Options
  
 

Week of August 10, 2003

 

 

Jesus proclaimed himself "King of the Jews." How can the Jehovah's Witnesses think that God is only with them? If God sent his own son on a mission, and his son said that he was a Jew, the King of the Jews, then how can God be against the Jews, and only with the Witnesses?

The question you are struggling with is as old as Christianity itself. The apostle Paul was repeatedly confronted with the issue of Judaism both from the so-called Christian Judaizers as well as the Jews themselves. The movement of Christianized Jews in the 1st Century insisted that fleshly Jews still had some special standing with God that made them superior to Gentile Christians. In several of Paul's inspired letters, however, he thoroughly debunked the notion that literal Israel had any special place in the further outworking of God's ongoing purpose.

The letters to the Romans and Galatians, in particular, are invaluable documents in establishing the fact that the physical nation of Israel was abandoned by God and that Christ established the true Israel of God, in the form of the Christian congregation.  For example, Romans 11:25 and 26 says, in part: "That a dulling of the sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved." Paul was saying that non-Jewish Christians actually made up part of what Paul called "Israel." It should be obvious that Paul was not talking about literal Israel.

Besides, it should be also be obvious that although Jesus was called the King of the Jews, the Jewish nation as a whole refused to recognize or accept Christ as their king. On the occasion of Jesus' condemnation, the Jewish leaders publicly declared that they had no king but Caesar. To this day the Jews still do not recognize Jesus as their king. However, Jesus was accepted as king by a small remnant of Jews as well as Gentiles. So, they were allowed entry into Christ's spiritual kingdom. They became the real Israel of God, as Paul referred to Christ's congregation at Galatians 6:16. The same pattern is to repeat itself during the return of Jesus, whereby the vast majority is destined by prophecy to faithlessly reject Jesus when he takes over the complete kingship of the world and only a small remnant will accept Christ and receive the blessings of his kingdom. Jehovah's Witnesses today are the prospective heirs of God's kingdom.

Now on to my real question is the meaning of Matthew 24:30 which says: "And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." This would indicate that Christ's presence would be apparent to all mankind, and not just to Christ's anointed brothers. Right?

There are two different aspects to the presence of Christ. The initial part of Christ's presence goes unrecognized by the world. That's why Jesus likened his presence to the days of Noah when people took no note of the situation they were facing. However, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 makes mention of the "manifestation of his presence" in connection with the man of lawlessness. In other words Christ, has the power to make his presence felt by even the unbelievers.

If the witnesses are wrong then why are you so bent on finding out what's wrong? They will crumble by themselves. You should ask yourself why you are so interested in them. Are you so sure you are not on the wrong side?

Jehovah's Witnesses are exactly what the name suggests. We are Jehovah's witnesses, in that we have a relationship with God through his word and through our faith in Christ. While apostate Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Witnesses have busied themselves trying to convince others that Jehovah's Witnesses are not really Jehovah's witnesses, because of certain errors and stumbling blocks, personally, I remain convinced that Jehovah recognizes us as his possession—just as the Jews were once considered as God's special property.

And, of course, the Jewish nation was frequently rebuked by God for their many transgressions and errors. The prophecies similarly reveal that the modern Israel of God is going to be severely chastised by God as a rebuke for our many errors and transgressions. The fact of the matter is that our errors are the very basis for God's intervention into human affairs. There will come a time when Jehovah must clear his name of the reproach that his witnesses have regrettably brought upon his name. Those who have the faith to endure the brief expression of Jehovah's displeasure will prove themselves to actually be Jehovah's witnesses and afterwards inherit the blessings of God's promise.

What did Paul mean when he said "Flesh and blood do not inherit God's Kingdom"? Does that mean that the earth isn't part of God's Kingdom, or does it mean that the meek will become spirit creatures before they inherit the earth? I've spent my whole life with the earthly hope. How can I reconcile it with that comment of Paul's?

Inheriting God's kingdom can mean different things depending on the context. In the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians, Paul was talking about the heavenly resurrection; that flesh and blood could not go into the heavenly realm of God's kingdom. But Christ also made mention of those who would survive the end of the world as inheriting the kingdom prepared for them. In that sense, though, inheriting the kingdom doesn't mean that the sheep of Jesus' illustration are actually taken into the spirit realm along with Christ anointed brothers. It simply means that they receive the blessing of being the earthly subjects of God's kingdom, even as Jesus promised that the meek would "inherit the earth." Clearly flesh and blood can inherit the earth.

Is it just me, or am I seeing an unprecedented number of people wearing the cross? Maybe I'm just more aware of it because of my recent spiritual searching, but it seems like its everywhere!...I was curious to know your thoughts on this phenomenon, and could there be any relation to the cross and an understanding of the truth regarding Jesus Christ, something that you previously said is linked to our very salvation? Isn't the swastika a variation of the cross? Are there any other religions that feel the same way about the cross as JW'S.

The world is given to various fads that come and go. Body piercing and tattoos are all the rage now too. But it does seem that more and more people are wearing crucifix jewelry. And, yes, the Nazi swastika is a variation of the cross. The German military also displayed an actual cross along with the swastika.

As far as whether other religions recognize the pagan origins of the cross, I don't really know. The truth is, though, that they should. The book The Two Babylons was originally published nearly 150 years ago, and it thoroughly established the fact that the cross was a pagan symbol long before the time of Christ. Like Christmas and Easter, many people know that such things are pagan but they don't care.

I was at the door yesterday and the question was---is Michael the archangel Jesus? The man was abhorred by the fact that the brother said yes. I really never gave it much thought, but I went home and did research; there are only 5 accounts. Nothing really connecting Jesus to Michael, except the fact that we consider Jesus to be in high position and a spirit. Are there more facts about this that I am over looking?

The Bible does not specifically say that Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. However, all the places where Michael or an unnamed archangel is mentioned in the Scriptures they are doing something that is elsewhere revealed as Jesus' exclusive prerogative. For example, Jesus said that he was the resurrection and life, meaning that God has empowered him to perform both the resurrection of the saints as well as mankind in general. But, in describing the actual resurrection of the saints, at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Paul said that "the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first." So, Paul identifies Jesus with an archangel.

As another example, the 12th chapter of Revelation depicts Michael leading all of God's angels in warfare against Satan and his demons. Why isn't Christ even pictured in that scene? His apparent absence is particularly glaring since the 19th chapter of Revelation pictures Christ leading Jehovah's heavenly cavalry into battle at Armageddon. Furthermore, why does Revelation 20:1 says that an angel out of heaven seizes the Devil and throws him into the abyss. Even the demons recognized that when Jesus was on the earth he was the one destined by prophecy to trounce the Devil. The demons even asked Jesus if he had come to send them to the abyss before their time. Since Jesus was put to death by the serpent Devil, God's perfect justice demands that the glorified Jesus personally destroy the Devil. It should therefore be evident that Michael is actually Christ Jesus and that the angel that is depicted in Revelation seizing the Devil is also Jesus.

Daniel 12:1 refers to Michael as the great prince "who is standing in behalf of the sons of you people," during the time of the great tribulation. Elsewhere in Scripture, namely Isaiah 9:6, the Messiah is called the Prince of Peace. Since Daniel 12:1 is fulfilled during the climax to Armageddon, the sons referred to can not be the fleshly Jews, but are instead Christians. Therefore Michael the great prince, who stands up to save Jehovah's people during the tribulation, must be the Messianic Prince of Peace. That's because Jesus is personally responsible for leading God's people through the great tribulation to salvation.