Post by ResLight on Aug 13, 2023 21:22:30 GMT -5
Did Charles Taze Russell claim to be the Laodicean Messenger?
No, Russell himself never claimed to be "the Laodicean Messenger". In fact, as best as I can dtermine, Russell never used the phrase "Laodicean Messenger" in anything that he wrote. Russell, however, did believe that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 represented various time periods of the church and that each time period would have a special angel, meaning "messenger", who would serve the church for that time period. Although Russell never stated that he believed himself to be the seventh messenger, most of the Bible Students believed that he was the Laodicean Messenger.
In the June 1, 1901 issue of the Watch Tower, the following appeared:
The hand, in which were seven stars, is similarly to be understood as a symbolical part of the vision, representing the Lord's power in his Church. The stars, as he explains (vs. 20; chap. 2:1,8,12,18,etc.), are the angels or messengers or special servants of the Church in each epoch. The intimation is that the Lord would recognize in his Church, in each of its seven stages or developments, one representative to whom he would specially address himself, and through whom he would specially instruct the Church, and whom he would specially hold or keep as his instrument by his own power or hand. This would not necessarily mean that one individual of the Church must be used of the Lord, even should he become unfit for the service, but would imply that one servant would be recognized in each epoch. If that servant for any cause or in any manner seemed to be an unsuitable one another might take his place, and be the star or messenger of the Church of that epoch.
We cannot be sure that Russell himself wrote this, but he was the editor who was responsible for what appeared in the pages of the Watch Tower. For more references to Revelation concerning the 7th angel, as found in Russell's publications, see:
tinyurl.com/mhfrc-rev3
I do not believe, however, that Russell would have meant for the statements presented to become a doctrine, and definitely not dogma. As with many things presented in the pages of the Watch Tower at that time, it simply reflected the author's opinion. But when opinion becomes doctrine that is promoted as necessary for one to accept either for fellowship or for any office in the church, etc., such becomes sectarianism.
Regardless, many Bible Students apparently did identify Russell as being the Laodicean Messenger, and many of them preached such as though doctrine, even dogma. Indeed, it appears that some were even dogmatic about this, even to the point that they would consider that all doctrines were to be accepted based on the idea that Russell was the Laodicean messenger (as well the faithful and wise servant and the man with the writer's inkhorn).
In practice, for many the idea that Russell was the Laodicean messenger, etc., had become entrenched into their whole belief system, so much so that this became central so that all doctrine became subservient and subjected to approval based on what Russell stated. Indeed, as best as I can determine, this opinion became so exalted that, for some, acceptance of this opinion as being fact formed the basis of who would be chosen as elders and other various appointments in the congregation, and in some instances, it appears that acceptance of this opinion as being fact became the basis for spiritual fellowship. Actually, all such practices create a form of sectarianism (Strong's #139, transliterated hairesis, from which the English word heresy is derived). Sectarianism will be destroyed; such will not be allowed to continue into the Kingdom age.
Russell's last statement regarding finding Russell in the Bible, however, evidently was the following:
It appears from the above statement, that Russell did not believe that he was being spoken of in the Bible as being the Laodicean messenger, the faithful and wise servant, etc.
Russell many times stated that the Bible is the basis of doctrine, and although he believed that what was presented in his Studies was in harmony with the Bible, he cautioned many times that he could be in error on some things, and that the Bible takes precedent above anything written by himself or any others.
References:
Strong's 139:
biblehub.com/greek/139.htm
studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/139.html
Russell and the Bible
ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/bible.html
No, Russell himself never claimed to be "the Laodicean Messenger". In fact, as best as I can dtermine, Russell never used the phrase "Laodicean Messenger" in anything that he wrote. Russell, however, did believe that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 represented various time periods of the church and that each time period would have a special angel, meaning "messenger", who would serve the church for that time period. Although Russell never stated that he believed himself to be the seventh messenger, most of the Bible Students believed that he was the Laodicean Messenger.
In the June 1, 1901 issue of the Watch Tower, the following appeared:
The hand, in which were seven stars, is similarly to be understood as a symbolical part of the vision, representing the Lord's power in his Church. The stars, as he explains (vs. 20; chap. 2:1,8,12,18,etc.), are the angels or messengers or special servants of the Church in each epoch. The intimation is that the Lord would recognize in his Church, in each of its seven stages or developments, one representative to whom he would specially address himself, and through whom he would specially instruct the Church, and whom he would specially hold or keep as his instrument by his own power or hand. This would not necessarily mean that one individual of the Church must be used of the Lord, even should he become unfit for the service, but would imply that one servant would be recognized in each epoch. If that servant for any cause or in any manner seemed to be an unsuitable one another might take his place, and be the star or messenger of the Church of that epoch.
We cannot be sure that Russell himself wrote this, but he was the editor who was responsible for what appeared in the pages of the Watch Tower. For more references to Revelation concerning the 7th angel, as found in Russell's publications, see:
tinyurl.com/mhfrc-rev3
I do not believe, however, that Russell would have meant for the statements presented to become a doctrine, and definitely not dogma. As with many things presented in the pages of the Watch Tower at that time, it simply reflected the author's opinion. But when opinion becomes doctrine that is promoted as necessary for one to accept either for fellowship or for any office in the church, etc., such becomes sectarianism.
Regardless, many Bible Students apparently did identify Russell as being the Laodicean Messenger, and many of them preached such as though doctrine, even dogma. Indeed, it appears that some were even dogmatic about this, even to the point that they would consider that all doctrines were to be accepted based on the idea that Russell was the Laodicean messenger (as well the faithful and wise servant and the man with the writer's inkhorn).
In practice, for many the idea that Russell was the Laodicean messenger, etc., had become entrenched into their whole belief system, so much so that this became central so that all doctrine became subservient and subjected to approval based on what Russell stated. Indeed, as best as I can determine, this opinion became so exalted that, for some, acceptance of this opinion as being fact formed the basis of who would be chosen as elders and other various appointments in the congregation, and in some instances, it appears that acceptance of this opinion as being fact became the basis for spiritual fellowship. Actually, all such practices create a form of sectarianism (Strong's #139, transliterated hairesis, from which the English word heresy is derived). Sectarianism will be destroyed; such will not be allowed to continue into the Kingdom age.
Russell's last statement regarding finding Russell in the Bible, however, evidently was the following:
Some of the dear brethren seem to find as much about Brother Russell in the Bible as they find about the Lord Jesus, and I think that is a great mistake. I do not find it there. Some of them say that I am blinded on that subject, that they all can see better than I can. Perhaps they can, I do not know, but I think, dear friends, that there is a danger in that direction, and I would like to put you all on guard. I think it is the Lord’s will that we should recognize every agency God uses, but we are not to recognize any agency of God as being in any competition whatever with the Lord or with his divine arrangement. He is the fountain of blessing, he only is most to be praised. -- 1910; (“Convention Report Sermons”, pg. 125)
It appears from the above statement, that Russell did not believe that he was being spoken of in the Bible as being the Laodicean messenger, the faithful and wise servant, etc.
Russell many times stated that the Bible is the basis of doctrine, and although he believed that what was presented in his Studies was in harmony with the Bible, he cautioned many times that he could be in error on some things, and that the Bible takes precedent above anything written by himself or any others.
References:
Strong's 139:
biblehub.com/greek/139.htm
studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/139.html
Russell and the Bible
ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/bible.html
