Search This Blog

Monday, 14 September 2015

The Watchtower Society's commentary on the Kingdom of God

KINGDOM OF GOD:

The expression and exercise of God’s universal sovereignty toward his creatures, or the means or instrumentality used by him for this purpose. (Ps 103:19) The phrase is used particularly for the expression of God’s sovereignty through a royal government headed by his Son, Christ Jesus.
The word rendered “kingdom” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is ba·si·lei′a, meaning “a kingdom, realm, the region or country governed by a king; kingly power, authority, dominion, reign; royal dignity, the title and honour of king.” (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, 1908, p. 67) The phrase “the kingdom of God” is used frequently by Mark and Luke, and in Matthew’s account the parallel phrase “the kingdom of the heavens” appears some 30 times.—Compare Mr 10:23 and Lu 18:24 with Mt 19:23, 24; see HEAVEN (Spiritual Heavens); KINGDOM.
The government of God is, in structure and function, a pure theocracy (from Gr. the·os′, god, and kra′tos, a rule), a rule by God. The term “theocracy” is attributed to Jewish historian Josephus of the first century C.E., who evidently coined it in his writing Against Apion (II, 164, 165 [17]). Of the government established over Israel in Sinai, Josephus wrote: “Some peoples have entrusted the supreme political power to monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our lawgiver, however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but gave to his constitution the form of what—if a forced expression be permitted—may be termed a ‘theocracy [Gr., the·o·kra·ti′an],’ placing all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God.” To be a pure theocracy, of course, the government could not be ordained by any human legislator, such as the man Moses, but must be ordained and established by God. The Scriptural record shows this was the case.
Origin of the Term. The term “king” (Heb., me′lekh) evidently came into use in human language after the global Flood. The first earthly kingdom was that of Nimrod “a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah.” (Ge 10:8-12) Thereafter, during the period down to Abraham’s time, city-states and nations developed and human kings multiplied. With the exception of the kingdom of Melchizedek, king-priest of Salem (who served as a prophetic type of the Messiah [Ge 14:17-20; Heb 7:1-17]), none of these earthly kingdoms represented God’s rule or were established by him. Men also made kings of the false gods they worshiped, attributing to them the ability to grant power of rulership to humans. Jehovah’s application of the title “King [Me′lekh]” to himself, as found in the post-Flood writings of the Hebrew Scriptures, therefore meant God’s making use of the title men had developed and employed. God’s use of the term showed that he, and not presumptuous human rulers or man-made gods, should be looked to and obeyed as “King.”—Jer 10:10-12.
Jehovah had, of course, been Sovereign Ruler long before human kingdoms developed, in fact before humans existed. As the true God and as their Creator, he was respected and obeyed by angelic sons numbering into the millions. (Job 38:4-7; 2Ch 18:18; Ps 103:20-22; Da 7:10) By whatever title, then, he was, from the beginning of creation, recognized as the One whose will was rightfully supreme.
God’s Rulership in Early Human History. The first human creatures, Adam and Eve, likewise knew Jehovah as God, the Creator of heaven and earth. They recognized his authority and his right to issue commands, to call upon people to perform certain duties or to refrain from certain acts, to assign land for residence and cultivation, as well as to delegate authority over others of his creatures. (Ge 1:26-30; 2:15-17) Though Adam had the ability to coin words (Ge 2:19, 20), there is no evidence that he developed the title “king [me′lekh]” to apply it to his God and Creator, although he recognized Jehovah’s supreme authority.
As revealed in the initial chapters of Genesis, God’s exercise of his sovereignty toward man in Eden was benevolent and not unduly restrictive. The relationship between God and man called for obedience such as the obedience a son renders to his father. (Compare Lu 3:38.) Man had no lengthy code of laws to fulfill (compare 1Ti 1:8-11); God’s requirements were simple and purposeful. Nor is there anything to indicate that Adam was made to feel inhibited by constant, critical supervision of his every action; rather, God’s communication with perfect man seems to have been periodic, according to need.—Ge chaps 1-3.
A new expression of God’s rulership purposed. The first human pair’s open violation of God’s command, instigated by one of God’s spirit sons, was actually rebellion against divine authority. (Ge 3:17-19; see TREES [Figurative Use].) The position taken by God’s spirit Adversary (Heb., sa·tan′) constituted a challenge calling for a test, the issue being the rightfulness of Jehovah’s universal sovereignty. (See JEHOVAH [The supreme issue a moral one].) The earth, where the issue was raised, is fittingly the place where it will be settled.—Re 12:7-12.
At the time of pronouncing judgment upon the first rebels, Jehovah God spoke a prophecy, couched in symbolic phrase, setting forth his purpose to use an agency, a “seed,” to effect the ultimate crushing of the rebel forces. (Ge 3:15) Thus, Jehovah’s rulership, the expression of his sovereignty, would take on a new aspect or expression in answer to the insurrection that had developed. The progressive revelation of “the sacred secrets of the kingdom” (Mt 13:11) showed that this new aspect would involve the formation of a subsidiary government, a ruling body headed by a deputy ruler. The realization of the promise of the “seed” is in the kingdom of Christ Jesus in union with his chosen associates. (Re 17:14; see JESUS CHRIST [His Vital Place in God’s Purpose].) From the time of the Edenic promise forward, the progressive development of God’s purpose to produce this Kingdom “seed” becomes a basic theme of the Bible and a key to understanding Jehovah’s actions toward his servants and toward mankind in general.
God’s delegating vast authority and power to creatures (Mt 28:18; Re 2:26, 27; 3:21) in this way is noteworthy inasmuch as the question of the integrity of all God’s creatures, that is, their wholehearted devotion to him and their loyalty to his headship, formed a vital part of the issue raised by God’s Adversary. (See INTEGRITY [Involved in the supreme issue].) That God could confidently entrust any of his creatures with such remarkable authority and power would in itself be a splendid testimony to the moral strength of his rule, contributing to the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty and exposing the falsity of his adversary’s allegations.
Need for divine government manifested. The conditions that developed from the time of the start of human rebellion until the time of the Flood clearly illustrated mankind’s need for divine headship. Human society soon had to contend with disunity, bodily assault, and murder. (Ge 4:2-9, 23, 24) To what extent the sinner Adam, during his 930 years of life, exercised patriarchal authority over his multiplying descendants is not revealed. But by the seventh generation shocking ungodliness evidently existed (Jude 14, 15), and by the time of Noah (born about 120 years after Adam’s death) conditions had deteriorated to the point that “the earth became filled with violence.” (Ge 6:1-13) Contributing to this condition was the unauthorized interjection of spirit creatures into human society, contrary to God’s will and purpose.—Ge 6:1-4; Jude 6; 2Pe 2:4, 5; see NEPHILIM.
Though earth had become a focus of rebellion, Jehovah did not relinquish his dominion over it. The global Flood was evidence that God’s power and ability to enforce his will on earth, as in any part of the universe, continued. During the pre-Flood period he likewise demonstrated his willingness to guide and govern the actions of those individuals who sought him, such as Abel, Enoch, and Noah. Noah’s case in particular illustrates God’s exercise of rulership toward a willing earthly subject, giving him commands and direction, protecting and blessing him and his family, as well as evidencing God’s control over the other earthly creation—animals and birds. (Ge 6:9–7:16) Jehovah likewise made clear that he would not allow alienated human society to corrupt the earth endlessly; that he had not restricted himself as to executing his righteous judgment against wrongdoers when and as he saw fit. Additionally he demonstrated his sovereign ability to control earth’s various elements, including its atmosphere.—Ge 6:3, 5-7; 7:17–8:22.
The early post-Flood society and its problems. Following the Flood, a patriarchal arrangement apparently was the basic structure of human society, providing a measure of stability and order. Mankind was to “fill the earth,” which called not merely for procreating but for the steady extension of the area of human habitation throughout the globe. (Ge 9:1, 7) These factors, of themselves, would reasonably have had a limiting effect on any social problems, keeping them generally within the family circle and making unlikely the friction that frequently develops where density of population or crowded conditions exist. The unauthorized project at Babel, however, called for an opposite course, for a concentrating of people, avoiding being “scattered over all the surface of the earth.” (Ge 11:1-4; see LANGUAGE.) Then, too, Nimrod departed from the patriarchal rule and set up the first “kingdom” (Heb., mam·la·khah′). A Cushite of the family line of Ham, he invaded Shemite territory, the land of Asshur (Assyria), and built cities there as part of his realm.—Ge 10:8-12.
God’s confusion of human language broke up the concentration of people on the Plains of Shinar, but the pattern of rulership begun by Nimrod was generally followed in the lands to which the various families of mankind migrated. In the days of Abraham (2018-1843 B.C.E.), kingdoms were active from Asian Mesopotamia on down to Egypt, where the king was titled “Pharaoh” rather than Me′lekh. But these kingships did not bring security. Kings were soon forming military alliances, waging far-ranging campaigns of aggression, plunder, and kidnapping. (Ge 14:1-12) In some cities strangers were subject to attack by homosexuals.—Ge 19:4-9.
Thus, whereas men doubtless banded together in concentrated communities in search of security (compare Ge 4:14-17), they soon found it necessary to wall their cities and eventually fortify them against armed attack. The earliest secular records known, many of them from the Mesopotamian region where Nimrod’s kingdom had originally operated, are heavy with accounts of human conflict, greed, intrigue, and bloodshed. The most ancient non-Biblical law records found, such as those of Lipit-Ishtar, Eshnunna, and Hammurabi, show that human living had become very complex, with social friction producing problems of theft, fraud, commercial difficulties, disputes about property and payment of rent, questions regarding loans and interest, marital infidelity, medical fees and failures, assault and battery cases, and many other matters. Though Hammurabi called himself “the efficient king” and “the perfect king,” his rule and legislation, like that of the other ancient political kingdoms, was incapable of solving the problems of sinful mankind. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 159-180; compare Pr 28:5.) In all these kingdoms religion was prominent, but not the worship of the true God. Though the priesthood collaborated closely with the ruling class and enjoyed royal favor, this brought no moral improvement to the people. The cuneiform inscriptions of the ancient religious writings are devoid of spiritual uplift or moral guidance; they betray the gods worshiped as quarrelsome, violent, lustful, not governed by righteous standards or purpose. Men needed Jehovah God’s kingdom if they were to enjoy life in peace and happiness.
Toward Abraham and His Descendants. True, those individuals who looked to Jehovah God as their Head were not without their personal problems and frictions. Yet they were helped to solve these or to endure them in a way conforming to God’s righteous standards and without becoming degraded. They were afforded divine protection and strength. (Ge 13:5-11; 14:18-24; 19:15-24; 21:9-13, 22-33) Thus, after pointing out that Jehovah’s “judicial decisions are in all the earth,” the psalmist says of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: “They happened to be few in number, yes, very few, and alien residents in [Canaan]. And they kept walking about from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people. [Jehovah] did not allow any human to defraud them, but on their account he reproved kings, saying: ‘Do not you men touch my anointed ones, and to my prophets do nothing bad.’” (Ps 105:7-15; compare Ge 12:10-20; 20:1-18; 31:22-24, 36-55.) This, too, was proof that God’s sovereignty over earth was still in effect, enforceable by him in harmony with the development of his purpose.
The faithful patriarchs did not attach themselves to any of the city-states or kingdoms of Canaan or other lands. Rather than seek security in some city under the political rule of a human king, they lived in tents as aliens, “strangers and temporary residents in the land,” in faith “awaiting the city having real foundations, the builder and maker of which city is God.” They accepted God as their Ruler, waited for his future heavenly arrangement, or agency, for governing the earth, solidly founded on his sovereign authority and will, though the realization of this hope was then “afar off.” (Heb 11:8-10, 13-16) Thus, Jesus, already anointed by God to be king, could later say: “Abraham . . . rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.”—Joh 8:56.
Jehovah brought the development of his promise regarding the Kingdom “seed” (Ge 3:15) a step farther by the establishing of a covenant with Abraham. (Ge 12:1-3; 22:15-18) In connection therewith, he foretold that ‘kings would come’ from Abraham (Abram) and his wife. (Ge 17:1-6, 15, 16) Though the descendants of Abraham’s grandson Esau formed sheikdoms and kingdoms, it was to Abraham’s other grandson, Jacob, that God’s prophetic promise of kingly descendants was repeated.—Ge 35:11, 12; 36:9, 15-43.
Formation of the Israelite nation. Centuries later, at the due time (Ge 15:13-16), Jehovah God acted on behalf of Jacob’s descendants, now numbering into the millions (see EXODUS [The Number Involved in the Exodus]), protecting them during a campaign of genocide by the Egyptian government (Ex 1:15-22) and finally freeing them from harsh slavery to Egypt’s regime. (Ex 2:23-25) God’s command to Pharaoh, delivered through his agents Moses and Aaron, was spurned by the Egyptian ruler as proceeding from a source with no authority over Egyptian affairs. Pharaoh’s repeated refusal to recognize Jehovah’s sovereignty brought demonstrations of divine power in the form of plagues. (Ex 7 to 12) God thereby proved that his dominion over earth’s elements and creatures was superior to that of any king in all the earth. (Ex 9:13-16) He climaxed this display of sovereign power by destroying Pharaoh’s forces in a way that none of the boastful warrior kings of the nations could ever have duplicated. (Ex 14:26-31) With real basis, Moses and the Israelites sang: “Jehovah will rule as king to time indefinite, even forever.”—Ex 15:1-19.
Thereafter Jehovah gave added proof of his dominion over earth, its vital water resources, and its bird life, and he showed his ability to guard and sustain his nation even in arid and hostile surroundings. (Ex 15:22–17:15) Having done all of this, he addressed the liberated people, telling them that, by obedience to his authority and covenant, they could become his special property out of all other peoples, “because the whole earth belongs to me.” They could become “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Ex 19:3-6) When they went on record as willing subjects of his sovereignty, Jehovah acted as Kingly Legislator by giving them royal decrees in a large body of laws, accompanying this by dynamic and awe-inspiring evidence of his power and glory. (Ex 19:7–24:18) A tabernacle or tent of meeting, and particularly the ark of the covenant, was to indicate the presence of the invisible heavenly Head of State. (Ex 25:8, 21, 22; 33:7-11; compare Re 21:3.) Although Moses and other appointed men judged the majority of cases, guided by God’s law, Jehovah intervened personally at times to express judgments and apply sanctions against lawbreakers. (Ex 18:13-16, 24-26; 32:25-35) The ordained priesthood acted to maintain good relations between the nation and its heavenly Ruler, helping the people in their efforts to conform to the high standards of the Law covenant. (See PRIEST.) Thus the government over Israel was a genuine theocracy.—De 33:2, 5.
As God and Creator, holding the right of “eminent domain” over all the earth, as well as being “the Judge of all the earth” (Ge 18:25), Jehovah had assigned the land of Canaan to Abraham’s seed. (Ge 12:5-7; 15:17-21) As Chief Executive, he now ordered the Israelites to carry out the forcible expropriation of the territory held by the condemned Canaanites, as well as his death sentence against them.—De 9:1-5; see CANAAN, CANAANITE No. 2 (Conquest of Canaan by Israel).
The period of the Judges. For three and a half centuries after Israel’s conquest of Canaan’s many kingdoms, Jehovah God was the nation’s only king. During varying periods, Judges, chosen by God, led the nation or portions thereof in battle and in peace. Judge Gideon’s defeat of Midian brought a popular request that he become the nation’s ruler, but he refused, acknowledging Jehovah as the true ruler. (Jg 8:22, 23) His ambitious son Abimelech briefly established kingship over a small segment of the nation, but this ended in personal disaster.—Jg 9:1, 6, 22, 53-56.
Of this general period of the Judges, the comment is made: “In those days there was no king in Israel. As for everybody, what was right in his own eyes he was accustomed to do.” (Jg 17:6; 21:25) This does not imply that there was no judicial restraint. Every city had judges, older men, to handle legal questions and problems and to mete out justice. (De 16:18-20; see COURT, JUDICIAL.) The Levitical priesthood functioned as a superior guiding force, educating the people in God’s law, the high priest having the Urim and Thummim by which to consult God on difficult matters. (See HIGH PRIEST; PRIEST; URIM AND THUMMIM.) So, the individual who availed himself of these provisions, who gained knowledge of God’s law and applied it, had a sound guide for his conscience. His doing “what was right in his own eyes” in such case would not result in bad. Jehovah allowed the people to show a willing or unwilling attitude and course. There was no human monarch over the nation supervising the work of the city judges or commanding the citizens to engage in particular projects or marshaling them for defense of the nation. (Compare Jg 5:1-18.) The bad conditions that developed, therefore, were chargeable to the unwillingness of the majority to heed the word and law of their heavenly King and to avail themselves of his provisions.—Jg 2:11-23.
A Human King Requested. Nearly 400 years from the time of the Exodus and over 800 years from the making of God’s covenant with Abraham, the Israelites requested a human king to lead them, even as the other nations had human monarchs. Their request constituted a rejection of Jehovah’s own kingship over them. (1Sa 8:4-8) True, the people properly expected a kingdom to be established by God in harmony with his promise to Abraham and to Jacob, already cited. They had further basis for such hope in Jacob’s deathbed prophecy concerning Judah (Ge 49:8-10), in Jehovah’s words to Israel after the Exodus (Ex 19:3-6), in the terms of the Law covenant (De 17:14, 15), and even in part of the message God caused the prophet Balaam to speak (Nu 24:2-7, 17). Samuel’s faithful mother Hannah expressed this hope in prayer. (1Sa 2:7-10) Nevertheless, Jehovah had not fully revealed his “sacred secret” regarding the Kingdom and had not indicated when his due time for its establishment would arrive nor what the structure and composition of that government would be—whether it would be earthly or heavenly. It was therefore presumptuous on the part of the people now to demand a human king.
The menace of Philistine and Ammonite aggression evidently contributed to the Israelites’ desire for a visible royal commander-in-chief. They thus displayed a lack of faith in God’s ability to protect, guide, and provide for them, as a nation or as individuals. (1Sa 8:4-8) The people’s motive was wrong; yet Jehovah God granted their request not for their sake primarily but to accomplish his own good purpose in the progressive revelation of the “sacred secret” of his future Kingdom by the “seed.” Human kingship would bring its problems and expense for Israel, however, and Jehovah laid the facts before the people.—1Sa 8:9-22.
The kings thereafter appointed by Jehovah were to serve as God’s earthly agents, not diminishing in the least Jehovah’s own sovereignty over the nation. The throne was actually Jehovah’s, and they sat thereon as deputy kings. (1Ch 29:23) Jehovah commanded the anointing of the first king, Saul (1Sa 9:15-17), at the same time exposing the lack of faith the nation had displayed.—1Sa 10:17-25.
For the kingship to bring benefits, both king and nation must now respect God’s authority. If they unrealistically looked to other sources for direction and protection, they and their king would be swept away. (De 28:36; 1Sa 12:13-15, 20-25) The king was to avoid reliance on military strength, the multiplying of wives for himself, and being dominated by the lust for wealth. His kingship was to operate entirely within the framework of the Law covenant. He was under divine orders to write his own copy of that Law and read it daily, that he might keep a proper fear of the Sovereign Authority, stay humble, and hold to a righteous course. (De 17:16-20) To the extent that he did this, loving God wholeheartedly and loving his neighbor as himself, his rule would bring blessings, with no real cause for complaint due to oppression or hardship. But, as with the people, so now with their kings, Jehovah allowed the rulers to demonstrate what their hearts contained, their willingness or unwillingness to recognize God’s own authority and will.
