God's People

by Frenchy 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Frenchy

  God’s People
  This is in response to a question asked by Martini on the thread ‘Reflections’, page 4. For those who have not read it, the question is: “Is it true that the Israelites were historically Jehovah's chosen people…The Israelites make the WTS with all it's "warts" look like saints… OR are we to deduce from this that Jehovah is the kind of God that could accept and work with such wayward people today as He did in the past?”
  My response was, in a nutshell: Yes, the Israelites were God’s chosen people. God entered into a covenant relationship with them. He produced credentials in the form of awesome miracles that he was Almighty God and he stated through representatives who themselves had miraculous credentials exactly what it was that he wanted and required. They were God’s people because he chose them. They remained such regardless of their numerous shortcomings until the purpose of this arrangement came to a close in the first century of our Common Era.
  The point that Martini is making in the form of his question is: Why must the WTS (FDS, ‘the witnesses’, the society, etc) be disqualified as God’s people on the basis of some of their conduct in light of just how bad the Israelites were and yet they remained God’s chosen people? I think that this is a formidable question. I don’t think that it can be ignored or just brushed aside casually. I believe it to be one of those subjects that demand consideration from all who are serious about their relationship with God.
  I invite all who would like to post their views on this. It’s raining here today so I will probably have a little more time than usual to dedicate to this. (Hey, I hear the moans out there!)

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  Frenchy

  As I mentioned above and some greater length on the other thread, the Israelites were chosen by God. They were not a people that formed a religion and then looked to God for validation of their faith. God is the one that wrote the rules and delivered them through an authorized representative, namely Moses. From time to time there were those that opposed Moses despite the remarkable credentials that he had provided. There was no reasonable doubt that Moses was the one chosen by God to lead his people. Korah and Miriam were evidently very ambitious individuals who put God to the test and in each instance it was God himself who responded to confirm his choice of who would represent him. God was very much involved and took direct action to maintain the arrangement he had put in place. Moses himself did not inflict or prescribe punishment for their behavior. Moses waited upon God to validate his position.
  Some fifteen hundred years later that covenant, having served its purpose, would end. The covenant was conditional: “And now if YOU will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then YOU will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you are to say to the sons of Israel.” (Exodus 19: 5-6)
  For centuries God had sufficient grounds for terminating the covenant. With the arrival and subsequent sacrifice of the Messiah he executed that right. (Hebrews 9: 15-28) At this time a new covenant was brought into force. “Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, ‘which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.” (Jeremiah 31: 31,32) The very nature of that covenant was going to be different from the first. Through Jeremiah Jehovah explains: “For this is the covenant that I shall conclude with the house of Israel after those days,” is the utterance of Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I shall write it. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.” (vs 33) Luke 22:20 records Jesus’ words at his evening meal:This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.” Was this covenant going to be with a nation of people again? Was this going to be with a particular nationality or cultural group? Was it going to be with a religious organization?
  This is the same covenant that Paul spoke about in 2 Cor 3:6 in which he describes this covenant as “not of a written code, but of spirit”. Note how well those words compliment those recorded in Jeremiah, “not like the covenant…” which was a written code. In his letter to the Hebrews (Israelites) Paul calls attention to Jeremiah’s scroll and quotes from it concerning the ‘new covenant’. Paul dwells on the part that the heart of the person now plays in this new arrangement and this begins to give us a clue as to the identity of the people who are going to be in this covenant. In Hebrews 8: 10,11 Paul quotes Jeremiah 31:33,34. Paul writes in verse 13 of Hebrews 8: ” In his saying “a new [covenant]” he has made the former one obsolete”, a fact he also presents in his letter to the Romans. (Ro 10:4) I find it interesting that virtually all translations use that term ‘new covenant’, not only the NWT, in these instances here. Reading this you are bound to note how this is talking about “the house of Israel”. Knowing Paul we know that Paul is not advocating a return to Judaism in his letter to the Hebrews. So we now come to the question: Who is “the house of Israel” in the new covenant?
  ”For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and [his] circumcision is that of the heart by spirit, and not by a written code” (Ro 2: 28-29) Paul describes for us who is now considered as ‘the house of Israel’. Note the mention of the heart again as opposed to the ‘written code’? Paul continues a little later on in his letter: ” For the Scripture says: “None that rests his faith on him will be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him. For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” (Ro 10: 11-13) Now we know that it has nothing to do with nationality. Paul expands on this even further in his letter to the Galatians: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise” (Gal 3: 28,29) And then in Col 3:11 ” where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, foreigner, Scyth'i·an, slave, freeman, but Christ is all things and in all”
  During Paul’s day, those that came to believe in the teachings of Jesus began to organize themselves into congregations. Later, they became known simply as “Christians” (Acts 11:26) It appears that during the first century that these congregations, to some extent, came under some sort of supervisory control. When the matter of circumcision would not go away, the Bible tells us that "And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair” (Acts 15:6) The account tells us that there was quite a dispute over the matter. Peter spoke up and reminded them that God was making no distinction between Jew and Gentile and warned them about imposing a senseless burden on the Christians and reminding them that they (the apostles and older men present) were going to get salvation just like the rest of the people were, namely “the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus”. Later James makes his statement concerning not wanting to trouble the Gentile brothers except with the basics. Paul and Barnabas (and others) carried the decision to the congregations.
  Back then it was a neat package. Christians were now ‘the Israel of God’ and God provided validation of this with remarkable ‘gifts in men'. Miracles were being performed. There were healings, prophesying, speaking in tongues, and even the raising of the dead. But this was not the end of the matter as we shall soon see.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  Edited by - Frenchy on 16 November 2000 11:2:34
• 

