Paul starts off by giving us a definition of what faith is. People frequently confuse faith with belief, thinking the two terms are synonymous. Of course we know they are not, because James speaks of demons believing and shuddering. Demons believe, but they do not have faith. Paul then goes on to give us a practical example of the difference between belief and faith. He compares Abel with Cain. There can be no doubt that Cain believed in God. The Bible shows that he actually talked with God, and God with him. Yet he lacked faith. It has been suggested that faith is belief not in the existence of God, but in the character of God. Paul says, “he that approaches God must believe…that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.” By faith we “know” that God will do what he says, and we act in accordance with this. Faith then moves us to action, to obedience. (Hebrews 11:6)
Throughout the chapter, Paul gives an extensive list of examples of faith from before his time. In the opening verse of the next chapter he refers to these ones as a great cloud of witnesses surrounding Christians. We have been taught that pre-Christian men of faith are not granted the prize of heavenly life. However, reading this without our bias-colored glasses on, we find a very different picture being presented.
Verse 4 says that by his faith “Abel had witness borne to him that he was righteous”. Verse 7 says that Noah “became an heir of the righteousness that is according to faith.” If you are an heir, you inherit from a father. Noah would inherit righteousness just like Christians who die faithful. So how could we imagine him being resurrected still imperfect, having to labor for another thousand years, and then being declared righteous only after passing a final test? Based on that, he would not be an heir to anything upon his resurrection, because an heir is guaranteed the inheritance and does not have to work toward it.
Verse 10 speaks of Abraham “awaiting the city having real foundations”. Paul is referring to the New Jerusalem. Abraham couldn’t have known about the New Jerusalem. In fact he wouldn’t have known about the old one either, but he was awaiting the fulfillment of God’s promises though he did not know what form they would take. Paul did know however, and so tells us. Anointed Christians are also “awaiting the city having real foundations.” There is no difference in our hope from that of Abraham, except that we have a clearer picture of it than he did.
Verse 16 refers to Abraham and all the aforementioned men and women of faith as “reaching out for a better place…one belonging to heaven”, and it concludes by stating, “he has made a city ready for them.” Again we see the equivalency between the hope of Christians and that of Abraham.
Verse 26 speaks of Moses esteeming “the reproach of the Christ [anointed one] as riches greater than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward.” Anointed Christians must also accept the reproach of the Christ if they are to get the payment of the reward. Same reproach; same payment. (Matthew 10:38; Luke 22:28)
In verse 35 Paul speaks of men willing to die faithful so that they might ”attain a better resurrection.” Use of the comparison modifier “better” indicates that there must be at least two resurrections, one better than the other. The Bible speaks of two resurrections in a number of places. Anointed Christians have the better one, and it appears that this is what the faithful men of old were reaching out for.
This verse makes no sense if we consider it in light of our official position. Noah, Abraham, and Moses are resurrected the same as everyone else: imperfect, and required to strive for our thousand years to achieve perfection, only to then pass through a final test to see whether or not they can continue living eternally. How is that a ‘better’ resurrection? Better than what?
Paul concludes the chapter with these verses:
(Hebrews 11:39, 40) And yet all these, although they had witness borne to them through their faith, did not get the [fulfillment of the] promise, 40 as God foresaw something better for us, in order that they might not be made perfect apart from us.
The “something better” that God foresaw for Christians was not a better reward because Paul groups them altogether in the final phrase “that they might not be made perfect apart from us”. The perfection that he refers to is the same perfection that Jesus achieved. (Hebrews 5:8, 9) Anointed Christians will follow their exemplar and through faith will be made complete and given immortality along with their brother, Jesus. The great cloud of witnesses Paul refers to is made perfect together with Christians, not apart from them. Therefore, the “something better” he is referring to must be the aforementioned “fulfillment of the promise”. Faithful servants of old had no idea what form the reward would take or how the promise would be fulfilled. Their faith did not depend on the details, but only that Jehovah would not fail to reward them.
