Of what does the salvation of Mankind consist? If you think the answer is obvious, then think again. I did, and I did. I can assure you that after giving this much thought, I've realized it is perhaps the single most misunderstood and misconstrued of all the basic teachings of Christianity.
If you were to ask your average Protestant that question, you’d likely hear that salvation means going to heaven if you are good. Conversely, if you are bad, you go to Hell. If you ask a Catholic, you’ll get a similar answer, with the addendum that if you’re not good enough to merit heaven, but not bad enough to deserve condemnation in Hell, you go to Purgatory, which is a sort of clearing house, like Ellis Island was back in the day.
For these groups, resurrection is of the body, because the soul never dies, being immortal and all.[i] Of course, belief in an immortal soul means that there is no hope for, nor reward of, everlasting life, since by definition, an immortal soul is everlasting. It seems that for the majority of those in Christendom, salvation—as the real estate community would say—is all about “location, location, location”. This also means that for the bulk of those professing to be Christians, this planet is little more than a proving ground; a temporary residence in which we are tested and refined before going to our eternal reward in heaven or our eternal damnation in Hell.
Ignoring the fact that there is no sound Scriptural basis for this theology, some disregard it on a purely logical basis. They reason that if the earth is a proving ground to qualify us for a heavenly reward, why did God create the angels directly as spirit beings? Don't they have to be tested too? If not, then why us? Why create physical beings if what you're looking for, if what you want to end up with, are spiritual ones? Seems like a waste of effort. Also, why would a loving God willfully subject innocent beings to such suffering? If the earth is for testing and refining, then man wasn't given a choice. He was created to suffer. This doesn't fit with what 1 John 4:7-10 tells us about God.
Finally, and most damning of all, why did God create Hell? After all, none of us asked to be created. Before we each came into being, we were nothing, non-existent. So God’s deal is essentially, “Either you love me and I’ll take you to heaven, or you reject me, and I’ll torture you forever.” We don’t get the chance to simply return to what we had prior to existence; no chance to return to the nothingness from which we came if we don't want to take the deal. No, it is either obey God and live, or reject God and be tortured forever and ever.
This is what we might call Godfather theology: “God's going to make us an offer we can’t refuse.”
Little wonder that a growing number of humans are turning to atheism or agnosticism. Church teachings, rather than reflect the logical rationale of science, expose their true foundation in the mythologies of ancient peoples.
Over my lifetime, I have had lengthy discussions with people of all the major and many of the minor faiths in the world, both Christian and non-Christian. I have yet to find one that is completely in line with what the Bible teaches. This should not surprise us. The Devil does not want Christians to understand the true nature of salvation. However, his many competing groups have the problem of any organization with a product to sell. (2 Corinthians 11:14, 15) What each one has to offer the consumer has to differ from its competitors; otherwise, why would people switch? This is product branding 101.
The problem all these religions face is that the real hope for salvation is not the possession of any organized religion. It is like the manna that fell from the sky in the wilderness of Sinai; there for all to pick up at will. Basically, organized religion is trying to sell food to people who are surrounded by it, all for free. Religionists understand that they cannot control people unless they control their food supply, so they proclaim themselves the “faithful and discreet slave” of Matthew 24:45-47, the exclusive food purveyor of the flock of God, and hope that nobody notices they are free to get the food themselves. Unfortunately, this strategy has worked for hundreds of years and continues to do so.
Well, on this site, no one is trying to govern or rule another. Here we just want to understand the Bible. Here, the only one in charge is Jesus. When you have the best, who needs all the rest!
So let us look at the Bible together and see what we can come up with, shall we?
Back to Basics
As a starting point, let us agree that our salvation is the restoration of what was lost in Eden. If we hadn't lost it, whatever it was, we wouldn't need to be saved. That seems logical. Therefore, if we can properly understand what was lost back then, we’ll know what we have to get back to be saved.
We know that Adam was created by God in His image and likeness. Adam was God’s son, part of God’s universal family. (Ge 1:26; Lu 3:38) The Scriptures also reveal that the animals were also created by God but were not made in his image nor likeness. The Bible never refers to the animals as God’s children. They are His creation only, whereas humans are both His creation and His children. Angels are also spoken of as God’s sons. (Job 38:7)
Children inherit from a father. God’s children inherit from their heavenly Father, which means they inherit, among other things, everlasting life. Animals are not God’s children, so they do not inherit from God. Thus animals die naturally. All God’s creation, whether part of his family or not, are subject to Him. Therefore, we can say without fear of contradiction that Jehovah is the universal sovereign.
Let’s reiterate: Everything that exists is the creation of God. He is the Sovereign Lord of all creation. A small part of his creation are also considered to be His children, God's family. As is the case with a father and children, God’s children are fashioned in his image and likeness. As children, they inherit from Him. Only members of God's family inherit and thus only family members can inherit the life that God has: everlasting life.
Along the way, some of God’s angelic sons as well as His two original human children rebelled. This did not mean God ceased being their sovereign. All creation continues subject to Him. For example, long after his rebellion, Satan was still subject to God’s will. (See Job 1:11, 12) While given considerable latitude, rebellious creation was never completely free to do whatever it wanted. Jehovah, as Sovereign Lord, still set the limits within which both humans and demons could function. When those limits were exceeded, there were consequences, such as the destruction of the world of Mankind in the Flood, or the localized destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or the humbling of one man, such as King Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonians. (Ge 6:1-3; 18:20; Da 4:29-35; Jude 6, 7)
Given that the governmental relationship of God over Man continued to exist after Adam sinned, we can conclude that the relationship that Adam lost was not that of Sovereign/Subject. What he lost was a familial relationship, that of a father with his children. Adam was cast out of Eden, the family home that Jehovah had prepared for the first humans. He was disinherited. Since only God’s children can inherit God’s things, including everlasting life, Adam lost out on his inheritance. Thus, he became just another creation of God like the animals.
“for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile.” (Ec 3:19)
If man is made in God’s image and likeness, and is part of God’s family, and inherits everlasting life, how can it be said that “man has no superiority over the animals”? It cannot. Therefore, the writer of Ecclesiastes is speaking of ‘fallen Man’. Burdened with sin, disinherited from God’s family, humans truly are no better than animals. As the one dies, so the other dies.
The Role of Sin
This helps us to put the role of sin into perspective. None of us chose to sin initially, but we were born into it as the Bible says:
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.” – Romans 5:12 BSB[ii]
Sin is our inheritance from Adam, by being genetically descended from him. It’s about family and our family inherits from our father Adam; but the chain of inheritance stops with him, because he was thrown out of the family of God. Thus we are all orphans. We are still God’s creation, but like the animals, we are no longer his sons.
How do we get to live forever? Stop sinning? That is simply beyond us, but even if it were not, to concentrate on sin is to miss the bigger issue, the real issue.
To better understand the real issue concerning our salvation, we should take one last look at what Adam had before he rejected God as his Father.
Adam walked and talked with God apparently on a regular basis. (Ge 3:8) This relationship appears to have had more in common with a Father and son than with a King and his subject. Jehovah treated the first human pair as his children, not his servants. What need does God have of servants? God is love, and his love is expressed via the family arrangement. There are families in heaven just as there are families on earth. (Eph 3:15) A good human father or mother will put the life of their child first, even to the point of sacrificing their own. We are made in God’s image and so, even while sinful, we portray a glimmer of the infinite love God has for his own children.
The relationship that Adam and Eve had with their Father, Jehovah God, was to be ours as well. That is part of the inheritance that awaits us. It is part of our salvation.
