WT U-Turn on "Great Crowd" (May 1, 20...

by stevieb1 52 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Frenchy

  I believe that it is folly to concentrate on physical features of the temple and try to apply this in some way to God’s purpose for mankind. I believe this is especially true because we do not KNOW God’s purpose for mankind, we can only guess and presume.

  While the Anointed are said to have ‘righteousness imputed’ to them, (w96 7/1 p. 16; w95 5/15 p.13; w86 9/1 p. 24; w85 2/15 p.13; etc.), the term is also applied to the O.S. For example: The term “declared righteous” is used in connection with the Anointed, however: w98 2/1 p.17: “The 120 disciples at Pentecost 33 C.E. were the first imperfect humans to experience this new birth. Declared righteous under the new covenant, they received holy spirit as ‘a token in advance’ of their royal inheritance.” But note what is said in the w98 2/1 p.20: “God does not adopt them [O.S.] as spiritual sons, as he does the 144,000. But he does declare the other sheep righteous, in the sense that Abraham was declared righteous as God’s friend.—Matthew 25:46; Romans 4:2, 3; James 2:23.” That same article goes on to say: “For the 144,000, being declared righteous opens the way to their having the hope of ruling with Jesus in the heavenly Kingdom. (Romans 8:16, 17; Galatians 2:16) For the other sheep, being declared righteous as God’s friends allows them to embrace the hope of everlasting life in a paradise earth—either by surviving Armageddon as part of the great crowd or through the ‘resurrection of the righteous.’ (Acts 24:15)”

  I don’t see this as really changing anything. Please note that the O.S. are NOT in the ‘inner courtyard’, only “the members of Jehovah's ‘holy priesthood.’” Nothing has changed here. This is a long held view. W96 7/1 p. 20: “The great crowd do not serve God in the condition pictured by the inner priestly courtyard. They are not declared righteous for the purpose of being God’s adopted, spiritual sons. (Romans 8:1, 15)”

  In the end the doctrine of the Other Sheep and the Anointed is still intact. This ‘new light’ changes nothing in that respect. I suppose it’s just another case of although we were wrong, we are still right where it counts.

  I’m just wondering where the first information (the one that was wrong) came from. Was it from God or from men? How about the latest information, where did it come from?
• 

  ozziepost

  Frenchy,

  Being declared righteous is now used in regard to the O.S. without qualification. Looking at the quote you give from 1996, note it qualifies the expression 'declared righteous' by adding the phrase 'as God's friend'.

  With regard to the temple, 'no courtyard' clearly changes things. It's true the courtyards are part of the temple precincts but to say 'in the temple' without qualification allows for another change.

  It's a case of "One small step for mankind" with the WTS.

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "If our hopes for peace are placed in the hands of imperfect people, they are bound to evaporate."

  
  - Ron Hutchcraft Surviving the Storms of Stress
• 

  gumby

  Vague and obscure! Typicall writing style is it not, for the WBTS?
  I remember articles like these that you couldn't make sense of and so you would not think about it anymore.....just except it.

  Thats just the reason ones accept the things they do with the society.
  It's to confusing to explain so just accept it.

  No wonder everyone yawns at the meeting when articles similar to these are discussed.

  What was the point of that QFR anyway? How did it change the GC understanding? What was the point?
• 

  Frenchy

  Hello, Ozzie.
  The differentiation is made between the O.S. and Anointed in that the former class are not ‘sons of God’ until after the final conflict and Satan and all his followers are destroyed in the ‘lake of fire’ whereas the latter class are called ‘sons of God’ and ‘brothers of the king’ even now because they have had this ‘righteousness imputed’ to them. Consequently the O.S. are referred to as being ‘friends of God’ while the Anointed are ‘sons of God’. I don’t see that distinction being removed by this latest article. The w96 7/1 says, on page 20, paragraph 5: “The great crowd do not serve God in the condition pictured by the inner priestly courtyard. They are not declared righteous for the purpose of being God’s adopted, spiritual sons. (Romans 8:1, 15)” How do you see that as being changed by the article?

  The article did not say ‘in the temple’ without qualification. To the contrary, it states: “And members of the great crowd are not in the inner courtyard of Jehovah's great spiritual temple, which courtyard represents the condition of perfect, righteous human sonship of the members of Jehovah's "holy priesthood" while they are on earth.” - emphasis mine
• 

  LittleToe

  The last paragraph is, perhaps the most telling. By this point my brain had just about melted, so I had to re-read it. My immediate reaction is this:

  1. 11 of the tribes, as well as the proselytes, did not serve in the temple.
  2. The 144,000 are supposed to be from 12 tribes, not just the levitical line, so the priesthood has expanded.
  3. The Nethinim were allowed to work in the temple area, and correspond to the non-anointed GB helpers, in the new Wt. theology.

  All of the above is off the top of my head, because I haven't got access to my references at the moment.
• 

  BluesBrother

  I must agree with with Frenchy on this one.

  I had checked the CD ROM and found a quote to add to a post making the same point.

  This looks to be a matter of semantics without any real change of understanding in relation to the Great Crowd and Anointed.

  Althoough they dont explain "Declared rightous as Gods friend" (Whatever that may mean), they dont make a point of changing the belief either . I beleive it is just a little ambiguous .
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello,

  More a vacillation than a 'u' turn, but nevertheless coated in the usual ambiguous language that the WTS uses when it is testing new ground, or sailing into new waters.

  I suspect that six months from now, some changes will occur.

  Of course, they have still to explain the deliberate and scurrilous misuse of the Gk 'naos' in their explanation of these ‘temple’ issue in the early 80's.

  What we have here is a one piece jigsaw and a ship of fools - not an inspiring mix.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  JT

  Vague and obscure! Typicall writing style is it not, for the WBTS?
  I remember articles like these that you couldn't make sense of and so you would not think about it anymore.....just except it.
  @@@@@@@@@@@@@

  excellent point

  many of us recall those type wt lesson where everyone just wanted it to be over, i recall on many occassions the wt conductor and elders would admit that they didn't understand it and simply WE HAVE TO ACCEPT IT - IT;S FROM THE SLAVE

  HOW SAD INDEED
• 

  Nemesis

  I feel maybe they are going the route to move 1914 [and 607BC] forward, and accept the 20-year later date secular history reveals. It would be one of the most logical ways to justify the increase in the anointed, and get new blood in the GB.

  All they have to do is bring more and more subtle subliminal suggestions in, and then say God has revealed ‘new light’ that secular history is the more correct date, and so 1914 goes forward to 1934, and the 1935 cut off date for the anointed also moves forward 20 years to 1955. This would allow a large influx of new “anointed” blood in the GB, while still not allowing all Christians the heavenly hope—they could then trundle on for many more years with plenty of the “anointed” left to justify a “little while longer” [indefinitely] before Armageddon.

  What do the rest of you think?
• 

  Xander

  Two questions:

  1) Has anyone figured out what this article is actually supposed to mean yet?

  2) and the 1935 cut off date
  I've seen this mentioned a couple times. But, I've looked through the watchtower CD and can't find any reference to how they determined this was some kind of 'cut off' point. How did they come to this year as a significant date?

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana