry and alleged seventh angel “message” did not begin until 1933.
According to Larkin and Branham, the “church ages” conclude during specific calendar years and each successive “church age” begins during the same calendar year that the previous one concluded. However, neither Larkin nor Branham demonstrate how all of the “start” and “end” years they used are not arbitrary and random selections, but are actually accurate and true.
Without any explanation or justification of how each of the calendar years was selected, questions remain such as, “Why was 312 A.D. chosen to be the alleged start of the third 'church age' and not 313, 314, 320 or 350 A.D.?” and “Why does the fifth 'church age' end precisely in the year 1750 A.D. and not 1751, 1752, 1760 or 1790 A.D.?”
In Branham's “Seven Church Age” book and sermons, Branham only provides a basis for “setting” the start date of the first “church age.” Therein, he provides no basis for “setting” the start and end dates of any of the other “church ages.”
“Paul founded the church at Ephesus about the middle of the first century. This enables us to set the date of the beginning of the Ephesian Church Age; about 53 A.D.” Church.Age.Book, p. 74.
“Can anybody say right off who the angel or the Light was (minister) of that church age? Paul. The Ephesus Church Age, A.D. 55 to 170. The reason I picked up 55, that's when he started his missionary journey, and it was then when he established the Ephesian church and the — and the different churches along there.” 60-1210 The.Philadelphian.Church.Age.
As is apparent above, Branham based the start of the first “church age” on when the literal church at Ephesus actually was founded and began. However, he did not base the start of the other six “church ages” on when their literal churches were founded and began.
Branham's reliance on himself and other men when formulating ideas for his “Seven Church Age” teachings.
In his sermon entitled “The Ephesian Church Age”, Branham admits that he relied on himself and other men when formulating ideas for his “Seven Church Age” teachings,
“And remember, as I've said before, sometimes on these things we might disagree upon them as far as—as the theology is concerned. And most of my dates I take from the authentic historians, which really not interested in any side, they just wrote down facts, whatever it was, what the churches did. And I… Of course, the Divine part of the interpretation, I try to place it upon there myself, the best that I know how.” Branham, 60-1205 - The Ephesian Church Age.
The fact that Branham's relied on himself and other men when formulating his “Seven Church Age” teachings further demonstrates that they were not imparted to him by God despite his claims that the teachings, “come from God, not from my thinking” and “I never preached anything in my life under inspiration I had to take back, ‘cause I don’t depend on my own understanding.” Trying.To.Do.God.A.Service Shp.La 65-1127b and Oneness, 2/11/62, V-10, N-2, sermon page 16-87.
Additional problems with Branham's seven angel “messengers” teachings.
As stated, Branham claimed that “each messenger brought the message of truth to the people” for each of the alleged seven “church ages” and that it was not possible for a person to receive the Holy Ghost without receiving the “Word of the hour” for the day in which they lived.[21]
If those angel “messages” were that crucial and necessary for the Gentiles, then the seven “angel messengers” truly would have needed to have “brought” their “messages” to the Gentile people throughout the world over the near two-thousand year “seven church age” period. Branham, however, never showed or established how only seven men with exclusive “truth” ever “brought” their “messages” to the Gentiles throughout the world or how far the outreach of their “messages” was.
God's plan certainly has never been to limit His Word or the Holy Ghost to a few small populations and geographic regions of the world at a time. The universal intent of the Gospel was established by Jesus Christ in John 3:16 by His declaration, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
St. Peter also established the universal intent of the Gospel, as follows,
“The Lord is not...willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:8-9.
He also established the universal and unbounded nature of the Holy Ghost, as follows,
“...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Acts 2:38-39.
[21] “From the Ephesian Age on down to this Laodicean Age each messenger brought the message of truth to the people, never failing to keep it the Word of God to that particular church age. Each one held to it.” Branham, Church Age Book, p. 58.
“The evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost today is just the same as it was back in the day of our Lord. It is receiving the Word of truth for the day in which you live.” Branham, Church Age Book, p. 169
“There’s only one evidence of the Holy Spirit that I know of, and that is a genuine faith in the promised Word of the hour.” 64-0823E, Questions And Answers #2.
“Now we have been constantly saying that the true evidence of being baptized with the Holy Ghost is for the believer to receive the Word for the age in which he lives.” Branham, Church Age Book, p. 155
Were the so-called seven angel “messengers” able to reach the Gentiles with their exclusive “truth” in all or most parts of the world?
Throughout most of the seven “church ages” dissemination of information was limited without the technological advancements of today. Text had to be written by hand and was not a practical means for spreading information before the invention of the Gutenberg printing press in the 1440s. And because “oral communication was the only method in which information was gathered and distributed”, the first four angel “messengers” would have had very limited means and ability to spread their so-called “word of the hour” to the Gentiles during most of the first four “church ages.”[22] In addition, information traveled slowly without the faster means of transportation of today.
So difficult was the dissemination and spread of the angel “messengers” exclusive “truth” in the first four “church ages”, that their angel “messages” were unavailable and unobtainable for whole populations of Gentile people in the world. In fact, some of their “angel messages” were confined only to islands and other relatively small geographic regions of the world.
For example, St. Martin, who Branham claimed was the “angel messenger” from 312 A.D. to 606 A.D, did not have any outreach and bring the “Word of Truth” beyond France. As Branham stated,
“Martin was born in 315 in Hungary. However, his life work was in France where he labored in and around Tours as a bishop.” Branham, Church Age Book. p. 245
In addition, St. Columba of Ireland, who Branham erroneously claimed was the “angel messenger” from 606 A.D. to 1520 A.D., also did not have any outreach and bring the “Word of Truth” beyond Ireland and Scotland.
And St. Irenaeus, who Branham claimed was the “angel messenger” from 170 A.D. to 320 A.D. “was a Greek cleric noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in what is now the south of France.”[23]
Footnotes:
[22] Source: https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept10/2010/10/30/printing-press-and-its-impact-on-literacy/
[23] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
