144,000 & the Great Multitude~David Reed & Ron Rhodes Critique the Jehovah’s Witnesses Interpretation

David A. Reed, Jehovah’s Witnesses : Answered Verse by Verse (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1997, c1986), 104-110.

Revelation 7:4

And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred a forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. (nwt)

The Watchtower Society teaches that the Christian church, or body of Christ, is limited to a literal number of 144,000 individuals. This gathering of the 144,000 began at Pentecost in the first century and continued through the year 1935—at which time the number was completed and the door was closed. New believers since 1935 are not part of the congregation of 144,000, but form a secondary class called the “great crowd” of “other sheep.” (See the discussion of Rev. 7:9 for further information on the “great crowd” and the 1935 date.) Since 1935, most of the remaining ones of the 144,000 have died off, leaving only about 9,000 alive on earth today—all of whom are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Among the millions of JWs, only the remnant of the 144,000 have the hope of heaven, and only they may partake of the communion loaf and cup.

As with many of the symbolic word-pictures in the Book of Revelation, there is some debate even among true Christians as to just who the 144,000 may be. We can freely admit that to the Witnesses, while showing them that the Watchtower Society’s interpretation is obviously wrong.

Revelation 7:4 says that the 144,000 are “of the sons of Israel,” but the Watchtower Society teaches that the Christian congregation is here symbolically portrayed as “spiritual Israel,” and that the 144,000 are therefore drawn from among all nations. We need only read the next few verses to discredit their interpretation: “Out of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand sealed; out of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand sealed” (Rev. 7:5–8, nwt). How more clearly could Israel be specified than by listing the twelve tribes making up that nation?

The Witnesses may respond by insisting that the references to 12,000 from each tribe are purely symbolic. But, if that is true, then the twelve symbolic numbers (12,000 + 12,000 + 12,000 + 12,000 + 12,000 + 12,000 + 12,000 + 12,000 + 12,000 + 12,000 + 12,000 + 12,000 = 144,000) must add up to a total that is also symbolic. Yet the Witnesses believe the 144,000 to be a literal number. So, again, their interpretation leads to a contradiction.

Revelation 7:9

After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. (nwt)

The Watchtower Society teaches that in the year 1935 God stopped calling people to a heavenly hope in union with Christ. They say that in that year he began gathering a secondary class of believers, outside the body of Christ, whose hope would be to live forever on earth in the flesh. This class of people, they claim, is the “great crowd” of Revelation 7:9–17.

This is one of the most significant doctrines taught by the Watchtower Society. It forms the basis for convincing millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses that:

1. They cannot become members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27).

2. They cannot be “born again” (John 3:3)

3. They cannot share in Christ’s heavenly kingdom (2 Tim. 4:18).

4. They cannot receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).

5. They are not entitled to share in the communion loaf and cup (1 Cor. 10:16–17).

6. They are not in the New Covenant mediated by Christ (Heb. 12:24).

7. They cannot be fully justified through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:26).

Thus, the Society uses this “1935 doctrine” to deprive its followers of the relationship with God outlined in the New Testament for all believers.

Where does the Bible teach that entrance to the Christian congregation would be closed in the year 1935, with a secondary “great crowd” being gathered after that? Nowhere! Watchtower leaders claim that “light flashed up”—that Watchtower president J. F. Rutherford received a special “revelation of divine truth”—to introduce this change in 1935. They can produce no scriptural support at all for the 1935 date. Instead of turning to the Bible, they say,

These flashes of prophetic light prepared the ground for the historic discourse on “The Great Multitude,” given May 31, 1935, by the president of the Watch Tower Society, J. F. Rutherford, at the Washington, D.C., convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses. What a revelation of divine truth that was! (The Watchtower, 3/1/85, p. 14, §12)

…the heavenly hope was held out, highlighted and stressed until about the year 1935. Then as “light flashed up” to reveal clearly the identity of the “great crowd” of Revelation 7:9, the emphasis began to be placed on the earthly hope (The Watchtower, 2/1/82, p. 28, §16).

There is no biblical basis whatsoever for this teaching. Scripture discusses in detail the Old Covenant for the Jews and the New Covenant for Christians. But it makes no mention of any third arrangement for gathering a “great crowd” with an earthly hope after the year 1935.

