I came across this article, makes very interesting reading.
IS THIS REVELATION?
First from the Society's book, Revelation the Grand Climax, pp.288-290.
It relates to their explanation of Revelation 20:4, 5, which in the NASB reads,
"Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection."
Now this would appear to be fairly straightforward in its general meaning.
1. There were those who were reigning with Christ who had been given the place of judgement - this is one group.
2. Then there were those who had come out triumphant from the tribulation - a second group.
3. Then there were the rest of the dead - a third group.
However, this gives Jehovah's Witnesses a problem as they say there are only two groups.
In the NWT these verses read, "And I saw thrones, and there were those who sat down on them, and power of judging was given them. Yes, I saw the souls of those executed with the ax for the witness they bore to Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had worshiped neither the wild beast nor its image and who had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection." Even here, it appears there are three groups and so just how does the Society make 3 into 2? One of the important things concerning Biblical exposition is that you are consistent. It is rather like putting a message into secret code; if you represent 'a' with 'z' every time you write it, the code can be deciphered. However, if you simply choose a random letter each time it cannot be deciphered. The Watchtower Society seems to be the same when it comes to their Biblical teaching! I was interested in how they explained these verses and found it quite enlightening. I reprint part of their explanation below and seek to show that this is not correct Biblical exposition because of the random choosing of various explanations. First we are told that the ones sitting on the throne, "… are "holy ones" that Daniel described as ruling in the Kingdom… (Daniel 7:13, 14, 18). They are the same as the 24 elders… (Revelation 4:4)" p.288. So it appears at first that the Society agrees that there are 24 thrones, as we read in Revelation 4:4, around the throne of Jehovah. Indeed, it is surely what John wants us to understand the way he says, "and I saw thrones and there were those that sat on them." He is surely referring to a subject that he has already introduced as he gives no other indication of what is happening. Apart from this, the only other times, twice in fact, in Revelation, that plural 'thrones' are mentioned, they are restricted to the 24 elders. However, the Watchtower Society are not content with 24, even though that is the number given in Scripture, they want more. They add, Paul, the faithful Corinthian Christians and those who conquered in Laodicea - they give no reason why they leave out the rest of the New Testament Churches especially the Ephesians who were, "seated with Christ in the heavenly places"! The summation of all this is found on p.289 where we read, "Thrones - 144,000 of them - are prepared for these anointed conquerors who are 'bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.' (Revelation 14:1, 4)" Where in Revelation are 144,000 associated with thrones? Nowhere directly, in the whole of the book, but there is an interesting verse in Revelation 14:3 which reads, "… they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand." Here they sing the song before the throne and the elders, not sitting on the thrones around Jehovah's throne. Terminology in Revelation appears to be very clear, unless you use 'pick-and-mix' theology. How, though, do they overcome the fact that there is another group, joined in the NASB as in the Greek, with an 'and,' to show that they are two groups joined together? How? The NWT simply changes the 'and' to 'yes'! The Greek word is kái which Greek scholar, Strong, defines as, "Apparently a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so, then, too…" There isn't a 'yes' in sight and to translate it thus is trying to hide the fact that they are two distinctive groups. Thus, in the Society's book, we read that the second group were part of the first, something Scripture clearly does not say. "Among those kings, then, are the anointed Christian martyrs who earlier, at the opening of the fifth seal, asked Jehovah how much longer he would wait to avenge their blood. At that time, they were given a white robe and told to wait a little longer…" - p. 289 Another indication of this random theology comes in the next paragraph of the book which says, "Were all these 144,000 royal judges physically "executed with the axe"? Likely, relatively few of them were in a literal sense. This expression, though, doubtless is intended to embrace all those anointed Christians who endure martyrdom in one way or another…" I do not have a problem with that but it should be pointed out to a Jehovah's Witness, who in future says to you that a specific verse or part of a verse, "must be taken literally". However, what of the third distinct group? We read on p.290, "Whom though, will these kings judge if, as the apostle John here inserts, '(the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended)'? (Revelation 20:5a)" A vital question to answer because this one group, as the Watchtower Society would now have us accept, are rulers on the thrones in heaven - who then are the ruling? A classic Watchtower answer begins, "Again, the expression 'come to life' has to be understood according to context. This expression can have varying meanings in varying circumstances. For example, Paul said of his anointed fellow Christians: "It is you God made alive though you were dead in your trespasses and sins." (Ephesians 2:1) Yes, spirit-anointed Christians were "made alive," even in the first century, being declared righteous on the basis of their faith in Jesus' sacrifice.-Romans 3:23, 24." This again is misleading, as far as Biblical exegesis is concerned. Here in Revelation we have the Greek word anazao which literally means "to recover life" but in Ephesians 2:1, when describing the spiritual condition of being made alive, we do not have the same word. In fact, there is no word in the Greek at all. The 'coming alive' is derived from the fact that you were dead and now you live. The other Scripture they quote in Romans has nothing to do with being made alive at all but about being justified. They compound this error by further stating, "Similarly, pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah were declared righteous as to friendship with God; and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were spoken of as "living" even though they were physically dead. (Matthew 22:31, 32; James 2:2 1, 23) However, they and all others who are resurrected, as well as the great crowd of faithful other sheep who survive Armageddon…" This is where two negatives make a positive. We, the Society, say that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead even though the Bible says they are living. But because the Bible describes someone as living who is dead this shows that what we say about these ones not coming to life is true! Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive in the Kingdom of Heaven, they already were resurrected and so living does mean living! The final twist is given with a statement often found in the Watchtower which basically says, this is what is written but this is what it really means. "By the end of that Day, "the rest of the dead" will have "come to life" in the sense that they will be perfect humans. As we shall see, they must then pass a final test, but they will face that test as perfected humans. When they pass the test, God will declare them worthy of living forever, righteous in the fullest sense." But wait a minute, that isn't what we set out to look at? Coming to life does not equate with being perfect humans who have passed their exams! Coming to life here means recovering life. In other words they were alive, then dead and they did not recover that life again until the thousand years had ended. Watchtower random, 'pick-and-mix' theology does not stand the test of Biblical exegesis. The faithful Jehovah's Witness might accept it but only because they will not check it out without Watchtower theology and understanding that they have been given since the day they entered the Society. ONE TRUE CHURCH? The first article in The Watchtower , 1 September, 2003 poses the question, "Is there only one true Church?" This short article sets the scene by showing the errors of the Catholic Church, in claiming that this does exist, and the reaction of the Protestant Churches to such a claim. They finally pose the question, "Does it matter what church we belong to?" which will lead them on to the second article. This seeks to look at Scripture to discover, "One True Christian Faith - a reality." The conclusion of this second article is very interesting and something that every Jehovah's Witness should take to heart, but I suspect, like so many Christians listening to a powerful sermon, they just know it is for someone else! "Note this however. Jesus Christ definitely foretold that his one true congregation would be restored during what he called a conclusion of a system of things… Maybe you feel you have already found that church, or congregation. It is important that you make sure. Why? Because as in the first century, there can be only one true church. Have you taken the time to make sure that your church closely conforms to the pattern set by the first-century Christian congregation and that it loyally adheres to the teachings of Jesus Christ?" - p.7. That is a massive statement for all Churches including the group known as the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. If their Kingdom Halls do not match up to that standard then they are not the true church of God. I wonder if any of their members studied this article carefully (it did not have questions to answer) and checked the statements made in it, that are said to prove whether a church is true or not? Let's look at some of the issues they raise, "No one can rightly disagree with the fact that the early Christian congregation bore no resemblance to the institutionalised church systems we see today. But it was organized. Individual congregations did not operate independently of one another. They all recognized the authority of a governing body in Jerusalem." - p.4 True, the early church does not resemble the institutionalised systems we have today, but it is not true to say that they all recognised the governing body in Jerusalem. To claim that, you have to ignore several chapters in the book of Acts and most of the letter to the Galatians. The church in Antioch disagreed with the way the Jerusalem leaders were acting and said so in no uncertain terms. Antioch had its own government and its own missionary programme - it did operate independently of Jerusalem. To say it didn't is totally misrepresenting the development of church growth in New Testament times. Added to this, Paul, who of course had much to do with the establishing of the churches in Europe, such as Corinth and Thessalonica, makes some very relevant points. He makes it very clear as to how he feels in Galatians 1 & 2 "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ… I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother." - Galatians 1:11-19 Please note: 1. He did not receive the gospel from any man. 2. He did not go to Jerusalem at first. 3. After 3 years he went to meet with Peter for 15 days and also met James but not the governing body. This is not the behaviour of a man who brings the churches he starts, under the authority of Jerusalem. "Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain… But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me." - Galatians 2:1-6. Again note: 1. Next trip to Jerusalem 14 years later. 2. Did not put himself in subjection to the governing body. 3. Didn't have any time for reputations. 4. The governing body contributed nothing to Paul. These verses show the lie of the statement in the Watchtower article. The article next goes on to find out what happened to this one church, which as we see from the beginning was never one under the authority of the one governing body. What the Society fails to see, or probably does not want to seriously consider, was that the oneness of the churches had nothing to do with submitting to a one man/body leadership but was everything to do with living out the teaching of Christ in their area. As the article develops, they show that Jesus Himself says that there would be tares amongst the wheat. However, the only example they actually give of this is the claimed apostolic succession of the Roman Catholic church which is dismissed in one sentence, by saying that there is no credible evidence (how many Watchtower claims could we say the same about?) Then drawing to a close, they ask about other churches from the Reformation, "Did they return to the model of the early Christian congregation? Did they restore the purity of the original Christian congregation?" - p.6 All this, of course, leads to the conclusion that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is the only one who has done this. Yet, it must be noted, that the only claim in the article made that we can judge against is that there was one Governing Body - something we have already shown to be totally non-Scriptural. We must then come to the inevitable conclusion from the Watchtower's own writings that they are not the one true church.
