Skip to main content

When is a Kingdom not a Kingdom?

Image
By

Last time we started looking at the Watch Tower teaching on kingdom and government. We are still in the Reasoning book, p.226 where they explain kingdom:

'The Kingdom of God is the expression of Jehovah’s universal sovereignty toward his creatures, or the means used by him to express that sovereignty. This term is used particularly to designate the manifestation of God’s sovereignty through the royal government headed by his Son, Jesus Christ. “Kingdom” may refer to the rulership of the one anointed as King or to the earthly realm ruled by that heavenly government.'

They justify their use of 'government' using Isaiah 9 - 'To us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder...of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end.' Isaiah 9:6,7

They say rulership was given to Jesus (Dan.7:13,14), that by his blood, 'You bought persons for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God...' (Rev.5:8,10) and that this cast of rulers are the 144,000 of Revelation 14:1-3.

We dealt last time with who exactly is bought by his blood, and who is to reign with him for eternity. It isn’t a civil service of 144,000 but a whole nation, people group, the saved.

A Kingdom

I am thankful to Barry Amor for sharing in the discussion on the Reachout Facebook page his research that makes up much of this post. Barry points out, in the Watch Tower Society book ‘Insight on the Scriptures’ 1988, Vol1 under ‘kingdom’ page 159 it says:

‘The phrase [kingdom] is used particularly for the expression of God’s sovereignty through a royal government headed by his Son.’ So not the actual government itself!

The same article in the ‘Insight’ book defines the Greek word basileia (The Greek word we translate as Kingdom) as ‘a kingdom realm, the region or country governed by a king; kingly power, authority, dominion, reign, royal dignity, the title and honour of king” quoting from the Analytical Greek Lexicon 1908 p67. Notice this definition does not mention the option of it meaning a government.

Rev 5:9 tells us who are those who will rule:

‘And they sang a new song, saying, Worthy are you to take the scroll and to pen it’s seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.’

This has been described as ‘a multi-ethnic multitude’ and you can see why, it is a great crowd. These are those ransomed by the blood of the Lamb. Not 144,000 but a multitude. Compare their description here with that in Rev 7:9, it’s almost identical.

‘After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes with palm branches in their hands.’

Nowhere in the whole Bible does it say that the 144,000 will rule anything at all - not a single verse.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary

Vine says kingdom is ‘primarily an abstract noun, denoting "sovereignty, royal power, dominion," e.g., Revelation 17:18, translated "(which) reigneth," lit., "hath a kingdom" (RV marg.); then, by metonymy, a concrete noun, denoting the territory or people over whom a king rules.’

So it is either God’s rule or that over which He rules which are much the same thing. It can never mean a group of people forming a government. God may use a government to manage His kingdom, much as our King uses a government to manage the U.K., but that kingdom is not the government or vice-versa.

There is a JW argument that says kingdoms had governments, which is true, but that destroys the idea that a kingdom IS a government. Isa 9:6 doesn’t give any indication that God’s kingdom is a government, nor does any other verse in the Bible.

Born Again

The truth about God’s kingdom is really vital as we need to enter it to be under God’s rule. Whether ‘kingdom’ means God’s rule or that over which He rules we need to be in it else we are outside and Matt 8:11,12 tells us that to be outside is a very bad thing:

‘I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven [there’s that multi-ethnic multitude again], while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness.’

By redefining the word kingdom the Watch Tower makes it unnecessary for us to be born-again as it says in John 3:16. So Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t need to come to Jesus and be reborn as children of God. This is another way the Watch Tower Society tricks it’s members into rejecting Christ’s sacrifice.

This what cults do, they take away from the person, status, authority, and finished work of the Saviour so you end up with no Saviour, just a crowd of all-too-flawed men telling you what to do.



Labels:

Comments

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