  Frenchy

  As time progressed the Christian community grew. In time the apostles died off and apparently these marvelous gifts ceased. (There is no instance in Scripture of these miraculous gifts being passed on unless at least one of the apostles was present. It would appear then that only they could pass this gift on to others. With their demise, this passing on of the gift would cease as Paul had already stated) Paul had also predicted that once the apostles were gone that things would not go well with the congregations. (Acts 20:29)
  2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 is very interesting in this respect: However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of YOU not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. Let no one seduce YOU in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.” Chilling, isn’t it? Here Paul is foretelling the end of Christianity as it was known back then. He’s not talking about ‘an apostasy’ or ‘some apostasy’ but ‘the apostasy’. Paul then speaks of the restraint that was in place once removed would pave the way for the ‘lawless’ one to wreak his havoc. Christianity ceased being an association and community of believers and became, instead, a religion, a church. Once it became such it began fighting against itself, became devisive. Sects began forming and then certain men rose to prominence and subsequently gained power through their ‘fame’ and began to control until they gained complete control over the whole association. Rules began to be laid down, doctrines defined, money and property suddenly became very important. Then one fine day, lo and behold, it was a bona fide religion, with it’s own name: Catholicism. This is what Christianity had become. It was a far cry from the primitive Christian congregations of Paul’s day. Gone were the miracles. They had been replaced now by a bureaucracy of clergy who now stood between God and men. Did this new arrangement have God’s validation? What happened to the ‘new covenant’ that God had put into force? Was it still in existence?

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  Edited by - Frenchy on 16 November 2000 11:34:33
• 

  AhHah

  Martini,

  I believe that Frenchy and Path gave you some excellent points to think about in answer to your question.

  Frenchy also raised a related question that I am sure that all of us have considered at one time or another:

  Jesus’ words at his evening meal:This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.” Was this covenant going to be with a nation of people again? Was this going to be with a particular nationality or cultural group? Was it going to be with a religious organization?

  In spite of our JW indoctrination to believe that Christ taught that he would vest an earthly organization with authority over individual Christians, there is a lack of Scriptural basis for it. The entire emphasis of the Christian arrangement (as contrasted with the Law covenant arrangement with the Israelites as a nation) was on the individual Christian's covenant relationship.

  The fact that Christians formed congregations for spiritual brotherhood is not an endorsement of any power in an organization. Even those whose spiritual maturity allowed them to be properly looked to for shepherding as elders were to be servants as opposed to rulers -- there is only one leader in the Christian arrangement, and that is Christ himself.

  If you would like to read an exhaustive discussion on this subject I recommend the book "In Search of Christian Freedom" by Raymond Franz. The first five chapters and many following chapters deal with the question of a Christian organization with an authority structure, as contrasted with a brotherhood.

  Edited by - AhHAh on 16 November 2000 13:17:22
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Once again, Frenchy, some very thought-provoking points. Although I can no longer lay claim to being astute as far as scriptures are concerned, my own personal experiences and feelings have led me along the same line of reasoning.

  Religions today (any religion) seem to be more involved with "organization" and "laws" rather than faith. While individuals within any organized religion may, indeed, be part of this covenant with God, I honestly don't believe that any particular creed can lay claim to the honor of being "God's people".

  This is just my opinion, but it appears to me that defining criteria of "God's people" involve faith, and a searching for truth, rather than an association with a corporate religious entity.
• 

  Frenchy

  (Continuation of the last post)
  An argument could be made that once Christianity had been established that no further miracles were needed and that the Roman Catholic Church was the ‘natural’ outgrowth of the primitive Christian congregation and as such could claim as its credentials the ones given that primitive congregation. One could do that only if one discounted Paul’s predictions about the apostasy. One is now faced with making a determination as to whether ‘the Church’ was still indeed the Christian congregation or was it what Paul had predicted would become of the congregation.

  A legitimate question I would think. Enough of a question for one to expect some sort of validation of ‘the Church’ by God himself. There has been none. No miracles, no inspired prophecies, not even the production of ONE book of what was to eventually become the Bible. That’s right. One of the things not mentioned previously about God’s validation of his people was the fact they were entrusted with producing what was to become the Bible. This stopped with the primitive Christian congregation. Nothing since. Nothing at all. Don’t you find that significant? There is nothing that has existed since the first century congregation that has any validation from God as being his representative here on earth in the form of miracles or the production of some work that belongs to the Bible. So what has happened to ‘the house of Israel’?

  For the answer we have to go back to when Jesus was on earth and find it in his ministry. He is, after all, the ‘perfecter of our faith’. (Heb 12:2) An interesting account is found at Mark 9: 38-42 “John said to him: “Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.” But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; for he that is not against us is for us. For whoever gives YOU a cup of water to drink on the ground that YOU belong to Christ, I truly tell YOU, he will by no means lose his reward. But whoever stumbles one of these little ones that believe, it would be finer for him if a millstone such as is turned by an ass were put around his neck and he were actually pitched into the sea.” Notice please that they are wanting Jesus to rebuke this man solely for the reason that he is not in their camp. They are not finding any fault with this person other than he is not traveling with them. Jesus then tells his disciples that it is not necessary to be in his entourage in order to do works acceptable to him (and subsequently his father as well.) It’s important to realize that Jesus is correcting them for criticizing this man on the basis of: “he was not accompanying us”. What he says next is also interesting. “…But whoever stumbles one of these little ones that believe…” Who are “these little ones that believe”? Would that not be anyone who believes? In or out of ‘the congregation’ or “not accompanying us”? Jesus said that just giving a Christian “a cup of water to drink on the ground that you belong to Christ” was enough for that person to “no means lose his reward.” And what a penalty for stumbling such a person!

  Now Jesus was not necessarily impressed with the man’s casting out of demons in his name as is evidenced in a statement he made earlier in his ministry recorded in Matt 7:21-23. Here Jesus plainly states that such ‘powerful works’ are not a ticket to salvation. Don’t you find this interesting? Powerful works were used as credentials to establish the Christian congregation but yet Jesus says that these things were not what would assure salvation! This undoubtedly calls to your mind the words of Paul at 1 Cor 13: 1-3 “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding (piece of) brass or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophesying and am acquainted with all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to transplant mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body, that I may boast, but do not have love, I am not profited at all.” Powerful works indeed! But all to no avail without the ONE thing that is THE identifying mark of Christianity…LOVE. If you read Matt 7: 21-23 again you will note that Jesus, before stating that these powerful works really did not count for anything when it came to salvation, had already said what it is that is required for life: ”…the one who is doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will” And what is this will of the Father? When asked about the requirements for salvation by a rich, young man, Jesus replied: “You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.” (Mark 10:19) Jesus left out the two most important commandments in his reply. Why? Jesus said that the man knew the commandments. He would surely know the two most important ones. Perhaps Jesus was hoping that the young man would see that by Jesus’ omission of them that he as actually calling attention to them. The young man obviously missed the point because he tells Jesus: “Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth on.” “All these things” would indicate that he was an astute student of, and follower, of the law. Jesus then invites him to rid himself of all his belongings and to follow him. The young man cannot. Why? He is lacking in understanding of those two most important commandments. His love for God and for his fellow man is not as great as his love for earthly possessions. He fails on the grounds of not possessing the ONE quality which is definitive of Christianity…LOVE. (John 13:35) Jesus never mentioned congregation, did he?

