Debunking the WT interpretation of matthew 8:11.

by bohm 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • bohm
    bohm

    Today at my study we went over death and the eartly/heavenly hope. I feel that the wt intepretation of the bible on these matters are a bit biased, and i couldnt help myself to bring up matthew 8:11. My conductor seemed not to be familiar with that scripture, and he quickly said that he didnt really know how to interpret it and will get back to me. To avoid getting completely burried i desided to do a bit of research to find out what answer i might expect - using google i dug up this article:

    Questions From Readers
    ? How can Matthew 8:11, which speaks of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens, be harmonized with Matthew 11:11, which indicates that not even John the Baptist will be in it?
    In Hebrews 11:8-19 we read: "By faith Abraham . . . dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, the builder and creator of which city is God. . . . But now they are reaching out for a better place, that is, one belonging to heaven. Hence God is not ashamed of them, to be called upon as their God, for he has made a city ready for them. By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac . . . But he reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; and from there he did receive him also in an illustrative way."
    How did Abraham expect to receive Isaac back from the dead? In heaven as a spirit? No, but here on earth as a human creature. In an illustrative way he got Isaac back from the dead here on earth. So Abraham was not looking for any spiritual, heavenly resurrection to put him among the celestial angels any more than he was expecting Isaac to have such a resurrection and rejoin him in heaven.
    Abraham had come out of Ur of the Chaldeans, and he did not want that city any more. He and his son Isaac and grandson Jacob wanted a better place, that is, one belonging to heaven, a city government, namely, the government or city that God has prepared and in which the promised Seed or Offspring of Abraham will be God's King. This is the "kingdom of God," or "the kingdom of the heavens," as these two expressions are interchangeable, the expression "the heavens" having reference to God. Under that kingdom of the heavens or kingdom of God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob expected to live on earth.
    In the year 30 (A.D.) Jesus told Nicodemus that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not in heaven. (John 3:13) Three years later, on the day of Pentecost of the year 33, the apostle Peter said that the descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, namely, King David, had not ascended to heaven and so was not in any kingdom of the heavens or kingdom of God. (Acts 2:34) Peter said that after Jesus made the statement about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Matthew 8:11 at the time of healing the servant of a Roman centurion.
    Hence those three patriarchs could not be in the Kingdom class as joint heirs with the Lord Jesus Christ. They were his ancestors, who preceded him by more than seventeen hundred years.
    It is therefore evident that in Matthew 8:11 Jesus referred to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob figuratively. On the occasion when Abraham offered up his son Isaac, Abraham represented Jehovah God and Isaac represented God's only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, who was offered up in sacrifice. Accordingly Jacob represented the spiritual Christian congregation, the "kingdom of the heavens" class; for, just as the congregation gets life through Jesus Christ, so Jacob got life from Abraham through Isaac. From this standpoint Abraham, Isaac and Jacob mentioned together in Jesus' illustration would picture the great theocratic government, in which Jehovah is the Great Theocrat, Jesus Christ is his anointed representative King, and the faithful, victorious Christian congregation of 144,000 members is the body of Christ's joint heirs in the Kingdom.
    When the Christian congregation was founded on the day of Pentecost, its spirit-anointed members were made Christ's joint heirs and were put in line for a place in the heavenly kingdom, to recline there at the spiritual table with the Greater Abraham and the Greater Isaac. The natural or fleshly Jews of the nation of Israel claimed to be the "sons of the kingdom" or the prospective members of God's kingdom. From the day of Pentecost forward they saw the beginning and the gradual development of this theocratic arrangement, but because of their lack of faith in Christ they were not in it. Hence, as Jesus said (Matt. 8:12): "The sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the darkness outside. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be."
    For this reason it became necessary that many Gentiles (non-Jews), like the Roman centurion whose faith brought a miraculous cure by Jesus, should come "from eastern parts and western parts," from all around the earth, to become dedicated, baptized Christians. Thus they could help make up the full number of the Kingdom class. For faithfulness to the death these converted Gentiles are resurrected to heavenly life to recline at the heavenly table, as it were, with Jehovah God and Jesus Christ "in the kingdom of the heavens."
    When understood this way, Matthew 8:11 agrees with Jesus' words in Matthew 11:11: "Among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is." Since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not greater than John, they will not be literally in the kingdom of the heavens. Jesus used them only as an illustration of those who will actually be in it.