Moreover, the verses the Witnesses cite in Revelation actually locate the “great crowd” as “before the throne and before the Lamb” (7:9, nwt), “before the throne of God” (7:15, nwt) and “in his temple” (7:15, nwt)—all heavenly locations, rather than on earth as the Watchtower Society teaches.

In fact, the reference to “a great crowd … crying with a loud voice, saying: ‘Salvation we owe to our God … ’ ” (7:9–10) is quite similar to the wording of the only other mention of “a great crowd” in the Watchtower’s New World Translation of the Book of Revelation. This is in chapter 19, where the invitation to “Be praising our God, all you his slaves, who fear him, the small ones and the great” is responded to by “a voice of a great crowd” (19:5–6). Yet the Scripture specifically says that it is “a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven” (v. 1, italics added).

Once the Watchtower Society’s interpretation has been proved wrong, it is not necessary (or advisable) to get into a discussion with Jehovah’s Witnesses about the true identity of the “great crowd.” Rather, the fact that the Society has taught them wrongly on this important point should be used to open their ears to a presentation of the real gospel of Christ.

This may be introduced by reading Jesus’ prayer to the Father at John 17:20–24—“I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word.… Father, as to what you have given me, I wish that, where I am, they also may be with me, in order to behold my glory … ” (nwt). Jesus’ prayer is that all of his present and future disciples would end up with him, where he is, to behold his glory. Show the Witnesses that the prayer applies to all future disciples who would put faith in Christ through the writings left behind by the early disciples (v. 20). Tell them that, if they will put faith in him, Jesus wants them to end up with him in the heavenly kingdom—regardless of whether they became believers before or after the year 1935.

See also the discussions of heaven versus earth at Psalms 37:9, 115:16, and John 10:16; the discussion of communion at Matthew 26:27; and an actual encounter with Jehovah’s Witnesses over this issue at Revelation 19:1.

Revelation 19:1

After these things I heard what was as a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven. (nwt)

Watchtower brainwashing is so powerful that those under its spell can look at black and see white—if the Society says that black is white. That this is no exaggeration was demonstrated in an encounter that I had with a Jehovah’s Witness lady who knocked at my door in the summer of 1983. (She did not realize that I was a former member. Otherwise, she would not have spoken a word to me.) The discussion went like this:

David Reed: “I’ve heard that you people believe that you are part of a ‘great crowd’ who will receive everlasting life on earth, instead of going to heaven. Is that true! Can you show me the ‘great crowd’ in the Bible?”

Mrs. Jehovah’s Witness: “Yes, that is what the Bible says. See, here it is at Revelation 7:9. [She reads the verse discussed above, at Rev. 7:9.] I hope to be part of that ‘great crowd’ that will live on earth forever.”

David Reed: “But Revelation 7:15 places the ‘great crowd’ before the throne of God in heaven, doesn’t it?”

Mrs. Jehovah’s Witness: “Well, the throne of God is in heaven, but the ‘great crowd’ is on the earth. All creation stands before the throne of God.”

David Reed: “I don’t think the verse would mention their location before the throne if it meant it in such a general sense. But there is one other place where Revelation talks about the ‘great crowd.’ Would you please read Revelation 19:1 in your own Bible to see where it locates the ‘great crowd’?”

Mrs. Jehovah’s Witness: “Certainly! It says, ‘After these things I heard what was as a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven.’ ”

David Reed: “A ‘great crowd’ where?

Mrs. Jehovah’s Witness: “The ‘great crowd’ is on earth!”

David Reed: “Is that what the verse says? Read it again.”

Mrs. Jehovah’s Witness: “It says heaven, but the ‘great crowd’ is on earth.

David Reed: “How can you say that the ‘great crowd’ is on earth, when the Bible plainly says ‘a great crowd in heaven’?”

Mrs. Jehovah’s Witness: “You don’t understand. We have men at our headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, who explain the Bible to us. And they can prove that the ‘great crowd’ is on earth; I just can’t explain it that well. Wait just a moment.”

At that point she ran out into the street and shouted to another Witness woman, who was a few houses away, to come help her. This woman recognized me as an ex-Witness, and that ended the conversation. But the point had already been illustrated: A JW can look at the word heaven in the Bible but see earth instead, if the organization says so.

