[A Review of the October 15, 2014 Watchtower article on page 13]
“You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” – Heb. 11:1
The Law Covenant
PAR. 1-6: These paragraphs discuss the original Law Covenant that Jehovah made with his chosen people, the Israelites. If they had kept that covenant, they would have become a kingdom of priests.
The New Covenant
PAR. 7-9: Since Israel broke the covenant God made with them, even to the point of killing His Son, they were rejected as a nation and a new covenant was put into effect, one foretold centuries before by the prophet Jeremiah. (Je 31:31-33)
Paragraph 9 ends up by stating: “How vital the new covenant is! It enables Jesus’ disciples to become the secondary part of Abraham’s offspring.” This is not entirely accurate, for the Jewish Christians became the first part of Abraham’s offspring, while the gentile Christians became the secondary part. (See Romans 1:16)
PAR. 11: Here we seamlessly slide into “speculation as fact” by stating categorically that “the total number of those in the new covenant would be 144,000.” If the number is literal, then the twelve numbers used to make up this total must also be literal. The Bible lists 12 groups of 12,000 each making up the 144,000. It is nonsensical to think the 12,000 are symbolic numbers while using their number to total up a literal sum, is it not? Following the logic forced on us by this assumption, any one of the literal 12,000 must come from a literal place or group. After all, how can 12,000 literal people come from a symbolic group? The Bible lists 12 tribes from which the literal number of 12,000 is drawn. However, there was no tribe of Joseph. So this tribe must be representative. Additionally, the majority of those who become part of the “Israel of God” are from gentile nations, so they could never be counted as part of the literal tribes of Israel. If the tribes are therefore symbolic, must not the 12,000 from each be symbolic? And if each of the 12 groups of 12,000 is symbolic, must not the total be symbolic as well?
If Jehovah proposed to limit the number of ones going to heaven to serve as a kingdom of priests to just 144,000, why is no mention of that made in the Bible? If there is a cut-off point—an offer that is good while supplies last—why does he not explain that those who miss out will have an alternate hope to strive for? No mention is made of a secondary hope for Christians to set as their goal.
Par. 13: We love to speak of privileges in the Organization. (We speak of the privilege of being an elder, or a pioneer or a Bethelite. In the December TV broadcast on jw.org, Mark Noumair said, “What a privilege it was to hear Brother Lett, a member of the Governing Body, at morning worship.”) We use the word a lot, yet it is rarely found in the Bible, less than a dozen times in fact. Moreover, it is always connected with an undeserved opportunity of being of service to another. It never indicates a special status or position—a place of privilege, as it is commonly used today.
What Jesus did after concluding the last supper was to make an assignment or appointment. The apostles with whom he spoke were not to consider themselves as a privileged few, but as humble servants who had been granted an undeserved kindness by being given an assignment of service. We should keep that mental picture in mind as we read the opening words of paragraph 13:
“The new covenant relates to the Kingdom in that it produces a holy nation that has the privilege of becoming kings and priests in that heavenly kingdom. That nation constitutes the secondary part of Abraham’s offspring.”
In JW parlance, a tiny group among us is exalted over all the rest to the privileged status of ruling class. This is false. All Christians have the opportunity to reach out for the undeserved kindness of this hope. Moreover, this hope is extended to all mankind should they wish to reach out for it. No one is precluded from becoming a Christian. This is what Peter realized when the first Gentile was added to the fold of the Good Shepherd. (John 10:16)
“At this Peter began to speak, and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” (Ac 10:34, 35)
Simply put, there is no privileged or elite class in the Israel of God. (Gal. 6:16)
Is There a Kingdom Covenant?
