Midweek Meeting Comments - March 3, 2014

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-03-02 22:16:33

Speaking of the depth of Judah's sin "copulating with what he believed to be a temple prostitute". Judah was also willing to pay a pretty high price in his bartering with Tamar to have sex, namely leaving his signet ring, his bracelets and his staff as collateral for the kid from his flock which he promised to send her. Later, when he sent his friend with the kid and he couldn't find her, Judah said "let her take them for herself, in order that we may not fall into contempt". Gen 38:6-11.
It seems hypocritical that when he later found out Tamar was pregnant, he wanted her to be "burned" because he thought she had been a harlot! (Gen. 38:15-23) Yet it was OK for him to have sex with a harlot. Is this a double standard?
Also in Gen 38:2 & 3, Judah saw a woman, "took her and had relations with her and she became pregnant".....and apparently Shulah had no choice in the matter. What do we call a man today who sees a woman, takes her and haves sex with her? A rapist?
All in all, Judah seems to have treated a "harlot" better than his own wife and his daughter-in-law deceitfully (by not having his son She'lah marry her when he grew up, like he told her he would).
Yet our Messiah, Jesus was brought forth from Judah and the child that Tamar had, Perez, his son. Gen 38:29; Luke 3:33
One does indeed wonder.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-03 13:11:24

  “why the selective application of justice? Why kill a man for failing to continue a bloodline, but do nothing when other men commit mass murder? I don’t know for sure and I would love to hear what others have to say on the subject. For my part, one thing comes to mind. Like Adam, Noah was told to be fruitful and fill the earth. (Gen. 9:1) This was a law given by God”
  *speculation alert* We know that Jesus was to come from Judah’s line . Judah took a Canannite wife and from our recent reading about Jacob/Dinah we know how Jacob’s family felt about intermarriage. I do not believe Jehovah would have allowed Jesus to come from a Canaanite woman. We learn from Leviticus how much Jehovah detested the Canaanites’ way of living and much of the Israelites laws’ were a result of Canaanite sin.
  The scriptures says Jehovah killed two of Judah’s sons, Er because he was wicked . Not because he committed a act of wickedness he apparently was just a wicked man . Onan had no business sleeping with his brother’s wife at all if he had no intentions on giving her a son. At Gen 38:9 “But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother”. The scripture says “whenever” he slept with his brother’s wife so I am not sure it this was a one time offense or he did this repeatedly. I think Jehovah put up with Judah because Jesus was to come through his line thus fulfilling prophecy. I have to say…. If Er was so wicked why was Onan killed because he did not produce offspring for this wicked man ? I guess we will never know…..

  • Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-03-04 16:30:34

    GWIT, I don't think Judah understood that any mixed-race child he had with his Canaanite wife would be ineligible to carry on a pure blood line. If Ta'mar had somehow married Judah's remaining son, that baby would have been mixed-race also. But Ta'mar may have realized this and that would explain why she tricked Judah into having sex with her because being a Jew, she understood that the only way to carry on Judah's line and keep it pure would be for her to have Judah's baby.
    What really puzzles me about the whole thing was that God knew all of Judah's sons were mixed-race and not pure. God killed both of Ta'mars husbands, the first because he was wicked and the second was killed because he dis-regarded his duty to get her pregnant in order to grow the family line. It's almost as if God didn't want Ta'mar to have a mixed-race baby. It seems like Judah was completely in the dark about the whole thing.
    Judah did not always make good decisions, he separated himself from his brothers and "did his own thing", he did marry another race even though he would have known his responsibility to keep his blood-line pure, and then he trusted his signet ring to a harlot, because the signet ring was very valuable and important, it was personalized and could easily have been traced back to him. When Ta'mar gave him back the ring for identification, he instantly realized it belonged to himself, she spared him the humiliation of admitting to everyone that he was the father.
    Ta'mar seems like the only one trying do the right thing and keep Judah's line pure in order for scripture to be fulfilled. None of this whole thing would have made any sense if she was not a Jew.

Comment by JimmyG on 2014-03-02 23:00:58

In the OT, women were mere chattels, for men to with as they pleased. Rutherford, it seems picked up on this, as he had the same low opinion of women- he regarded women as 'bags of bones and hanks of hair'. His words, as quoted in the Watchtower Sept 15, 1941 p 287

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-03 03:46:27

Hi Meleti and all,
the legal admissibility of Christ dying a substitutionary death for us,
rests on the self evident principle, and accepted reality, that he who
has died a physical death, is free of any and all claims against him in
this world, no matter how large or grave they might have been,
because death is the ultimate penalty to atone for one’s crime.
Does this reality, then, make Christ’s death obsolete?
Absolutely not.
Just because someone died for his sins, and is thus acquitted of all guilt
before God and man, does not give that person a claim to resurrection,
which kindness is bestowed only on the basis of Christ’s propitiatory
death on behalf of mankind.
So, although those resurrected have been acquitted of all wrongs committed
in their previous lifetime, they are still unchanged in their wrong attitudes,
desires and previous life pattern, which may need up to a millennium of
corrective action, before they are fully restored to a worthy reflection of the
image of God,
and of course, since everybody else will also be resurrected, the true
circumstances, extent and motivation for their crimes will be revealed
before all, so that they will have to live down the scorn of those whom
they have wronged, as well as be liked by those to whom they did good
in their lifetime,
because history will no longer be told by the victors and their propaganda
machine, as it is today, but the true story will finally be told, and all those
already languishing in the jails of Europe and other 'progressive’ countries
for telling the truth, will finally be vindicated.
If a man’s physical death does not acquit him from his crime, and fully
atone for his guilt, on what basis could Christ’s death be admitted as a
valid substitute for another’s?
Then not only Paul’s premise in Romans 6, but the whole basis of
Christianity is inadmissible, and an empty fraud.
I think we had better rethink this one.
What say ye?
By the way, I hate sounding like a WT sock puppet here, just because
they happen to be right for the wrong reasons.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-03 05:32:12

  “Self-evidence” combined with a misapplication of Rom 6:7 to back it up raise red flags to me.
  As Meleti noted, the Bible simply says that “the wages sin pays is death”. That does not imply that those who have died are now guilt-free. It means that their death was as a result of their sin.
  You ask how Jesus' death atones for us if our own death cannot? The answer is that his blood is perfect (complete and fit for the purpose) whereas ours is not.
  In theory according to your reasoning (and that of the WT), I could atone for your sins, because my death has the value to do that. After all what is the difference between your sins and mine? Ahem, let's not get into detail on that one :) But in principle:
  (Psalm 49:7, 8) None of them can ever redeem a brother Or give to God a ransom for him, (The ransom price for their life is so precious That it is always beyond their reach);
  This is the catch-22. Our death could atone for our sins ONLY if our blood had that redemptive power. But it does not. Therefore we are stuck in this situation with no way out except:
  (Romans 7:24, 25) Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-03 09:47:44

  Here is my take on it:
  dieing is full payment of your sins, but it does not give you a RIGHT to live.
  The question is about the man who died for sin. if he is resurrected, what state is he in?
  my thoughts are this:
  1. Jehovah could re-create him. Perhaps with a "more perfect" body less inclined toward sin. I do not see a point in re-creating a man with same weaknesses in the same weak body and weak mind and subject him to the same test he failed earlier. If he is to be resurrected, it has to be to pass the "Adam-test". I believe no righteously-inclined man should inherit the second death without having the SAME chance as Adam: prove obedient under SIMILAR circumstances!
  2. Re-Created initially without the condemnation of his past sins due to a judgement of resurrection to life, but with the capacity to sin (free will), he now depends on obedience to go to the "mountain of Jehovah" for continued life.
  3. My issue with using the word faith in this context is this: in the restored earth things will be visibly, evidence-based. Of course you can argue, even some in Judea required faith in Jesus despite evidence from his visible miracles. So yes, you are right - faith will still be required.
  But it can hardly compare to the faith of Christians alive today .. who have faith despite never having seen any evidence .. even the "works of the spirit" are invisible in our day! The lowest-common-denominator faith indeed is required for acquittal of any sin, but the true faith required is that for true Christians who are part of the first resurrection.
  4. So call it faith and you are not wrong, but I highly prefer to use obedience as a form of faith when it involves things seen. Thus the kind of faith for those in the second resurrection is a simple form of obedience after seeing evidence of the power of God's Kingdom. This type of decision is the same kind of decision Adam had to make. His obedience to the Father would have been EVIDENCE of his faith.
  5. We should really be talking about Acquittal of DEATH versus Acquittal of SIN for those in the second resurrection. The former being the more permanent one and its reward called "eternal life". With the acquittal of death comes the permanent acquittal of sin. This requires continued obedience after being resurrected and further it requires obedience under tribulation caused by the "deceiver" Satan who will gather the nations to rebel against Jehovah once again.
  This test of obedience does not require an imperfect, sinful body. In fact, it makes more sense to me, if this test of obedience is submitted to one with an Adam-like body. What else have the former things have passed away for?