God’s Love Opens the Way Back
Until Christ came, faithful men could not rightfully consider Jehovah as their personal Father in more than a metaphorical sense. He might be referred to as the Father of the nation of Israel, but apparently no one back then thought of him as a personal father, the way Christians do. Thus, we will find no prayer offered in the pre-Christian Scriptures (the Old Testament) wherein a faithful servant of God addresses Him as Father. The terms used refer to him Lord in a superlative sense (The NWT often translates this as "Sovereign Lord".) or as Almighty God, or other terms that emphasize his power, lordship, and glory. Faithful men of old—the patriarchs, kings, and prophets—did not consider themselves to be children of God, but only aspired to be His servants. King David went so far as to refer to himself as the “son of [Jehovah’s] slave girl.” (Ps 86:16)
All that changed with Christ, and it was a bone of contention with his opposers. When he called God his Father, they considered it blasphemy and wanted to stone him on the spot.
“. . .But he answered them: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” 18 This is why the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” (Joh 5:17, 18 NWT)
So when Jesus taught his followers to pray, “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified…” we was speaking heresy to the Jewish leaders. Yet he spoke this fearlessly because he was imparting a vital truth. Eternal life is something that is inherited. In other words, if God is not your Father, you don't get to live forever. It is as simple as that. The idea that we can live forever only as servants of God, or even friends of God, is not the good news that Jesus declared.
(The opposition Jesus and his followers experienced when they claimed to be children of God is ironically not a dead issue. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses will often be suspicious of a fellow Witness should he or she claim to be an adopted child of God.)
Jesus is our savior, and he saves by opening up the way for us to return to the family of God.
“However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name.” (Joh 1:12 NWT)
The importance of the family relationship in our salvation is driven home by the fact that Jesus is often called, "the Son of Man." He saves us by becoming part of the family of Mankind. Family saves family. (More on this later.)
That salvation is all about family can be seen by scanning these Bible passages:
“Are they not all spirits for holy service, sent out to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?” (Heb 1:14)
“Happy are the mild-tempered, since they will inherit the earth.” (Mt 5:5)
“And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit everlasting life.” (Mt 19:29)
“Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.’” (Mt 25:34)
“As he was going on his way, a man ran up and fell on his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?”” (Mr 10:17)
“so that after being declared righteous through the undeserved kindness of that one, we might become heirs according to a hope of everlasting life.” (Tit 3:7)
“Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then you are also an heir through God.” (Ga 4:6, 7)
“which is a token in advance of our inheritance, for the purpose of releasing God’s own possession by a ransom, to his glorious praise.” (Eph 1:14)
“He has enlightened the eyes of your heart, so that you may know to what hope he called you, what glorious riches he holds as an inheritance for the holy ones,” (Eph 1:18)
“for you know that it is from Jehovah you will receive the inheritance as a reward. Slave for the Master, Christ.” (Col 3:24)
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to prove the point that our salvation comes to us by way of inheritance—children inheriting from a Father.
The Children of God
The way back into God's family is through Jesus. The ransom has opened the door to our reconciliation with God, restoring us to his family. Yet, it gets a little more complicated than that. The ransom is applied in two ways: There are the children of God and the children of Jesus. We will look at the children of God first.
As we saw at John 1:12, the children of God come into being by virtue of putting faith in the name of Jesus. This is much more difficult than it might seem at first glance. In fact, very few accomplish this.
“But when the Son of man comes, shall he indeed find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8 DBT[iii])
It seems safe to say that we’ve all heard the complaint that if there really is a God, why doesn’t He just show himself and be done with it? Many feel that this would be the solution to all the world’s problems; but such a view is simplistic, ignoring the nature of free will as revealed by the facts of history.
For example, Jehovah is visible to the angels and yet many followed the Devil in his course of rebellion. So believing in God’s existence didn’t help them remain righteous. (James 2:19)
The Israelites in Egypt bore witness to ten astonishing manifestations of God’s power after which they saw the Red Sea part allowing them to escape on dry ground, only to close up later, swallowing their enemies. Yet, within days they rejected God and began to worship the Golden Calf. After doing away with that rebellious faction, Jehovah told the remaining people to take possession of the land of Canaan. Again, rather than take courage based on what they'd just seen of God's power to save, they gave way to fear and disobeyed. As a result, they were punished by wandering in the wilderness for forty years until all the able-bodied men of that generation died off.
From this, we can discern that there is a difference between belief and faith. Nevertheless, God knows us and remembers we are dust. (Job 10:9) So even men and women like those wandering Israelites will have the opportunity to become reconciled with God. Nevertheless, they will need more than another visible manifestation of diving power to put faith in him. That being said, they will still get their visible evidence. (1 Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 1:7)
So there are those who walk by faith and those who walk by sight. Two groups. Yet the opportunity for salvation is made available to both because God is love. Those who walk by faith get to be called the children of God. As for the second group, they will have to opportunity to become children of Jesus.
John 5:28, 29 speaks of these two groups.
“Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice 29and come out—those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28, 29 BSB)
Jesus refers to the type of resurrection each group experiences, whereas Paul speaks of the state or status of each group upon resurrection.
“And I have a hope in God, which these men themselves also accept, that there is going to be a resurrection, both of the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15 HCSB[iv])
The righteous are resurrected first. They inherit everlasting life and inherit a Kingdom that has been prepared for them since the beginning of human procreation. These rule as kings and priests for 1,000 years. They are the children of God. However, they are not children of Jesus. They become his brothers, because they are heirs alongside the Son of Man. (Re 20:4-6)
Then the King will say to those on his right: “Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.” (Mt 25:34)
For all who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: “Abba, Father!” 16 The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 If, then, we are children, we are also heirs—heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ—provided we suffer together so that we may also be glorified together. (Ro 8:14-17)
You will, of course, notice that we are still speaking of ‘heirs’ and ‘inheritance’. Even though a Kingdom or government is referred to here, it doesn’t stop being about family. As Revelation 20:4-6 demonstrates, the lifespan of this Kingdom is finite. It has a purpose, and once accomplished, it will be replaced by the arrangement God is purposed from the start: A family of human children.
Let us not think like physical men. The kingdom these children of God inherit is not as it would be were men involved. They are not awarded great power so that they can lord it over others and be waited on hand and foot. We have not seen this type of kingdom before. This is the Kingdom of God and God is love, so this is a kingdom based on love.
“Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love. 9 By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him.” (1Jo 4:7-9 NWT)
What a wealth of meaning there is to be found in these few verses. “Love is from God.” He is the source of all love. If we do not love, we cannot be born from God; we cannot be his children. We cannot even know him if we do not love.
Jehovah will not tolerate anyone in his kingdom who is not motivated by love. There can be no corruption in His Kingdom. That is why those who make up the kings and priests alongside Jesus must be thoroughly tested as their Master was. (He 12:1-3; Mt 10:38, 39)
These ones are able to sacrifice everything for the hope before them, though they have scant evidence upon which to base this hope. While now these have hope, faith and love, when their reward is realized, they will not need the first two, but will continue to need love. (1 Co 13:13; Ro 8:24, 25)
The Children of Jesus
Isaiah 9:6 refers to Jesus as the Eternal Father. Paul told the Corinthians that “‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1 Co 15:45) John tells us that, “For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26)
Jesus has been given “life in himself”. He is a “life-giving spirit”. He is the “Eternal Father”. Humans die because they inherit sin from their forefather, Adam. The family lineage stops there, since Adam was disinherited and could no longer inherit from the heavenly Father. If humans could switch families, if they could be adopted into a new family under the lineage of Jesus who can still claim Jehovah as his Father, then the chain of inheritance opens up, and they can again inherit everlasting life. They become children of God by virtue of having Jesus as their “Eternal Father”.