  Please read Matt 7: 21-23 once more and notice particularly verse 23: “And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness” What does that bring to mind, that last word? What did Paul say would eventually happen to the congregation? That’s right, the man of lawlessness would be revealed.
  For countless generations (pre-Mosaic Law) people worshipped God, beginning with Abel. (Perhaps Adam and Eve did also but nothing is mentioned about this in Scripture) Then one day God gives a particular people an organized religion. Then for fifteen hundred years those people live under that covenant relationship with God. That religion produced a ‘seed’ from which the Messiah came. Upon the death of the Messiah, the old covenant was concluded and a new covenant came into force. The result of the Messiah’s preaching work was the Christian congregation. The Christian congregation lasted a relatively short time, about one generation. Now what? Now we are back to how it was before the Mosaic Law.

  The Christian congregation produced a ‘seed’ that would soon have to exist and flourish without a ‘written code’. The ‘new covenant’ is written on the hearts of men, not in the rule books of religions. The doing of ‘the will of my Father who is in the heavens’ is now the requirement for salvation. And the will of the Father is: “… that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2: 4-5) With the mediator in place what need is there for anything else? The Christian congregation lasted long enough to produce the final part of the Bible. With that concluded it is no longer needed.

  It should be rather obvious, especially to those of this board, just how detrimental religion has been to the lives of people. People are ‘good’ in spite of religion, not because of it. If they are ‘good’ because of the religion then it is for the wrong reason. Of what use is it then except for validation of one’s acts of devotion. If one’s acts of devotion need validation from a human organization then that one is seeking praise from men and has missed the meaning of Jesus’ words in the famous sermon on the mount at Matt 6:3,4: “But you, when making gifts of mercy, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, that your gifts of mercy may be in secret; then your Father who is looking on in secret will repay you”
  If our faith is to be validated then it is to be validated by none other than God. It is to him the worship and honor is due and it is to him alone that we are accountable.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  Edited by - Frenchy on 16 November 2000 15:11:51
• 

  AhHah

  Amen!
• 

  Pathofthorns

  I've been wondering lately if the whole concept of a Christian congregation is an apostasy from Christ as the gospels portray. I find the Isrealite history a lesson in basically the pitfalls of "organization", or of trying to keep a group of people confined by laws.

  The Gospels stand out as completely different from the Scriptures. Here Jesus, who basically operated outside of any organization, teaches basic, simple, yet profound principles and qualities that an individual would strive to acquire and govern himself. To be free, yet bound and restrained by his love for God and man, an individual is governed from inside and not anything external. An individual would be motivated by love and not restrained by fear of punishment.

  The apostles had so much of the Jewish way of thinking ingrained in them, as evidenced by their constant arguments, that i wonder how much of that carried over into the early congregation. Obviously Peter still after recieving the HS continued to show he had this attitude in him.

  Perhaps these men's constant desiring for position and prominance led to the forming of these hierarchal structures developing in the congregation. I also find interesting that so much of the NT is letters by the apostle Paul. There is really little imput from Christ's original apostles at all, asside from a handful of books.

  I'm beginning to think that the lessons and attitudes of the Gospels are the primary lesson in the Bible. They seem to contrast and conflict with what is placed before and after them in the Bible. To me they emphasize a higher level of existance, beyond the rules and control and authority of man. Their beauty is in their simplicity.

  Path
• 

  AhHah

  Amen!

  Path,

  I have been wondering exactly the same thing for some time now. Of course, this position casts doubt upon the degree to which all of the books that are included in the Bible must be understood to reveal the mind and will of God, versus the mind of God-fearing men who were subject to their Jewish (and Pharaisaical) influences.

  I find it significant that the Gospel accounts themselves cannot be reasonably used to defend the authority of religious organizations. Christ intended to free his followers from those influences, not enslave them to yet another variation of them.
• 

  AhHah

  Red,

  While individuals within any organized religion may, indeed, be part of this covenant with God, I honestly don't believe that any particular creed can lay claim to the honor of being "God's people".

  I couldn't agree more.