Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yes. It started at the tower of Babel, remember?
Again, I thank you for your patience, and apologize for my slowness.
I asked where else in the Bible "Babylon" means "confusion." It's used an awful lot, you know, in Revelations and elsewhere.
Are you saying that when Peter wrote, in Greek, "the church at Babylon" he meant "the church in confusion" because he was relying on his readers/listeners to think of the Tower of Babel?
LOL. I hate missing any of this thread. 8~)
1Pe 5:13 -
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you - It will be seen at once that much of this is supplied by our translators; the words “church that is” not being in the original. The Greek is, ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ hē en Babulōni suneklektē; and might refer to a church, or to a female. Wall, Mill, and some others, suppose that the reference is to a Christian woman, perhaps the wife of Peter himself. Compare 2Jo_1:1. But the Arabic, Syriac, and Vulgate, as well as the English versions, supply the word “church.” This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the word rendered “elected together with” - συνεκλεκτὴ suneklektē. This word would be properly used in reference to one individual if writing to another individual, but would hardly be appropriate as applied to an individual addressing a church. It could not readily be supposed, moreover, that any one female in Babylon could have such a prominence, or be so well known, that nothing more would be necessary to designate her than merely to say, “the elect female.” On the word Babylon here, and the place denoted by it, see the introduction, section 2.
Clarke's Commentary
1Pe 5:13 -
The Church that is at Babylon - After considering all that has been said by learned men and critics on this place, I am quite of opinion that the apostle does not mean Babylon in Egypt, nor Jerusalem, nor Rome as figurative Babylon, but the ancient celebrated Babylon in Assyria, which was, as Dr. Benson observes, the metropolis of the eastern dispersion of the Jews; but as I have said so much on this subject in the preface, I beg leave to refer the reader to that place.
Instead of Babylon, some MSS. mentioned by Syncellus in his Chronicon have Ιοππῃ, Joppa; and one has Ῥωμῃ, Rome, in the margin, probably as the meaning, according to the writer, of the word Babylon.
Gill's Commentary:
1Pe 5:13 - The church that is at Babylon,.... The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, supply the word "church", as we do. Some, by "Babylon", understand Rome, which is so called, in a figurative sense, in the book of the Revelations: this is an ancient opinion; so Papias understood it, as (e) Eusebius relates; but that Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved, nor any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed. It is best therefore to understand it literally, of Babylon in Assyria, the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews, and the centre of it, to whom the apostle wrote; and where, as the minister of the circumcision, he may be thought to reside, here being a number of persons converted and formed into a Gospel church state, whereby was fulfilled the prophecy in Psa_87:4 perhaps this church might consist chiefly of Jews, which might be the reason of the apostle's being here, since there were great numbers which continued here, from the time of the captivity, who returned not with Ezra; and these are said by the Jews (f) to be of the purest blood: many of the Jewish doctors lived here; they had three famous universities in this country, and here their Talmud was written, called from hence (g) Babylonian. The church in this place is said to be
Robertson's Word Studies:
1Pe 5:13 -
She that is in Babylon, elect together with you (h en Babulwni suneklekth). Either actual Babylon or, as most likely, mystical Babylon (Rome) as in the Apocalypse. If Peter is in Rome about A.D. 65, there is every reason why he should not make that fact plain to the world at large and least of all to Nero. It is also uncertain whether h suneklekth (found here alone), "the co-elect woman," means Peter's wife (1Co_9:5) or the church in "Babylon." The natural way to take it is for Peter's wife. Cf. eklekth kuriai in 2Jo_1:1 (also verse 2Jo_1:13).