David’s Exemplary Rule. Disrespect by the Benjamite Saul for the superior authority and arrangements of “the Excellency of Israel” brought divine disfavor and cost his family line the throne. (1Sa 13:10-14; 15:17-29; 1Ch 10:13, 14) With the rule of Saul’s successor, David of Judah, Jacob’s deathbed prophecy saw further fulfillment. (Ge 49:8-10) Though David committed errors through human weakness, his rule was exemplary because of his heartfelt devotion to Jehovah God and his humble submission to divine authority. (Ps 51:1-4; 1Sa 24:10-14; compare 1Ki 11:4; 15:11, 14.) At the time of receiving contributions for the temple construction, David prayed to God before the congregated people, saying: “Yours, O Jehovah, are the greatness and the mightiness and the beauty and the excellency and the dignity; for everything in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Jehovah, the One also lifting yourself up as head over all. The riches and the glory are on account of you, and you are dominating everything; and in your hand there are power and mightiness, and in your hand is ability to make great and to give strength to all. And now, O our God, we are thanking you and praising your beauteous name.” (1Ch 29:10-13) His final counsel to his son Solomon also illustrates David’s fine viewpoint of the relationship between the earthly kingship and its divine Source.—1Ki 2:1-4.
On the occasion of bringing the ark of the covenant, associated with Jehovah’s presence, to the capital, Jerusalem, David sang: “Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be joyful, and let them say among the nations, ‘Jehovah himself has become king!’” (1Ch 16:1, 7, 23-31) This illustrates the fact that, though Jehovah’s rulership dates from the beginning of creation, he can make specific expressions of his rulership or establish certain agencies to represent him that allow for his being spoken of as ‘becoming king’ at a particular time or occasion.
The covenant for a kingdom. Jehovah made a covenant with David for a kingdom to be established everlastingly in his family line, saying: “I shall certainly raise up your seed after you, . . . and I shall indeed firmly establish his kingdom. . . . And your house and your kingdom will certainly be steadfast to time indefinite before you; your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite.” (2Sa 7:12-16; 1Ch 17:11-14) This covenant in force toward the Davidic dynasty provided further evidence of the outworking of God’s Edenic promise for his Kingdom by the foretold “seed” (Ge 3:15) and supplied additional means for identifying that “seed” when he should come. (Compare Isa 9:6, 7; 1Pe 1:11.) The kings appointed by God were anointed for their office, hence the term “messiah,” meaning “anointed one,” applied to them. (1Sa 16:1; Ps 132:13, 17) Clearly, then, the earthly kingdom Jehovah established over Israel served as a type or small-scale representation of the coming Kingdom by the Messiah, Jesus Christ, “son of David.”—Mt 1:1.
Decline and Fall of the Israelite Kingdoms. Because of failure to adhere to Jehovah’s righteous ways, conditions at the end of just three reigns and the start of the fourth produced strong discontent that led to revolt and a split in the nation (997 B.C.E.). A northern kingdom and a southern one resulted. Jehovah’s covenant with David nevertheless continued in force toward the kings of the southern kingdom of Judah. Over the centuries, faithful kings were rare in Judah, and were completely lacking in the northern kingdom of Israel. The northern kingdom’s history was one of idolatry, intrigue, and assassinations, kings often following one another in rapid succession. The people suffered injustice and oppression. About 250 years from its start, Jehovah allowed the king of Assyria to crush the northern kingdom (740 B.C.E.) because of its course of rebellion against God.—Ho 4:1, 2; Am 2:6-8.
Though the kingdom of Judah enjoyed greater stability because of the Davidic dynasty, the southern kingdom eventually surpassed the northern kingdom in its moral corruption, despite the efforts of God-fearing kings, such as Hezekiah and Josiah, to roll back the decline toward idolatry and rejection of Jehovah’s word and authority. (Isa 1:1-4; Eze 23:1-4, 11) Social injustice, tyranny, greed, dishonesty, bribes, sexual perversion, criminal attacks, and bloodshed, as well as religious hypocrisy that converted God’s temple into a “cave of robbers”—all of these were decried by Jehovah’s prophets in their warning messages delivered to rulers and people. (Isa 1:15-17, 21-23; 3:14, 15; Jer 5:1, 2, 7, 8, 26-28, 31; 6:6, 7; 7:8-11) Neither the support of apostate priests nor any political alliance made with other nations could avoid the coming crash of that unfaithful kingdom. (Jer 6:13-15; 37:7-10) The capital city, Jerusalem, was destroyed and Judah was laid waste by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:1-26.
Jehovah’s kingly position remains unmarred. The destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in no way reflected on the quality of Jehovah God’s own rulership; in no way did it indicate weakness on his part. Throughout the history of the Israelite nation, Jehovah made clear that his interest was in willing service and obedience. (De 10:12-21; 30:6, 15-20; Isa 1:18-20; Eze 18:25-32) He instructed, reproved, disciplined, warned, and punished. But he did not use his power to force either the king or the people to follow a righteous course. The bad conditions that developed, the suffering experienced, the disaster that befell them, were all of their own making, because they stubbornly hardened their hearts and insisted on following an independent course, one that was stupidly damaging to their own best interests.—La 1:8, 9; Ne 9:26-31, 34-37; Isa 1:2-7; Jer 8:5-9; Ho 7:10, 11.
Jehovah exhibited his Sovereign power by holding in abeyance the aggressive, rapacious powers of Assyria and Babylon until his own due time, even maneuvering them so that they acted in fulfillment of his prophecies. (Eze 21:18-23; Isa 10:5-7) When Jehovah finally removed his defenses from around the nation, it was an expression of his righteous judgment as Sovereign Ruler. (Jer 35:17) The desolation of Israel and Judah came as no shocking surprise to God’s obedient servants who were forewarned by his prophecies. The abasing of haughty rulers exalted Jehovah’s own “splendid superiority.” (Isa 2:1, 10-17) More than all of this, however, he had demonstrated his ability to protect and preserve individuals who looked to him as their King, even when they were surrounded by conditions of famine, disease, and wholesale slaughter, as well as when they were persecuted by those hating righteousness.—Jer 34:17-21; 20:10, 11; 35:18, 19; 36:26; 37:18-21; 38:7-13; 39:11–40:5.
Israel’s last king was warned of the coming removal of his crown, representing anointed kingship as Jehovah’s royal representative. That anointed Davidic kingship would no longer be exercised “until he comes who has the legal right, and I [Jehovah] must give it to him.” (Eze 21:25-27) Thus, the typical kingdom, now in ruins, ceased to function, and attention was again directed forward, toward the coming “seed,” the Messiah.
Political nations, such as Assyria and Babylon, devastated the apostate kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Though God speaks of himself as ‘raising up’ or ‘bringing’ them against those condemned kingdoms (De 28:49; Jer 5:15; 25:8, 9; Eze 7:24; Am 6:14), this was evidently in a sense similar to God’s ‘hardening’ the heart of Pharaoh. (See FOREKNOWLEDGE, FOREORDINATION [Concerning individuals].) That is, God ‘brought’ these attacking forces by permitting them to carry out the desire already in their heart (Isa 10:7; La 2:16; Mic 4:11), removing his protective ‘hand’ from over the objects of their ambitious greed. (De 31:17, 18; compare Ezr 8:31 with Ezr 5:12; Ne 9:28-31; Jer 34:2.) The apostate Israelites, stubbornly refusing to subject themselves to Jehovah’s law and will, thus were given ‘liberty to the sword, pestilence, and famine.’ (Jer 34:17) But the attacking pagan nations did not thereby become approved of God, nor did they have ‘clean hands’ before him in their ruthless destruction of the northern and southern kingdoms, the capital city of Jerusalem, and its sacred temple. Hence, Jehovah, the Judge of all the earth, could rightly denounce them for ‘pillaging his inheritance’ and could doom them to suffer the same desolation they had wreaked on his covenant people.—Isa 10:12-14; 13:1, 17-22; 14:4-6, 12-14, 26, 27; 47:5-11; Jer 50:11, 14, 17-19, 23-29.
Visions of Kingdom of God in Daniel’s Day. The prophecy of Daniel in its entirety emphatically stresses the theme of the Universal Sovereignty of God, further clarifying Jehovah’s purpose. Living in exile in the capital of the world power that overthrew Judah, Daniel was used by God to reveal the significance of a vision had by the Babylonian monarch, a vision that foretold the march of world powers and their eventual demolition by the everlasting Kingdom of Jehovah’s own establishment. Doubtless to the amazement of his royal court, Nebuchadnezzar, the very conqueror of Jerusalem, was now moved to prostrate himself in homage to Daniel the exile and to acknowledge Daniel’s God as “a Lord of kings.” (Da 2:36-47) Again, by Nebuchadnezzar’s dream vision of the ‘chopped-down tree,’ Jehovah forcefully made known that “the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind.” (Da 4; see the discussion of this vision under APPOINTED TIMES OF THE NATIONS.) Through the fulfillment of the dream as it related to him, imperial ruler Nebuchadnezzar once more was brought to recognize Daniel’s God as “the King of the heavens,” the One who “is doing according to his own will among the army of the heavens and the inhabitants of the earth. And there exists no one that can check his hand or that can say to him, ‘What have you been doing?’”—Da 4:34-37.
Toward the close of Babylon’s international dominance, Daniel saw prophetic visions of successive empires, beastlike in their characteristics; he saw also Jehovah’s majestic heavenly Court in session, passing judgment on the world powers, decreeing them unworthy of rulership; and he beheld “someone like a son of man . . . [being] given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him” in his “indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away.” He witnessed as well the war waged against “the holy ones” by the final world power, calling for its annihilation, and the giving of “the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens . . . to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One,” Jehovah God. (Da 7, 8) Thus, it became evident that the promised “seed” would involve a governmental body with not only a kingly head, the “son of man,” but also associate rulers, “the holy ones of the Supreme One.”
Toward Babylon and Medo-Persia. God’s inexorable decree against mighty Babylon was carried out suddenly and unexpectedly; her days were numbered and brought to a finish. (Da 5:17-30) During the Medo-Persian rule that followed, Jehovah made further revelation concerning the Messianic Kingdom, pointing to the time of Messiah’s appearance, foretelling his being “cut off,” as well as a second destruction of the city of Jerusalem and its holy place. (Da 9:1, 24-27; see SEVENTY WEEKS.) And, as he had done during the Babylonian rule, Jehovah God again demonstrated his ability to protect those recognizing his sovereignty in the face of official anger and the threat of death, exhibiting his power over both earthly elements and wild beasts. (Da 3:13-29; 6:12-27) He caused Babylon’s gates to swing wide open on schedule, allowing his covenant people to have the freedom to return to their own land and rebuild Jehovah’s house there. (2Ch 36:20-23) Because of his act of liberating his people, the announcement could be made to Zion, “Your God has become king!” (Isa 52:7-11) Thereafter, conspiracies against his people were thwarted and misrepresentation by subordinate officials and adverse governmental decrees were overcome, as Jehovah moved various Persian kings to cooperate with the carrying out of his own sovereign will.—Ezr 4-7; Ne 2, 4, 6; Es 3-9.