Paul opens the next chapter with these words: “So, then, because we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us…” How could he compare anointed Christians with these witnesses and suggest that they were surrounding them if he did not consider them to be on a par with those he was writing to? (Hebrews 12:1)
Can a simple, unbiased reading of these verses lead us to any other conclusion other than these faithful men and women of old will receive the same reward anointed Christians receive? But there is more that contradicts our official teaching.
(Hebrews 12:7, 8) . . .God is dealing with YOU as with sons. For what son is he that a father does not discipline? 8 But if YOU are without the discipline of which all have become partakers, YOU are really illegitimate children, and not sons.
If Jehovah does not discipline us, then we are illegitimate and not sons. The publications often speak about how Jehovah disciplines us. Therefore, we must be his sons. It is true that a loving father will discipline his children. However, a man does not discipline his friends. Yet we are taught that we are not his sons but his friends. There is nothing in the Bible about God disciplining his friends. These two verses of Hebrews make no sense if we continue to hold to the idea that millions of Christians are not gods sons but only his friends.
Another point I thought was interesting was the use of “publicly declared” in verse 13. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not go door-to-door, and yet they made public declaration that “they were strangers and temporary residences in the land”. Perhaps we need to expand our definition of what public declaration entails.
It is both fascinating and dismaying to see how the simply stated teachings from the word of God have been twisted to shore up doctrines of men.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by kev c on 2013-12-05 17:32:15
Well done meleti this is the sort of thing we want and its dead right what you said when we look at these verses with ano unbiased viewpoint we find a different picture being presented. Ive been all over pauls letters for years and have noticed that. Agree again with your observations. Its refreshing for me to hear others that can see the same things i see. Personally ive gone past trying to prove the watchower wrong. I just want to have upbuilding conversations with my brothers about one of the great loves of my life gods word the bible. Thanks mate. Ps im going through 1 thessalonians 4 and 5 at the moment. Thanks again kev
Reply by Chris on 2013-12-06 03:00:33
Kev C
I have been trying to figure out why I feel differently about the WTS lately and what you said is exactly right. They have no hold on me and I don't look up to them anymore. While I don't mean this in a demeaning way, the are of no consequence in my spiritual growth. I would still respect a scriptural point that the publications highlight but in reality there is so much spin that it is hard to read things without a sense of irritation.
Remember those times when we used to encounter religious leaders on the territory and we felt confident in our ability to refute the Trinity and other incorrect teachings, well that is how I feel now. If the elders ever condescend to visit me I now would have no hesitation in respectfully highlighting scriptural discrepancies in our teachings.
And as Meleti and others have accurately pointed out, this whole notion of friends but not sons of God is utter nonsense and deserves to be overturned (2Cor.10:4,5)
Meleti
I am struggling with the idea of the heavenly hope for faithful pre-christian men and women because I feel that an earthly resurrection is indicated by the Hebrew scriptures.
But as you say reading these things in an unbiased way can yield a refreshing perspective.
To me the reference to a better resurrection seems to indicate that the resurrection performed by Elisha And Elijah were temporary and did not yield everlasting life.
So naturally they were awaiting a "better" resurrection to a restored Earth under the Messiah.
The reference to those tortured awaiting a better resurrection seems to confound that theory because they did not receive any resurrection. But is this just a matter of translation, as noted in the examples below?
"Women received their loved ones back again from death. But others were tortured, refusing to turn from God in order to be set free. They placed their hope in a better life after the resurrection" NLT
"Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life". ESV
Either way Hebrews 11 is powerful stuff.Reply by GodWordIsTruth on 2013-12-06 09:44:10
Great comments Chris! I am at the same point that you are. I don't intend to be confrontational , divisive or disruptive by any means. However, I have lived in the shadows for many years within the organization. Attending the meetings for many years while disagreeing with many of the things that are being taught that are being passed off as truth. As the years go by I am becoming more vocal , if I am directly asked , about the discrepancies and unscriptural teachings. In the past when I was asked questions on studies or in private conversations among friends I would just tote the company line ( just present the GB view) . I find myself now prefacing my thoughts with , “Well the current view of the GB is ….. however from the scriptures I believe it to be ……” .
I do believe that scriptures strongly supports that those faithful ones in the Pre-Christian era will receive an earthly resurrection . That was the hope held out for them and they looked forward to living on earth.