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-03 10:27:30

    Alex, you raise an interesting question with your third point. Faith is about believing in the character of God. Those who reach the end of the 1000 years will be sinless like Adam but not perfect. They will have to undergo a test of faith to be declared righteous like Christians today. The evidence of God will be incontrovertible in those days as it was in Adam's day. But faith isn't about believing in God's existence but rather it is believing in his word.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-03 11:46:34

    “Jehovah could re-create him. Perhaps with a “more perfect” body less inclined toward sin. I do not see a point in re-creating a man with same weaknesses in the same weak body and weak mind and subject him to the same test he failed earlier. If he is to be resurrected, it has to be to pass the “Adam-test”. I believe no righteously-inclined man should inherit the second death without having the SAME chance as Adam: prove obedient under SIMILAR circumstances!”
    We know that Jehovah has given Jesus the authority to raise the dead. Why does the resurrected person have to be recreated ? When Jesus raised Lazarus he was raised in an imperfect body . I wonder why we (JW) believe that people will not die during the 1000 year reign. God makes all things new at the very end (Reve 21:5)
    Where do we get this idea that we have to be “sinless” to be granted the free gift of everlasting life? Why do we have to return to the state of Adam and then prove our loyalty and obedience to God?
    I think we all agree despite our differences that there is a group going to heaven. This group are not given a “sinless” or “perfect” state to prove their loyalty and obedience to God before they are granted life in heavens .......So why will it be any different for those who live through Armageddon or are resurrected ?
    Somebody help me out here lol I hope my question is clear and I am pretty sure I am missing something so please pick this line of reasoning apart.....

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-03 20:20:42

      GodsWordIsTruth,
      Your question is clear (to me at least).
      Evidently God does treat those who are going to heaven as "sinless" as long as they continue to remain within the arrangement of atonement. This is the fundamental Christian hope. It is the creation of more than one Christian hope that creates confusion as far as I can see.
      Apollos

      • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-03 21:12:54

        Apollos-
        That's an interesting answer and I'm hitting a wall lately that I cannot reason out of .....
        Do you believe that there is an earthly hope? I understand that is probably a loaded question....

        • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-04 07:00:08

          GWiT,
          There are so many ways to answer that. We probably all know many people who hope to live forever on earth. So yes, there is "an earthly hope". However, I'm pretty sure that isn't what you were asking.
          Does the Bible hold out the hope of living on earth, and if so is it a hope for Christians? (I think that is probably closer isn't it?)
          I'm still not sure that it's an important question to be asking. According to the Christian Greek scriptures the hope of Christians is to be "always with the Lord" (1 Thes 4:17). What that really means in terms of location in the context of the new heavens and new earth remains to be seen.
          Conquering Christians will be invited to eat of the tree of life which is in the paradise of God (Rev 2:7). Where is that? It appears to mean heaven.
          And yet New Jerusalem will come down from heaven and the tent of God will be with mankind (Rev 21:3,10).
          Whatever the reality is of the new heavens and new earth, it won't be the same as the current arrangement. That is why I feel that getting too hung up on location as far as a hope is concerned is not entirely useful. The message of the N.T. is more about "what" we hope to be and "who" we hope to be with, than it is about "where" we hope to be.
          That's my current view on it anyways.
          Apollos

        • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-04 08:48:59

          Hi Apollos,
          “Does the Bible hold out the hope of living on earth, and if so is it a hope for Christians? (I think that is probably closer isn’t it?)”
          That is my question exactly.
          I have never heard it summed up that way(scripturally) . Your view is a balanced one.
          I agree that the location doesn’t matter as long as we are with God. Yet, the emphasis is location, location, location in our religion.
          I guess the answer is …. we really don’t have a way of knowing for sure.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-04 11:25:17

      Hi GWIT
      Been away from the keyboard for a while. To through my hat into this ring, I see a fundamental difference between Christians and those who are resurrected in the resurrection of the unrighteous.
      Christians are not simply followers of Christ but must carry his torture stake and walk where he walked and die his death. What that means is that Christians do not get the heavenly reward without being tested as the Christ was. They are still sinners, but have been tested to the point that God can grant them the free gift of life.
      Those who are resurrected will also have to accept the Christ. However, they are not tested. Satan is in the abyss. They are granted the free gift by means of the kingdom arrangement which involved the spirit anointed kings and priests making up the New Jerusalem. By that means, all will be returned to a state of sinlessness, just as Adam enjoyed. This does require the acceptance. After all, a gift is given freely, but the recipient is under no obligation to accept it.
      So at the end of the thousand years, we'll have a world filled with sinless people existing in the state that Adam and Eve enjoyed. However, they will not have been tested as the Christians of this old system are being tested. That test will come when Satan is released. Those that pass that test will be declared righteous. They will then be perfect or complete.
      Meleti

      • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-04 13:54:50

        Hello there Meleti! :)
        That makes a lot of sense and it is scriptural.
        I always believed that people on the earth during the thousand year reign ( those who survive Armageddon) will be given the opportunity to exercise faith in Christ. People will still be imperfect and die during this reign . They will still marry and have children and continue life as before …the only difference is that the kings and their armies will be gone and Satan and his demons will be in the abyss. The dead are raised once the thousand years have ended.
        The thousand year reign seems to me to be a temporary arrangement of things until Jesus hands the kingdom over to Jehovah at the end .
        In a nutshell maybe no one is “sinless” when the final test comes. The scriptures speak of Jehovah making all things new after Satan is destroyed .
        I know that we state that Adamic sin will be removed so that all those on earth can pass this test. Is that scriptural ? You don’t have to be in a “sinless” state to pass the test . Faithful Christians prove this everyday .
        I listened to 1 John Chapter 1 this morning on the way to work and came across …
        …7but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.…
        I believe that in view of Apollos’ comment and yours , my view needs some adjusting. Although I never believe in the “ growing to perfection “ idea taught by us. I have never considered that those who accept the blood of Christ and the Christian way of living are sinless in the eyes of God despite imperfection. (am I understanding your comments correctly ?)

      • Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-03-04 15:16:04

        Meleti, I find myself getting more and more confused as we all search for understanding and Truth. I really appreciate your comment. It gives me the clarity to ask the questions that have arisen in me.
        Are you saying that Christians who have been tested to the point that God can grant them the free gift of life, when they are resurrected, they will go straight to heaven?
        When the ones who have NOT been tested to the point that God can grant them the free gift of life, will they be resurrected to life on this earth and then wait until the end of the thousand years, and IF they then pass the test, will they then go to heaven? Those who fail the test, will they die the final death?
        Do any of those resurrected have the opportunity to choose to live on earth?
        Are there any who will not be resurrected?
        How does Armageddon affect everyone ALIVE when it begins? Is there any judgement then?
        What about the ones who die during Armageddon? What is their status regarding God granting them the free gift of life? Will some go straight to heaven at their death; and will some die the final death, because God has directly judged them and found them unworthy to grant them the free gift of life?
        What about the ones who survive Armageddon? If they survived, does that mean they have passed the test and God can grant them all the free gift of life?
        Can they choose whether they want to live in heaven as a spirit creature; or whether they want to live on earth and have the ability to have children?
        Will anyone ever inhabit the earth permanently? If so, how would they and any children born to them in the future face tests and judgement since death will have been destroyed by this time?
        Where does eternal life come into the picture? It is my understanding that only God has eternal life...he's the only one ever to have no beginning and no end. Will all deemed worthy who have gone to heaven automatically have life without future end? Will those on earth face the future prospect of being destroyed by God if they choose to stop obeying Him?
        Have I missed any one or does this account for all of mankind, past, present and future?
        I know JW teachings. I know what the scriptures say. I have read all the comments pertaining to certain scriptures. It's like bits and pieces scattered all around. I just need help putting it all together in a logical, reasonalbe, sensible manner from the scriptures.
        Please help me...anyone?