    (Im sorry that i cant provide a proper reference - actually its from an old post here on this forum and i was unable to find the original article on the cd-rom). I assume this represent 'current light' and he will answer me with a variation of the above article. Clearly, this interpretation draw on a lot of passages on the bible and seem pretty impressive, but i would like to get your oppinion and/or references to better understand the scriptual soundness of the wt argument.

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    this is the 'current light'. he may simply try to tell you that Abr, Isaac, and Jacob represent God's comeplete theocratic arrangement.

    I would point out the parallel to this at Luke 13:28, which says:

    "In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.

    I would then ask who all the prophets represent in God's already comeplte theocratic arrangement.

    The WT dogma here kills the entire context and effect of Jesus words. He was telling the Jews (Abrahama's offspring who should have and expected to sit with Abr in the Kingdom) that they would not sist with the patriarchs, while the gentiles would. That was like a slap in the face to them. The WT, in symbolizing these characters take the entire effect out of Jesus words.

    What this verse shows is that those before Jesus death will be in the same place as those after- debunking the 2 classes.

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    Jesus told Nicodemus that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not in heaven. (John 3:13)

    He said no man had ascended to heaven except he who had descended. That is true, no one had at that point. Jesus was the first.

    Three years later, on the day of Pentecost of the year 33, the apostle Peter said that the descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, namely, King David, had not ascended to heaven and so was not in any kingdom of the heavens or kingdom of God. (Acts 2:34)

    Correct, David was alive at the time he wrote that Psalm. The WT misused those verses to support their own theology.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Jesus made it clear that ones faith superceedes ones genetic background.

    Of coruse this is echoed By Paul in his various letters, in Acts also.

    There is no 2 classes, other than believers and non-believers, though at the time of Jesus it could have been viewed as Jews and non-jew believers.

    Jesus also made it clear that those that were first would be last and those that wer elast would be frist, Paul echos that God shows on partiality.

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    The " Greatest Man" book chap 36

    “The sons of the kingdom . . . thrown into the darkness outside” are natural Jews who do not accept the opportunity offered first to them of being rulers with Christ. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent God’s Kingdom arrangement. Thus Jesus is relating how Gentiles will be welcomed to recline at the heavenly table, as it were, “in the kingdom of the heavens.”

    So they say that Jesus did not say what he meant, or mean what he said. He supposedly spoke in riddles that only the G B in Brooklyn ,2000 years later would understand, as he was saving a young girls life..

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    I wonder how that Roman centurion feels in Heaven, and Abr, isaac, and Jacob not there. I would think he must feel lied to.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    bohm

    Maybe I'm missing something, so forgive me for asking, why do you think this (this verse) is a good battle to fight. What do you hope to gain or establish?

  • bohm
    bohm

    Deputy Dog: The WTS adverticed core competence is interpretation of the bible, and the thing they are most proud of is that they are able to deliver a coherent understanding of god that is based on the hole bible and nothing but the bible. I simply dont believe that is the case with regard to certain teachings, and the one about the two classes is the one i believe are the most dangerous. Essentially i want to preempt the teflon argument: 'we might not be experts on archeology, biology, geology, etc., but when it comes to interpreting the bible, we are experts, and thats all that should matter to a true christian'.

    I dont want to prove that you end up in hell, earth, paradise or mcdonals when you die since i dont believe any of it anyway, but i want to show that when the wts say that the two classes is the only way to interpret the bible, i want to show that it is not so easy.

    I started another thread earlier today on the study http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/182522/1/If-you-had-a-bible-study-over-the-yellow-Bible-Teach-book-which-chapters-would-you-focus-on

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    IF the WT could justify their doctrine on the bible alone they would have never had to make their own version of it, nor enforce the point to thier followers that they NEED WT direction tounderstand the bible, or more correctly, to understand where the WT gets its doctrines form THEIR bible.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    How about a more direct approach?

    If they say "but when it comes to interpreting the bible, we are experts" My question would be how does an "expert" in interpreting the bible get so many Prophecies wrong?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit