Jehovah's Organization: Is It the KINGDOM of Daniel 2?

by Cold Steel 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Cold Steel

  Daniel interprets a dream in which he explains there will be four world empires -- the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks (under Alexander) and the Romans, the last of which are symbolized by the belly and legs (Eastern and Western). After that, he saw that the Roman Empire would fragment and ultimately become ten kingdoms, being partly iron and partly clay. It was during these "kings" that "the God of heaven [shall] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

  If this kingdom was the Roman Catholic church, then why does it come in the days following the destruction of Rome, and if it's the Jehovah's Witnesses, then in what way is it not "left to other people"? In the Lord's prayer, Jesus prayed, "Thy kingdom come...." (a future event). Is this kingdom the Jehovah's Witnesses -- a kingdom that will last forever? The JWs speak of "manmade" religions, but I'm having a difficult time in seeing how they would fulfill this scripture.

  I'm interested in what JW literature has to say about this scripture and its fulfillment, and how it might have changed over the years. The leaders of the JW movement seem to be ordinary men, not particularly different than the founders of other religions. What makes them different? Did any of them claim spiritual inspiration like Ellen G. White did? They seem pretty dogmatic, and when a group of men establish themselves as leaders, judges and ordained overseers, it sounds pretty presumptuous. Some have claimed they were "false prophets," but since (as far as I know) none of them actually made prophecies, I don't see how that term would apply. White seems to have come up with a very similar doctrine, the main difference being the Saturday-Sabbath thing. But she had visions of heaven and the "pearly gates" that sound almost comical by today's standards. Did both movements come from the Millerites? In many ways they seem similar.

  I guess it's this whole "manmade" religion thing that seems so bizarre. How can anyone be sure what is manmade and what's not if the men themselves don't know. Did any of them have...a visitation or something? If not, then how do they know that their own church isn't manmade?

  One other prophetic incident that interests me is the formation of Israel. In Isaiah 11:11, the prohet states: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea." At the time the Witnesses established their foundational doctrines, Judah had not gathered back into their ancestral homelands, so I understand why they would have had to develop an alternative eschatology. But now that Judah has gathered "the second time" from all over the world, their dogmatism has them locked in to that first eschatology. Yet the formation of Israel is a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 11 and many other scriptures (see also Zachariah 12 and 14).

  Some Witnesses say that the legitimacy of their religion rests on the strength of their scriptural exegesis. In other words, if it's not us, then who? So what would happen if a bunch of people got together and called themselves The Church of Jehovah in Christ, and they adopted all the doctrines they liked from the Jehovah's Witnesses, but instead decided to wipe the proverbial slate clean and not have all these wrong dates and times hanging over them and other stuff that's hung over the JWs. And let's say they decided to interpret the gathering of Israel as a prophetic event and tweak a few of the more ridiculous things, like revamping the whole blood issue and maybe voting and the whole spirit/breath thing. (They could take a stand against eating blood in, say, blood pies and such, but allow blood transfusions, or not, as they deemed appropriate). Would the leaders of the said second church be equal in authority to those of the first group? If not, why not?

  I was going to call this thread, "What's in a Kingdom?" but the gist is, what if the only difference in the two churches was how they viewed the gathering of Judah and everything else stayed the same? Instead of overseers, they could call the local leaders "bishops" and other tiny changes. Obviously the leaders of the WBTS wouldn't like it, but what claim to legitimacy would they have over the leaders of the second group? The Daniel 2 prophecy also would equally apply and people who are fed up with Group A might go to Group B.

  Any ideas? What do you think?
• 

  cameo-d

  The Church of Jehovah in Christ?

  Well, if the name is not taken, you could probably get a mail order license for a few bucks and do occassional weddings. I don't know that you'd have many takers on starting a Bible study.
• 

  notverylikely

  Well, Daniel never names those empires/ntions/governments....so any labeling of them as part of the prophecy is purely an after fact man-made layer on.
• 

  Leolaia

  Daniel interprets a dream in which he explains there will be four world empires -- the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks (under Alexander) and the Romans, the last of which are symbolized by the belly and legs (Eastern and Western). After that, he saw that the Roman Empire would fragment and ultimately become ten kingdoms, being partly iron and partly clay.

  FWIW there is nothing about the Romans in Daniel beyond the explicit reference to them in 11:30; this linkage was made in later interpretation (starting with Qumran books like 1QM in the first century BC). The fourth kingdom is that of Greece; its fragmentation is related in 8:22 and 11:4 and the "little horn" of 8:9 is the same as that in ch. 7 (which belonged to the fourth kingdom). The reference to the iron and clay mingling via the "seed of man" is cognate to the mixed marriages and descendents thereof described in 11:6-7.

  If this kingdom was the Roman Catholic church, then why does it come in the days following the destruction of Rome, and if it's the Jehovah's Witnesses, then in what way is it not "left to other people"?

  JWs don't interpret this as themselves per se, but the kingdom established in 1914.

  Did any of them claim spiritual inspiration like Ellen G. White did?

  Rutherford claimed something quite close to this (his interpretations are understandings made plain by Jehovah's "lightnings", etc.), and his followers described him essentially as inspired.

  Did both movements come from the Millerites? In many ways they seem similar.

  They are both Adventist daughters of Millerite parentage.
• 

  Leolaia

  Well, Daniel never names those empires/ntions/governments

  Not quite since there is explicit interpretation in ch. 8 (see 8:20 and 8:21), and the vision in ch. 8 is a pesher interpretive of the preceding oracle in ch. 7 (which in turn is parallel to the similar vision in ch. 2). And in ch. 2, the "first kingdom" is explicitly named as "you", i.e. Nebuchadnezzar or the kingdom of Babylon.
• 

  notverylikely

  And in ch. 2, the "first kingdom" is explicitly named as "you", i.e. Nebuchadnezzar or the kingdom of Babylon.

  Exactly. Later editions. No one named Daniel put that in the bible with prior knowledge :)
• 

  frigginconfused

  I like this post. The if not us the who part is great! I have met some pretty enlightened elders that said this because they cant find another religion that teaches this stuff. But thats not a signal that they are the only true religion. Untill fairly recently in human history there werent jehovahs witnesses. They were created. So who is to say they werent just the stepping stone to true religion. If there is a way to form a new religion using most of the WT teachings but weed out the cult count me in. I feel like the time is right in human history to create a movement. Not a religion with leaders. A movement with all involved. But even with this men would corrupt it. So how do we get true worship? God and myself have a great relationship. But it would sure be nice to have like minded people to further my studies.
• 

  Cold Steel

  I'm intrigued by the claim that the fourth kingdom is Greece. It's certainly an unusual viewpoint. Most biblical scholars associate the kingdom of iron as Rome, which divided asunder into two kingdoms, East and West. How that could be Greece escapes me. Also, how could Daniel have missed Rome? Or were the ten kings the great Roman Empire?

  I would like to know more about Rutherford's claims and the lightnings. I know he claimed that there was no legitimate authority outside of his leadership, but for this to be so, he would have either had to be ordained by someone before him or invested with authority through a divine ministration. But he never specifically stated that such a ministration occurred, nor am I aware that he even inferred it. He did infer there was to be new revelation (from his reading in the book of Revelation), but the law requires that two or more witnesses are required. Even the two "prophets" in Revelation were to act in concert, and both were to be raised up in Jerusalem. Zachariah 4:14 mentions these two prophets as "olive trees" and the prophet is told they would be God's anointed ones. Revelation 11:4 picks up on Zachariah's prophecy and declares: "These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth."

  The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that these two prophets will appear in Jerusalem because when Judge Rutherford penned his founational doctrines, the state of Israel had not yet been formed. Now that it has, the JWs are locked into a theological world that does not include Israel or the temple. Logic and truth state that they perhaps should rewrite those foundational doctrines.
• 

  Cold Steel

  cameo-d says: The Church of Jehovah in Christ? Well, if the name is not taken, you could probably get a mail order license for a few bucks and do occassional weddings. I don't know that you'd have many takers on starting a Bible study.

  Ah, that's where you're wrong. I think anyone can form a church and get followers. All one has to do is start a church and convince people to give you $$$. The "prosperity gospel" has shown us that it's fairly easy to convince people to give money to get money. People are greedy by nature, and all that's needed is to press the right buttons.

  The Jehovah's Witnesses certainly don't fall into this category, but it is a manmade church, and if they can use that term -- manmade church -- then they can infer that they, themselves, are not manmade. If Jesus Christ came in His day and established His church, then one must identify it by finding a church that can either be traced back through history to the time of the apostles or finding a church that has been created since that time and has the proper authority to administer all the ancient ordinances. The third option is that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, and that no authority is necessary, or needed, to establish a church. That means anyone can start a church.