JF&B
1Pe 5:13 - The . . . at Babylon--ALFORD, BENGEL, and others translate, "She that is elected together with you in Babylon," namely, Peter's wife, whom he led about with him in his missionary journeys. Compare 1Pe_3:7, "heirs together of the grace of life." But why she should be called "elected together with you in Babylon," as if there had been no Christian woman in Babylon besides, is inexplicable on this view. In English Version the sense is clear: "That portion of the whole dispersion (1Pe_1:1, Greek), or Church of Christianized Jews, with Gentile converts, which resides in Babylon." As Peter and John were closely associated, Peter addresses the Church in John's peculiar province, Asia, and closes with "your co-elect sister Church at Babylon saluteth you"; and John similarly addresses the "elect lady," that is, the Church in Babylon, and closes with "the children of thine elect sister (the Asiatic Church) greet thee"; (compare Introduction to Second John). ERASMUS explains, "Mark who is in the place of a son to me": compare Act_12:12, implying Peter's connection with Mark; whence the mention of him in connection with the Church at Babylon, in which he labored under Peter before he went to Alexandria is not unnatural. PAPIAS reports from the presbyter John [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39], that Mark was interpreter of Peter, recording in his Gospel the facts related to him by Peter. Silvanus or Silas had been substituted for John Mark, as Paul's companion, because of Mark's temporary unfaithfulness. But now Mark restored is associated with Silvanus, Paul's companion, in Peter's esteem, as Mark was already reinstated in Paul's esteem. That Mark had a spiritual connection with the Asiatic' churches which Peter addresses, and so naturally salutes them, appears from 2Ti_4:11; Col_4:10.
Babylon--The Chaldean Babylon on the Euphrates. See Introduction, ON THE PLACE OF WRITING this Epistle, in proof that Rome is not meant as Papists assert; compare LIGHTFOOT sermon. How unlikely that in a friendly salutation the enigmatical title of Rome given in prophecy (John, Rev_17:5), should be used! Babylon was the center from which the Asiatic dispersion whom Peter addresses was derived. PHILO [The Embassy to Gaius, 36] and JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 15.2.2; 23.12] inform us that Babylon contained a great many Jews in the apostolic age (whereas those at Rome were comparatively few, about eight thousand [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 17.11]); so it would naturally be visited by the apostle of the circumcision. It was the headquarters of those whom he had so successfully addressed on Pentecost, Act_2:9, Jewish "Parthians . . . dwellers in Mesopotamia" (the Parthians were then masters of Mesopotamian Babylon); these he ministered to in person. His other hearers, the Jewish "dwellers in Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia," he now ministers to by letter. The earliest distinct authority for Peter's martyrdom at Rome is DIONYSIUS, bishop of Corinth, in the latter half of the second century. The desirableness of representing Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles, as together founding the Church of the metropolis, seems to have originated the tradition. CLEMENT OF ROME [First Epistle to the Corinthians, 4.5], often quoted for, is really against it. He mentions Paul and Peter together, but makes it as a distinguishing circumstance of Paul, that he preached both in the East and West, implying that Peter never was in the West. In 2Pe_1:14, he says, "I must shortly put off this tabernacle," implying his martyrdom was near, yet he makes no allusion to Rome, or any intention of his visiting it.
Whether Peter was in Rome, in Jerusalem or wherever, I think he was making a comment on the state of the inhabitants. We are even now in spiritual Babylon, here in this world. It never goes away. You have to be in God's presence for that to happen. However, I don't think Peter was making the comment lightly, and he was in God's presence, and we should reflect on what he did mean and pray for enlightenment, because I think it matters.
I don't mean to distort the teachings of either the Orthodox/Catholic camps or the Reformed camp. Thank you for your corrections.
Orthodox/Catholic:
On 1), the assurance of salvation, I think that we pretty much agree. I also hope that you recognize that recognition of another's sanctity is different from assuming that one is Heaven-bound.
On 2), the need to live a holy life, I think we're on the same page.
On 3), the intercession of the saints, you initial post implied that Catholics and Orthodox do not pray to God. I'm glad you recognize that this is not the case.
On 4), the gift of the Eucharist, you are correct that it "renews the life of grace received at Baptism." It also "increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ."
On 5), God's plan, Catholics believe that "To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." I think this is different from your statement that there is "No plan of God for one's life."
Reformed:
On 1), assurance of salvation, I could have sworn that it was Reformed teaching that there are those who God hates. I may be mistaken. Maybe there are just those who God loves, but not enough to save.
On 2), the salvation of the elect, I thought for a moment that you were saying that you were sure you were a member of the elect. Sorry.
On 3), prayer to God, we agree.
On 4), rebirth and sealing with the Holy Spirit, does this happen for everybody or just the elect?
On 5), God's perfect plan for one's life to give them a future and a hope, are you saing that every one of us has a perfect plan for our life to give them future and a hope, even the unelect who are damned?