At Genesis 3:15, we learn that the woman’s seed wars with the seed or offspring of the Serpent. Both the first and the last Adam can claim Jehovah as their direct Father. The last Adam, by virtue of being born of a woman in the lineage of the first woman can also claim his place in the family of man. Being part of the human family gives him the right to adopt human children. Being a Son of God gives him the right to replace Adam as the head of the entire family of Mankind.
Reconciliation
Jesus, like his Father, will not force adoption upon anyone. The law of free will means that we must freely choose to accept what is offered without coercion or manipulation.
The Devil doesn’t play by those rules, however. Over the centuries, millions have had their minds warped by suffering, corruption, abuse, and pain. Their thinking ability has been clouded by prejudice, lies, ignorance and misinformation. Coercion and peer pressure have been applied from infancy to shape their thinking.
In his infinite wisdom, the Father has determined that the children of God under Christ will be used to clear away all the detritus of centuries of corrupt human rule, so that humans can have their first real chance at becoming reconciled with their heavenly Father.
Some of this is revealed in this passage from Romans chapter 8:
18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Ro 8:18-25 ESV[v])
Humans who are alienated from the family of God are, as we’ve just seen, like the beasts. They are creation, not family. They groan in their bondage, but yearn for the freedom that will come with the manifestation of the children of God. Finally, by means of the Kingdom under Christ, these sons of God will act as both kings to rule and priests to mediate and heal. Humanity will be cleansed and come to know the “freedom of the glory of the children of God”.
Family heals family. Jehovah keeps the means of salvation all within the family of man. When the Kingdom of God has accomplished its purpose, humanity will not be under a government as subjects of a King, but instead will be restored to a family with God as Father. He will rule, but as a Father rules. At that wondrous time, God will truly become all things to everyone.
“But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.” - 1Co 15:28
So, if we are to define our salvation in a single sentence, it is about becoming once again part of the family of God.
For more on this, see the next article in this series: https://beroeans.net/2017/05/20/salvation-part-5-the-children-of-god/
____________________________________________________
[i] The Bible doesn’t teach the immortality of the human soul. This teaching has its origins in Greek mythology.
[ii] Berean Study Bible
[iii] Darby Bible Translation
[iv] Holman Christian Standard Bible
[v] English Standard Version
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by New Article on the BP Study Forum | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2017-02-24 14:12:48
[…] forum, Beroean Pickets – Bible Study Forum. For instance, we’ve just released the fourth article in the “Our Salvation” series, and your thoughts and comments are appreciated as they will add to the knowledge of […]
Comment by Colette on 2017-02-24 19:21:24
Meleti, thank you for this article. I agree with your reasoning fully. It is all about our relationship with God, we want Him as our Father. And some are able to have faith in the unseen and are His children. But the majority of mankind has so much working against them that this isn't possible for them. But God still loves them and has lovingly made provision that all of mankind can eventually gain salvation and God can be all things to everyone.
As any good parent will confirm, a loving parent does not give up on their children, especially if the defect is not their own. There is just so much that makes it impossible for humans in general to live the way God wants them to, such as childhood neglect for example, that causes deep emotional and psychological scarring from which it is virtually impossible to recover.
And how will God's children rule? Well what example did Jesus set? No palace or chariot. He came to serve, and that is what his brothers will be doing too. And we are being trained to love and serve and to help our fellow humans to be restored to their relationship with our heavenly Father.
And quite obviously it won't work to rule mankind from heaven. The only way to really help people is on a one-on-one basis. Otherwise Our Father could just as well have used angels to rule.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-02-24 22:12:38
Couldn't agree more!
Comment by gwen6275 on 2017-02-24 20:07:17
This is a beautiful, well thought out article. I agree with much of this however I am curious about the idea that the sons of God will inherit everlasting life on earth. That is what I was taught as a Jehovah's Witness and yet based on my understanding of the scriptures I feel that I have a heavenly hope. For instance, 1 Cor. 15:35-58 describes quite vividly the transformation from a physical form to a spiritual form that Christians will experience. I would love to hear your understanding of these verses! Thank you.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-03 19:11:27
I too once thought that there were two destinations for the righteous, one to heaven and one to earth. However, further research seems to lead to something even better. That will be the topic of the next article in this series.
Reply by thaddeus on 2017-11-09 03:07:20
Key word here is "SEEMS to lead..."
(This is also a favorite word of the WT Organization)
Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-14 19:30:57
Hello Gwen,
You wrote, "based on my understanding of the scriptures I feel that I have a heavenly hope. For instance, 1 Cor 15:35-58 describes quite vividly the transformation from a physical form to a spiritual form that Christians will experience." I have a reply for you. It is lengthy, but I hope you find it of interest.
Many Christians over the centuries have read these verses and concluded that they will go to heaven when they die. I don't believe that. In my view, no one is going to heaven. This is a deep subject, and can't be fully explored in one reply to a post, but let me just consider your question about 1 Cor. 15:35-58. Perhaps I could help you see that a "heavenly hope" is not the only way to understand this passage.
Verse 36: "What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies." That is certainly true in a literal way now, as it is not yet the time for the resurrection. But besides that obvious fact, the scriptures clearly show that "death" can pertain to the death of an old personality and way of life, without actually requiring a literal death.
Consider Romans 8:9-14: "However, YOU are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in YOU. But if anyone does not have Christ’s spirit, this one does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in union with YOU, the body indeed is dead on account of sin, but the spirit is life on account of righteousness. 11 If, now, the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in YOU, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make YOUR mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in YOU. 12 So, then, brothers, we are under obligation, not to the flesh to live in accord with the flesh; 13 for if YOU live in accord with the flesh YOU are sure to die; but if YOU put the practices of the body to death by the spirit, YOU will live. 14 For all who are led by God’s spirit, these are God’s sons."
Also 1 Peter 4:6: "In fact, for this purpose the good news was declared also to the dead, that they might be judged as to the flesh from the standpoint of men but might live as to the spirit from the standpoint of God."
And, Galatians 5:16-18: "But I say, Keep walking by spirit and YOU will carry out no fleshly desire at all. 17 For the flesh is against the spirit in its desire, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, so that the very things that YOU would like to do YOU do not do. 18 Furthermore, if YOU are being led by spirit, YOU are not under law."
Ponder those words, and try to re-read verse 36 above with 'new eyes'. Let us assume, for sake of argument, that this passage is not talking about being raised to life as a spirit. Can it be understood in a reasonable and consistent way that makes sense?
Here is verse 38, with some punctuation added to make it a little easier to read: "but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him, and gives - to each of the seeds - its own body." Consider the analogy of "seeds". If one planted an apple seed, the resulting tree will be much grander than a mere seed alone. But, we would never expect it to come up as a tomato plant or tulip blossom. Just as Genesis set the pattern, seeds will produce "according to their kind". It would be inconsistent for the Bible to set that standard for how seeds behave and then go totally contrary to that standard to explain the matter at hand. Would not planting a human "seed" and having it become a spirit being go against being "according to its kind"?
Verse 39: "Not all flesh is the same flesh..." What does this tell us? There is something about the flesh in the body raised up that is not the "same". A "change" has taken place. The question is, what KIND of change?
Verse 42:43: "So it is with the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised up in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised up in power."
What do "corruption", "dishonor" and "weakness" have in common? They are all aspects of sin. In contrast, "incorruption", "glory" and "power" are all consistent with the absence of sin.
Does fitting the description of "glory" and "power" require a person to be transformed into an angel-like spirit? No. Consider Jude 8: "In like manner, notwithstanding, these men, too, indulging in dreams, are defiling the flesh and disregarding lordship and speaking abusively of glorious ones." These men Jude was rebuking were not speaking abusively of angels - something they knew nothing about first hand - but were being abusive to other men, namely, the older men of the congregation. Those men had a glorious assignment of reflecting the glory of the Christ. That glorious assignment did not, in itself, turn those men into angels. Likewise here in the 1 Cor. passage. Glory and being a spirit being are not synonymous.
Verse 49: "And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust [Adam], we will bear also the image of the heavenly one [Christ]." Does this mean that it is necessary for Christians to become spirit persons in order to bear the image of Christ? No. We as descendants of Adam bear the image of Adam. (There is scientific evidence that all humans have elements of their DNA in common. So that much is provably true.) But Adam was created in God's image. When first created and sinless, Adam existed in the image of his Father, who is a spirit, yet Adam was not a spirit being.
Now, verse 50: "But I tell you this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom ..." Why not? "... nor does corruption inherit incorruption." This verse is extremely important.
Is Paul saying that humans of flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom? No. He is saying that SINNERS cannot inherit it. That is why he immediately says in the same breath that corruption cannot inherit incorruption.
Verse 51-52: "Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed."
Note carefully that these verses do not say that people will become spirits. It says they will be CHANGED so that they are free from corruption - that is to say, free from sin. Note that "not ALL" will have to die first. Some WILL die and be resurrected. For them, THEY will be raised up incorruptible - sinless. For those alive as humans of flesh and blood when this event occurs, they would be "changed" in a different way. How? In my view, it will be by being instantly and miraculously "healed" of all defects as sinless, perfect humans without flaw in mind, body or spirit. Jesus had no problem instantly healing sick and injured people. There is no reason why this event could not also be likewise an instant event.
How do we know all this is about sinners becoming sinless, and not about them being transformed into spirit beings?
Read on in verses 53-56: "For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this which is corruptible puts on incorruption and this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: “Death is swallowed up forever.” 55 “Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting producing death is sin, and the power for sin is the Law."
Doesn't the word "immortality" require the persons in question to become spirit beings? No. The Greek word for "immortality" at its base does not have to mean "impossible to die", but need only mean "WILL not die". We must understand that the demons, those once-faithful angels, are spirit persons, but that does not mean THEY will not die. At some point, they will be executed by God and thus die. So, the mere fact that they are spirits does not mean they are utterly indestructible. They're not. Likewise, any currently-faithful angels that might choose to go bad in the future don't have a "get out of jail free card", so to speak. If that were true, God would be in a legal bind and an untenable position, legally compelled to keep alive those spirit beings even if they rebelled against Him. It is unreasonable to believe that God would allow Himself to be 'legally outwitted' in such a manner.
With that understanding, we could likewise say that Jesus was immortal while on earth. If he had been left alone and not assaulted - and was allowed to stay on earth, he would still be alive as a human today. Jesus didn't "die" - he was murdered. That's different. That doesn't take away from the fact that he was immortal - within the limits of how that word should be understood.
Note that in verse 56, "The sting producing death is sin". The sting that produces death is NOT simply existing in physical human form. We may observe that the sting producing death for Jesus was not his own sin, but the sin of his enemies that sought his condemnation to death by the Romans.
For these reasons, I believe it's perfectly possible to understand this passage in 1 Corinthians without reference to or need of a resurrection to life as a spirit.Reply by Colette on 2017-03-15 06:16:25
Hi Robert, thank you for the well thought out reasoning on this verse. Your words and scriptures used make a lot of sense. It is nice to see that there is an alternate way to understand these verses. And you are right, Satan is the one that started the idea that if you are dead, you are not dead, just alive somewhere else in another form.
Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-15 16:30:09
When I have presented this concept to others, it usually results in resistance. Belief in a heavenly hope reflects centuries of Christian thought and doctrine. It is a "strongly entrenched" thing. When people are told their whole lives to expect life in heaven, it's extremely difficult to get them to listen to any other narrative. I have been researching this for some time, and the more I look, the more I am convinced this 'heavenly hope' is incorrect. I believe Meleti is going to be considering this issue in the near future.
Reply by kingdom.seeker on 2017-03-28 14:59:14
Thanks Robert
I have been considering at length whether heaven is the destination of our "one hope", and I am becoming more and more convinced that it's not. I will pass on to Meleti some thoughts I have on this subject. And he can incorporate it into an article.
RegardsReply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-28 18:19:23
I have added some comments along those lines in the article at http://beroeans.net/2017/03/22/reflections-of-the-memorial-of-christs-death-part-2-who-is-worthy/ which you might find of interest.
Reply by tyhik on 2017-03-20 18:02:23
Hi Robert. Could you please extend your analysis to cower 1 Thess 4:16,17
Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-20 22:43:14
Do you have a specific question about this verse? How do you understand it? What is its particular significance, in your view? That would help guide me in what facets to consider.
Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-21 04:06:12
Hello tyhik,
Here is my analysis of 1 Thess. I apologize for it being so lengthy, but hopefully will be of value to you. Robert
---
The passage at 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 has been of interest to Christians for centuries. It is the basis for the "Rapture" doctrine that many evangelicals subscribe to. Its wording provides a number of tantalizing details but does not fully explain itself, leaving the verses open to the many interpretations that have sprung up over the years.
It would not be possible to exhaustively answer all possible questions regarding these verses in one reply to a post. As I have noted elsewhere on this forum, it is my view that no one but Christ goes to heaven, and that the hope for all humans is on the earth. I do not agree with the doctrine of a "heavenly hope" as it is commonly understood. With that viewpoint in mind, I would limit the scope of this discussion, and frame the matter of these verses as follows: Is it possible to understand this passage without requiring belief in a "heavenly hope"? I would claim it is.
Here is the passage in the Beroean Study Bible:
"By the word of the Lord, we declare to you that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. 17 After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord."
These two verses are involved in a number of doctrinal controversies, those being:
1. The question about Christ vs. the identity of Michael the archangel
2. The resurrection hope and the time of the end
3. The belief in resurrection to heavenly life and the "Rapture" doctrine
These will be discussed in turn.
---
1. Christ vs. the identity of Michael the archangel
Various translations render the mention of "archangel" differently. Some say "THE voice of THE archangel", some "THE voice of AN archangel" or "AN archangel's voice". In Greek, neither "voice" nor "archangel" is preceded by a definite article. From reference works, such as cited by the NET Bible, it appears that inclusion of the word THE is a translator's bias, under the presumption that the archangel is Christ, even though the underlying Greek doesn't say that. The Bible clearly indicates that there is more than one kind of angel, such as seraphs and cherubs. The word "archangel" means "chief angel" or "prince of the angels". That is, an archangel appears to be an angel that is "over" other angels, almost like an angelic "supervisor". Because the Bible says so little about angels, we cannot be dogmatic about how many there are of each type. The tenor of the Bible suggests a divine preference for hierarchies, and so it is reasonable to assume that the angels are governed and ruled in a hierarchical arrangement.
With this in mind, is it necessary for the "archangel's voice" to be Michael's voice, and also be Christ's voice, making Christ = Michael? No, it's not necessary. If we understand an "archangel" to be an angelic-like spirit person with authority over other angels, then all "the voice of an archangel" needs to be understood as, is as "the voice of authority".
When the "Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command", he will issue that command with the voice of authority and certainty - just like the voice of an archangel has the voice of authority over 'lesser' angels in his charge. Thus, when the Lord commands the dead in union with Christ to rise, he will be fully authorized by God to issue a command like that. How do we know that he is in fact 'authorized'? Because it is said that dead WILL rise. There is no doubt about the outcome. It happens. If God did not authorize Christ to exercise this authority, the raising of the dead would not happen.