Meleti I loooooooove Hebrews 11. It is also one of my absolutely favorite chapters in the Bible. I thoroughly enjoyed this article.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-07 11:42:43
To be fair, I cannot rule out the possibility that some, or even many, Christians will end up living on earth. It does not appear to be necessary for all anointed and faithful Christians to end up ruling in heaven for the Scriptures to be fulfilled. I may be wrong on that, but it does seem to make some Scriptures understandable. For example, Luke's account of the faithful and discreet slave that involves four distinct outcomes.
It can also be argued that the promise to serve as kings and priests does not indicate a location. Therefore, some could serve on earth in that capacity and the promise would still be fulfilled.
However, accepting that as a possibility raises the issue of human rulership which we know is fraught with problems. Perhaps a perfect human – I mean that in the fullest sense of the term – would be capable of such rulership. I really cannot say.Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2013-12-09 19:42:02
You are right. The possibility of some or many Christians ruling in the heavens And on the earth cannot be ruled out. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. The point I was attempting to make is that I believe the scriptures does support two hopes. Everlasting life in the Heavens and everlasting life on the other. Who's going, how many, and for how long I cannot say witha certainty. I'm ok not knowing. Wherever Jehovah sees fit for me to be Ill be happy. I'm not ok with men deciding who are, how many, and for how long and passing out off as scriptural.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-09 19:53:36
We're on the same page. :)
Comment by imjustasking on 2013-12-06 02:57:19
Well done Meleti. Very well presented.
A friend who is a fader has been saying the same thing to me for ages. I'm having difficulty faulting your observations. Your logic is impeachable. Even after such a long time knowing the WT is wrong about most things, this idea of pre-Christians going to heaven does take getting used to, but nonetheless you are right.
Before posting this comment I re-read Hebrews and it appears the Society is wrong yet again. They say bad people who die are acquitted of their sins and the 'slate is wiped clean'. Therefore as you correctly point out, how would the faith of Abraham (THE FATHER OF FAITH!!) have a better resurrection than say a rapist who dies and is resurrected in the way the Society states? Insane nonsense!!
Below are two commentaries on Hebrews 11:40 (as God foresaw something better for us, in order that they might not be made perfect apart from us)
I think their observations tie in with yours.
CLARKE
God having provided some better thing for us - This is the dispensation of the Gospel, with all the privileges and advantages it confers.That they without us should not be made perfect - Believers before the flood, after the flood, under the law, and since the law, make but one Church. The Gospel dispensation is the last, and the Church cannot be considered as complete till the believers under all dispensations are gathered together. As the Gospel is the last dispensation, the preceding believers cannot be consummated even in glory till the Gospel Church arrive in the heaven of heavens.
There are a great variety of meanings put on this place, but the above seems the most simple and consistent. See Rev_6:11. “White robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also, and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.” This time, and its blessings, are now upon the wing.
THE PEOPLES NEW TESTAMENT
(the commentary here reminds me of Apollos' definition of perfect)
That they without us should not be made perfect. That they and we together might be made complete in the city whose builder and maker is God. The full fruition, the being made complete (perfect) belongs to the heavenly state. All these ancient heroes, who died not having received the promise, need the realization of the promise in Christ to make them perfect; by that promise we also are saved.
I sometimes wonder what is going on with faders like ourselves on this and other forums. It seems that scales are falling off our eyes. Every week somebody, somewhere spots something new, which is a complete departure from official WT teaching. To be honest we are SO far from official WT teaching that in reality we are no longer JW's. Only in name. That is not such a bad thing, because I prefer to only to be known as a Christian. The only name ever given by God to those who follow his Son rather than some silly sectarian name made up by men to prove how righteous they are.
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-12-06 03:25:36
Your mixed feelings are shared by many I'm sure, meleti. I've always admired the book of Hebrews, not just because it is the essential link between the ancients and we relative newborns. It is the essential link that draws all humanity into the Abrahamic covenant, lifting us into to all the timeless promises of God.
I don't know why scholars dispute Paul's writing it because his character flows throughout as he so beautifully pulls the entire Bible together as with a spiritual drawstring. There is no human dimension to it, no room to build religion around it. It is a flawless melding of perfect, spiritual law bringing us into the love of Christ that so completely releases us by ransom. As with all of Paul's writings, the more I read the more reassurance I feel that our final resting place awaits us among the innumerable abodes in the house of our Father. (John 14:2)
While religion is all about limiting dimension, the spirit is all about expanding it. And I put up with our religion, even any religion just for the sake of those caught up in it. (Rom.11:13-16; 1 Cor.9:19-23)
swReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-07 11:44:15
Well said.
Comment by kev c on 2013-12-06 04:26:04
Matthew 22 v 29 to 33. May have a bearing on this. Jesus said that in the ressuerction people are not given in marraige but are as angels in heaven. He then went on to say about the ressurection of abraham. Also matthew 8 v 11 and 12 is interesting as well. Many will come and recline at the table. With abraham isaac and jacob in the kingdom of the heavens. Is it really god jesus and 144000. Not sure about matthew 11 v 11 to 13 though. John the baptist should be there. Kev
Comment by Jude on 2013-12-06 19:12:25
I think another scripture that has a bearing on the subject would be Romans 3:25:
"God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was in order to exhibit his own righteousness, because he was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past while God was exercising forbearance;"
This scripture suggests that Jesus' sacrifice applies retroactively to persons who lived in the past - before Christ came to earth. And given that Christ's sacrifice is the basis on which persons are declared righteous for heavenly life . . .
Here's another interesting point: At Exodus 19:6 God holds out the hope to the ancient nation of Israel, of becoming a kingdom of priests. Even our publications link this promise with the hope of anointed Christians serving as a kingdom of priests in heaven by suggesting that the full number of the 144,000 would have been Jews had the nation proved faithful. But it begs a number of questions: Was this promise in effect for Israelites living back then, in the days of Moses; or was it only for their future offspring starting from when the Messiah arrived? Would this promise fail to be realized in the case of individual faithful, pre-christian Jews just because the nation as a whole were mostly unfaithful?
Sometimes I think it's useful to think of bible-based Judaism and Christianity as being, not two religions, but two different phases/eras of one religion. One era deals with worship before the Messiah and the other deals with worship after the arrival of the Messiah. Faithful ancient Jews were like Christians in the sense that they too had faith in the Messiah - only the timing and identity of the Messiah was still a mystery to them.
On the other hand, there are scriptures in the NT that seem to give one the impression that the heavenly hope was something new being held out from Christ's time onward. The concept of being anointed with holy spirit as a token of a heavenly inheritance is unheard of in the OT. There is no mention in the OT of faithful Jews back then being adopted as sons of God. There is no mention of baptism with holy spirit - something Jesus said was essential for one to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus made a new covenant with his disciples for them to rule with him from heaven.
So while I understand where you're coming from I'm in two minds about the subject. The only way I can presently see this working is if the rules changed with the arrival of the Messiah and post-messianic worshipers have additional requirements to be met - being anointed, being in the new covenant - to that required of pre-messianic worshipers.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-07 11:33:24
These are excellent points you make, Jude. I do not wish to be dogmatic in my understanding of this matter. All of us frequenting this site disdain the my-way-or-the-highway approach to doctrinal matters that characterizes not only our but most other religious hierarchies' approach to scriptural interpretation. I know you feel this way as well. So I do take your point, and a good case can be made for a different hope being extended to Christians. Nevertheless, to argue my point a little further, the "covenant for a kingdom" that Jesus made with his immediate disciples does not necessarily extend to all Christians. The partaking of the emblems which was prefigured by the Passover celebration is something that all Christians must engage in. However, partaking does not automatically guarantee one a place in heaven as a king and priest. Otherwise, the separate covenant that Jesus made with those who "stuck with him and his trials" would be redundant. As he said, "in the house of my father there are many abodes". What type of reward and what type of assignment each one receives, and indeed the location where each one is assigned to serve, is really something for the Father to determine.
I am not sure how much weight we can assign to the anointing of Holy Spirit upon Christians in this regard and as it pertains to the fulfillment of the promise to serve as a king and a priest. The Hebrew mentality did not look at things chronologically as a Greek would. It could be argued then that it was simply not Jehovah's time to reveal the fullness of the fulfillment of the promise. Or to put it another way, the promise was made to them but the true nature of the promise was yet to be revealed. Once revealed, the promise applied to all to whom it was made.
Another argument that can be made is based on the assumption that the reason Jehovah is taking people from all epochs to serve as kings and priests is that as former imperfect humans they would understand their fellow humans better than any Angel could, and further, being from the same time period, they would also understand the culture and makeup of those individuals they are helping and judging. Since two thirds of humanity predates the Messiah and since much of that culture is totally alien to us, it follows that faithful individuals from all time periods would be needed to properly serve for the "curing of the nations."
A word of caution is needed here, however, for this is a logical not scriptural argument; and further, it is an argument based on an assumption.Reply by kev c on 2013-12-07 15:57:37
I think without doubt there are two seperate ressurections of the dead the earlier or first resurrection. And a second general ressurection phillipians 3 v11 to 14. Revelation 20 v 4 to 6. It seems it was this ressurection paul was trying to attain to. Matthew 22. V 1 to 14 shows that the invitation to it was first offered to the jews but then expanded to include anyone. V 9. However many were invited but few are chosen. I think both pauls and jesus words show that. Its god who chooses who recieves the prize of the earlier ressurection. Who will rule as kings and priests with him for a thousand years. I honestly feel that comparing those verses with revelation 14 v 3. 4 and 5 this number is limited. They are firstfruits. I also feel that just because a person may not be chosen to be part of that group of firstfruits even when partaking of the communion means that they are no hopers i see no reason then why they should not be included in the later ressurection. As for the faithful before the christian era. Being part of the first ressurection it seems the scriptures seem to lead us to some differing conclusions. In a way many in the pre christian era did have faith in jesus many prophets spoke of his future coming and sacrifice and not only that israel as a nation symblically partook by pouring out the blood of the lamb and partking of the passover meal every year. Even though the literal sacrifice had not been paid yet. So it may be that just being in the right place at the right time may not matter that much. Also i think the concept of a heavenly ressurection is in the hebrew scriptures at isaiah 25 v 8 and hosea 13 v 14. For pauls qoutes these verses as being such at 1 corinthians 15 v 50 to 57. Still not entirely sure though either way.ive got a feeling theres much more to come on this. One thing i do know though in the multitude of counsellors there exists accomplishment and open discussions like this help if we are going to find out the answers. Thanks for your comments chris jude and everyone else its appreciated. Kev
Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-07 14:35:05
Hi Jude,
Although you are in two minds, in many ways I think you've furthered the point. I can't remember which post I raised the thought on now, but like you it had occurred to me also that a covenant was made for fleshly Israel to become a Kingdom of priests. It makes no sense to me that those there present would not be eligible to be part of the seed since they were the ones who unanimously answered "All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do". This was in response to the agreement that "YOU yourselves will become ...", not "your offspring will become ...". Since Jehovah keeps His word to the letter, I cannot see that this covenant was not exactly what it was stated to be.
I agree with you that Judaism and Christianity might just be viewed as phases of the one true religion. In fact Romans 11 does seem to suggest that the covenant is not over for the Jews, despite the fact that Christians would tend to think otherwise. Jesus said of Jerusalem that her house was abandoned to her (Matt 23:37), meaning primarily that the temple would be destroyed and their mode of worship would be done away with at that time. We cannot automatically conclude however that he was nullifying the Abrahamic covenant in the same breath.
You had mentioned that Jesus said that baptism with holy spirit was essential for entry to the Kingdom of God. Were you referring to his conversation with Nicodemus in John 3? If so, he does not specifically mention baptism in this passage, but rather being “born again”. Again I am not sure that we can say that baptism by the spirit and being born again by the spirit are entirely synonymous can we? If the concept could not have been applicable to pre-Christians then why would Jesus have asked “Are you a teacher of Israel and do not know these things?”. To me that implies that a spiritually minded Israelite could have foreseen the spiritual element to the Kingdom arrangement, even if there were a lot of blanks to fill in. According to what Jesus says I don't see that we can preclude the notion that Abraham will be born again in order to take his place in the kingdom arrangement as per Matt 8:11. The “sons of the kingdom” are to be thrown into the darkness outside according to the following verse, but how could that be the case if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves are not to be truly inside the “kingdom of the heavens” receiving the inheritance through the original covenant alongside the replacements for those “sons”?
