The Seven Churches

by Pahpa 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Pahpa

  Here is a point to ponder:

  When John was instructed to write letters to the seven churches (Rev. 1 - 3) as to "what is now and what will take place" (1:19) why were not the members of those bad churches advised "get out of her, my people?" Some those churches were so bad so as to in danger of being "removed" from its place. But as bad as these were, the members are told only "to overcome" and maintain their own peersonal faith. Evidently, they could remain in these congregation in spite of the deplorable conditions. Yet when it came to "Babylon the Great" believers are told to "Get out of her, my people." (Rev. 18:4)

  Any thoughts?
• 

  Narkissos

  Good point.

  Yet another evidence that "Babylon the Great" has little to do with "religion," especially Christian.

  Separatism is hardly encouraged anywhere in the NT btw. There were deep theological and practical disagreements among Christians (and churches) but breaking up was not perceived at a solution. Exclusion of dissenters (from the leaders' pov) becomes common in the latest texts (e.g. Pastorals), not self-exclusion from a supposed "apostate" wider structure.
• 

  Star Moore

  Hi Pap and Nark:

  Yet another evidence that "Babylon the Great" has little to do with "religion," especially Christian.

  Yes, I agree, Babylon the Great is a world power..like it was the 1st time around.. IMO...US.

  But do you have any incite as to what the 7 congs represent in our day?? I'm still wondering on that??? I like your point Pap.. about how we aren't supposed to flee the group but overcome and conquer..
• 

  Leolaia

  There is no thought of those "bad churches" being considered "part of Babylon the Great," for the later signified the external threat of imperial Rome (responsible for persecutions against Christians, hence "she" is drunk with the blood of the saints). On the other hand, Rome does pose an internal threat within the Christian community in the form of idolatry. The figure of the harlot sitting on the seven hills of Rome specifically parodies the imperial cult of the goddess Roma, whose temples were located in the very cities the letters were addressed, e.g. Smyrna, Pergamon, Ephesus, etc. Compulsory observance of the imperial cult is foreseen in ch. 13 (in this case, worship of the Emperor himself), and this became a reality in some places of Asia Minor in the time of Trajan. It is possible that the internal problem in some of the churches concerned Christians who had a similar attitude as Paul in 1 Corinthians and participated in the imperial cult by eating food sacrified to idols, while recognizing that "idols are nothing" (cf. the references to "food sacrified to idols" in Revelation 2:14, 20), or a wider tendency to syncretize Christianity with existing mystery cults, cf. the description of Jezebel of Thyatira who seemingly espoused an early gnostic belief system (v. 24).
• 

  A Paduan

  Any thoughts?

  Babylon refers to owning - it is the basis - works - people buy and sell (their love) - you love salutations in the market places

  Some of the churches were in danger of this type of thing - Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death

  But as far as Babylon goes - that's the basis of it - like jwism
• 

  Pahpa

  Star Moore:

  There are various explanations about the 7 churches. One view that even the Watchtower held for awhile was that the churches represented different epochs down through history. As I recall, Russell was suppose to be the "Leodicean Messenger."

  Some hold that the churches are representative of Christian churches today. A few hold faithfullly to the teachings of Christ. Others are far removed from the early Christian teachings. There is no doubt that these conditions did prevail in John's day. And it would follow that these examples would be a warning for Christians today.
• 

  RR

  I accept Russell's view of the seven churches. I believe the seven churches represent the Churches history down through the ages, and that we are now in the laodicean stage, where everyone is pretty much lukewarm and lax.

  RR
• 

  Mary

  OK, sooooo who or what exactly is "Babylon the Great"? I always thought it was the Catholic Church!
• 

  lovelylil

  The messages for the seven churches were for the churches in existance in John's day. But many hold that the messages given to them have application to us today. But how can we apply it to us? If we take that as the "type" for us we will see that each church was given a different message for the problems "it" had to overcome. And all the churches were in existance at the SAME TIME. Not one after another. Therefore, if they were in existance at the same time all with varying degrees of faith and problems, it would make sense that for us today to think that the same would apply in our time. We would see all these "types" of churches with varying degrees of problems in operation at the same time. And for those of us who have been in many churches, we understand this to be true.

  The groups that teach we are in the last church age are the ones that also say their church is the only true one and thier messenger (Russell) is the Laodicean or 7th messenger. They simply are misaplying scripture. I believe the above interpretation is more likely correct but others may disagree. I will not go into why the 7th messenger view is wrong at this time.

  Mary asked who is Babylon the Great? Good question.

  Ancient Babylon was the political, commercial and religious center of the world empire. It was noted for many luxeries and its moral decadance. The title "Babylon the Great" is taken from Daniel 4:30. According to some it is used in Revelation for Rome because at the time of John's writing Revelation, Rome was the center for opposition to God and his people. The fact that Babylon in Revelation applies to Rome helps us understand why John wrote in signs and symbols - to hide his scathing message against Rome the world power at his time. Unlike some who teach the message in Revelation only applies to our day and was sealed up somehow until our time, I believe the early church understood John's revelation and knew it applied to Rome and most of it was fulfilled in Rome during John's day. (see Revelation 16:9, 17:5, 18:2, 10,21)

  This "Babylon" was a "type" for a later time according to many. It will represent the whole political and religious system of the world in general under the future reign of the coming Antichrist and will persecute God's people terribly (the church). Much in the same way as the early church being persecuted under Rome's rule. This Babylon the Great is not in power yet but one thing is for sure, it is not one particular religion nor is it representative of Christendom as a whole. Again, we don't really know until it comes into power "what" it truly is. Hope this helps, Lilly
• 

  Pahpa

  RR

  One has to be careful in being dogmatic in the interpretation of a highly symbolic book like Revelation. For example, if we accept Russell's (and the Bible Students') view on this matter we also have to accept that we are living in the "end times." Russell erroneously predicted dates pertaining to those times and to Armageddon as part of his message to the church. So, we have to conclude he failed as a "Laodicean Messenger." Christians down through history have been convinced that their time was the "end time." But history proved it wasn't true. This pattern continued with the Adventist movement of which Russell and Bible Students were a part. And it continues today with Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Mary

  The Reformers certainly identified the Roman Catholic Church as "Babylon the Great." They drew upon the symbolisms that seem to fit, at least, in their own minds. For example, John says that the "harlot" sits upon the seven headed beast each head representing "seven hills." Rome happened to be built upon seven hills. But, of course, if we take this literally, it would seem that the "beast" would represent Rome not the "harlot." And since it is the "beast" who destroys the "harlot", would this mean that Rome destroys the Roman Church? No, much of this is ambiguous. And, perhaps, it will not be known until "the end" occurs.