Par. 15: “After instituting the Lord’s Evening Meal, Jesus made a covenant with his faithful disciples, often referred to as the Kingdom covenant. (Read Luke 22:28-30)”
If you enter Luke 22:29 into the search engine on www.biblehub.com and select Parallel, you’ll see that no other translation renders this as ‘making a covenant’. Strong’s Concordance defines the Greek word here used (diatithémi) as “I appoint, make (of a covenant), (b) I make (a will).” So the idea of covenant can perhaps be justified, but one wonders why so many Bible scholars chose not to render it that way. Perhaps it is because covenant is between two parties and requires a mediator. Paragraph 12 of this study acknowledges that element by showing how the old Law Covenant was mediated by Moses and the New Covenant is mediated by Christ. Since by The Watchtower’s own definition, a covenant needs a mediator, who mediates this new covenant between Jesus and his disciples?
The absence of a named mediator would seem to indicate that covenant is a bad translation. This helps us see why most translators favor words indicating a unilateral appointment to a position when rendering Jesus’ words. A bilateral covenant just doesn’t fit.
Have Unshakeable Faith in God’s Kingdom
Par. 18: “With complete confidence, we can firmly proclaim that God’s Kingdom is the only permanent solution to all man’s problems. May we zealously share that truth with others?—Matt. 24:14”
Who of us would not agree with this statement? The problem is the subtext. An unbiased Bible student would know that the Kingdom we proclaim has not yet arrived, which is why we still ask for it to come in the Model Prayer—also known as “the Lord’s Prayer” (Mt 6:9,10)
However, any Jehovah’s Witness studying this article will know that what we are really expected to preach is that God’s kingdom has already arrived and has been in power for the past 100 years since October of 1914. To be more precise, the Organization is asking us to put unshakeable faith in their interpretation that 1914 marks the start of the rule of the Messianic Kingdom and that it also marks the start of the last days. Ultimately, they are asking us to put faith that their time calculation based on their interpretation of “this generation” means that Armageddon is just a few short years away. That belief will keep us in the Organization and submissively subject to their direction and teaching, because our salvation—they would have us believe—depends on that.
To put it another way—a Scriptural way—we will obey them because we’re afraid that maybe, just maybe, they’re right and our life depends on sticking with them. So we are being asked to put faith in men. This is not without Scriptural precedent. King Jehoshaphat told his people to put faith in God’s prophets, specifically Jahaziel who had spoken under inspiration and foretold the path they had to follow to be delivered alive from the enemy. (2 Ch 20:20, 14)
The difference between that situation and ours is that a) Jahaziel spoke under inspiration and b) his prophecy came true.
Would Jehoshaphat have asked for his people to put faith in a man who had a record of failed prophetic pronouncements? Would they have been following the inspired command of Jehovah spoken through Moses had they done so?
“However, you may say in your heart: “How will we know that Jehovah has not spoken the word?” 22 When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word is not fulfilled or does not come true, then Jehovah did not speak that word. The prophet spoke it presumptuously. You should not fear him.’” (De 18:21, 22)
So we must ask ourselves, given the track record of those claiming to be the faithful and discreet slave since 1919, which kingdom should we put unshakeable faith in? The one we are told was established in 1914, or the one we know is yet to come?
To put it another way: Whom are we afraid of disobeying? Men? Or Jehovah?
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Chris on 2014-12-07 08:26:11
Exactly!!! Charles Taze Russell taught that in the Gospel Age that we are all running for the prize of the high calling. There is only one hope in this age. The prize of the high calling. How can the Governing Body be so sure of themselves. They are claiming the prize before the finish the race. MANY are called BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN. Hmmmmmmmm
Comment by on 2014-12-07 14:33:43
If its literal 144.000 then why are they not literal israelites as well . I dont understand how the new covenant only relates to the 144.000 and not the so called great crowd .either when they come out of the great tribulation and have washed thier robes in the blood of the lamb .Just asking thats all . Perhaps a JW could enlighten me . Kev
Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-08 13:46:28
There are not two classes of Christians in scripture.
We know the 144,000 are Christians, ie spiritual Israelites, but it appears that numerically literal 144,000 cannot represent the entire body.
Galatians 4:27 ......"for the children (anointed Christians) of the desolate woman are more numerous than those (the Israelites) of her who has a husband."
The number of Christians has always been vastly more than 144,000.Reply by menrov on 2014-12-09 05:33:54
Hi Jannai40, are you sure about the above? I interpret the desolate woman to represent the Jews that wanted to remain under the Law whereas those who belong to the one who has a husband to be the ones who accepted Jesus and no longer had the Law to guide them. They include a remnant and the early Christians. At the time when Paul spoke these words, the group to support the Law was larger than the group that accepted the Christ. See verse 21 where Paul identifies to whom he is speaking and verses 28-31 for the summary. Anyway, that is my view :-)
Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-09 12:43:58
Hi Menrov,Galatians 4:26 "But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother ...." that is of those "born again" including both Jews and Gentiles.
Verse 27 "For it is written, 'Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; break forth and cry aloud, you who were never in labour; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.'
At the time of Christ and before Pentecost, those of the barren woman were few, but thereafter the numbers grew both of Jews and Gentiles, and hence the rejoicing of the barren/desolate woman.
Reply by life2come on 2014-12-09 20:37:45
Excellent point, Jannai40 regarding Gal 4:27. How could 144,000 be a literal number if the jewish nation was by far greater in number. The Isaiah publication I believe explains the 144,000 are the children of the barren woman, but, by extension, they include the other sheep, because of the millions we now have in the sheepfold. I dont agree with the implication, but thats what they seem to imply.
Reply by menrov on 2014-12-10 05:35:35
Well, I am not yet convinced about the explanation or interpretation of Gal. 4:26,27 but better to discuss this DTT.
Regarding the link with 144000. I do not believe there is any relationship with what Paul was saying or referring to had much to do with the group mentioned in Rev. 14:1. I guess it would also be good to revisit this topic (144000) on DTT. It seems the WT study article is being re-written as the article is not online. Previous week is there and other articles....strange.
Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-11 20:25:35
Hi Menrov,
Regarding Galatians 4:26, 27 - we appear to have different views on this and I would like to have discussed this with you further, but I am no longer on the discussion board and so this will not be possible. However, I do wish you well in your research.
Comment by on 2014-12-07 15:06:55
I think revelation 20 v 4 and 6 is interesting it speaks of those who reign with christ for the thousand years .it says they did not worship the beast or recieve his mark .that also has to be true about the great crowd who come out of the great tribulation .revelation 14 v 9 10 make that clear .Again though just an observation i dont pretend to understand the book of revelation .kev
Comment by life2come on 2014-12-07 16:13:39
Thanks for the light humor. "going to heaven ... an offer that is good only while supplies last." I got a kick out of that one. On a serious note, thanks for pointing out the simple logic that the 12 groups of 12,000 being symbolic cannot logically add up to a literal number. Dont know how that got past me in all my years in the org. So much we just accepted without really meditating on its implications.
Reply by menrov on 2014-12-08 04:13:36
You said: "Dont know how that got past me in all my years in the org. So much we just accepted without really meditating on its implications."
I am with you....well, better late than never I guess.
Comment by billy on 2014-12-07 18:07:17
even before reading your article i have felt the same - if the hope of the new testament is not for everyone then it very discouraging to read the greek scriptures - when reading the bible without other people trying to interpret it for you, one comes to the conclusion the heavenly hope is held out to all
i have always found it nausiating how the speakers at assemblies elevate themselves wheres the humility?
i appreciated how you highlighted "do not be in fear of them" regarding false prophets
thank you for your well thought out WT analysis
these articles give me encouragement - especially the courage part of that word - to resist the power, fear and guilt of the WT and rest my trust in God from his word The
Bible
Comment by Semper Fi on 2014-12-08 01:51:38
I felt unsettled during this study. It was stated that these covenants were legally binding. While this is true for some, others had our 'unique' teachings about the 144,000 mixed in with them. I got the feeling that if one was to raise a question about the validly of some of our interpretations, it would be tantamount to disagreeing with a legal contract directly instituted by God. Far from being encouraged, I feel even more locked into a line of reasoning I can't reconcile. "Of course you're allowed to carefully search the Scriptures to see if these things are true, but heaven forbid you find something that disagrees with Brooklyn..." Sometimes I really hate myself for taking a critical look at these things, but how can I ignore the evidence? I really can't wait until Jehovah brings his plans for us to fruition. All this speculation is killing me, and I get the feeling I'm not alone.
Comment by menrov on 2014-12-08 05:21:07
I always wonder why a verse from the OT becomes a core verse for future arrangements. In particular the use this verse (Ex. 19:6) with a picture showing Jesus with his disciples is rather misleading.
This was not for our time or even for our future but said to Moses as the verses before explains:
3 Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, “Thus you will tell the house of Jacob, and declare to the people of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt and how I lifted you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 And now, if you will diligently listen to me and keep my covenant, then you will be my special possession out of all the nations, for all the earth is mine, 6 and you will be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you will speak to the Israelites.”
Par. 4 has this statement: it [the Law] was designed to prevent Abraham’s line of descent from being contaminated.
For me this is “new light” as it was always said that the law was to protect the nation (anyone who would be part of this nation by birth or by joining voluntary) from the influences from other nations. It was to show the nations the difference between having YHWH as your king or having a human as your king. To state it was to protect the line of descent is IMO like leading the witness toward a predefined conclusion
The same in Par. 5, where It reads: ´The Law covenant also provided an arrangement for a priesthood, foreshadowing a greater arrangement in the future. (Heb. 7:11; 10:1) “
If you read the context, starting in chapter 9 and continue in chapter 10, it is referring to end sacrifices for sin, not a foreshadow of a future priesthood arrangement. Linking these verses with the priesthood arrangement is IMO more like leading the witness to a predefined conclusion. It is not to use the bible to derive to a conclusion, but using the bible to support a predefined conclusion.
Par. 5 concludes: Consequently, God rejected that nation.
This statement is incorrect as Paul says: Rom 11:1 So I ask, God has not rejected his people, has he? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin
Not sure why the WBTS keeps supporting their idea that God rejected that nation. Probably to clear the way for the GB.
Par 6 has this statement: The Law was to protect the offspring and lead humans to the Messiah.
According to Paul, the Law was to make the nation aware of what sins are and over time, they realized they would need a different way to be cleansed from their sins. Romans 7 explains the role of the Law and why I actually did not bring life but death instead and hence it needed to be replaced. Again, a statement to lead the witness.
Gal. 3:17-29 shows clearly the purpose of the law. It also explains that the Law was not actually a new covenant that replace the promise to Abraham. Gal. 3:17 reads “The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God,
It is therefore my view that to present the Law as a key covenant for the offspring or descendants of Abraham and that it had to be replaced in order to setup a new nation, is absolutely incorrect. The Law was to guard the people of God. As that nation could not comply and actually made that sin was ruling the nation, it has to be replaced such that the nation would no longer be ruled by sin. Jesus carried all the sin, his believers would be free.
Again, this way of presenting the purpose of the Law is not scriptural and is leading the witness.
Par. 8 is about the blood. Luke and Matthew is mentioned. Luke to show that the covenant is only with his disciple and Matthew to show that His blood is also shed for forgiveness of sins for many. Par 9 will continue with this line of reasoning to “prove” that the blood does not have the same meaning to all.
I guess that is why Mark was not mentioned as also Mark describes the last supper event. He writes in Mark 14:24: 24 He said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many.
Funny, the blood of the covenant is also poured out for many, just like for sins.
I leave the rest of Par 9 for what it is as the line of reasoning in that paragraph is IMO too biased to discuss.
Par. 11 introduced the 144000 as the special group, that if you read it carefully, will make anyone not belonging to that group feel useless because apparently the characteristics of that group does not apply to the others. The others do not follow the lamb and of course have defiles themselves with women……
Par. 16 seems to make Rev. 3:21 exclusive to the 144000. In other words, anyone who conquers but is not part of the 144000 …. Well, tough luck. Nicely done, but I do not need you.
It also concludes: Thus, the Kingdom covenant is made with the 144,000 anointed Christians
Where does this THUS relates to? What arguments from the scriptures allows the writers to use the word THUS to derive to this conclusion?
In summary, as in US courts it is often said: Objection your honor, prosecutor is leading the witness.Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-08 16:06:47
Menrov, I don't read the Society's publications, but I have enjoyed your comments of the WT article, especially with regard to Romans 11:1 and which I now intent to research with enthusiasm. Thank you.
Reply by menrov on 2014-12-09 03:04:32
Thank you and makes me feel encouraged !
Comment by miken on 2014-12-08 07:14:54
"no other translation renders this as ‘making a covenant".
Weymouth New Testament
and I covenant to give you, as my Father has covenanted to give me, a Kingdom--
Luke 22:29
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Ref Luke 22:29
And I appoint unto you a kingdom - He assures them here that they should "have" a kingdom - their expectations would be realized. They had continued with him; they had seen how "he" had lived, and to what trials he had been subjected; they had all along expected a kingdom, and he assures them that they should not be disappointed.
As my Father ... - They had seen how God had appointed a kingdom to "him." It was not with pomp, and splendor, and external glory, but it was in poverty, want, persecution, and trial. So would "he" appoint to them a kingdom. They should "surely" possess it; but it would be not with external splendor, but by poverty and toil. The original word "appoint" has the force of a "covenant" or compact, and means that it should be "surely" or certainly done, or that he pledged himself to do it. All Christians must enter into the kingdom of heaven after the manner of their Lord - through much tribulation; but, though it must be, as it was with him, by many tears and sorrows, yet they shall surely reach the place of their rest and the reward of heaven, for it is secured to them by the covenant pledge and faithfulness of their Lord and King.
"Perhaps it is because covenant is between two parties and requires a mediator"
There was no mediator between God and Abraham when the Abrahamic covenant was made or with Noah (Gen 9:8-17)Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-08 09:12:58
Thanks Miken,
I missed that one and have amended the article to reflect that fact.
“Perhaps it is because covenant is between two parties and requires a mediator”
There was no mediator between God and Abraham when the Abrahamic covenant was made or with Noah (Gen 9:8-17)
Miken, I wasn't the one making the point about the need for a mediator. I was quoting from the magazine. Using its reasoning, there should also have been a covenant mediator for the so-called Kingdom Covenant. So by the reasoning of The Watchtower, there should have also been a mediator for their Kingdom Covenant, and since there wasn't, The Watchtower's basis for calling it a covenant goes away.
Having said that, I do believe that the translation of diatithémi as "covenant" at Luke 22:29 misleads Jehovah's Witnesses into thinking that Jesus was entering into a contractual agreement with his disciples. They were already in a mediated contract with Jehovah, the New Covenant or in modern parlance, the New Agreement or New Contract. If they held up their side of the contract, Jehovah would fulfill his. The word describing that "New Covenant" is diathéké, used by Jesus in Luke 20:22 in contrast with diatithémi used 7 verses farther on in Luke 20:29. He used diatithémi at vs. 29 instead of repeating his use of diathéké from vs. 29 because he wasn't making a contract within a contract. If his disciples held up their end of the contract with God, there would be no need for a secondary contract with Jesus. Instead, they would qualify for the appointment (diatithémi) Jesus was making with them.Reply by kev c on 2014-12-09 11:55:46
Yes I thought that was strange reasoning from the watchtower as well that a covenant or contractual agreement requires a mediator. Galatians 3 v20 shows that reasoning to be wrong. The covenanant given to abraham was a promise. Given to abraham after he exhibited faith in god. It required no mediator. In fact I'm my own case I form covenants or contracts with people every week. But very rarely have I used a mediator to do it for me. Kev
Comment by Criticus on 2014-12-11 18:03:35
RE: The unbiblical term "Privilege"
Greetings to all!
Dear Meleti,
concerning par. 13, you write:
"We use the word a lot, yet it is rarely found in the Bible, less than a dozen times in fact."
I wonder in which verses you think this term appears.