Yes, it is certainly true that the NT scriptures hold out a hope that was new. But that does not automatically means that those who had died were excluded. The tent of the sanctuary was rent in two in symbolism of the way becoming open to heaven (Matt 27:51; Heb 10:20), and yet at that very time Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still living from God's standpoint (Luke 20:37,38 ftn). Why then would they be excluded? And the same would therefore seem to apply to all those who were faithful in pre-Christian times.
Those are my thoughts for now. Good discussion.
Apollos
Comment by Crazyguy on 2013-12-08 14:24:32
Some thing to consider eph 4:4 talks of one hope but is this hope a resurrection to earth or heaven or is this hope in fact the reconciliation Paul talks about in Romans, getting back to a one on one relationship with the father?
Also in response to a comment by Meleti, No where in the bible if you read the Greek do Christians become kings, the scriptures do not refer to any Christians ruling as kings with Jesus. Yes the word reign is used but if one looks at Romans 5 there's another idea altogether about the term reign.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-08 14:40:14
What about Rev. 5:10?
Reply by crazyguy on 2013-12-09 13:23:41
Look at that scripture in the Greek , it does not say kings. Check your Greek interlinear on the Greek side.
Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-09 13:49:56
That may be so, but the concept of Christians being privileged become the nation of kings and priests originally promised under the Mosaic covenant seems apparent from harmonizing all the scriptures.
(Revelation 3:21) To the one that conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, even as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Can one sit on the throne of Christ and not be a part of the kingly arrangement? And whilst it is true that the authority includes reigning over death as per Romans 5, it is also over people and nations as per Rev 2:26,27.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-09 17:32:11
I just checked it using bible.cc and their interlinear uses "kings".
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-12-09 16:01:52
Hi crazyguy, and just to add my two cents, did not Paul submit himself to a death like Christ so as to obtain an earlier resurrection, even “a better resurrection” as expressed in Hebrews? While it is true that “the first resurrection” over which “the second death has no authority” is said to be a resurrection to "reign," I’m not so sure that the Bible describes anyone as reigning without kingship. (Revelation 20:6; Hebrews 11:35; Philippians 3:10)
As for this kingship being presumed, I believe there are those who would do so, so as to reign over us prematurely as Paul argued with certain Corinthians:
“You have begun ruling as kings (‘reigning’—KI) without us, have you? And I wish indeed that you had begun ruling as kings (‘reigning’—KI), that we also might rule (‘reign’—KI) with you as kings. For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men appointed to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools because of Christ, but you are discreet in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are in good repute, but we are in dishonor. (1 Corinthians 4:8-10)
So I do agree with Apollos. The scriptures do support kingship—just not in the manner in which some perceive themselves to be as Paul further stated to Timothy: “if we go on enduring, we shall also rule (‘reigning’—KI) together as kings; if we deny, he also will deny us.” (2 Timothy 2:12)
And I do believe that those presently ruling over us have denied Christ by unseating him from his throne to seat themselves there prematurely (Matthew 23:2)
sw
Comment by Crazyguy on 2013-12-09 22:16:38
Well this may be a subject to consider doing research on, for in the Greek the texts I have looked at JW's Greek interlinear book and others on-line the word King is not used at Rev 3:21, 2:26-27 1Corinthians 4:8-10 or 2tim. 2:12. Yes the word Reign is used and in Rev. 2:26-27 it talks of authority over the nations. Yet also in Rev chapter 20 it talks about ones that would be resurrected to judge ones killed or martyred. So this maybe something to look into further. Even in Rev.5:9-10 it describes the great growd reigning not the 144k.
Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-06 21:55:58
Interesting ...
Comment by Are We Apostates? | Beroean Pickets on 2014-05-22 00:09:01
[…] Abraham, David and other faithful men of old will also have heavenly life basing such view on Heb. […]