With that understanding, it is necessary, or even important, whether or not "Michael" was an alternate name for Christ? No. It's an interesting Biblical puzzle, but it's not really that important.
Some people bristle at the idea of Christ being equated to a "mere" angel. But, "angel" means "messenger", and certainly Jesus came to explain his Father's will and purposes to mankind. That is exactly what a messenger is and does. That fact does not "demean" Christ in any way. We need to remember that the Bible was written in simple language for everyday people. We should not overthink and overcomplicate the Bible's simple message by splitting hairs over precisely what is and is not a messenger or angel. Jesus was never concerned about his own reputation or ego. All he wanted to do was please his Father, and he never worried about whether other people pleased him or demeaned him.
---
2. The resurrection hope and the time of the end
Part of these verses are concerned with the time of the end. It seems clear that at Christ's return, some Christians who are destined to rule with him will be alive as humans of flesh and blood. Since those then-alive Christians would be "ready, willing and able" to begin assuming their duties as kings, it might seem that they might begin doing so right away - since technically, they 'could'. But as the verse states, that won't happen. Instead, those faithful Christians of centuries long passed who were also chosen to be rulers with Christ will get resurrected before the assignment of rulership for all of them was to begin. Many commentaries observe that " those who have fallen asleep" is a euphemism for those who have died, and this is borne out by the fact that "the dead" are explicitly mentioned in the next verse.
Note that it says "we who are alive and remain will be caught up TOGETHER with them". What does this suggest? That those humans who were alive when Christ returns will be re-united with resurrected humans from the past who had been long dead. As some point in time, those two groups will be "together". And, this being "together" is something that seems to occur BEFORE the group is caught up with Christ. Since the group not needing to be resurrected were humans of flesh and blood, the only way they could be 'united' with the other group is if they were all humans together, existing at the same time - and perhaps in the same place - as ordinary humans. That means that those resurrected are resurrected to life as humans, not as spirits. Otherwise, those two groups could not really be "together".
---
3. The belief in resurrection to heavenly life and the "Rapture" doctrine
These beliefs center around verse 17: "After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." Does this verse require us to believe in a "heavenly hope" doctrine? No.
Consider how all this started, in verse 16: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven..." We must ask, Why? WHY did the Lord descend from heaven? If the Lord wanted all these good Christians to go to heaven, why didn't the Lord just stay in heaven and bring all those people "up" to where he was already? What is the purpose or necessity of this "field trip" by Christ from heaven back to earth, if they were all just going to go back to heaven anyway? Think of how Jesus ascended to heaven in the book of Acts. It's not like he needed a "heavenly escort" to guide him back to his Father. Did Jesus say to his followers, "bye guys, my ride is here" as a heavenly "limo" driven by an angel picked him up? No. (I know, I am being a little silly here, but hopefully I have made the point.) There is just no reason for Jesus to come to earth and get his followers.
It is just as important to consider what these verses do NOT say as what they do. No where is the word "heaven" mentioned. If people are getting resurrected to "heaven" - an extraordinary, profound, and extremely important fact if it were true - doesn't it seem highly unusual that the Bible doesn't USE the word "heaven" here? Think of Hebrews, where it explains how Christ entered into heaven to be the high priest for us. That language is very clear. Should we not expect the same clarity here? So why isn't it the word "heaven" used? Why "toy" with peoples' expectations and hopes for an everlasting future with language that is so vague, when the Bible is quite clear elsewhere? Could it be because "heaven" is not what is being discussed here?
Note that the persons involved in this 'drama' will meet Christ "in the clouds" - NOT in heaven. (There are no clouds in outer space.) It also says they will "meet the Lord in the air". Some translations say they will have a "meeting" with the Lord. If that is a more-accurate rendering, it almost sounds like a business meeting - and such meetings have a start and an end; they don't last indefinitely. Note too that the verse says they will meet the Lord "in the air". WHAT air? It turns out that the Greek word for "air" used here means air near the vicinity of the earth, or air that is breathed in by people. It is not the same "air" on the tops of mountains or where high-flying birds roam.
Consider Acts 1: 9-11: "After He had said this, they watched as He was taken up, and a cloud hid Him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently into the sky as He was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “Why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven."
In this ascension, where was Jesus between the time he was on the ground and when he was hidden from sight by the cloud? Was he not in the "air"? Yes. That air was not a symbolism for 'heaven' but was the literal air of the skies and atmosphere that people breathe. Compare this with 1 Thessalonians, where it says Jesus would come FROM heaven and would meet his followers in the AIR. Doesn't that sound like the exact reverse order as described in Acts? Isn't that precisely what the angels said, that Jesus would "come back in the same way you have seen Him go"? Yes.
Some translations render verse 17 with "we who are alive and remain will be SUDDENLY caught up" because the underlying Greek has a connotation that implies suddenness, like an object that is suddenly seized and taken by a thief. What are we to make of this "suddenness" aspect? Some evangelicals in particular have latched onto to the 'suddenness' notion as proof of their "Rapture" doctrine. Is that conclusion justified?
The verses here do not give us much of a clue. For what it's worth, here is my view. For many thousands of years, mankind has been waiting, as Romans puts it, living lives subjected to the futility of sin and death. No one has known if or when it would ever change. But, when Christ returns and begins his rule along with those he has asked to join him, there will not be centuries or millenniums of additional delay. The Kingdom of God and his Christ will begin ruling right then and there, without further ado. No more waiting. That's how I see it.
What about being "caught up"? Does that phrase require us to believe in a "heavenly hope"? No.
Consider 2 Corinthians 12: "I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to gain, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows."
What does this tell us? Just that being "caught up" and having experiences of "heaven" need not be literal, but can be an aspect of a "vision" or "revelation". If that could be true for Paul while he was still alive as a human of flesh and blood, there is no reason why it could not also be true for humans then alive, or then resurrected, at the time of Christ's return.
How should that fact be understood with respect to the passage at 1 Thessalonians 4? It is possible that those alive and resurrected, who are being discussed there, would be given a vision or revelation that confirmed their approval by God and Christ, and perhaps also given some explanation as to the specifics of how they were go about being kings and priests for a thousand years. (After all, it is unlikely any of them were actual kings beforehand, and none of them would have ruled over the whole earth. They'd all have a lot of catch-up learning to do.)
This passage ends with, "And so we will always be with the Lord." Does being "with" the Lord require these persons to be in heaven to be "with" him? No. Recall Matthew 28:20, where Jesus says he will be "with" his followers until "the end of the age" or "until the end of time" or "until the conclusion of the system of things" as NWT puts it. Jesus was about to ascend into heaven, and his followers were not. In spite of that, he said they would be "with" him. They would be with him, because HE would be with THEM. How? He would be with them in spirit, observing the acts of loyalty, obedience and faith of his Christian followers, even though they were on earth and he was in heaven, and he would at times direct his angels to assist his followers on earth.
One minor point about about this phrase. When it says, "and SO we will always be with the Lord" the word "so" is often translated "thus", but more importantly, it can also mean "in this manner". What is the significance of that? The discussion above shows that it is possible to understand these verses, not as persons going to heaven, but as Christ returning to earth (likely in materialized human form) to 'welcome' these king/priests into their new roles. So, in that manner, they would be with Christ, because he was with them. That manner of being together does not require humans to be changed into spirits and transported to the physical presence of God himself.
