Skip to main content

The Watch Tower New Covenant and Kingdom Covenant

Image
By

 


The Watch Tower Society writes:

'Each year, anointed ones look forward to attending the Memorial as partakers. Why do they appropriately partake of the bread and the wine? To answer that, consider what happened on the final night of Jesus’ earthly life. After the Passover meal, Jesus instituted what has come to be known as the Lord’s Evening Meal. He passed the bread and the wine to his 11 faithful apostles and told them to eat and drink. Jesus spoke to them about two covenants, or agreements the new covenant and the Kingdom covenant. * (Luke 22:19, 20, 28-30) These covenants opened up the way for those apostles and a limited number of others to become kings and priests in heaven. (Rev. 5:10; 14:1) Only the anointed remnant, * who are in these two covenants, may partake of the bread and the wine at the Memorial.' (Study Watchtower for January 2022)

Did Jesus introduce one new covenant or two? Is there a second 'Kingdom Covenant,' also available only to the 'anointed?' What exactly was Jesus establishing at the last supper, and who does it concern?

This is a great example of the Watch Tower Society saying something the Bible clearly does not. Need I point out that Jesus does not use the phrase ‘covenant of the kingdom’? What Jesus says about the kingdom is a continuation of what he says about the new covenant, not another covenant. The entry into the new covenant gives entry into the kingdom.


Jesus’ Message

Jesus’ message was a kingdom message. Matthew tells us ‘Jesus, went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom…’ (Mt.4:23, cf Lk.4:43) Remember, only ‘those apostles and a limited number of others to become kings and priests in heaven.’

On the JW website, we read:

‘Jesus said: “Unless anyone is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) So being born again prepares a person to rule with Christ in God’s Kingdom. This Kingdom rules from heaven, so the Bible describes the “new birth” as providing an inheritance that is “reserved in the heavens.” (1 Peter 1:3,4) Those who are born again are given the conviction that they will “rule together as kings” with Christ.—2 Timothy 2:12;2 Corinthians 1:21,22.’

Only those elect who are born again enter the kingdom, indeed Jesus tells Nicodemus only they can see the kingdom. So why was Jesus preaching the kingdom to the masses, why so determined to reach as many as possible with a message of a kingdom they can neither see nor enter?


Other Sheep?

The answer in the article is that these ‘other sheep’ contemplate their earthly hope,’ even as they look on as the elect partake of the elements of the meal. It’s like being invited to a party only to find yourself watching while others get to eat. Such an idea makes a nonsense of Paul’s words to Galatian believers:

‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (Gal.3:28)

Again, to Rome, Paul writes, ‘so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.’ (Rom.12:5) Note, access is so comprehensively available as to make none of the distinctions traditionally made, not even male and female. All may come, all are members of the one body.

When Jesus spoke of other sheep he was clear, ‘there will be one flock and one shepherd.’ (Jn.10:16) It can further be said that the only distinction in the gospel of the kingdom is one between the sheep and the goats:

‘Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by the father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’ (Mt.25:31-34)


Diatheke or Diathísomai?

The Society repeatedly crowbars its teaching into the Bible text, making words mean what they don’t, making people hear what they shouldn't, and misleading millions. Here is a classic example. Again, I am grateful to Bavesh Roger for the following and leave the last word to him:

The whole NT is a new covenant which I think most would agree, was promised in Jer.31 where the Greek word phrase kaine diatheke (LXX) means "new covenant" or "new testament." This word diatheke occurs 33 times in the NT indicating a proper covenant or will.

The NWT however, inserts the word "covenant" twice in Luke 22:29 for the Greek word diathísomai which does not mean "making a covenant". NKJV renders this verse as "And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed upon Me", whereas NWT says "and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom".

The Father did not make a covenant with Jesus and neither did Jesus make any "kingdom covenant" with the disciples. The Father simply "appointed" unto Jesus a kingdom (as rendered correctly in the old KJV) and Jesus does the same with the disciples.

The meaning of both these Greek words diatheke and diathisomai becomes more clear when they occur at the same time in Heb. 10:16 and Heb. 8:10 which say "This is the covenant (diatheke) that I will make (diathísomai)...".

By incorrectly rendering diathísomai as a proper covenant, the Watch Tower Society forces their own false interpretation based on the teachings of Rutherford regarding the great crowd of revelation which he called the "earthly class".

Labels:

Comments

Michael Thomas said…
I just got the following helpful comment last night from my good friend Ben Harrison. Great insights coming in over this issue.

'I've read your recent article and it looks like you can draw a bigger distinction between the two words under the heading: "Diatheke or Diathísomai?"

For, as you can see, these two words you've presented as having the same stem "diath", which would imply covenant.
However, to evade this implication, the Greek term is spelt more correctly diatithemai. Therefore pointing to a different stem altogether. Thus, undermining the NWT's use of covenant for diatithemai even more.

What we see is that the stem for "Diatheke" is "Diath". Whereas, the stem for "Diatithemai" is "Dia" . Dia has been translated into the English tongue as "via", meaning, quite simply, "through". Therefore, in no way do the two terms compute or have any form of epistomological, historical, contextual semantic crossover. In the history of translation, the NWT is the first and only translation to Ever render the term the way they have.'
3 November 2021 at 10:43
Bavesh Roger said…
Yes that's correct and thanks for pointing that out. I should have corrected that the Greek in Luke 22:29 is "diatithemai" not "diathesomai". But also, in the list of word forms given in Strong's 1303, "diathesomai" is listed as one of forms for "diatithemai" which LXX uses for the Hebrew word "karath" for example in Hosea 2:18 whose primary meaning according to Strong's Hebrew 3772 is "to cut off or cut down, to make or to ordain", but does not in itself mean a proper covenant or will. "Diatheke" on the other hand used in the LXX for the Hebrew "Berith" which according to Thayer's does mean "a testament, will or covenant". Nevertheless, it is clear that the NWT is wrong.
3 November 2021 at 15:10
Bavesh Roger said…
Yes that's correct and thanks for pointing that out. I should have corrected that the Greek in Luke 22:29 is "diatithemai" not "diathesomai". But also, in the list of word forms given in Strong's 1303, "diathesomai" is listed as one of forms for "diatithemai" which LXX uses for the Hebrew word "karath" for example in Hosea 2:18 whose primary meaning according to Strong's Hebrew 3772 is "to cut off or cut down, to make or to ordain", but does not in itself mean a proper covenant or will. "Diatheke" on the other hand used in the LXX for the Hebrew "Berith" which according to Thayer's does mean "a testament, will or covenant". Nevertheless, it is clear that the NWT is wrong.
4 November 2021 at 11:51
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

By
In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

By
The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...
70 comments
Read more

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

By
The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...
18 comments
Read more