As the two ladies walked away from my doorstep, my mind raced back to memories of George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. I recalled the frightening portrayal of a totalitarian state where everyone knows that “Big Brother is watching you!”—and so, “Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth,” and “Two plus two equals five, instead of four, if the Party says so.” Truly, the Watchtower Society imposes that same sort of “double-think” on Jehovah’s Witnesses.

(A number of other parallels between the JWs and the fictional society of Nineteen Eighty-Four are highlighted in Gary and Heather Botting’s book The Orwellian World of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1984, University of Toronto Press).

For further information on the question of heaven versus earth, see the discussions of John 10:16 and Revelation 7:9. For other examples of brainwashing, see the discussions of Matthew 24:45; 1 Corinthians 1:10; and “The Author’s Testimony.”




Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), pp. 263-275.


 

RR-1

RR-2

RR-3

RR-4

RR-5

RR-6

RR-7

RR-8

RR-9

RR-10

RR-11

RR-12

RR-13

Lara Logan-A Criminal Attack Against a Reporter

This is an older story but I am only now posting on it.

BigPeace h/t:

Last Friday (2/11/11), Lara Logan, chief foreign correspondent for CBS News, was beaten and raped in Cairo during a thirty minute assault by a frenzied throng of over 200 Egyptians. According to a report in today’s New York Post, Logan’s attackers were shrieking, “Jew! Jew!,” while they assaulted her. Moreover, the day before the assault, Logan informed Esquire.com that she and her crew were harassed  by Egyptian soldiers who had accused them of “being Israeli spies.”  The 39 year-old Logan—who is based in Washington, where she lives with her 2-year-old daughter, and husband—is not Jewish.

…(read more)…

What You Are not Seeing On Mainstream News Shows-Some Carry Signs Likening Republicans to Hitler and Nazis

NewsBusters h/t:

BigGovernment h/t:

The below is just a reminder of some of the anti-war marches, the May Day marches, and the anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist liberals/Democrats of years past (most of these pics come from Zombie Time):

Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket logo of the Revolutionary Communist Party Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket

Ethical Naturalism? (Defined by Apologetics315: Terminology Tuesday)

Apologetics315 (Terminological Tag):

Ethical Naturalism: is a reductionist view that holds that ethical terms (goodness, worth and right) can be defined by or reduced to natural, scientific properties that are biological, psychological, sociological or physical in nature. For example, according to ethical naturalism the term right in “X is right” means one of the following: “What is approved by most people”; “What most people desire”; “What is approved by an impartial, ideal observer”; “What maximizes desire or interest”; “What furthers human survival.” The important point here is that these moral terms and moral properties are not irreducibly moral in nature. Moral properties (e.g., worth, goodness or rightness) turn out to be properties that are biological or psychological.

Furthermore, according to ethical naturalism, these properties can be measured by science by giving them operational definitions. Consider an example. Suppose “X is right” means “X is what most people desire,” and one goes on to argue that the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain is what most people desire. A scientist could measure the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain by defining such a state in physiological terms — the presence of a certain heart rate, the absence of certain impulses in the nervous system, slight coloration of the skin. “Rightness” means what is desired by most people; what is desired by most people is the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain; and pleasure and pain can be defined by certain physical traits of the body. Thus the moral property of rightness has been reduced to a natural property that can be measured.

Two major objections can be raised against ethical naturalism both based on its moral reductionism. First, it confuses an is with an ought by reducing the latter to the former. Moral properties are normative properties. They carry with them a moral “ought.” If some act has the property of rightness, then one ought to do that act. But natural properties like the ones listed do not carry normativeness. They just are. Second, every attempted reduction of a moral property to a natural one has failed because there are cases where an act is right even if it does not have the natural property, and an act can have the natural property and not be right. For example, suppose one reduces the moral property of rightness in “X is right” to “X is what is approved by most people.” This reduction is inadequate. For one thing, the majority can be wrong. What most people approve of can be morally wrong. If most people approved of torturing babies, then according to this version of ethical naturalism, this act would be right. But even though it was approved by most people, it would still be wrong. On the other hand, some acts can be right even if they are not approved of (or even thought of, for that matter) by most people.[1]

[1] William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 401.