  Who ordained Charles Taze Russell? And did he ordain Joseph F. Rutherford? And can either trace his ordination back to the apostles? Where did these men get their authority? If I recall correctly, then the Bible Students set out not to start a church, but to find it. Where was the pivotal moment in which these people were imbued with the authority to create a church? (I've always been told that since the days of Jesus there have always been discreet slaves of Jehovah somewhere on Earth, but where were they? They must have been very discreet.

  The truth is, Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult! But guess what? Even the church that Jesus organized was a cult. What is a cult? Up until recently it was simply any religious sect or group; however today's new meaning is that a cult is "a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." The early saints lived with all things in common. And remember Ananias and Sapphira? They were "struck dead" for not giving their property to the church! Now I realize the true context of the above, but that's how religion builders are billing the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and other groups. They form clubs and determine who's extremist or false. But any religion has to be able to change with circumstances and new information. The creation of Israel should have been one of those things that jarred the Witnesses into changing their theology because it's a literal and vivid fulfillment of prophecy. They should also drop the "discreet slave" crap. Why would anyone want to be a slave over a servant?

  And lastly, this bit about "manmade religions" should possibly go. I mean, people who live in glass houses....
• 

  Leolaia

  I'm intrigued by the claim that the fourth kingdom is Greece. It's certainly an unusual viewpoint. Most biblical scholars associate the kingdom of iron as Rome

  Actually it isn't unusual at all. It is indeed the dominant interpretation among modern biblical scholars (as one would find perusing through the major commentaries, such as Charles [CEC], Montgomery [ICC], Lucas [AOTC], Hartman & DiLella [Anchor], Collins [Hermeneia], Redditt [NCBC], Buchanan [MBC], Porteous, Lacocque, etc.); the most detailed treatment of the topic is in H. H. Rowley's Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. The association with the fourth kingdom with Rome is the traditional interpretation in the Christian tradition, but it is not generally accepted in modern scholarship (outside of Adventist and confessional circles). The interpretation associating it with Greece is the oldest attested interpretation (found also in MSS of the Syriac Peshitta), and exegetically the best supported, and thus most agree is the likely original understanding of the fourth kingdom by the author (cf. the first century AD interpretation of the fourth kingdom as Rome in 4 Ezra, which the author acknowledges is a reinterpretation and not the original understanding given to Daniel himself). Josephus was heir to both interpretations.

  which divided asunder into two kingdoms, East and West. How that could be Greece escapes me.

  The Macedonian kingdom was torn asunder into four kingdoms, as the text of Daniel itself declares (8:21-22, 11:2-4), with two of these prominent in the history of Judea, the Seleucid kingdom to the north and the Lagid kingdom to the south. These are the "kings of the north" and the "kings of the south" throughout ch. 11, which follows closely the history of the Seleucid era up to the career of the outrageous blasphemous king (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) who corresponds to the little horns of ch. 7 and 8 and the "coming prince" of ch. 9 (compare, for instance, 7:25 and 8:11-13 with 9:26-27 and 11:31, and cf. 1 Maccabees 1:45, 54).

  Also, how could Daniel have missed Rome? Or were the ten kings the great Roman Empire?

  The ten kings precede the "little horn", and since the reign of this king is the climax of the four great visions of Daniel, the later history of the Roman Empire is not in view. Thus in the great vision in ch. 11, the Romans appear only in 11:30 as allies of Egypt who resist the "king of north" (indeed the OG in fact renders the Hebrew term as "Romans"); this describes the confrontation between Antiochus Epiphanes and Popilius Laenas.

  The ten horns represent the ten predecessors of the little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes). The number may be round and scholars disagree on the specific identification of each of the horns, but imo the best solution is that the first seven horns correspond to Alexander the Great and his six Seleucid successors (Seleucus I, Antiochus I & II, Seleucus II & III, Antiochus III), and when Antiochus III died, Antiochus Epiphanes was only fourth in line to the kingdom. He seized the throne after the three ahead of him were either murdered or exiled (compare 11:21-23, which also alludes to his deposing of Onias III) and after ousting the usurper Heliodorus (who is mentioned together with the murdered Seleucus IV in 11:20).