Christ and his followers - some alive as humans when he returns, and some he just resurrected - will be united in purpose in ruling the earth. Those are the kings who rule ON the earth, not 'flying OVER' the earth as angel-like spirits. In that regard, the NWT does a disservice by wrongly translating Revelation 5:10 as "OVER the earth" as if the resurrected king/priests were 'flying in midair' the way the angel in Revelation was described. In Greek, the word sometimes translated as "over" is "epi". It is true that "epi" can mean "over", but only when used in the sense of exercising authority over someone. When used to indicate a physical location or positional relationship, its primary meaning is "on" or "upon". Either way, this word "epi" cannot be used to imply or support the idea of residency in the heavens.
For all the foregoing reasons, it is not necessary to understand 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 to mean a "heavenly hope" or heavenly resurrection.Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-23 01:27:09
I need to make a minor clarification to my remarks. I said, "It is just as important to consider what these verses do NOT say as what they do. No where is the word “heaven” mentioned." Well, of course these verses DO start by saying "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven ...". What I should have said is that no where do these verses mention "heaven" in relation to those being resurrected and/or those chosen to serve as kings. That does not apply to Jesus himself. There is no question that Jesus was raised as a spirit to return to the heavens he came from, just as he stated to his apostles the night before he died, as recorded in the book of John. I just contend that "heaven" only applies to him and no one else.
Reply by dajo on 2017-03-23 03:33:36
I've been digesting your thoughts Robert... putting the main article together and contemplating your comments seem very viable.
I've always felt that Jesus showed us what we had the potential to become when he was here. I, too, look forward to the next article in this series.
David. Ps. Enjoyed the paper on "the Word".
Reply by tyhik on 2017-03-21 05:35:53
Thank you Robert very much for your thorough explanation. Your angle to look at these verses was new to me. There's quite some stuff to think about. I agree that they can be interpreted as not necessarily supporting the heavenly resurrection.
Some verses still seem to support only the heavenly hope. Or so I think until somebody comes up with an alternative explanation again :) Still, for example, Revelation 7:15 shows that the great crowd is serving in the temple [Greek naos], which is in heaven (Rev 11:19; 14:17).
Also, Rev 11:12 is pretty clear about two prophets going to heaven, though I am not sure, how literally the story in Rev 11 can be taken.Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-22 01:11:28
There is more than one way to look at this. The 'naos' is not necessarily in heaven. This is a very deep subject. To help prepare you, ask Meleti to email you a document I sent him, called "Where is the Great Crowd serving God?" Once you have read that, reply to this message and I will tell you the rest. Let me know in case Meleti doesn't have it any more, and I will resend it to him. Robert.
Reply by dajo on 2017-03-23 11:19:37
I seem to remember way way back in the early '80s having a vigourous discussion with a born again Christian using a publication -"God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached" - a yellow book? and trying to prove to him that I wasn't going to heaven because... well the old antitype thingy.... that "naos" was the representative of the outer courtyard of the temple. and so on.
The great crowd served on earth. God's footstool....
these comments are really getting the cogs going!
Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-27 01:10:43
Tyhik, Meleti may not be able to pass along the document about the great crowd. I could send it to you directly if you were interested.
Reply by Karen on 2017-03-20 22:48:44
Thank you for this wonderfully researched comment Robert, I cannot let go of the belief that our hope is to continue as we were created, life here on earth. yet I am constantly offered a sweet smile of sympathy 'poor old chook not ready to hear the truth' ...... heaven is where angels dwell, the earth is for humankind... That was Jehovah's gift to us, that was his promise...
Thank you again Robert I enjoy reading your logical and well thought out articles.
I am behind in catching up with Beroean Pickets as for some time I simply felt too overwhelmed to read any more, so forgive me if my response to your comment is overdue.Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-21 00:00:36
I appreciate the kind words Karen.
I am hoping Meleti will consider this and other aspects of the salvation question. He says he is going to have an article soon about it, but I don't know what he intends to cover.
So many people have thought for so long that Christians go to heaven when they die that they view it as sacrilege to say anything different. Even JWs think the "anointed" are going there, supposedly to rule with Christ in heaven.
But that idea presents so many logical problems. If those new kings are in heaven, how do they rule over people on earth? Humans cannot see or hear the spirit realm, so how is it "done" from a practical standpoint? Do those spirits "inspire" or "possess" some humans to act like inspired prophets or something? Would there be miraculous manifestations to convey information? Do we all get walky-talkies? I don't mean to be flippant, but I can't figure out how it would work.
There is an even bigger problem. God has said clearly that He does not need anyone's advice or counsel. He says, who has given Him anything that He should owe someone else. That being so, since when does God need OUR help to run the earth? Where did we ever read in the gospels that Jesus needed anyone else's advice? Never. So, I would contend that resurrecting people to be in heaven is not only unsubstantiated in scripture but is simply not necessary. On the other hand, in the resurrection, the world of mankind will need instruction and guidance. We DO need those rulers, right here on earth.
To me, arguments like these strongly point to an earthly future for all of us.
Comment by Colette on 2017-02-25 06:36:10
What did Jesus teach while on the earth? He could have cleared up a lot of doctrinal confusion if he had spent time on theological discussion. Yet what was important and what mattered to him? If you look at the focus of his ministry, he taught people how to treat each other. The focus was love. Love of people as we can't love God if we don't love our brother, and love of God. THAT is what matters.
Why? LOVE = GOOD RELATIONSHIP
Love is the identifying mark of true Christians. Love is the qualifying factor to rule with Christ.
Once the kingdom rules, it will just take a few words from our Lord to clear up some doctrinal issues as they are really just secondary. And how sad it is that so called Christians are then willing to fight tooth and nail, and lose their love, to prove that they are right on whatever point it is.
Comment by lazarus on 2017-02-26 07:09:13
Hi Meleti , I appreciate your article, and I like your reasoning on John 5:28 & Romans 8:17-24. Like the reasoning and I agree with your conclusions also. I believe in this once in a lifetime opportunity to be a child of God.
You said "Jesus, like his Father, will not force adoption upon anyone. The law of free will means that we must freely choose to accept what is offered without coercion or manipulation."
In the illustration-A King Calls Those Invited to a Marriage Feast. Matt 22:1-14 it says in verse 14,“For many are invited, but few are chosen.” (Matt 22:1-14)
Also note these ones are "called",
Rev 17:14"..Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.”
Called or invited = I guess its scripturally the same thing.
My question is, If we we accept the call or invitation, what steps are involved? A Bible Study , gaining knowledge , repentance, conversion, faith, water baptism or If you have already done this, eg your a baptisted Christian, then What's the next steps?
2) What is involved In God choosing ? Matt 22:14"..few are Chosen?"
Thanks again.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-02-26 14:31:39
Good questions, Lazarus. I'm working on the answers for the next article. :)
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2017-02-26 10:45:33
Hi Meliti. I thought the article was brilliant and so well explained. It really is so simple. The people God wants in his family are those that prove their love for him by displaying love to others as far as they are able. It removed the rules and regulations and over rides them all with love. Love makes us focus on what is important. If in doubt, as some have said, do things the loving way.
I am still a little confused on the hopes. I understand that we become children of God by coming under Jesus wing unless we are are directly joint heirs with Christ. So either way we come back into the family. But where ? Have you suggested the answer to this, or have I missed something. Or is it just "wait and see".
Either way, this sort of article would be wonderful as spiritual food to far more than just read this site. You must have put a lot of thought into it over the years. And, in case you wondered, I am aware of your older article on Orphans.
My continued condolences again to you.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-02-26 14:33:55
Hi Leonardo,
It is a big topic to be sure. I'm working on followups to deal with the questions you raise. I'm hoping that they will spark lively discussions that will help us all delve deeper into this most important of all topics.
Comment by lazarus on 2017-02-26 23:34:25
Interesting Wt Study article, from 1938, 3 years into the new understanding of who the "other Sheep" doctrine. A understanding of the "creature" comes to light regarding the , newly formed "other sheep " in the Watchtower Society. Keep in mind also, for their first time in 3 years, they(the Jehonadabs-other sheep) were invited to attend their first Memorial, (no invites to Jehonadabs 1935-1938)and I think(it was only for the Elders only invite) .
Well this is the quote with reference.
His Flock -Wt April 1938 para 33, page 105., "The Jonadabs, or "other sheep", are in a differ- ent condition. The Jonadabs have fled to the Lord and there found refuge.
They are still human creatures, not even justified, because the receiving of life ever- lasting depends upon their faithful obedience within God's organization and faithfully abiding there until the wrath of God is passed at Armageddon. It follows, therefore, that a Jonadab would not have the witness of the spirit that he is a son of God. The Jonadab must show his appreciation of the goodness of God by faithfully obeying the commandments of the Lord, and continue to seek meekness and righteousness and to joyfully await the time when he shall be fully ushered into the flock of the Lord and receive life everlasting on earth. "
You'll note, this group are "are human creatures, with no justification "...and "life ever- lasting depends upon their faithful obedience within God's organization and faithfully abiding there until the wrath of God is passed at Armageddon. "
Also" Jonadab would not have the witness of the spirit that he is a son of God. "
I thought it was worth posting.
Comment by Salvation, Part 3: The Seed | Beroean Pickets - Bible Study Forum on 2017-03-03 19:07:06
[…] However, there is apparently another reason that Jehovah chose to use the seed of the woman in the process that results in the salvation of Mankind. We will deal with this in our next article. […]
Comment by Yehorakam on 2017-03-04 16:26:43
Excellent article Meleti. Thoroughly enjoyed it. It's feels so comfortable being on the same page on this topic. John 1:12 continues to be one of my favorite scriptures. As regards those that become children of God, and later those that become children of Jesus, I have come to understand that, and have seen John 10:16 in a different way, thanks to another brother and the HS. I used to understand it the way Raymond Franz explained it...that Jesus was referring to Jews being the first invited, and then Jesus would bring other sheep: non Jews. But, an examination of the context from vs. 1-15 shows that Jesus is first talking about a group that listens to his voice right now, and receive life for doing so. He makes no distinction about their race. It is about listening or not listening. Then, he says in just a short verse (16), that there are other sheep that he will bring later on. They will eventually join the first group. Jesus was not talking about Jews and non-Jews. He was indicating that a first group would receive life. Later, during his Kingdom rule, he and the first group would assist another group to receive life and become sons of God. The end result is that both groups would receive the same: perfect life as sons of God. They would be all one family, "one flock."
So, the other sheep Jesus mentioned have not yet appeared. Jesus only interest right now is the gathering of the first group. That is why he only spoke of the invitation to be part of the Kingdom of the Heavens, and only spoke of the second group in passing. Until the first group is all gathered, he cannot begin his rule...and therefore cannot begin to help the second group. No sense gathering a second group if you haven't even got everyone in the first group. It would be like putting a roof on a house when the walls haven't even been erected. The Witnesses focus has been on gathering other sheep that will survive Armageddon. JESUS gathers, or brings in the other sheep during his reign, not the Witnesses. (of course he will have "helpers") Sadly, the Witnesses will end up seeing that all humans will have to experience a physical death. That is the pronouncement of God for all sinners. So, there will be no survivors of other sheep at Armageddon. Even the anoitned, those 'counted as righteous' will have to die. How much more so, those that have ignored Christ's invitation and followed men!
As regards, being given a spiritual body vs. being on earth. Did not the angles come down and take bodies to live on earth? Where did they get that power? They wouldn't have had that power if God hadn't given it to them originally. And God would not have given them that if it wasn't part of his original purpose. Of course, they used it 1) to mix with imperfect creation, 2) abused it, and then lost that privilege. But has not God selectively given that privilege to certain angels? Did not angels enjoy eating with Abraham and Gideon? Did not the resurrected Jesus cook fresh bread and fish on the beach with his disciples? God's purpose for his perfect sons in heaven and perfect sons on earth to have a close family relationship will eventually be accomplished. If we are given a perfect spiritual life as sons of God, then the many physical roadblocks will drop. Maybe I've said too much.
In conclusion, excellent article Meleti. May God and Christ continue to direct your steps!
Much love,Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-07 13:51:08
Hi Yehorakam,
You wrote: “Jesus was not talking about Jews and non-Jews.”
What evidence is there for this?
You then wrote: “He was indicating that a first group would receive life. Later, during his Kingdom rule, he and the first group would assist another group to receive life and become sons of God. The end result is that both groups would receive the same: perfect life as sons of God. They would be all one family, “one flock.””
To be precise, he said that the first group were a flock of sheep then present. They were “this fold” or ‘this flock”. He then said that there were "other sheep" that he must “bring in”. He gave no indication as to the timing for the appearance of this second group of sheep. Additionally, he doesn’t say that the current sheep have to be fully gathered before he can start to bring in the "other sheep". What he does say is that at some point in time they become one flock under one shepherd.
I see nothing in this to dismiss the idea that the “other sheep” were the gentiles who became Christians.Reply by Yehorakam on 2017-03-10 17:56:37
Hi Meleti, as I mentioned "I have come to understand...John 10:16 in a different way." What evidence is there that Jesus was talking about Jews and non-Jews. None. What evidence is there that Jesus was referring to a second group that would receive life at the end of the 1,000 years? None. Neither is explicity stated. It's only my thoughts on the matter. There is certainly is nothing to dismiss the idea of Jews and non-Jews being brought together in one group. There is nothing to dismiss to the idea that eventually a second larger group will come to life and become part of one family as sons of God. I was not attempted to teach one way as true, but only express the way I understand it.
Much love,
Comment by POP on 2017-03-11 18:59:29
Amen , I still like addressing "Sovereign Lord" when I feel a need for more formal conversation with our Father . A recognition of the full Character held by God tho I use both . It has a sweet taste in my mouth .
Comment by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-12 18:23:20
You wrote, "let us agree that our salvation is the restoration of what was lost in Eden." Precisely. And what was lost in Eden? Perfect human life on earth. So, why does everyone believe that this "restoration" occurs in heaven?
Let us remind ourselves: Who was it who first said that humans would never die AND would exist in a state comparable to God? Satan, that's who.
In the first century, for all of Jesus' talk about the Kingdom of the Heavens (which the context will show as synonymous with the Kingdom of God), no where in the NT does Jesus or the apostles ever say in plain language, "when you die as a faithful Christian, you will be resurrected as a spirit person to live in Heaven in the presence of God himself". For a hope of such staggering importance and consequences, should we not expect at least one, single sentence in the Bible that says so directly? Yes. So why aren't there any?
Go forward to the third century, as the Catholic Church holds sway over the earth. What is their primary doctrine? The immortal souls of faithful Christians go to Heaven to be with 'angels' with God.
That sounds just like what the original serpent said, doesn't it?
We need to face the truth: The so-called 'heavenly hope' is a teaching of demons.Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-21 19:03:02
I wanted to say a few words about the voting feature on this forum.
I have observed that in the last few weeks, someone has been voting down my posts. When I post comments, it's because I sincerely believe that it will contribute something to the discussion. I don't do this in order to 'curry favor' or win a popularity contest. It would be 'nice' if people liked what I wrote, but that is not what is most important to me. Either what I have written is in harmony with the truth, or it isn't. That ought to be the only criterion for evaluation. It is not as though "whoever gets the most votes wins'. What could I possibly "win" if that were really any matter of substance?
