"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  pixel

  I've never seen this before, from this week School Review, question 8:

  Why did Jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us? (Mark 3:31-35) [Feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par. 5]

  "At his baptism, Jesus became God’s spiritual Son, and “the Jerusalem above” was his mother. (Gal. 4:26) From then on, Jesus’ disciples were nearer and dearer to him than his ?eshly relatives were. This teaches us to put spiritual interests ?rst in our lives."

  I thought that Jesus was God's son even before his baptism. So now I see he was simple another human. Great. (WTF is "spiritual son BTW?).

  Jesus never spoke of "my mother", always was "my father in heaven", I guess he did not pay due respect to his mother?

  Also, the only scripture that the WT/FDS/GB uses to say that "the Jerusalem above is Jesus' mother is a scriptures that says it is the mother of Christians, not Jesus itself.

  Look at this: it-2 pp.39-49:

  "This places the “Jerusalem above” in the position of a wife to Jehovah God the great Father and Life-Giver. [...] “Jerusalem above” must therefore represent the entire congregation of Jehovah’s loyal spirit servants."

  Since "the Jerusalem of above" is, according to the GB/FDS/WT the heavenly organization, because these people are sick with the organization, that places "the Jerusalem from above" in a higher position that Jesus in heaven, since it is, after all, his mother.

  Crazy.
• 

  Badfish

  You didn't know Jesus was adopted?
• 

  pixel

  Now I know.
• 

  Londo111

  And of course, the Jerusalem Above, according to Watchtower Theology, is “God’s Heavenly Organization.” So in that view…Jesus is a member of this Organization.

  Of course, if we read the context of Galatians 4, we see that the Jerusalem Above is really the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the “mother” of Christians, but not of Jesus Christ, who is the Mediator of that covenant.
• 

  yourmomma

  so this is clear the GB is higher than Jesus. he is their "Son". incredible, yet predictable.
• 

  Bobcat

  Good answer Londo! I was formulating the same answer from what I remembered of Galatians until I scrolled down to your answer.

  Question:

  Something I haven't got around to considering yet, but would the woman pictured in Rev 12 be this same "mother" of Galatians? I note the crown of 12 stars (possibly the 12 apostles?). She gets persecuted by the dragon (perhaps thru her "children"?).
• 

  Londo111

  That’s better than the Society’s Interpretation…I’ve often thought along the same lines.

  I do know some interpret Revelation 12 and the 42 months in terms of Nero’s tribulation upon the early Christians from 64 to 68.

  But there are many viewpoints.
• 

  moggy lover

  Actually, Badfish has a point that answers your question. Let's just elaborate on what he mentions. From around the mid-second century, a theological viewpoint was emerging that attempted to struggle with the obvious implications of Christ's human as well as divine status. This viepoint suggested that, despite being born human, Jesus Christ somehow was elevated to some sort of divine or semi-divine status at His baptism. Something happened when the Holy Spirit invaded His Person which transformed Him into a bonafide Son of God. He was not born the Christ or Son of God [despite what Lu 2:11 said], but became such at that time.

  This viewpoint came to be called Adoptionism, and over the next two centuries would evolve into several sub categories. One category, for instance insisted that the "Christ" was a divine creation of God, the "first of God's creations" who came into the human Christ at the baptism, and who left Him and went back to heaven at the crucifixtion, leaving the human Jesus to die physically.

  The main difference between this viewpoint and Orthodoxy, was that whereas the Adoptionists saw Jesus Christ as an elevated human being who became the Son of God, the Orthodox position was that Jesus Christ, who always was the Son, was actually demoted, or devalued as a Person when He emptied Himself and and became human.

  One such adoptionist, who created much controversy in the Church by the fourth century, was Arius. His viewpoint approximates the current Watchtower theological structure, which sees the human born Jesus changed in status from mere human to Son of God at the baptism. I am not sure what scripture Arius used to sustain his own theology, since much of his own writings have perished, but the one made by the Watchtower, Gal 4:26, is hardly contextual with the Person of Christ.

  Naturally, being hide bound "organizationalists" the Watchtower sees the NT only through its own constructed "organizational" lenses. The "Jerusalem above"is precisely defined as "OUR mother"and not that of Jesus. [Know anyone who created his owm mum??] What then is this "Jerusalem above?

  Dunno.

  Paul himself does not explain at length what it is, thus there are several evangelical explanations. One, I believe, is that it is the Christian Hope. Paul tells us that whatever it is, it is an allegory [Greek "allegoria"]. He tells us of two women who represent two mountains. Hagar represents Mount Sinai from whence came the Mosaic Law which burdened the physical Jews with the hope of salvation through endless OBEDIENCE to its edicts.

  But, Sarah we are told, represents the Jerusalem above, from whence comes the Christian hope of salvation through FAITH in Christ as a Person, in both His human and Divine status.
• 

  Bobcat

  Londo:

  I was having second thoughts about my comment. I'm still thinking thru it. But my second thought was that Moses was the mediator of the Law covenant. (Gal 3:19) Yet he would have been counted as a member of that covenant. His being mediator did not rule out his being under the Law.

  Just musing here, but in Moses' case an animal was needed to validate the covenant. In Jesus' case, he was both the mediator and the validating sacrifice.

  Jesus would be different from Moses in that Moses needed the sacrifices provided in the Law to cover his own sins. Whereas, Jesus would not need the sacrifice provided for the New Covenant in his own case, he being sinless. Thus, Moses also had to eat from the Passover meal, but Jesus had no need to partake of the emblems at the Last Supper, since the emblems represent provisions for sinners.

  Like I said, I was just musing, and hoping someone might point out a problem with this view, if there is one. Otherwise, it would allow for Jesus to be a son to the "Jerusalem above." Or conversely, for the Jerusalem above to be his "mother" also.

  This is how my mind works. Something new or some new aspect of a thing comes in and it starts churning away and won't let me rest.

  Take Care
• 

  Bobcat

  Just as an additional to my above comment:

  I wonder if Jesus' baptism might be another indication of the "Jerusalem above" being his "mother" also. Baptism could rightly be called an 'initiation rite' for Christians. And Jesus saw a need for himself to also get baptized. Although in his case, the symbology wasn't entirely the same. There would have been no 'baptism in symbol of repentence' involved. On the other hand, after his baptism he 'received the spirit,' which was something associated by Paul with being in the New Covenant. (Gal 3:14)

  In connection with the woman of Rev 12, I have to agree with the Society that it does represent the same thing as the "Jerusalem above" from Galatians. But I do not agree with the how the Society defines this symbol. In the RC book (p.178, par.5) they define it as "Jehovah's universal organization of spirit creatures that acts as his wife, both in serving him and in producing offspring." They never say anything about how Paul defined it in Galatians. And their view is skewed by limiting those in the New Covenant to 144,000. Compare this with Paul's application of Isa 54:1 in Gal 4:27 where the 'woman's' children become more numerous than those of the slave girl (Hagar).

  At any rate, just more musings from someone waking up from many years in the matrix, sent out into the internet 'ether.'