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-04 15:44:55

          To ImACountryGirl and GodsWordIsTruth,
          There are so many questions here, that I think it best to address them in a post. I'll do that, but first I have to get my long overdue third installment on disfellowshipping posted. Bear with me.
          Meleti

        • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-04 15:58:15

          Sounds good Meleti....Looking forward to it.

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2014-03-03 16:30:43

    "Dieing is full payment of your sins, but it does not give you a RIGHT to live."
    It does not give you a right to live but does it legally prevent Jehovah from recreating you? If you have paid off your sins, why does there have to be a basis to resurrect - recreate - you? Did God need a basis - a ransom - to create Adam and Eve initially?

    • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-03 20:00:06

      Anonymous, I fail to understand your question.
      Adam had no right or claim to be created.
      God has every right to do as he pleases.

      • Reply by Anonymous on 2014-03-03 23:15:15

        “Dieing is full payment of your sins, but it does not give you a RIGHT to live.”
        I took it that by saying the above you were implying that a person paying for his sins by his own death still needs a ransom as a basis for a resurrection. (Correct me if I misunderstood you). But I don't see why a ransom would be needed to resurrect someone who has paid for his sins.
        "Adam had no right or claim to be created"
        I agree. And equally, no ransom was needed by God as a basis for creating Adam. So why do we insist that a ransom would be needed to re-create someone who has fully paid for his sins by dying? So the way I see it, the only way a sinner's death can pay the wages for his sin is for that sinner to remain dead eternally. If he is ever raised up, the wages for sin has been taken back and he becomes liable once more. This is why Jesus' ransom is needed to cover the person's sin so that he would not have to be liable when raised up.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-04 13:35:57

          This is a sound argument.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-03 10:16:56

  Ross, I don't think you're grasping the meaning of the verb "to acquit". It means to be declared innocent. When do not say that a murderer was acquitted of his crime by virtue of being executed.
  To illustrate how those unrighteous ones who have died and been resurrected cannot be seen as having been acquitted of past sins, consider this example: a murderer is sentenced to died. A lethal injection is administered. The man is declared dead. Then the doctors revive him. Has he paid for his crime? Would justice be served were he now set free?
  Not convinced? Say that medical science advances to the point where we can successfully freeze a corpse for decades and later revive him. Would you consider that a mass murderer has paid for his crimes if we execute him, put him in deep freeze for 30 years, and then revive him and set him free? For him absolutely no time has passed. Is he now innocent of his crime? Can we say that he has been acquitted? Can we even claim that he has paid for his crime? In essence, we have revoked his punishment.
  If the wages sin pays is death, then returning a man to life is tantamount to revoking his pay. The man has sinned but he has not died. He is still alive. In fact, from his point of view his life was not even interrupted.
  Revelation 20:5 says that those resurrected in the resurrection of the unrighteous are dead in God's eyes until redeemed at the end of the thousand years. So even though they are resurrected, they will be no more alive than they were in their past life. Therefore, their sins, past and future, will all be calling of their wage, and only by repenting for all of them and accepting the free gift of undeserved kindness will they die to their sins and be acquitted--declared innocent--and obtain everlasting life.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-03 11:25:01

    Hello all,
    “Revelation 20:5 says that those resurrected in the resurrection of the unrighteous are dead in God’s eyes until redeemed at the end of the thousand years. So even though they are resurrected, they will be no more alive than they were in their past life. Therefore, their sins, past and future, will all be calling of their wage, and only by repenting for all of them and accepting the free gift of undeserved kindness will they die to their sins and be acquitted–declared innocent–and obtain everlasting life.”
    “You ask how Jesus’ death atones for us if our own death cannot? The answer is that his blood is perfect (complete and fit for the purpose) whereas ours is not.”
    This the clearest explanation that I have heard thus far regarding the resurrection of the unrighteous and most importantly it is scriptural.
    At Reve 20: 5 We ( JW) state that "come to life" for rest of the dead” doesn't mean a physical coming back to life but instead “the rest of the dead “ ( following the first resurrection) come to life as in becoming perfect again. Besides the fact the timeline is wrong based on the scriptures (John says the rest of the dead are raised at the END of the 1000 years ) this idea of a “spiritual resurrection” for the rest of the dead makes no sense. Can the wicked receive a spiritual resurrection?
    This explanation is especially faith strengthening for me because my brother used to say “What is the point of living a Christian life ? I can do whatever I want whenever I want and when I die I will get a second chance all my sins will be paid for ” The WT’s unscriptural explanation allows for that and if that is truly the case why do we need Jesus’ ransom? We will all die eventually anyway and according to this explanation we will be redeemed from our sins by our own death. Jesus could wait till we all die and can raise us from the dead and grant us everlasting life .
    Additionally , the fact that Jesus will give the “rest of the dead “ a chance to repent , accept his ransom and accept the free gift of everlasting life is a testament to the love and justice he reflects so perfectly from his Father. Everyone gets an opportunity!

    • Reply by Sargon on 2014-03-03 13:01:16

      None of the Bible commentaries I have read believe Paul here is referring to the death of the physical body. I'll continue with my comments below.

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-03-03 03:59:35

Jimmy......I agree with your comment even though I broke out laughing because I remember hearing (old, old, old folks) speak of a song by Jimmie Rogers called Honeycomb. Part of the chorus says "Got a hank o' hair and a piece o' bone And made a walkin' talkin' Honeycomb". Jimmy Rogers' song was refering to a man lovingly talking about his wife . Whereas Rutherford used that phrase about women.....well, because he could.
The lyrics and song are here: http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/jimmie_rodgers/honeycomb.html
On the serious side, we have yet another reason to appreciate Jesus and his message for us because he brought about civility among those who listened to his new commandment of love of God above all else, as well as, love of fellow man, rather than following the old system of the heavy burden of endless laws and hypocritical rules. You think someone ought to tell the GB about that change...it's quite possible they might have missed the memo?

Comment by Sargon on 2014-03-03 13:14:09

Read the entire chapter 6 of Romans. If you read the entire chapter you can see a possibly different meaning. In my opinion, Paul here is talking about dying as slaves to sin. Verse 2 gives us what I believe to be the proper context.
Romans 6:2-
Certainly not! Seeing that we died with reference to sin, how can we keep living any longer in it.
6:4
So we were buried with him through our baptism into his death,+ in order that just as Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in a newness of life.
Now lets continue to verses 6 and 7.
For we know that our old personality was nailed to the stake along with him+ in order for our sinful body to be made powerless,+ so that we should no longer go on being slaves to sin.+ 7 For the one who has died has been acquitted* from his sin.
I appears after viewing the context that Paul is talking about dying to our former fleshly sinful way of life. By dying to sin we are freed from its bondage or mastery over us. We are no longer slaves to sin.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
For he that is dead - This is evidently an expression having a proverbial aspect, designed to illustrate the sentiment just expressed. The Rabbis had an expression similar to this, "When one is dead he is free from commands." (Grotius.) So says Paul, when a man dies he is exempt from the power and dominion of his master, of him who reigned over him. The Christian had been subject to sin before his conversion. But he has now become dead to it. And as when a servant dies, he ceases to be subject to the control of his master, so the Christian being now dead to sin, on the same principle, is released from the control of his former master, sin. The idea is connected with Romans 6:6, where it is said that we should not be the slaves of sin any more. The reason of this is assigned here, where it is said that we are freed from it as a slave is freed when he dies. Of course, the apostle here is saying nothing of the future world. His whole argument has respect to the state of the Christian here; to his being freed from the bondage of sin. It is evident that he who is not freed from this bondage here, will not be in the future world. But the argument of the apostle has no bearing on that point.
Is freed - Greek, Is justified. The word here is used clearly in the sense of setting at liberty, or destroying the power or dominion. The word is often used in this sense; compare Acts 13:38-39; compare a similar expression in 1 Peter 4:1, "He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin." The design of the apostle is not to say that the Christian is perfect, but that sin has ceased to have dominion over him, as a master ceases to have power over a slave when he is dead. That dominion may be broken, so that the Christian may not be a slave to sin, and yet he may be conscious of many failings and of much imperfection; see Romans 7.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
He that is dead is freed from sin - Δεδικαιωται, literally, is justified from sin; or, is freed or delivered from it. Does not this simply mean, that the man who has received Christ Jesus by faith, and has been, through believing, made a partaker of the Holy Spirit, has had his old man, all his evil propensities destroyed; so that he is not only justified freely from all sin, but wholly sanctified unto God? The context shows that this is the meaning.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
For he that is dead, is freed from sin. This is not to be understood of a natural or a corporeal death; for this is the effect of sin, and is inflicted by way of punishment for it, on Christless persons; so far is it from being an atonement for sin, as the Jews (t) fancy; besides, there are many persons, who as they die in their sins, they will rise in them; though a natural death is alluded to, when persons are free from those laws and obligations to service and duty they are under whilst living: but here it is to be understood of a spiritual or mystical death, and of persons who are dead to the law, by the body of Christ; dead to sin by the sacrifice and grace of Christ; who are baptized into the death of Christ, and in imitation of him: such are "freed from sin"; not from the being of it; nor from the burden of it; nor from a continual war with it; nor from slips and falls into it; no, not even freed from it, in the most solemn services and acts of religion; but they are freed from the dominion of it, from servitude to it, and also from the guilt of it, and from obligation to punishment on account of it: they are, as it is in the Greek text, and as the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions read, "justified from sin".
Romans 6:6, 7 New Living Translation
6We know that our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. 7For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin.

• Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-05 19:37:06

  Sargon, your commentary references catch the drift of Paul's argument in Romans 6. The two things that trip most in their understanding of the passage is (A) Reading Romans 6:7 without reading the context, which is standard practice in WT publications. And (B) The NWT's incorrectly inserting "his" before "sin" in verse 7.

  • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-05 19:46:43

    Interesting... In the RNWT the brackets are gone....
    Reference Bible
    7 For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin.
    Kingdom Interlinear
    7 ὁ
    the (one)
    γὰρ
    for
    ἀποθανὼν
    having died
    δεδικαίωται
    has been justified
    ἀπὸ
    from
    τῆς
    the
    ἁμαρτίας.
    sin.
    Disturbing......

    • Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-05 20:05:08

      The article before "sin" (τῆς) is actually feminine to agree with ἁμαρτίας (sin). As one of the comentaries above stated, Paul is referring to "sin" as a master that a person is freed from when he dies. The "for" (γὰρ) at the beginning of verse 7 ties the principle of verse 7 back to the statement in verse 6, that a baptized Christian (who has figuratively died via their baptism) should no longer live a life of sin.

Comment by Sargon on 2014-03-03 13:16:40

As I begin reading other Bible commentaries I'm starting to see that the level of Watchtower Bible knowledge and scholarship is appallingly poor.

• Reply by Sargon on 2014-03-03 13:17:33

  After all, were the only people who have managed to tragically butcher the meaning of Matthew 24:45.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-03 15:08:19

  Hi Sargon,
  That is so funny you mentioned that...
  I have decided to research (again) regarding whether Jesus died on a cross or stake. I came across a passage in the it-1 p. 1190-1191
  “Since the wrists have always been considered by anatomists as part of the hands, some medical men think the nails were driven between the small bones of the wrists to prevent the stripping out that could have occurred if they had been driven through the palms.”
  I have read that passage at least ten times over the years… but this time around I thought what “medical men”? Who are they talking about ? How did I breeze past that sentence all this time? So because “some medical men” think that the wrists are considered part of the hand, this is proof that GB has to state that the nails were driven through Jesus’ wrist or hands?
  By the way I concluded my research and my belief has not changed. I believe that Jesus could have died on a stake or cross and the GB is not necessarily wrong. I do believe however that are obsessed with people wrongly venerating the cross and that’s why they insist on the stake.
  We do not have to be scholars to understand the Bible , I do agree the articles written by the GB are not scholarly.

Comment by Anonymous on 2014-03-03 15:59:28

Our current understanding of Romans 6:7 is an issue that is dear to my heart. I think that we're taking that scripture completely out of context. The key to understanding Romans 6:7 is to look at it together with the previous verse - Romans 6:6:
"because we know that our old personality was impaled with [him], that our sinful body might be made inactive, that we should no longer go on being slaves to sin. For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin."
It seems to me that Paul was not making the point that death acquits us from culpability for past sins. Rather, he was saying that a dead person - while dead - is acquitted from the POWER of sin, i.e. he is no longer able to sin because his sinful body is inactive. In interpreting Romans 6:7 we must remember the main point that Paul was getting across to the Roman Christians. He was telling them to reckon themselves as BEING dead because they died with Christ. Since dead people cannot sin, they should there stop practicing sin. Our current understanding of Romans 6:7 does not fit into the context of Paul's argument, period.
Of course, the wages sin pays is death. But what kind of death? Can the temporary death of a sinner be sufficient payment for the wages of sin so that he can be raised up free of culpability for his past sins? If that were so, then why would there be any need for Christ's ransom? All faithful Christians could simply die to pay for their sins and Jehovah can recreate them as perfect beings. Jehovah does not need a ransom to create, does he? Was a ransom needed for the creation of Adam and Eve? No. So it is evident that the kind of death a sinner has to die to pay for sin is eternal death. Without a ransom, a sinner has to remain dead forever to pay the wages of sin because that is what death actually is - eternal lifelessness. (Ecclesiastes 9:6b) The resurrection is actually a special undoing or annulling of death, and not merely the interruption of death. A person who is raised up never fully died but merely slept for a while. Why do I say so?
Notice this passage in 1 Corinthians 15:54-57:
"But when [this which is corruptible puts on incorruption and] this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying will take place that is written: “Death is swallowed up forever.” 55 “Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting producing death is sin, but the power for sin is the Law. 57 But thanks to God, for he gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!"
Now think about this: The resurrection causes us to taunt death with the words: "Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?" But wasn't the resurrected person dead for a time? Wouldn't that time of his being dead represent a victory for death? Yes it would . . . if we think of death as just being lifeless, if even for a finite period of time. If we take that view of death then the taunting words: "Death were is your victory?" rings hollow for resurrected ones. But if we think of death - true death as it is supposed to be - as being an intrinsically eternal condition, then the taunting words make sense, because every resurrected person has had his death reversed, undone. They never truly, absolutely died because they did not remain lifeless forever. In other words, anything less that eternal death is not really death. True death is the second death.
When we understand death in this way, we can see why a ransom would be needed to bring back the dead. By resurrecting the dead Jehovah is actually undoing their deaths, taking back the wages paid for their sins. Resurrected ones would thus be culpable for their past sins. There are scriptures in the bible that allude to resurrected ones being judged for sins committed before they died. Here are a few: 2 Corinthians 5:9,10 (read the whole context from verse 6); Matthew 12:36,37,41,42; John 5:29 (accept it for what it says; compare it with 2 Corinthians 5:10)
Now argument used to dismiss the idea of the dead being raised up to face condemnatory judgment for past sins is this: "Why would Jehovah' raise up the dead only to judge them for their past sins and condemn them to death a second time?" This is an argument from incredulity. Just because we cannot think of a reason for it does not mean a good reason does not exist. But in any event I can think of two reasons:
1. Justice.
Everyone, wicked as well as "righteous" is today dying because of inherited sin. If it were possible to live your whole life without committing a sin, you would still die due to inherited sin from Adam. It can thus be said that no one really dies solely because of his own sins. Jesus' ransom automatically covers inherited sin for all humans because Jesus is the last Adam that came to undo or counter balance the transgression of Adam. Just as Adam's transgression is automatically imputed to us all whether we exercise faith in Adam or not, in the same way Jesus' ransom automatically counters that inherited sin for all of mankind. So when a person is raised up he is no longer under the condemnation of inherited Adamic sin. Now the person is culpable for his own sins that he committed. Faithful Christians who exercise faith in the ransom have their personal sins also covered by the ransom. (1 John 2:1,2) But persons who willfully practiced sin will not have the ransom applied for their sins. Such persons have to fall into the hand of the living God by consciously facing his condemnation and execution for their sins. (Hebrews 10:26-31) Because remember they never faced death for their own sins but for inherited Adamic sin. Justice demands that wicked persons be consciously held accountable for their past sins. If not then we can have a scenario like this:
A wicked man in a position of power commits many atrocities throughout his life. He lived a life of ease in luxury, was untouched by the legal system and died at a ripe old age in his sleep. A wicked man who lived a life of luxury through his evil deeds gets to go out in peace in his sleep . . . like righteous Enoch of old!?
Is that justice? There are also evil people in this world who would rather commit suicide and see it as a small victory rather than be captured and held accountable by the criminal justice system. Will Jehovah give them that small victory? Will he allow the wicked who have died in their sleep to never be consciously held accountable for their wickedness?
Keep in mind that the wicked who happen to be alive at Armageddon get to face the full brunt of Jehovah's wrath. So a wicked person can beat the system and avoid God's wrath by just living and dying in his sleep before Armageddon? Or maybe he can take an overdose of sleeping pills when the great tribulation starts and would never have to be held accountable at a future resurrection? Is that Jehovah's justice? It can't be!
2. To vindicate his sovereignty and sanctify his name before all. "They shall have to know that I am Jehovah". What of all the wicked people who heaped reproach on the name of God in centuries past? Doesn't God want them to know that "I am Jehovah"? What good is it that Jehovah's sovereignty is vindicated only to the living and to the righteous but never to the wicked? Why not bring back all the wicked people who died with the idea that God is wicked, unreal, incompetent, etc, so that they can be made to eat humble pie - to know that their victims will enjoy eternal life while they will now die everlastingly? The wicked have to know that "I am Jehovah" and their wicked deeds did not go unnoticed.
I think these are good enough reasons to bring back the wicked to face judgment.

• Reply by Anonymous on 2014-03-03 16:59:21

  One more point: We take it for granted that the "unrighteous" that will be resurrected (Acts 24:15) refer to ignorant sinners and not wicked people. But I have not seen a single scripture in all the NT that gives such a definition of the word unrighteous. Furthermore, there are scriptures that use the word "unrighteous" to refer to the wicked!
  "What! Do YOU not know that UNRIGHTEOUS persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? . . ." (1 Corinthians 6:9)
  "Jehovah knows how to deliver people of godly devotion out of trial, but to reserve UNRIGHTEOUS people for the day of judgment to be cut off" (2 Peter 2:9)
  I fear that our understanding of the "unrighteous" who are to be raised up is based on speculation and a wishful-thinking re-definition of the meaning of the word unrighteous. The NT clearly uses the word NT to refer to the wicked. Why would the NT use "unrighteous" at 2 Peter 2:9 to refer to wicked people who are to be destroyed, and turn around at use the same word at Acts 24:15 without any qualification whatsoever, to refer to ignorant sinners being given a second chance?

  • Reply by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-04 16:08:32

    I think everyone is wicked and unrighteous who does not abide in Jesus. We are declared righteous only because of our faith. By that token the righteous who are resurrected are true Christians, or old testament people of true faith. They will NOT be judged by Jehovah or Jesus. (John 5:24)
    The rest is per definition unrighteous and wicked, because they don't have Jesus or Jehovah. These will get judged, each one according to their deeds. (Revelations 20:13.)
    I have a couple of theories of what is going to happen w these unrighteous which I'll try to write up later.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-03 19:45:36

  Excellent arguments. I very much agree with your reasoning in this matter. That is very close to my take on it too. Thank you for presenting it so clearly.
  One possible difference I have is whether these unrighteous will be condemned out of hand. Yes, I understand that they experience a resurrection of "judgement". But what that judgement is remains to be seen. I think of the "truth and reconciliation committee" in South Africa after the apartheid era. Justice had to be publicly seen to be done in order for healing to take place, but that neither meant a) an automatic acquittal or b) an automatic condemnation. There still seems to be room for Jesus to deal with each one according to his or her deeds and his or her response to the process.
  But what we are agreed upon is that our deeds in this life still play a part if we die.
  Apollos

• Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-03 19:52:20

  Very well written!

• Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-04 19:40:39

  Anonymous,
  I know that I've said this before on this post regarding your commentary on Romans6:7 but it is really well written and scripturally sound. I've read it many times. Your comment is definitely a keeper for me. I printed it out and put it in my ragged and torn Reference bible for future reference :)
  Thank you very much for posting this.

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-03-03 16:52:58

God'sWordIsTruth, Jesus did not come through Judah's Canaanite wife. Instead he came through Perez, the son of Tamar and Judah. Tamar was married to Er, Judah's firstborn son whom Jehovah put to death because he was wicked. That left Tamar the widowed daughter-in-law of Judah. Judah told her to wait until his son She'lah grew up and she would marry him. Judah apparently changed his mind because the wedding never took place. When Tamar heard that Judah was going to Tim'nath to shear his sheep. she removed her widow's garment and dressed like a harlot and went and waited for Judah to pass by. He saw her and thought she was a harlot and he wanted to have sex with her and told her he would give her a kid from his flock if she would. She asked for security of payment and got Judah's signet ring, his bracelets and his staff. They had sex and she got pregnant by him. After sex, she went back to her father's house and put her widows garment back on.
Three months later, Judah found out his daughter-in-law, Tamar was pregnant and sent for her because he wanted her to be burned for playing a harlot. Before she was put to death, she sent his signet ring, bracelets and his staff to him and said whoever owned them was the man who had made her pregnant. Of course he recognized his belongings and realized it was his baby she was carrying. Actually it was twins. One of them was Perez who is named in Jesus' blood line at Luke 3:33 as being the son of Judah. Genesis chapter 38.
I researched all this yesterday after I read Meleti's post. If I had ever learned that before, I never put it together with Jesus' bloodline.
I made a comment earlier to the effect that Jacob may have raped his wife since Genesis said "he saw the woman, took her and had sex with her". I regret saying that, because it is possible the writer was being succint and if he had gone into detail, it could have gone like this: Judah sees this woman (and is smitten by her and knows right away that he wants her to be his wife. He proposes. She acceptes) He took her (away from where she lived and moved her to his home and THEN) he had relations with her (and they started their family).
I spoke too quickly and I apologize for my earlier comment. Judah may be guilty of many things, but he was very honorable, trusting and generous with the "harlot" he had sex with (which was after his wife passed away) and there is no proof that he treated his wife any differently than he treated the harlot.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-03 17:11:47

  "God’sWordIsTruth, Jesus did not come through Judah’s Canaanite wife. Instead he came through Perez, the son of Tamar and Judah."
  We are in agreement . Was Tamar a Canaanite?

  • Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-03-04 03:35:26

    I googled Ta'mar and it would seem she was a Hebrew, which would have been in accord with keeping the blood line to Jesus pure. Genesis 38 does not indicate that she was a Canaanite.
    I found the following information: "Ta'mar is a Hebrew and not a Canaanite name and it is tolerably certain that Ta'mar was a Hebrew, a descendant of one of Abraham’s numerous sons by Keturah or his concubines, or of the parallel family of Nahor." http://www.biblefellowshipunion.co.uk/2004/Mar_Apr/Tamah.htm
    Ruth 4:11-12; 18-22 refers to "the house of Pe'rez, whom Ta'mar bore to Judah" and shows the blood line from Pe'rez down to David.
    It is my belief that she was Hebrew, though I can offer no solid evidence.

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-04 08:39:12

      I made my comment based on my belief that Tamar was a Jew. But like you after researching a bit yesterday I am not so sure…..

      • Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-03-04 12:57:40

        GWIT, I am so sorry if I misunderstood your comment to be a question....and went into so much unnecessary detail in response. Even though our communication seems to be limited, isn't it grand and exciting that we are both doing research on our own to seek the truth? In the end, the Truth is all that matters.

        • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-04 13:10:41

          Why are you apologizing? No need sis
          I appreciated the information . I needed a refresher on that account anyway. Your take on the account was more exciting for me read than the insight book or other sources I came across yesterday (very dull) lol

        • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-04 13:28:38

          BTW you didn’t misunderstand… it was a question :)
          I am not sure why there is not a clear cut answer as to whether she was a Jew or not. Judah had no problem taking Canaanite wives for himself so it is possible she could have been a Canaanite.

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-03 17:02:08

Hi Apollos, Meleti and all,
good points, so, yes, in theory you could die for my sins, but then
you would need to find someone who would offer to pay for yours,
prior to your giving yours for mine,
who in turn also could not help you out, before finding someone
willing to step in for him, and so on.
Hence, for any substitution to have legal merit and moral efficacy,
it must address criteria of both relevance and equivalency of value,
as well as obviously being predicated upon the existential reality that
death is indeed the ultimate punishment, because of life being held as
of inestimable value and good in this world.
So your life, being of equal value to mine, could indeed substitute for it,
provided it was also free of all encumbrances and other claims against it;
but even then, it would still fail the judicial criteria of relevance, unless
the crime leading to my being given the death penalty, were somehow
traceable to criminal negligence on your part.
And so also with Christ; yes, His life was free of any claims against Him,
and of equal value to that of Adam; so in this respect any other angel could
have stood in for Jesus, to repurchase mankind,
except that none other than Jesus ALSO had the required judicial relevance to
this case, in order to effect a legally valid substitution for our death producing
transgressions, in that He was our Creator through the Father,
who brought us into being, and therefore owes His creation a duty of care to the
extent of His limitless ability to protect us from sin and death, which He chose
not to do for His own reasons, and for which He carries ultimate responsibility
before the Law, under which He judges.
The Psalm you quote is right: No one could redeem his brother because his
life has enough value to only cover the transgressions of one man, hence,
not also those of another.
If you do not believe the reality that death atones for - which means covering
over - all legal and moral debt in this life, try to arrest, indict, sue or even
beat up a dead corpse in order to get even, and see how you go.
It is not for no purpose that Jesus uses the words ‘counted worthy,’ in relation
to those being resurrected into the age to come, because although even the
worst of the ‘unrighteous’ will be given a resurrection,
there are also those having sinned against the Spirit in this age, who alone
would never be capable of repentance in any future age, and who will
therefore not be brought back to life ever; but only those born of the Spirit
are realistically in a position to actually sin against It.
Death cancels all debt, but does obviously not reverse sin in those resurrected;
otherwise, the 1000 year kingdom of restoration of all things would have no
purpose.
Hence, people who have lived a responsible life, to the best of their abilities
in this age, will make quick progress in the age to come, whereas those
going in the wrong direction now, will have a lot of retracing and unlearning
to do in the age to come.
In Romans 6 verses 1 to 6, Paul talks about metaphorical death in Christ,
which He died for us, but in verse 7, he obviously refers to literal, physical
death in this age, which can be seen in his use of the introductory word
‘for,’ at the start of the sentence, and upon which the whole legal structure
of substitutionary death hinges.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-03 19:27:21

  Hi Ross
  First off, I thank you for arguing this position. I am keen to get to the bottom of the scriptural truth of this, and I do respect your logical ability to reason on this and other points.
  Now, you propose that in theory we could die for each others sins if we could just complete the circle. The way you appear to have interpreted Psalm 49 is that each life has the value to redeem itself, but no more than that. In other words to address the first few paragraphs of your response, I could in theory choose to redeem you, as long as I was willing to forfeit my own life eternally.
  If I have misrepresented your position so far then please correct me.
  If not, then consider the following:
  A sinful soul = X
  A sinless soul = Y
  What was it that Adam lost? The right to life. Why? Because he went from state Y to state X. To regain what was lost requires the redemptive power of Y, not just another X.
  The sacrifice of X is insufficient. The death of X is insufficient, whether it be our own or someone else's. That is why in a representational way the Israelite sacrifices had to be sound and without blemish (Ex 12:5; Le 4:3, 28; De 15:21).
  That is not us. We are not sound and without blemish. The bull, lamb or other sacrifice made to Jehovah was in essence better than us in that respect, but limited in scope. Better still is the perfect blood of Jesus Christ who offered the true and only available Y on our behalf.
  You categorically state that death cancels all debt, but can you provide any scriptural backing for that beyond an “extended” reading of Romans 6?
  Apollos

  • Reply by Sargon on 2014-03-03 20:56:57

    I don't believe Paul is referring to death and resurrection in these verses. Would anyone care to discuss what several other Bible commentaries also conclude? I'm interested in hearing some thoughts.

  • Reply by Sargon on 2014-03-03 20:58:02

    I mean literal death and resurrection. And clearly he's not talking about wicked people. See verse 1

• Reply by Observer17 on 2014-03-04 11:11:48

  Hi Ross, :)
  You said:
  "...good points, so, yes, in theory you could die for my sins, but then
  you would need to find someone who would offer to pay for yours,
  prior to your giving yours for mine..."
  Isn't that exactly what is taught in the "Scapegoat" Theory, being currently taught by some former Jehovah's Witnesses on the net?
  These former Jehovah's Witnesses (for over 20 years) teach & believe that it is Almighty God's Original Purpose to have Jesus' blood [killed first "goat"] uniquely applied to the second "goat" [an imperfect human] which is in turn next used, ultimately in a special redemptive way, in behalf of mankind, citing Leviticus 16:10 as scriptural substantiation. -- Also see Lev. 14th chapter covering the "live bird" [representing imperfect human] which is "atoned for" by the killed bird [representing Jesus' blood applied to imperfect human].
  With Meleti's permission, I could post the link to this info (complete with graphics to further illustrate the point] that discusses this theory at length...
  ... just a friendly observation. :)
  Observer17

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-04 00:14:12

Hi Apollos,
thank you for raising your interesting objections, and,
yes, you understood me correct, in that I believe that you
could substitute for me in death, if ALSO you were in
some way found responsible for circumstances that led
me to commit the crime for which I got the death penalty;
otherwise, every judge would reject your offer, no matter
how well meaning or touching it might be, because justice
could not be shown to be served in such a case.
I think that Psalm 49 would support my conclusion in this,
but I am willing to elaborate a bit more on it if needed.
As to your equation, to the extent that I understand it correctly,
we have to distinguish between Adam and us, in that I am
already a sinner, and therefore only need a ‘corresponding’
ransom, of say, you, as a fellow sinner, in order to fulfill the
legal equivalence clause,
but as I said above, you would also need to be unencumbered
of any claims against you, which as a sinner would unlikely be
the case.
Also, more importantly, a legal inquiry needs to be held into
how I came to be an involuntary criminal in the first place,
if any sort of legal bargaining were to be considered.
Hence the two requirements of equal value and relevance to
the case, as well as consent of both you and me to the proposed
transaction, and the foundational understanding that death
indeed ends all claims against a person.
Without all these conditions having being met, Christ’s sacrifice
would be inadmissible before a Court of Law.
Now, Christ, having sacrificed His body for us, can never become
a human again, or ever die for anybody again, in order for the
value of His propitiation to remain into perpetuity, as it needs to
be.
Like I said, the ‘children of the resurrection’ in the ‘age to come,'
cannot receive the death penalty - or any other punishment - twice
for the same crimes they committed in this life, which would be a
perversion of natural justice; even today, ‘multiple’ death penalties
are served concurrently, and at best, are just a legal fiction.
Meleti’s point about people being resuscitated after their
execution, would only bring them back into ‘this age,’ not
the 'age to come,’ which alone imparts indemnity; although
even our Law today, sometimes pardons survivors of their
own execution.
The principle of death being full and final payment for all
claims legal and moral, as being based in nature, is also
reflected in the marriage contract, and its clause of limitation,
namely, 'until death doth us part.’
Resurrection in this age means a resumption of liability for
the consequences of the transgression by Adam, as can be
seen in the case of Lazarus, who subsequently sinned and
died again,
whereas resurrection into the ‘age to come’ means a total
wiping of the slate in a legal sense, and a corresponding
annulling of death as a consequence of inherited sin,
so that during the millennium people will only die as a
direct result of repeated, willful disobedience against
fundamental Laws, not attributable to sinful tendencies
and weaknesses.
As to people wanting to play games with God now, by
committing evil in order to jump the queue just before
the execution of His judgment, well, I think that they are
the wrong sort of candidates for the ‘age to come’ anyway;
God is not One to be mocked, people’s bad deeds tend
to change their character, possibly beyond a point of no
return.
These are just a few angles - and I hope other facets and
issues will be raised, because this is quite a fascinating
and important subject to investigate.

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-03-04 15:24:48

I posted this in response to Meleti's comment from earlier today, but I thought I might get more help if I posted it to "Leave a Reply", rather than replying to an earlier post which gets lost when you "reply" to a comment.
Meleti, I find myself getting more and more confused as we all search for understanding and Truth. I really appreciate your comment. It gives me the clarity to ask the questions that have arisen in me.
Are you saying that Christians who have been tested to the point that God can grant them the free gift of life, when they are resurrected, they will go straight to heaven?
When the ones who have NOT been tested to the point that God can grant them the free gift of life, will they be resurrected to life on this earth and then wait until the end of the thousand years, and IF they then pass the test, will they then go to heaven? Those who fail the test, will they die the final death?
Do any of those resurrected have the opportunity to choose to live on earth?
Are there any who will not be resurrected?
How does Armageddon affect everyone ALIVE when it begins? Is there any judgement then?
What about the ones who die during Armageddon? What is their status regarding God granting them the free gift of life? Will some go straight to heaven at their death; and will some die the final death, because God has directly judged them and found them unworthy to grant them the free gift of life?
What about the ones who survive Armageddon? If they survived, does that mean they have passed the test and God can grant them all the free gift of life?
Can they choose whether they want to live in heaven as a spirit creature; or whether they want to live on earth and have the ability to have children?
Will anyone ever inhabit the earth permanently? If so, how would they and any children born to them in the future face tests and judgement since death will have been destroyed by this time?
Where does eternal life come into the picture? It is my understanding that only God has eternal life...he's the only one ever to have no beginning and no end. Will all deemed worthy who have gone to heaven automatically have life without future end? Will those on earth face the future prospect of being destroyed by God if they choose to stop obeying Him?
Have I missed any one or does this account for all of mankind, past, present and future?
I know JW teachings. I know what the scriptures say. I have read all the comments pertaining to certain scriptures. It's like bits and pieces scattered all around. I just need help putting it all together in a logical, reasonalbe, sensible manner from the scriptures.
Please help me...anyone?

• Reply by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-04 17:05:27

  hey sis
  There are certain things which the bible is crystal clear on, there are things where the bible is dubious or silent about. I think as JW maybe the main issue we have is that we feel we need to know and know the truth about everything. That is the very thing that brings us in trouble each time.
  Things we know for certain:
  - Jesus died for us
  - Jehovah invites us via his spirit to be a son to him.
  - As long as we will abide in Jesus, we will have no judgement to us. (We have to remain close to his loving arms and listen to his voice)
  Concentrate on these beautiful truths as you dig deeper for understanding.
  We can't stop growing in a deeper and deeper relationship w Jesus just because we are confused about certain out-workings of God's plan.
  Now below is my personal view on the questions you have asked:
  - Are you saying that Christians who have been tested to the point that God can grant them the free gift of life, when they are resurrected, they will go straight to heaven?
  We get the free gift when we accept Jesus and are truly born again and exercise faith in him. At that stage we are written in the book of life, and if we "overcome", we will by no means be blotted out. (Revelation 3:21)
  They will be resurrected to be where Jesus is. Scripture seems to indicate this is Heaven. John 14:2-4: In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going."
  - Do any of those resurrected have the opportunity to choose to live on earth?
  I think it's important we stop thinking as fleshly people and think as spiritual people. My resolve is to go wherever God wants me to go, and for him to use me in any way He sees fit. I don't think we can be dogmatic about wether True Christians will be ever coming on earth during the Millenium reign or not, though we have a lot of clues. But we trust in Jesus promise that we will be wherever he is, and that is all where we should want to be ;)
  - How does Armageddon affect everyone ALIVE when it begins? Is there any judgement then?
  From my personal study, I believe the answer is no. Those who are in Christ are without judgement (Romans 8:1). Those who are not in Christ will be judged according to their works at the White Throne Judgement. (Revelation 20:11-15). I believe this to be the final judgement after the millennial reign. I see no scriptural evidence for a judgement at Armageddon. (But I'm open to advice from my brothers and sisters here)
  - What about the ones who die during Armageddon? What is their status regarding God granting them the free gift of life? Will some go straight to heaven at their death; and will some die the final death, because God has directly judged them and found them unworthy to grant them the free gift of life?
  Now we venture into the territory of the Great Crowd. I believe that their identity is those who repent during the great tribulation. I believe these will be the inhabitants of the millennial reign over which the Kings and Priests (True Christians) will reign.
  It would take a whole new post to adress this idea ;)
  - What about the ones who survive Armageddon? If they survived, does that mean they have passed the test and God can grant them all the free gift of life?
  See above. They haven't passed the test, they just survived. They will have to wash their robes in the blood of the lamb. They will be tested after the millennial reign.
  - Can they choose whether they want to live in heaven as a spirit creature; or whether they want to live on earth and have the ability to have children?
  They will be living on the earth at least until after the final test. The bible is silent after that, but we can trust that God has a plan for everything ;)
  - Will anyone ever inhabit the earth permanently? If so, how would they and any children born to them in the future face tests and judgement since death will have been destroyed by this time?
  I'm not sure why we need to speculate beyond what is written ;)
  - Where does eternal life come into the picture?
  We are given everlasting life to be with "our husband" Jesus forever and to get to know Jesus and Jehovah beter and beter. That is it's meaning. And that is why we get the gift. (John 17:3)
  I hope that helps you along the way, I will try to write more in depth on some of these things in the near future. However, I realize with all humility that we won't have all the answers, and I'm perfectly ok with that because I have faith in whatever Jehovah has in store with me.

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-04 15:57:26

Hi ‘Observer17,’
since I have never heard of that theory, I doubt that my views
are similar; my point about a person being in a position to
redeem another, is merely an exercise in the theoretical
possibilities and their limits,
as far as legal admissibility are concerned, rather than the
formulation of an actual doctrine by me, although after
considering all possibilities and their implications, a clear
scriptural position might be attainable, which is the real
purpose of all our endeavors here, I believe.
If Meleti deems it advisable not to post the link to this
other theory, I would appreciate it if he could give you
my email address for you to send me the link to it;
so thanks for bringing this to my attention.

• Reply by Observer17 on 2014-03-04 17:36:52

  Hi Ross, :)
  ...or you could write me at my email address:
  observer17@netzero.com
  take care,
  Observer17

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-03-04 17:40:46

In Need of Grace, Thank you for your kind help. Meleti has indicated that he will address my questions in a future article.
I appreciate the wisdom of your advice.
We can all wait and see how this is addressed in the future.

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-04 19:04:04

Hi Sargon,
thanks for posting the excerpts from those commentaries, and
for sharing your views.
Yes, you observe well that Paul is talking about us dying to our
former fleshly, sinful way of life, but this metaphorical death
cannot acquit or declare us guiltless from our transgressions,
UNLESS it be admitted that PHYSICAL death would indeed
procure this result for us. Acts 13:39
To illustrate my point: Just imagine you take me to court for
having run over your bicycle, even though I have already
given you a hundred dollars for the damage; I would still
have to prove to the judge that the exact same bike could
be purchased today brand new from a shop for one hundred
dollars, in order to have him pronounce me innocent of your
charges.
In the same way, Christ’s death on our behalf can only be
accepted in a legal way, if physical death is actually deemed
to extinguish any and all claims of a material or moral
nature against that person, and that is why Paul states this
principle thus in Romans 6 verse 7.
It looks like some of those commentators have a problem
with the actual meaning of the word they prefer to translate
as ‘set free,’ which in literal Greek properly means to justify,
and hence, we have the doctrine of justification by means of
death - not sanctification, which can only come after justification
by faith in Christ’s death has resulted in the new birth by Spirit.
But without admitting the reality of justification by means of
death, Christ’s own sacrifice is left without legal and moral
basis.
Adam was justified in his death, with no claims outstanding
by either God or himself; and that is what justification means,
namely, an equalizing of claims.
So, too, anyone born into this world. who willfully chooses
to sin after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, will
die justified before God with no claim for future life, since
accounts on both sides have been permanently settled.
The reason for why this is so, lies in the nature of God
having to bring creatures into existence without being
able to ask their consent, or to negotiate any terms with
them, it being a free gift given in the hope of it being
received in gratitude.
On the other hand, a person born with inherited sin, but
rejecting its bondage, will also die justified in God’s eyes
by paying for his sins, but because they were the result
of an unwanted inheritance of the sinfulness occasioned by
Adam’s transgression, his claims against God’s righteousness
have not been settled; hence the need for Christ’s death and a
resurrection, in order to square the books, so to speak.
Now, justification for Christian’s is by means of faith, which
in turn needs to be based upon the foundational assumption
that death is the full and final settling of all accounts in this
life with God, and for which Christ, by His blood,
substituted Himself on our behalf.
The difference between the ‘righteous’ and the ‘unrighteous’
is that, for the latter, the claims for and against them have
not yet been settled with God in this life,
and this can only be done by either faith in Christ, death
before the end of the great tribulation, or death by means of
judicial action at the return of Christ.
Hence, the 'sheep’ of Matthew 25 are righteous, or justified,
in the sense that they have survived, or been 'raised’ out of,
the 'death’ of Christ’s judgment on the world, with all claims
against them for their sins committed in this age having thus
been settled for good.
This is my understanding thus far, but I am looking for more
elements to be reconciled with, and included in, this view of
things, and thank everybody for their input in this.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-04 20:15:22

  Ross, you seem to be simply restating your position without addressing the many valid counter-arguments raised by Anonymous, Apollos, and others. If we are to accept your reasoning on this, we will need to see how those arguments that appear to disprove your position are wrong. If you could address those it would be advantageous to all.

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-05 00:31:30

Hi Meleti and all,
thanks for letting me know that I have not yet covered some
important points that are at variance with my model, because
I thought that I had addressed pretty much all issues;
hence it would be useful if you, and everybody else, would
keep on pointing out the areas of difference as you each
perceive them, because I am just as you are in wanting to
make all pieces of the puzzle fit neatly, if at all possible,
so I view this very much as a community project, despite my
at times strongly put views and dogmatic sounding
argumentation, for which I apologize in advance, as I try to
do my bit, by re-reading and meditating on everybody’s
material,
to discover any points that are in conflict with what I hold
as scripturally established so far, because truth has ultimately
got to stand on its own two feet without any propping up, if it
is to have any value at all, which I believe to be the common
goal here also.
I have just re-read the reasoning of 'Anonymous,’ and concur
with his eventual conclusion that, for death to atone for one’s
sins, it would have to be eternal, or else a ransom would be
required to bring that person back to life in a resurrection,
if it were to be done the legal way.
Of course, God could do what He wants to, but we know Him
to predictively abide by the same laws with which He judges
us, hence the legal and ethical issue surrounding the ransom
of Christ, which it is most important to understand for us,
in view of Satan’s coming attack on God’s righteousness.
I understand very well that to acquit means to declare someone
innocent, or incapable of evil intent and/or consent to the crimes
committed while in an extenuating condition, for example,
but this condition applies equally to the person putting faith
in Christ, as it does to a person simply dying of congenital sin
outside of a judgment situation, such as the coming revelation
of Jesus Christ.
All people sin because they are pre-programmed to do so,
which is why their physical death declares them innocent
of the transgression committed by Adam, but for which
they are unjustly being made to pay.
And that is precisely the reason Christ had to suffer, that
the Father might be found righteous when being judged by
all intelligent creation. Mark 8:31; Luke 24:26; Ro.3:4b
Your point about people having to be acquitted for their
transgressions committed during the 1000 years by means
of repentance, is a valid one,
but I think we will find that God’s present modus operandi,
as expressed in Ecclesiastes 8 verse 11, will then be
reversed, so that ‘sentence against a bad work,’ WILL BE
‘executed speedily,’ so that ‘the heart of the sons of men’
WILL NOT ‘become fully set in them to do bad.’
In other ‘inspired’ words: During the 1000 year reign ‘all
the nations of the earth will certainly bless THEMSELVES
by means of [Abraham’s] seed.’ Gen 22:18
Hence, we can expect immediate consequences for
wrongdoing, along with the need for speedy repentance,
in order to advance in the scheduled refining program.
The process of writing God’s law on people’s hearts
will likely be a most delicate one, since it requires a
letting go of people’s recalcitrance and stubborn
self-will of their own accord, and in proportion to
how quickly and thoroughly they want to avail
themselves of the blessings on offer.
Now this writing of God’s law on people’s hearts
also includes the concept that He will by no means
call their [previous] sins to mind anymore,
especially, one would think, those committed in the
past age, which is the present system of things.

Comment by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-05 11:21:05

Interesting thought for the day based on the bible reading:
Genesis 39:10 accurate translation:
And as she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her.
Our translation and a few others wrongly translate lie "with her". The Hebrew word is ’ê·le·hā, which means unto her, beside her. It means seeking just being close to someone. It doesn't mean lie with her or sleep with her as in Genesis 34:7.
This makes us appreciate how well Joseph's conscience worked. He saw the tell signs of her actions and he refused to be in the same area as her or to be even be physically close to her. While them being close would not automatically mean them having sex, he realized that that is what she was after and when she grabbed him later in the verse to be lying beside her, he fled the scene.

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 12:06:03

Meleti & Apollos,
Our knowledge is like a foot of a babe. The shoe is our love. As the babe grows, it's feet grow, and needs bigger shoes. If we don't grow in love at the same pace as gaining this wonderful knowledge, we risk becoming puffed up.
So might we hope a sub forum dedicated to growing our shoes? I think we are just as much starving for a deeper discussion of growing in Christian qualities as in knowledge.
See, there is a point where it's not sufficient anymore to know what is more true, we need (I need) to grow in love and qualities.
This morning I was reading:
"With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor, but by knowledge the righteous are delivered."
Here the deliverance is tied directly to how knowledge moves our actions - how we conduct ourselves.
I'm very interested in deep discussion of practical knowledge that can help me grow as a Christian. Just some thoughts.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-05 12:17:06

  Apollos has been working on just such a meeting place, a discussion forum, for several weeks now. If we had only normal security concerns, it would have been up already. However, as we tested and re-tested, we came to see more security loopholes. Perhaps we are being paranoid, but the penalty for being discovered by the "powers that be" in the organization is significant and not to be taken lightly.
  We have managed to plug almost all of them and those remaining are being taken care of. Of course, one never knows for sure, but I think when it goes live that it will be just about as secure as it is possible for us to make it.
  It will be any day now.

Comment by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-05 13:23:29

That will be another great blessing from Jehovah! It's great that you take your time.
Besides the security there is also the integrity part. I hope this place can stay a safe harbor where we can all be one minded in searching truth in a positive way.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 14:00:15

  Amen! I agree In Need of Grace!

Comment by JimmyG on 2014-03-06 23:42:30

"the penalty for being discovered by the “powers that be” in the organization is significant and not to be taken lightly."
What a sad state of affairs we are all in, in supposedly 'Jehovah's organisation'. More like George Orwell's 1984