Not too long ago, I did some research about exactly this question (bec. I became "fed up" with the inflationary use of this word by the WTS, and it's affiliation with medieval papacy and communism), and found out that - acc. to the original Hebrew and Greek text - there is NOT A SINGLE verse in which this word occurs. Consequently, other translations don't have it where the NWT has it in the following 6 instances:
Lu 1:43 - "privilege" in square brackets [] in the pre-2013 NWT (the 2013-revision dropped the square brackets altogether, concealing entirely where they have inserted things that are not in the original). The word has been inserted and doesn't exist in the Greek. No other translation says "privilege" here.
Luke 1,74 - "privilege" without square brackets
Acts 7,46 - "privilege" in square brackets []
2 Cor 8,4 - "privilege" in square brackets []
Phil 1,29 - "privilege" without square brackets
2 Pet 1,1 - "privilege" without square brackets
Some of those verses in comparison to other translations:
Luke 1,73, 74:
KJV: That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
NAS: To grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, Might serve Him without fear,
("grant" translates "dídōmi" from v. 73, meaning "to appoint, assign, put, place" - has nothing do to with the bestowal of a "special right" or "status".)
Phil 1,29:
KJV: For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
NAS: For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
("given"/"granted" translates "charízomai", related to "cháris", meaning "divine gift of grace", brought out in the KD Interlinear. Referes to something coming from GOD, but not a "special right" or "status" granted by humans, including the WTS.)
2 Pet 1,1:
KJV: Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
NAS: Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
(Absolutely no reason to cram in "privilege".)
Brief:
There is absolutely no reason to use the term "privilege" in those 6 verses for the simple reason that it doesn't appear in the original Greek. How about the NWT's "faithful adherence" and "precise rendering" of the original? Negative. Everybody who uses the WTS' "Kingdom Interlinear Translation" can verify this from the Interlinear English rendering, even without having a command of Greek.
Remains the question: Why the WTS' incessant, insisting use of this term? Is it because of the need to "underpin theologically" the WTS' hierarchical structure and stratifying it's members in all those "varying privilege"-layers of "Auxiliary", "Regular", "Special Pionieers", "Bethelites", MS, Elders, …. ? A "mere" Auxiliary Pioneer may not attend the "Special Meeting" of the C.O. with the "Real (Regular Pioneers" unless it's one of those "special months. A "common publisher" never gets this "privilege". An MS may only attend part of a "Kingdom Ministry School", while Elders are entitled to get the full package. It's a bit similar to those Scientology seminaries for their varying degrees (Pre-Clear, OT1, OT2, …).
Isn't all of this ridiculous? "You are only a publisher, you may only look at the candy. You Auxiliary Pioneer, you are way better, you may lick at the candy. And you Regular Pioneer, you are REAAALLY good - you may eat it."
This is very low level at best.
Sincerely,
CriticusReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-11 19:02:15
Thanks for revealing that to us, Criticus. I was only going by a search in the WT Lib but as you point out, even there is seems we are inserting a word based on an organizational bias.
Reply by on 2014-12-16 18:11:51
Criticus, thank you sooooo much for your research and very honest breakdown of our "privileged" classes. I'm no longer serving as an Elder because of this hypocrisy and feel I am doing the friends more good now than I ever did as a servant. I've heard CO's say that one should be a pioneer if a reason can't be given to Jehovah not too do so. This guilt trip is a result of going beyond the things that are written and results in the friends serving out of fear and guilt rather than out of love.
Comment by CP on 2014-12-14 22:36:16
I would like to thank you for the Watchtower study. Please continue with the good work. I'm looking forward for the next study.
CP
Comment by silvertop on 2014-12-20 19:43:42
Could someone tell me about the Christadelphians and whetherthey are,a group
like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Do they ascribe to
the same beliefs as JW'S?
Also I am curious about the Seventh-Day Adventist
I just wonder where to go for spiritual. and having
a. spiritual family since. I no longer attend the KingdomHall
Thank s. so much. AGAPE