I would like to convey the following to those who may be voting me down:
First, I would prefer you didn't. The whole realm of ex-JWs and JW dissenters has plenty of negativity already, without literal negative signs becoming part of this forum. Personally, when I run across posts I don't care for, I don't vote. Actually, I seldom vote even for ones I do like, unless they are exceptionally good. I don't believe voting is all that important, and I would be more than happy if the feature were not present or removed altogether. A vote either way says nothing and conveys no information. What good is it, anyway?
Second, if you sincerely feel that you have some sort of just cause for voting me down, don't do that alone. If you do, I have no idea why you disagree or are unhappy. All I can deduce is that you have some kind of grudge or animus against me, for reasons unknown. That does not help me, or you, or anyone else. Suppose I really *am* wrong. That is certainly more than possible. I won't know why unless you tell me. If you are assuming that I won't listen to your correction, or would never change my mind, if you made a convincing case that I was wrong about something, that assumption would be incorrect. I don't know everything, and I can most certainly be wrong.
Please don't just vote me down and then 'run away'. Stay here long enough to compose a reasoned response if you disagree. Show me from the scriptures alone how and why you believe I am wrong, if that is what you believe. It would be different if someone *else* posted some objection to my words and then you had simply agreed with them. No one has, so far, at least not about this particular topic.
The whole point of this forum is to exchange reasoned-out ideas. So, start exchanging. If you really have something to say, say it.
I will be waiting for your response.Reply by Colette on 2017-03-21 19:25:15
Hello Robert
I hope you don't become offended if some vote down your comments. I agree that it would be nice to know why, but I think that some on the site may still be in shock over finding out that the truth is not the truth, may disagree with your conclusions due to past indoctrination and are unable to make a rebuttal for obvious reasons.
I for one, and am sure there are others, appreciate your insights and comments, so please don't stop.Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-03-21 20:37:53
Thank you Colette. I am not so much offended as I am puzzled. If someone truly thinks I am wrong, I WANT them to tell me why. I don't know everything! Maybe they are right and I am wrong. If that is so, neither I nor anyone else will benefit from their insights if they don't provide them. It does no good to harbor grudges. We all need to respectfully share our thoughts freely.
When I do write things, I try my best not to make any remarks personal, but to stick to the facts as I understand them. In the end, what difference does it make who I am or what I think? The only things that matters are God and Christ and the Bible and genuine truth. Everything else is noise.
Reply by tyhik on 2017-03-22 16:29:52
Robert, great that you don't feel offended by a down vote. It is best to ignore them. For several reasons. First, we don't know how often somebody gives a down vote as long as there are some up votes and the balance comes out non-negative. If you are 'late to the party' so to say, then the only downvote may be all you get. Second, I'd say, downvoting is the easiest way to 'argue' when one does not like the conclusions, but does not have time or willingness or even perhaps arguments to articulate it. If a person has something to say then he'll do it, in most cases, I think (I have no stats to support that, so just assuming). It is entirely possible that the person who downvoted you, never comes back to read your request in the follow-up comment. And then there is always the possibility of a mis-click.
Your comments are well valued, thank you.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-30 02:49:50
A thumbs up is a person's way off showing a number of things, one of which is that they like what you wrote; another is that they agree with you.
A thumbs down is the opposite: A simple way of saying I don't agree with you or like what you have said.
It is nice when a person take the time to give you a thumbs up and also tells you why they agree with you, but if they don't, we don't get upset because they've made us feel good.
However, if a person gives us a thumbs down it makes us feel bad to some degree because we're just human, and so we'd like to know why they disagree. Nevertheless, a person has the right to disagree without being required to explain him/herself.
In short, the thumbs up/down feature is a way (albiet limited) of providing peer pressure in the online world and peer pressure--both positive and negative--is essential for the health of any community, as long as the pressure is not influenced by any authority figures, but can be exerted equally by all.
Comment by tyhik on 2017-03-20 18:36:54
Thank you Meleti for this interesting and important article. I agree with most of your conclusions, except the "children of Jesus" discussion. This is a minor detail, but I'd like to present a different angle here for the interested. When I did research on trinity doctrine, I found that jews understand and translate Isa 9:6 differently than Christians. Over time, I have started to trust the Jewish translations of the Old Testament more than Christian. Christian translations and interpretations of this passage have been traditionally biased, to support trinity. Here comes a copy-paste of a piece about Isa 9:6 from http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/prooftext6is96.html
----
Christians always seem to misunderstand this quotation. This is because they do not understand Hebrew, nor do they understand names, nor do they understand Hebrew names.
First, let us understand names. In most languages, every name has a meaning. The name 'Anthony' means 'priceless' and the name 'Alexander' means 'protector.' If we were to give a child the first and middle names of Anthony Alexander, would that mean that we are saying that this child is a 'priceless protector?' Would we call out to them, 'Hey, Priceless Protector, how are you?' Of course not.
Hebrew names sometimes say something about Gd. The name Michael means 'who is like Gd.' The name Elihu means 'my Gd is He,' or 'He is my Gd.' The name Immanuel means 'Gd is with us,' just to give a few examples. If someone has the name, Elihu, (again, meaning 'He is my Gd') would that mean that the human being known as Elihu is Gd? These names say something about Gd, even though they are the names of ordinary human beings. A better translation to the verse in question might be:
...and his name will be called, 'A wonderful counselor is the mighty Gd, an everlasting father is the ruler of peace.'
This means that there are really only two Hebrew names in the verse, which are given to a human being and not to a divine being, even though the names make a statement about Gd. Those names, like Anthony Alexander in our example above, would be 'Pele Yoetz El Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom.' The way it is written in the original Hebrew, the names would be hyphenated as 'Pele-Yoetz-El-Gibor' and 'Avi-Ad-Sar-Shalom.' Lengthy names like these were not uncommon in the
Bible, and in Isaiah specifically. For example, in Isaiah 8:3, we find the name,
'Maher-shalal-chash-baz,' which means 'the spoil speeds, the prey hastens.'Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-20 19:12:04
Thanks Tyhik, but I don't see how the reasoning in that link argues against the "children of Jesus" line of reasoning? It seems to be talking more about whether Isaiah 9:6 refers to actual names, which I agree it does not, and whether Jesus being called Everlasting Father means he is one with the Father, Jehovah, which it does not. Other than that, it does not appear to say anything that proves Jesus won't be the father (in the likeness of Adam) of all those who are declared righteous at the end of the 1,000 years.
Reply by tyhik on 2017-03-20 19:50:27
I understand from this link that Isa 9:6 does not call Jesus Everlasting Father at all. If it is indeed so then there is not much Bible support left for "children of Jesus" idea.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-03-20 20:19:17
Interesting. I've never looked at the interlinear before, but you're right. I don't see "father" there, at least on the Biblehub.com interlinear. Does anyone else know more about this subject?
I disagree with the conclusion that the removal of this reference to Jesus as a father leaves us with little Bible support for the idea that Jesus has children. You will acknowledge that the Bible says that Adam has children, and since Jesus becomes the last Adam, it follows that the first man is replaced by the Son of Man. This does not mean that God will not be the Father of all humans, however.
Comment by Salvation, Part 5: The Children of God | Beroean Pickets - Bible Study Forum on 2017-09-22 18:29:40
[…] [For the previous article in this series, see All in the Family.] […]
Comment by Salvation, Part 3: The Seed - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2021-10-25 18:17:12
[…] Salvation, Part 4: All in the Family […]
Comment by Salvation, Part 5: The Children of God - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2021-10-25 18:32:50
[…] [For the previous article in this series, see All in the Family.] […]