Chruch is not a group of people. I explained to you what the Church is previously.
Christ promised us the Holy Ghost through the Church, so He ensures the Holy Ghost arrives. How, I don't know. It is a miracle.
Well other than a place name I think it's safe to assume that it always means confusion. The very name itself derives from Baal, and its sins against God are legendary. Everytime it is used in the bible its confused spirituality is to be considered, whether its actual or spiritual Babylon, don't you think?
Sorry to be so blockheaded, but you haven't answered my question: where else in the Bible does "Babylon" explicitly mean confusion?
Also, "Babylon" is not derived from "Baal." It is derived from "bab"--"gate" and "ili"--gods.
Whether Peter was in Rome, in Jerusalem or wherever, I think he was making a comment on the state of the inhabitants.So Peter might have been in Rome after all!
We are even now in spiritual Babylon, here in this world. It never goes away. You have to be in God's presence for that to happen. However, I don't think Peter was making the comment lightly, and he was in God's presence, and we should reflect on what he did mean and pray for enlightenment, because I think it matters.Well, I'm all for praying for enlightenment.
Church is just the people who make it up. If it's some kind of institution, then you have a corporation or business or a club, as I explained previously.
There is nothing in what you write about the Pentecost that contradicts that the Holy Spirit descended on a select group of people, who, lead by St. Peter, converted and baptized others.
May be your pastor taught you to read "born of water and the Holy Ghost" and mentally omit "water", but I read what is written. Water refers to baptism. Now, regarding the timing of this, Jesus speaks to Nicodemus in the future tense of entering the Kingdom of God, which places the baptism reference in the same time frame as salvation, following Christ's resurrection.
This is your opinion, and I gave you scripture to explain mine.
If Peter was in Rome, as you like to think, well then, consider Rome and all its institutions as spiritual Babylon, nothing is stopping you.
So Barnes thought that "Babylon" was a Christian woman. (Was this a common name?) Clarke, Gill and JF&B thought that "Babylon" was the (by then obscure) Assyrian village. Robertson thought "Babylon" was Rome.
And Gill and JF&B cite Eusebius--who actually wrote that Peter was in Rome!
Personally, I believe that he was in Jerusalem, right where the bible places him. Sorry, it comes from Baal, as that place was where the Chaldeans lived and worshipped their god. Ba-bel. The Chaldeans were very confused, worshipping the created thing, the sun and the stars, not the Creator.
I don't know what to tell you, but your etymology is dead wrong.
If Peter was in Rome, as you like to think, well then, consider Rome and all its institutions as spiritual Babylon, nothing is stopping you.
I don't think it does any harm to think of pagan Rome in the 1st Century as "confused," before Paul and Peter and his successors evangelized it. (Where again does "Babylon"="confusion?")
"There is nothing in what you write about the Pentecost that contradicts that the Holy Spirit descended on a select group of people, who, lead by St. Peter, converted and baptized others."
Those select group of people were more than the Apostles so there was no mediator, Apostles or church, between them and the Father's pouring out the Holy Spirit on them and they weren't baptized at that time. The new converts were but not the 120.
Water has many references in the New Testament like the "washing of water by the Word" in the Ephesians verse that has nothing to do with baptism. What baptism would Jesus be referring to, John's? The Pharisees had already rejected that and Jesus could forgive sins so John's was not necessary. could not look forward to His death because He had not announced it. Jesus wasn't baptizing anyone so what baptism was He referring to?
Those select group of people were more than the Apostles so there was no mediator, Apostles or church, between them and the Father's pouring out the Holy Spirit on them and they weren't baptized at that time. The new converts were but not the 120.Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the first and second chapters of Acts referred to different events. The 120 were only at the first event.
Now I am really confused. I know I have been told that the Catholic faith says that assurance cannot be had because the future is unknown to us and we might choose to fall away, irreparably. I thought that assurance cannot be had by the Catholic until judgment before God. I'll just ask for any comments.
Forest, Catholicism is like a box of chocolates. You just never know what you are going to get.
And should you get the lousy tasting orange nougat kind (you know the one), don't complain. It's not about which flavor you get - for them, it's all about whose box you're picking from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.