Thus, for thousands of years the changeless, irresistible purpose of Jehovah God moved forward. Regardless of the turn of events on earth, he proved to be ever in command of the situation, always ahead of opposing man and devil. Nothing was allowed to interfere with the perfect outworking of his purpose, his will. The nation of Israel and its history, while serving to form prophetic types and forecasts of the future dealings of God with men, also illustrated that without wholehearted recognition and submission to divine headship there can be no lasting harmony, peace, and happiness. The Israelites enjoyed the benefits of having in common such things as ancestry, language, and country. They also faced common foes. But only as long as they loyally and faithfully worshiped and served Jehovah God did they have unity, strength, justice, and genuine enjoyment of life. When the bonds of relationship with Jehovah God weakened, the nation deteriorated rapidly.
The Kingdom of God ‘Draws Near.’ Since the Messiah was to be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a member of the tribe of Judah, and a “son of David,” he had to have a human birth; he had to be, as Daniel’s prophecy declared, “a son of man.” When the “full limit of the time arrived,” Jehovah God sent forth his Son, who was born of a woman and who fulfilled all the legal requirements for the inheritance of “the throne of David his father.” (Ga 4:4; Lu 1:26-33; see GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST.) Six months before his birth, John, who became the Baptizer and who was to be Jesus’ forerunner, had been born. (Lu 1:13-17, 36) The expressions of the parents of these sons showed they were living in eager anticipation of divine acts of rulership. (Lu 1:41-55, 68-79) At Jesus’ birth, the words of the angelic deputation sent to announce the meaning of the event also pointed to glorious acts by God. (Lu 2:9-14) So, too, the words of Simeon and Anna at the temple expressed hope in saving acts and liberation. (Lu 2:25-38) Both the Biblical record and secular evidence reveal that a general feeling of expectation prevailed among the Jews that the coming of the Messiah was drawing near. With many, however, interest was primarily in gaining freedom from the heavy yoke of Roman domination.—See MESSIAH.
John’s commission was to ‘turn back the hearts’ of persons to Jehovah, to his covenants, to “the privilege of fearlessly rendering sacred service to him with loyalty and righteousness,” thereby getting ready for Jehovah “a prepared people.” (Lu 1:16, 17, 72-75) He told the people in no uncertain terms that they were facing a time of judgment by God, that ‘the kingdom of the heavens had drawn near,’ making urgent their turning away repentantly from their course of disobedience to God’s will and law. This again emphasized Jehovah’s standard of having only willing subjects, persons who both recognize and appreciate the rightness of his ways and laws.—Mt 3:1, 2, 7-12.
The Messiah came when Jesus presented himself to John for baptism and was then anointed by God’s holy spirit. (Mt 3:13-17) He thereby became the King-Designate, the One recognized by Jehovah’s Court as having the legal right to the Davidic throne, a right that had not been exercised during the preceding six centuries. (See JESUS CHRIST [His Baptism].) But Jehovah additionally brought this approved Son into a covenant for a heavenly Kingdom, in which Jesus would be both King and Priest, as Melchizedek of ancient Salem had been. (Ps 110:1-4; Lu 22:29; Heb 5:4-6; 7:1-3; 8:1; see COVENANT.) As the promised ‘seed of Abraham,’ this heavenly King-Priest would be God’s Chief Agent for blessing persons of all nations.—Ge 22:15-18; Ga 3:14; Ac 3:15.
Early in his Son’s earthly life, Jehovah had manifested his kingly power on Jesus’ behalf. God diverted the Oriental astrologers who were going to inform tyrannical King Herod of the young child’s whereabouts, and he caused Jesus’ parents to slip away into Egypt before Herod’s agents carried out the massacre of infants in Bethlehem. (Mt 2:1-16) Since the original prophecy in Eden had foretold enmity between the promised “seed” and the ‘seed of the serpent,’ this attempt on Jesus’ life could only mean that God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, was trying, however futilely, to frustrate Jehovah’s purpose.—Ge 3:15.
After some 40 days in the Judean Wilderness, the baptized Jesus was confronted by this principal opponent of Jehovah’s sovereignty. By some means, the spirit Adversary conveyed to Jesus certain subtle suggestions designed to draw him into acts violating Jehovah’s expressed will and word. Satan even offered to give to the anointed Jesus dominion over all earthly kingdoms without a struggle and without any need for suffering on Jesus’ part—in exchange for one act of worship toward himself. When Jesus refused, acknowledging Jehovah as the one true Sovereign from whom authority rightly proceeds and to whom worship goes, God’s Adversary began drawing up other plans of war strategy against Jehovah’s Representative, resorting to the use of human agents in various ways, as he had done long before in the case of Job.—Job 1:8-18; Mt 4:1-11; Lu 4:1-13; compare Re 13:1, 2.
In what way was God’s Kingdom ‘in the midst’ of those to whom Jesus preached?
Trusting in Jehovah’s power to protect him and grant him success, Jesus entered his public ministry, announcing to Jehovah’s covenant people that “the appointed time has been fulfilled,” resulting in the approach of the Kingdom of God. (Mr 1:14, 15) In determining in what sense the Kingdom was “near,” his words to certain Pharisees may be noted, namely, that “the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Lu 17:21) Commenting on this text, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible observes: “Although frequently cited as an example of Jesus’ ‘mysticism’ or ‘inwardness,’ this interpretation rests chiefly upon the old translation, ‘within you,’ [KJ, Dy] understood in the unfortunate modern sense of ‘you’ as singular; the ‘you’ ([hy·mon′]) is plural (Jesus is addressing the Pharisees—vs. 20) . . . The theory that the kingdom of God is an inner state of mind, or of personal salvation, runs counter to the context of this verse, and also to the whole NT presentation of the idea.” (Edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 2, p. 883) Since “kingdom [ba·si·lei′a]” can refer to the “royal dignity,” it is evident that Jesus meant that he, God’s royal representative, the one anointed by God for the kingship, was in their midst. Not only was he present in this capacity but he also had authority to perform works manifesting God’s kingly power and to prepare candidates for positions within his coming Kingdom rule. Hence the ‘nearness’ of the Kingdom; it was a time of tremendous opportunity.
Government with power and authority. Jesus’ disciples understood the Kingdom to be an actual government of God, though they did not comprehend the reach of its domain. Nathanael said to Jesus: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.” (Joh 1:49) They knew the things foretold about “the holy ones” in the prophecy of Daniel. (Da 7:18, 27) Jesus directly promised his apostolic followers that they would occupy “thrones.” (Mt 19:28) James and John sought certain privileged positions in the Messianic government, and Jesus acknowledged that there would be such privileged positions, but he stated that the assigning of these rested with his Father, the Sovereign Ruler. (Mt 20:20-23; Mr 10:35-40) So, whereas his disciples mistakenly limited Messiah’s kingly rule to earth and specifically to fleshly Israel, even doing so on the day of the resurrected Jesus’ ascension (Ac 1:6), they correctly understood that it referred to a governmental arrangement.—Compare Mt 21:5; Mr 11:7-10.
Jehovah’s kingly power toward his earthly creation was visibly demonstrated in many ways by his royal Representative. By God’s spirit, or active force, his Son exercised control over wind and sea, vegetation, fish, and even over the organic elements in food, causing the food to be multiplied. These powerful works caused his disciples to develop deep respect for the authority that he had. (Mt 14:23-33; Mr 4:36-41; 11:12-14, 20-23; Lu 5:4-11; Joh 6:5-15) Even more profoundly impressive was his exercise of God’s power over human bodies, healing afflictions ranging from blindness to leprosy, and restoring the dead to life. (Mt 9:35; 20:30-34; Lu 5:12, 13; 7:11-17; Joh 11:39-47) Healed lepers he sent to report to the divinely authorized, but generally unbelieving, priesthood, as “a witness to them.” (Lu 5:14; 17:14) Finally, he showed God’s power over superhuman spirits. The demons recognized the authority invested in Jesus and, rather than risk a decisive test of the power backing him up, they acceded to his orders to release persons possessed by them. (Mt 8:28-32; 9:32, 33; compare Jas 2:19.) Since this powerful expulsion of demons was by God’s spirit, this meant that the Kingdom of God had really “overtaken” his listeners.—Mt 12:25-29; compare Lu 9:42, 43.
All of this was solid proof that Jesus had kingly authority and that this authority came from no earthly, human, political source. (Compare Joh 18:36; Isa 9:6, 7.) Messengers from the imprisoned John the Baptizer, as witnesses of these powerful works, were instructed by Jesus to go back to John and tell him what they had seen and heard as confirmation that Jesus was indeed “the Coming One.” (Mt 11:2-6; Lu 7:18-23; compare Joh 5:36.) Jesus’ disciples were seeing and hearing the evidence of Kingdom authority that the prophets had longed to witness. (Mt 13:16, 17) Moreover, Jesus was able to delegate authority to his disciples so that they could exercise similar powers as his appointed deputies, thereby giving force and weight to their proclamation, “The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.”—Mt 10:1, 7, 8; Lu 4:36; 10:8-12, 17.
Entrance Into the Kingdom. Jesus emphasized the special period of opportunity that had thus arrived. Of his forerunner John the Baptizer, Jesus said: “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. But from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press [bi·a′ze·tai], and those pressing forward [bi·a·stai′] are seizing it. [Compare AT; also the Zürcher Bibel (German).] For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John.” (Mt 11:10-13) Thus, the days of John’s ministry, which were soon to end with his execution, marked the close of one period, the start of another. Of the Greek verb bi·a′zo·mai used in this text, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says, “The verb suggests forceful endeavour.” (1981, Vol. 3, p. 208) Regarding Matthew 11:12, German scholar Heinrich Meyer states: “In this way is described that eager, irresistible striving and struggling after the approaching Messianic kingdom . . . So eager and energetic (no longer calm and expectant) is the interest in regard to the kingdom. The [bi·a·stai′] are, accordingly, believers [not enemy attackers] struggling hard for its possession.”—Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of Matthew, 1884, p. 225.
Membership in the Kingdom of God, therefore, would not be easy to gain, not like approaching an open city with little or nothing to make entrance difficult. Rather, the Sovereign, Jehovah God, had placed barriers to shut out any not worthy. (Compare Joh 6:44; 1Co 6:9-11; Ga 5:19-21; Eph 5:5.) Those who would enter must traverse a narrow road, find the narrow gate, keep on asking, keep on seeking, keep on knocking, and the way would be opened. They would find the way to be “narrow” in that it restricts those who follow it from doing things that would result in injury to themselves or others. (Mt 7:7, 8, 13, 14; compare 2Pe 1:10, 11.) They might figuratively have to lose an eye or a hand to gain entrance. (Mr 9:43-47) The Kingdom would be no plutocracy in which one could buy the King’s favor; it would be a difficult thing for a rich man (Gr., plou′si·os) to enter. (Lu 18:24, 25) It would be no worldly aristocracy; prominent position among men would not count. (Mt 23:1, 2, 6-12, 33; Lu 16:14-16) Those apparently “first,” having an impressive religious background and record, would be “last,” and the ‘last would be first’ to receive the favored privileges connected with that Kingdom. (Mt 19:30–20:16) The prominent but hypocritical Pharisees, confident of their advantageous position, would see reformed harlots and tax collectors enter the Kingdom before them. (Mt 21:31, 32; 23:13) Though calling Jesus “Lord, Lord,” all hypocritical persons disrespecting the word and will of God as revealed through Jesus would be turned away with the words: “I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.”—Mt 7:15-23.
Those gaining entrance would be those putting material interests secondary and seeking first the Kingdom and God’s righteousness. (Mt 6:31-34) Like God’s anointed King, Christ Jesus, they would love righteousness and hate wickedness. (Heb 1:8, 9) Spiritually minded, merciful, purehearted, peaceable persons, though the objects of reproach and persecution by men, would become prospective members of the Kingdom. (Mt 5:3-10; Lu 6:23) The “yoke” Jesus invited such ones to take upon themselves meant submission to his kingly authority. It was a kindly yoke, however, with a light load for those who were “mild-tempered and lowly in heart” as was the King. (Mt 11:28-30; compare 1Ki 12:12-14; Jer 27:1-7.) This should have had a heartwarming effect on his listeners, assuring them that his rule would have none of the undesirable qualities of many earlier rulers, both Israelite and non-Israelite. It gave them reason to believe that his rule would bring no burdensome taxation, forced servitude, or forms of exploitation. (Compare 1Sa 8:10-18; De 17:15-17, 20; Eph 5:5.) As Jesus’ later words showed, not only would the Head of the coming Kingdom government prove his unselfishness to the point of giving his life for his people but all those associated with him in that government would also be persons who sought to serve rather than be served.—Mt 20:25-28; see JESUS CHRIST (His Works and Personal Qualities).
Willing submission vital. Jesus himself had the deepest respect for the Sovereign will and authority of his Father. (Joh 5:30; 6:38; Mt 26:39) As long as the Law covenant was in effect, his Jewish followers were to practice and advocate obedience to it; any taking an opposite course would be rejected as regards his Kingdom. This respect and obedience, however, must be from the heart, not a mere formal or one-sided observing of the Law with emphasis on specific acts required, but the observing of basic principles inherent therein involving justice, mercy, and faithfulness. (Mt 5:17-20; 23:23, 24) To the scribe who acknowledged Jehovah’s unique position and who recognized that “loving him with one’s whole heart and with one’s whole understanding and with one’s whole strength and this loving one’s neighbor as oneself is worth far more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices,” Jesus said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (Mr 12:28-34) Thus, in all respects Jesus made clear that Jehovah God seeks only willing subjects, those who prefer his righteous ways and desire fervently to live under his Sovereign authority.
Covenant relationship. On his last night with his disciples, Jesus spoke to them of a “new covenant” to become operative toward his followers as a result of his ransom sacrifice (Lu 22:19, 20; compare 12:32); he himself would serve as the Mediator of that covenant between Jehovah the Sovereign and Jesus’ followers. (1Ti 2:5; Heb 12:24) Additionally, Jesus made a personal covenant with his followers “for a kingdom,” that they might join him in his royal privileges.—Lu 22:28-30; see COVENANT.
Conquest of the world. Although Jesus’ subsequent arrest, trials, and execution made his kingly position appear weak, in reality it marked a powerful fulfillment of God’s prophecies and was allowed by God for that reason. (Joh 19:10, 11; Lu 24:19-27, 44) By his loyalty and integrity until death, Jesus proved that “the ruler of the world,” God’s Adversary, Satan, had “no hold” on him and that Jesus had indeed “conquered the world.” (Joh 14:29-31; 16:33) Additionally, even while his Son was impaled on the stake, Jehovah gave evidence of his superior power: The light of the sun was blacked out for a time; there was also a strong earthquake and the ripping in two of the large curtain in the temple. (Mt 27:51-54; Lu 23:44, 45) On the third day thereafter, he gave far greater evidence of his Sovereignty when he resurrected his Son to spirit life, despite the puny efforts of men to prevent the resurrection by posting guards before Jesus’ sealed tomb.—Mt 28:1-7.
“The Kingdom of the Son of His Love.” Ten days after Jesus’ ascension to heaven, on Pentecost of 33 C.E., his disciples had evidence that he had been “exalted to the right hand of God” when Jesus poured out holy spirit upon them. (Ac 1:8, 9; 2:1-4, 29-33) The “new covenant” thus became operative toward them, and they became the nucleus of a new “holy nation,” spiritual Israel.—Heb 12:22-24; 1Pe 2:9, 10; Ga 6:16.
Christ was now sitting at his Father’s right hand and was the Head over this congregation. (Eph 5:23; Heb 1:3; Php 2:9-11) The Scriptures show that from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward, a spiritual kingdom was set up over his disciples. When writing to first-century Christians at Colossae, the apostle Paul referred to Jesus Christ as already having a kingdom: “[God] delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love.”—Col 1:13; compare Ac 17:6, 7.
Christ’s kingdom from Pentecost of 33 C.E. onward has been a spiritual one ruling over spiritual Israel, Christians who have been begotten by God’s spirit to become the spiritual children of God. (Joh 3:3, 5, 6) When such spirit-begotten Christians receive their heavenly reward, they will no longer be earthly subjects of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, but they will be kings with Christ in heaven.—Re 5:9, 10.
“Kingdom of Our Lord and of His Christ.” The apostle John, writing toward the close of the first century C.E., foresaw through a divine revelation the future time when Jehovah God, by means of his Son, would make a new expression of divine rulership. At that time, as in the time of David’s bringing the Ark up to Jerusalem, it would be said that Jehovah ‘has taken his great power and begun ruling as king.’ This would be the time for loud voices in heaven to proclaim: “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.”—Re 11:15, 17; 1Ch 16:1, 31.
It is “our Lord,” the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, who asserts his authority over “the kingdom of the world,” setting up a new expression of his sovereignty toward our earth. He gives to his Son, Jesus Christ, a subsidiary share in that Kingdom, so that it is termed “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.” This Kingdom is of greater proportions and bigger dimensions than “the kingdom of the Son of his love,” spoken of at Colossians 1:13. “The kingdom of the Son of his love” began at Pentecost 33 C.E. and has been over Christ’s anointed disciples; “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” is brought forth at the end of “the appointed times of the nations” and is over all mankind on earth.—Lu 21:24.
Upon receiving a share in “the kingdom of the world,” Jesus Christ takes necessary measures to clean out opposition to God’s sovereignty. The initial action takes place in the heavenly realm; Satan and his demons are defeated and cast down to the earthly realm. This results in the proclamation: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ.” (Re 12:1-10) During the short period of time remaining to him, this principal Adversary, Satan, continues to fulfill the prophecy at Genesis 3:15 by warring against “the remaining ones” of the “seed” of the woman, “the holy ones” due to govern with Christ. (Re 12:13-17; compare Re 13:4-7; Da 7:21-27.) Jehovah’s “righteous decrees” are made manifest, nevertheless, and his expressions of judgment come as plagues upon those opposing him, resulting in the destruction of mystic Babylon the Great, the prime persecutor on earth of God’s servants.—Re 15:4; 16:1–19:6.
Thereafter “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” sends its heavenly armies against the rulers of all earthly kingdoms and their armies in an Armageddon fight, bringing them to an end. (Re 16:14-16; 19:11-21) This is the answer to the petition to God: “Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” (Mt 6:10) Satan is then abyssed and a thousand-year period begins in which Christ Jesus and his associates rule as kings and priests over earth’s inhabitants.—Re 20:1, 6.
Christ “hands over the kingdom.” The apostle Paul also describes the rule of Christ during his presence. After Christ resurrects his followers from death, he proceeds to bring “to nothing all government and all authority and power” (logically referring to all government, authority, and power in opposition to God’s sovereign will). Then, at the end of his Millennial Reign, he “hands over the kingdom to his God and Father,” subjecting himself to the “One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.”—1Co 15:21-28.
Since Christ “hands over the kingdom to his God and Father,” in what sense is his Kingdom “everlasting,” as repeatedly stated in the Scriptures? (2Pe 1:11; Isa 9:7; Da 7:14; Lu 1:33; Re 11:15) His Kingdom “will never be brought to ruin”; its accomplishments will endure forever; he will eternally be honored for his role as Messianic King.—Da 2:44.
During the Thousand Year Reign, Christ’s rule toward earth involves priestly action toward obedient mankind. (Re 5:9, 10; 20:6; 21:1-3) By this means the dominion of sin and death as kings over obedient mankind, subjected to their “law,” ends; undeserved kindness and righteousness are the ruling factors. (Ro 5:14, 17, 21) Since sin and death are to be completely removed from earth’s inhabitants, this also brings to an end the need for Jesus’ serving as “a helper with the Father” in the sense of providing propitiation for the sins of imperfect humans. (1Jo 2:1, 2) That brings mankind back to the original status enjoyed when the perfect man Adam was in Eden. Adam while perfect needed no one to stand between him and God to make propitiation. So, too, at the termination of Jesus’ Thousand Year Rule, earth’s inhabitants will be both in position and under responsibility to answer for their course of action before Jehovah God as the Supreme Judge, without recourse to anyone as legal intermediary, or helper. Jehovah, the Sovereign Power, thus becomes “all things to everyone.” This means that God’s purpose to “gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth,” will have been fully realized.—1Co 15:28; Eph 1:9, 10.
Jesus’ Millennial Rule will have fully accomplished its purpose. Earth, once a focus of rebellion, will have been restored to a full, clean, and undisputed position in the realm, or domain, of the Universal Sovereign. No subsidiary kingdom will remain between Jehovah and obedient mankind.

Following this, however, a final test is made of the integrity and devotion of all such earthly subjects. Satan is loosed from his restraint in the abyss. Those yielding to his seduction do so on the same issue raised in Eden: the rightfulness of God’s sovereignty. This is seen by their attacking “the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city.” Since that issue has been judicially settled and declared closed by the Court of heaven, no prolonged rebellion is permitted in this case. Those failing to stand loyally on God’s side will not be able to appeal to Christ Jesus as a ‘propitiatory helper,’ but Jehovah God will be “all things” to them, with no appeal or mediation possible. All rebels, spirit and human, receive the divine sentence of destruction in “the second death.”—Re 20:7-15.

Sunday, 13 September 2015

The Watchtower Society's commentary on Jehovah's High Priest

HIGH PRIEST:

The principal one who represented the people before God. He was also charged with supervision of all the other priests.

The Bible uses various terms to designate the high priest, namely, “the high [literally, great] priest” (Nu 35:25, 28; Jos 20:6, ftn), “the priest, the anointed one” (Le 4:3), “the chief [or, high; literally, head] priest” (2Ch 26:20, ftn; 2Ki 25:18, ftn), “the head” (2Ch 24:6), or simply, “the priest” (2Ch 26:17). In the latter case the context often makes clear that the high priest is meant. In the Christian Greek Scriptures, “chief priests” is evidently used to denote the principal men of the priesthood, which might include any ex-high priests who had been deposed and possibly, in addition, the heads of the 24 priestly divisions.—Mt 2:4; Mr 8:31.

The appointment of Aaron, Israel’s first high priest, was from God. (Heb 5:4) The high priesthood of Israel was inaugurated in Aaron and passed down from father to oldest son, unless that son died or was disqualified, as in the case of Aaron’s two oldest sons, who sinned against Jehovah and died. (Le 10:1, 2) King Solomon deposed a high priest in fulfillment of divine prophecy and put another qualified man of the line of Aaron in his place. (1Ki 2:26, 27, 35) Later on, when the nation was under Gentile rule, those Gentile rulers removed and appointed high priests according to their will. It seems, nonetheless, that the line of Aaron was quite well adhered to throughout the entire history of the nation down till Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 C.E., although there may have been exceptions, such as Menelaus, also called Onias (Jewish Antiquities, XII, 238, 239 [v, 1]), whom 2 Maccabees 3:4, 5 and 4:23 indicates was a Benjamite.

Qualifications and Requirements for Office. In harmony with the dignity of the office, the high priest’s closeness to Jehovah in representing the nation before Him, and also the typical significance of the office, the requirements were rigid.

A list of disqualifying physical blemishes for all priests is set forth at Leviticus 21:16-23. Additional restrictions were placed on the high priest: He was to marry none other than a virgin of Israel; he was not to marry a widow. (Le 21:13-15) Furthermore, he was not allowed to defile himself for the dead, that is, he could not touch any human corpse, even that of his father or his mother, because that would make him unclean. He was neither to let his hair go ungroomed nor tear his garments for the dead.—Le 21:10-12.

The Bible does not specifically state the age of eligibility for high priest. While it gives a retirement age of 50 years for Levites, it does not mention any retirement for priests, and its record indicates that the high priest’s appointment was for his lifetime. (Nu 8:24, 25) Aaron was 83 years old when he went with Moses before Pharaoh. His anointing as high priest apparently took place in the following year. (Ex 7:7) He was 123 years of age at the time of his death. During all this time he served, with no retirement. (Nu 20:28; 33:39) The provision of the cities of refuge takes note of the lifetime tenure of the high priest, in requiring that the unintentional manslayer remain in the city until the death of the high priest.—Nu 35:25.

Installation. Some indication of the office Jehovah had in mind for Aaron is seen in privileges given him soon after the Exodus from Egypt. In the wilderness on the way to Sinai, Aaron was the one commanded to take a jar of manna and to deposit it before the Testimony as something to be kept. This was before the tent of meeting or the ark of the covenant was yet in existence. (Ex 16:33, 34, ftn) Later, Aaron came to be the one in full charge of the sacred tent and its Ark. Aaron and two of his sons, with 70 of the older men of Israel, were specifically named as privileged to approach Mount Horeb, where they saw a vision of God.—Ex 24:1-11.

But Jehovah made his first actual statement of his purpose to separate Aaron and his sons for the priesthood when giving Moses instructions for making the priestly garments. (Ex 28) After these instructions were given, God outlined to Moses the procedure for installing the priesthood and then definitely made it known: “The priesthood must become theirs as a statute to time indefinite.”—Ex 29:9.

In keeping with Jehovah’s majesty and cleanness, Aaron and his sons could not perform priestly duties until they were sanctified and empowered by the installation service. (Ex 29) Moses, as mediator of the Law covenant, performed the installation. A sanctification ceremony, occupying the seven days of Nisan 1 to 7, 1512 B.C.E., saw the priesthood fully installed, their hands filled with power to act as priests. (Le 8) The next day, Nisan 8, an initial atonement service was performed for the nation (very much like the regular Day of Atonement services that were decreed to be celebrated annually on Tishri 10; this first performance of the priesthood is described in Leviticus 9). It was appropriate and necessary, for the people of Israel were in need of cleansing from their sins, including their recent transgression in connection with the golden calf.—Ex 32.

In installing the high priest, one of the significant acts Moses had to perform was the anointing of Aaron by pouring upon Aaron’s head the sacred anointing oil specially compounded according to God’s directions. (Le 8:1, 2, 12; Ex 30:22-25, 30-33; Ps 133:2) The later high priests, successors of Aaron, are spoken of as “anointed.” While the Bible does not record an instance of their actual anointing with literal oil, it does set forth this law: “And the holy garments that are Aaron’s will serve for his sons after him to anoint them in them and to fill their hand with power in them. Seven days the priest who succeeds him from among his sons and who comes into the tent of meeting to minister in the holy place will wear them.”—Ex 29:29, 30.

Garments of Office. Besides wearing linen garments similar to those of the underpriests in his usual activities, the high priest wore special garments of glory and beauty on certain occasions. Exodus chapters 28 and 39 describe both the design and the making of these garments under the direction of Moses as commanded by God. The innermost garment (except for the linen drawers reaching “from the hips and to the thighs,” worn by all the priests “to cover the naked flesh”; Ex 28:42) was the robe (Heb., kut·toʹneth), made of fine (probably white) linen of checkerwork weave. This robe apparently had long sleeves and reached down to the ankles. It was likely woven in one piece. A sash of fine twisted linen woven with blue, reddish purple, and coccus scarlet thread went around the body, probably above the waist.—Ex 28:39; 39:29.

The turban, evidently different from the headdress of the underpriests, was also of fine linen. (Ex 28:39) Fastened to the forefront of the turban was a shining plate of pure gold with the words “Holiness belongs to Jehovah” engraved on it. (Ex 28:36) This plate was called “the holy sign of dedication.”—Ex 29:6; 39:30.

Over the linen robe was the blue sleeveless coat (Heb., meʽilʹ). It was also probably woven in one piece, with a strong border around the opening at the top to prevent tearing. The blue sleeveless coat was put on by slipping it over the head. This garment was shorter than the linen robe, and around its bottom hem were alternate golden bells and pomegranates made of blue, reddish-purple, and scarlet thread. The bells would be heard as the high priest went about his work in the sanctuary.—Ex 28:31-35.

The ephod, an apronlike garment made with front and back parts and reaching a short distance below the waist, was worn by all the priests and sometimes by persons not in the priesthood. (1Sa 2:18; 2Sa 6:14) But the ephod of the high priests’ apparel of beauty was of special embroidered work. It was of fine twisted linen with wool dyed reddish purple, coccus scarlet material, and gold thread made from gold beaten into thin plates, then cut into threads. (Ex 39:2, 3) Shoulder pieces possibly extended down on each side in the back from the shoulders to the girdle. On top of the shoulder pieces were two gold settings, each with an onyx stone, and each stone having engraved on it six of the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob) in order of their birth. A girdle of the same material bound the ephod around the waist, the girdle being “upon” the ephod, possibly being fastened to the ephod as a part of it.—Ex 28:6-14.

The breastpiece of judgment was undoubtedly the most costly and glorious part of the high priest’s dress. It was made of the same material as the ephod, was rectangular in shape, the length being twice the width, but was doubled so that it formed a square about 22 cm (9 in.) on a side. The doubling made a sort of pocket or pouch. (See BREASTPIECE.) The breastpiece was adorned with 12 precious stones set in gold, each engraved with the name of one of the sons of Israel. These stones, of ruby, topaz, emerald, and other gems, were arranged in four rows. Two chains of gold, wreathed in a ropework pattern, were made on the breastpiece, and rings of gold were set in the corners; the top rings were fastened to the ephod’s shoulder pieces by the gold chains. The two bottom rings were attached with blue strings to the shoulder pieces of the ephod, just above the girdle.—Ex 28:15-28.

The Urim and the Thummim were put by Moses “in the breastpiece.” (Le 8:8) It is not known just what the Urim and the Thummim were. Some scholars consider them to have been lots that were cast or drawn from the breastpiece, by Jehovah’s direction, giving, basically, a “yes” or “no” answer to a question. If so, they may have been placed in the “pouch” of the breastpiece. (Ex 28:30, AT; Mo) This is perhaps indicated in the text at 1 Samuel 14:41, 42. Yet others hold that the Urim and Thummim had to do with the stones in the breastpiece in some way, but this view seems less likely. Other references to the Urim and the Thummim are found at Numbers 27:21; Deuteronomy 33:8; 1 Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63; and Nehemiah 7:65.—See URIM AND THUMMIM.

These beautiful garments were worn by the high priest when he approached Jehovah with an inquiry on an important matter. (Nu 27:21; Jg 1:1; 20:18, 27, 28) Also, on the Day of Atonement, after the sin offerings were completed, he changed from the white linen garments to his garments of glory and beauty. (Le 16:23, 24) He apparently wore the latter on other occasions as well.

The instructions regarding Atonement Day, at Leviticus chapter 16, do not state specifically that the high priest, after putting on his glorious apparel, was to lift his hands and bless the people. However, in the record of the atonement service held on the day after the priesthood’s installation, which follows closely the Atonement Day procedure, we read: “Then Aaron raised his hands toward the people and blessed them.” (Le 9:22) Jehovah had shown what the blessing should be when he commanded Moses: “Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, ‘This is the way you should bless the sons of Israel, saying to them: “May Jehovah bless you and keep you. May Jehovah make his face shine toward you, and may he favor you. May Jehovah lift up his face toward you and assign peace to you.”’”—Nu 6:23-27.

Responsibility and Duties. The dignity, seriousness, and responsibility of the high priest’s office is emphasized by the fact that sins on his part could bring guiltiness upon the people. (Le 4:3) The high priest alone was to go into the Most Holy compartment of the sanctuary, and only on one day of the year, the Day of Atonement. (Le 16:2) When he went into the tent of meeting on that day, no other priest was allowed in the tent. (Le 16:17) He officiated over all the Atonement Day services. He made atonement for his house and for the people on special occasions (Le 9:7) and intervened before Jehovah in behalf of the people when Jehovah’s anger blazed against them. (Nu 15:25, 26; 16:43-50) When questions of national importance arose, he was the one to approach Jehovah with Urim and Thummim. (Nu 27:21) He officiated at the slaughter and burning of the red cow, the ashes of which were used in the water for cleansing.—Nu 19:1-5, 9.

Evidently the high priest was able, as he desired, to take part in any priestly duty or ceremony. By King David’s time the priesthood had grown large in number. So that all could serve, David arranged the priests in 24 divisions. (1Ch 24:1-18) This system continued for the duration of the priesthood’s existence. However, the high priest was not restricted to certain times for service at the sanctuary, as were the underpriests, but could take part at any time. (The underpriests could assist at any time, but certain duties were reserved as the privilege of the priests of the particular division then on duty.) As was true with the underpriests, the festival seasons were the high priest’s busiest periods.

The sanctuary, its service, and treasury were under the high priest’s supervision. (2Ki 12:7-16; 22:4) In this responsibility, it appears that there was a secondary priest who was his chief assistant. (2Ki 25:18) In later times, this assistant, called the Sagan, would officiate for the high priest when for some reason the high priest was incapacitated. (The Temple, by A. Edersheim, 1874, p. 75) Eleazar, Aaron’s son, had a special oversight assigned to him.—Nu 4:16.

The high priest was also the leader in the religious instruction of the nation.—Le 10:8-11; De 17:9-11.

He and the secular rulers (Joshua, the Judges, and, under the monarchy, the king) were the high courts of the nation. (De 17:9, 12; 2Ch 19:10, 11) After the Sanhedrin was formed (in later times), the high priest presided over that body. (Some traditions say that he did not preside in every case—only as he willed.) (Mt 26:57; Ac 5:21) High Priest Eleazar participated with Joshua in dividing the land among the 12 tribes.—Jos 14:1; 21:1-3.

The high priest’s death had to be announced to the cities of refuge throughout the land; it meant the release of all persons who were confined to the boundaries of the cities of refuge for the guilt of accidental manslaughter.—Nu 35:25-29.

The High-Priestly Line. For the line of descent of the high priest and the names of those who actually served in this office, please see the accompanying chart. The Bible specifically names only a few as serving in that capacity, but it gives us genealogical records of Aaron’s line. No doubt a good number of those listed in the genealogical tables served as high priests, even though the Bible does not have occasion to relate an account of their acts nor name them definitely as holding the office. The few it actually names as such are hardly enough to fill in the lapse of time, particularly between the priesthood’s beginning in 1512 B.C.E. and Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E. Also, often there are names passed over in the genealogical tables, so unnamed ones may also have served in the office. The chart, therefore, is not intended to give a wholly complete and accurate list but may help the reader to obtain a better picture of the high-priestly line.

Melchizedek’s Priesthood. The first priest mentioned in the Bible is Melchizedek, who was “priest of the Most High God” as well as king of Salem (Jerusalem). Abraham met this priest-king when he returned from defeating the three kings in league with Elamite King Chedorlaomer. Abraham showed he recognized the divine source of Melchizedek’s authority by giving him a tenth of the fruits of his victory and by receiving Melchizedek’s blessing. The Bible does not give the record of Melchizedek’s ancestry, his birth, or his death. He had no predecessors or successors.—Ge 14:17-24; see MELCHIZEDEK.

The High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. The Bible book of Hebrews points out that Jesus Christ, since his resurrection and entry into heaven, is “a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.” (Heb 6:20; 7:17, 21) To describe the greatness of Christ’s priesthood and its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood, the writer shows that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest by designation of the Most High God, and not by inheritance. Christ Jesus, not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah and of the line of David, did not inherit his office by descent from Aaron, but obtained it by direct appointment of God, as did Melchizedek. (Heb 5:10) In addition to the promise recorded at Psalm 110:4: “Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): ‘You are a priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek!’” which appointment makes him a heavenly King-Priest, Christ also possesses Kingdom authority by reason of his descent from David. In the latter case, he becomes the heir of the kingship promised in the Davidic covenant. (2Sa 7:11-16) He therefore holds in combination the offices of kingship and priesthood, as did Melchizedek.

In another way the surpassing excellence of Christ’s high priesthood is shown, namely, in that Levi, the progenitor of the Jewish priesthood, in effect, gave tithes to Melchizedek, for Levi was still in the loins of Abraham when the patriarch gave a tenth to Salem’s priest-king. Moreover, in that sense Levi was also blessed by Melchizedek, and the rule is that the lesser is blessed by the greater. (Heb 7:4-10) The apostle also calls attention to Melchizedek’s being “fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life” as being representative of the everlasting priesthood of Jesus Christ, who has been resurrected to “an indestructible life.”—Heb 7:3, 15-17.

Nevertheless, although Christ does not get his priesthood from fleshly descent through Aaron, nor does he have a predecessor or successor in his office, he fulfills the things typified by the Aaronic high priest. The apostle makes this perfectly clear when he shows that the tentlike tabernacle constructed in the wilderness was a pattern of “the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man” and that the Levitical priests rendered “sacred service in a typical representation and a shadow of the heavenly things.” (Heb 8:1-6; 9:11) He relates that Jesus Christ, who had, not animal sacrifices, but his own perfect body to offer, did away with the validity or need for animal sacrifices; Jesus then “passed through the heavens,” “not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us.” (Heb 4:14; 9:12; 10:5, 6, 9) He went into the holy place typified by the Most Holy into which Aaron entered, namely, “heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.”—Heb 9:24.

The sacrifice of Jesus as the antitypical High Priest did not need to be repeated as did those of the Aaronic priests, because his sacrifice actually removed sin. (Heb 9:13, 14, 25, 26) Moreover, in the type, or shadow, no priest of the Aaronic priesthood could live long enough to save completely or bring to complete salvation and perfection all those to whom he ministered, but Christ “is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.”—Heb 7:23-25.

In addition to making sacrifices, the high priest in Israel blessed the people and was their chief instructor in God’s righteous laws. The same is true of Jesus Christ. On appearing before his Father in the heavens, he “offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet.” (Heb 10:12, 13; 8:1) Therefore, “the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin and to those earnestly looking for him for their salvation.”—Heb 9:28.

Jesus Christ’s superiority as High Priest is seen in another sense also. Becoming a man of blood and flesh like his “brothers” (Heb 2:14-17), he was thoroughly tested; he suffered all manner of opposition, persecution, and finally, an ignominious death. As it is stated: “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him.” (Heb 5:8, 9) Paul explains benefits we can receive from his being thus tested: “For in that he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test.” (Heb 2:18) Those in need of help are assured of his merciful and sympathetic consideration. “For,” says Paul, “we have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin.”—Heb 4:15, 16.

Christian Underpriests. Jesus Christ is the only priest “according to the manner of Melchizedek” (Heb 7:17), but like Aaron the high priest of Israel, Jesus Christ has a body of underpriests provided for him by his Father, Jehovah. These are promised joint heirship with him in the heavens, where they will also share as associate kings in his Kingdom. (Ro 8:17) They are known as “a royal priesthood.” (1Pe 2:9) They are shown in the vision of the Bible book of Revelation singing a new song in which they say that Christ bought them with his blood and “made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and [that] they are to rule as kings over the earth.” (Re 5:9, 10) Later in the vision these are shown to number 144,000. They also are described as having “been bought from the earth,” as followers of the Lamb, “bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.” (Re 14:1-4; compare Jas 1:18.) In this chapter of Revelation (14), warning is given with regard to the mark of the beast, showing that avoidance of this mark “means endurance for the holy ones.” (Re 14:9-12) These 144,000 bought ones are the ones who endure faithfully, who come to life and rule as kings with Christ, and who “will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years.” (Re 20:4, 6) Jesus’ high-priestly services bring them into this glorious position.

Beneficiaries of the Heavenly Priesthood. The vision of the New Jerusalem recorded in Revelation gives an indication of who will receive the ministrations of the great High Priest and those associated with him as heavenly underpriests. Aaron and his family, together with the priestly tribe of Levi, ministered to the people of the 12 tribes in the land of Palestine. As for the New Jerusalem, “the nations will walk by means of its light.”—Re 21:2, 22-24.

See also PRIEST.

[Chart on page 1114-1116]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

ISRAEL’S HIGH-PRIESTLY LINE

Genealogies of the high priests are found at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15, 50-53 and Ezra 7:1-5. These do not contain all the names; some links are omitted, as is common in Hebrew genealogical tables. Josephus and the Jewish rabbis insert additional names, but their accuracy is open to question. Question marks after names in boldface type indicate those who may have served in the office of high priest (several very likely so) but who are listed only in the high-priestly line of descent in the Bible and are not specifically stated to have served as high priests.

Levi (Son of Jacob.—Ge 29:34)

Kohath (Ge 46:11; Ex 6:16; 1Ch 6:1)

Amram (Ex 6:18; 1Ch 6:2)

Izhar

Hebron

Uzziel

Gershon

Merari

1512 B.C.E.—PRIESTHOOD OF ISRAEL BEGINS

Moses

AARON (Ex 6:20; 1Ch 23:13)

ELEAZAR (Ex 6:23; Le 10:1-7; Nu 20:25-28; 1Ch 6:3)

Nadab (died) (Ex 6:23; 1Ch 24:1, 2)

Abihu (died)

Ithamar

(Ark of the covenant located in Shiloh from the time land was subdued [c. 1467 B.C.E.] until time of Eli, with a temporary stay at Bethel.—Jos 18:1; Jg 20:18, 26-28)

PHINEHAS (Jehovah gives covenant for priesthood in his line.—Ex 6:25; Nu 25:10-13; Jos 22:13; Jg 20:27, 28)

ABISHUA? (1Ch 6:4, 5; Ezr 7:5)

BUKKI? (1Ch 6:5; Ezr 7:4)

UZZI? (1Ch 6:5, 6; Ezr 7:4)

Zerahiah (1Ch 6:6; Ezr 7:4)

Meraioth (1Ch 6:6, 7; Ezr 7:3, 4)

Amariah (1Ch 6:7)

Ahitub (2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 6:7, 8; 18:16)

(Line of Ithamar apparently officiated during this period)

ELI (First high priest of line of Ithamar; succeeded either Abishua or Uzzi, according to Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, V, 361, 362 [xi, 5]; VIII, 12 [i, 3]; compare 1Ch 24:3)

Hophni

Phinehas

(Ark captured by Philistines. Eli and sons died. Ark remained 7 months in Philistine territory. [1Sa 4:17, 18; 6:1] Ark returned, temporarily at Beth-shemesh, then located at Kiriath-jearim [Baale-judah] at the house of Abinadab for many years, until shortly after David captured Zion.—1Sa 6:14, 15; 7:2; 2Sa 6:2, 3)

Ichabod (1Sa 4:19-22)

AHITUB? (1Sa 14:3; 22:9)

AHIJAH (Probably the brother of Ahimelech. Served at tabernacle in Shiloh.—1Sa 14:3)

(David attempted to bring Ark to Jerusalem; Uzzah smitten. David took Ark to house of Obed-edom the Gittite; Ark there three months; then moved by David to Jerusalem.—2Sa 6:1-11)

AHIMELECH (Aided David; killed when 85 priests of Nob were slain by order of Saul.—1Sa 21:1-6; 22:9-18)

ABIATHAR (Escaped and joined David. [1Sa 22:20-23; 23:6, 9; 30:7] But later supported Adonijah and was deposed by Solomon. House of Eli fell from high priesthood, fulfilling Jehovah’s words at 1 Samuel 2:30-36.—1Ki 2:27, 35)

Office returns to line of Eleazar

ZADOK (May have been “second” priest during David’s reign. [See 2Ki 25:18; Jer 52:24.] Loyal to David when Adonijah tried to take throne. Made high priest by Solomon in place of Abiathar.—2Sa 8:17; 15:24-29; 19:11; 1Ki 1:7, 8, 32-45; 2:27, 35; 1Ch 24:3)

(Ark placed in newly built temple by Solomon.—1Ki 8:1-6)

AHIMAAZ? (2Sa 15:27, 36; 17:20; 1Ch 6:8)

AZARIAH (I)? (1Ki 4:2; 1Ch 6:9)

(The next three names, Amariah, Jehoiada, and Zechariah, are evidently links that were passed over at 1Ch 6:1-15)

AMARIAH (In King Jehoshaphat’s time.—2Ch 19:11)

JEHOIADA (In the time of Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Jehoash.—2Ki 11:4–12:9; 2Ch 22:10–24:15)

ZECHARIAH? (Stoned to death, with King Jehoash’s approval.—2Ch 24:20-22)

JOHANAN? (1Ch 6:10)

AZARIAH (II) (Probably the priest who resisted King Uzziah in his presumptuous act.—1Ch 6:10; 2Ch 26:17-20)

(The next two names, Urijah and Azariah, may be links that are omitted at 1Ch 6:1-15)

URIJAH? (The priest who built an altar like the pagan altar at Damascus, at King Ahaz’ order.—2Ki 16:10-16)

AZARIAH (II or III) (Of the line of Zadok; served in King Hezekiah’s time. He may be the same person as Azariah II, listed earlier, or another with the same name.—2Ch 31:10-13)

AMARIAH? (1Ch 6:11; Ezr 7:3)

AHITUB (Ne 11:11; 1Ch 6:11, 12; 9:11; Ezr 7:2)

MERAIOTH? (He was a priest, a descendant of Ahitub, but may not have served as high priest.—1Ch 9:11; Ne 11:11)

ZADOK? (1Ch 6:12; 9:11; Ezr 7:2; Ne 11:11)

SHALLUM? (Meshullam) (1Ch 6:12, 13; 9:11; Ezr 7:2; Ne 11:11)

HILKIAH (In King Josiah’s time.—2Ki 22:4-14; 23:4; 1Ch 6:13; 2Ch 34:9-22)

AZARIAH (III or IV)? (1Ch 6:13, 14)

SERAIAH (Killed by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah after Jerusalem’s fall in 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:18-21; 1Ch 6:14; Ezr 7:1; Jer 52:24-27)

JEHOZADAK? (Taken into Babylonian exile by Nebuchadnezzar in 607 B.C.E. His son Jeshua [Joshua] and possibly other sons were born during the exile. He was, of course, unable to perform duties at the temple.—1Ch 6:14, 15; Ezr 3:2)

(Ark of the covenant disappears; not in later temples built in Jerusalem)

AFTER THE RETURN FROM EXILE

JOSHUA (Jeshua) (Returned in 537 B.C.E. with Zerubbabel.—Ezr 2:2; 3:2; Ne 12:10; Hag 1:1; Zec 3:1; 6:11)

JOIAKIM? (Ne 12:10, 12; held office at time of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem, according to Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XI, 121 [v, 1])

ELIASHIB (In Nehemiah’s time.—Ne 3:20; 12:10, 22; 13:4, 6, 7)

JOIADA? (Ne 12:10, 11, 22; 13:28)

JOHANAN (Jonathan?) (Ne 12:11, 22, 23)

JADDUA? (Probably in or “down till” the days of Darius the Persian.—Ne 12:11, 22)

FROM THE TIME OF DARIUS (II) THE PERSIAN

(From this point the Apocryphal books of First and Second Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities [XI-XX], by Josephus, are the sources for the list of high priests down to the time of the Maccabees. Josephus names more as high priests than does First Maccabees. From the Maccabees to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the chief source is Josephus. The Bible names only three [Annas, Joseph Caiaphas, and Ananias]. The high-priestly line seems to have been adhered to, at least in the majority of cases, although pagan rulers deposed and appointed the high priests at will.)

ONIAS I

SIMON I

ELEAZAR

MANASSEH

ONIAS II (Continued in column to the right)

SIMON II

ONIAS III

JOSHUA (Gr., Jesus); also Jason

ONIAS (Called also Menelaus)

JAKIM (Called in Greek, Alcimus); also Jacimus

THE MACCABEAN PRIEST-KINGS

JONATHAN

SIMON (Jonathan’s brother)

JOHN HYRCANUS

ARISTOBULUS I

ALEXANDER JANNAEUS

HYRCANUS II (Aristobulus II seized temporary rule)

ANTIGONUS

AFTER HEROD THE GREAT BECAME KING (Mt 2:1)

(Appointed by Herod)

HANANEL (Latinized Gr., Ananelus)

ARISTOBULUS III

HANANEL (a second time)

JESUS (son of Phabet)

SIMON (son of Boethus)

MATTHIAS (Mattathias) (son-in-law of Boethus)

JOAZAR (son of Boethus)

(Appointed by Archelaus, King of Judea—Mt 2:22)

ELEAZAR (son of Boethus)

JESUS (son of Sie) (Joazar restored by the multitude)

(Appointed by Quirinius, Governor of Syria—Lu 2:2)

ANNAS (Ananus) (son of Seth) (Appointed by Quirinius; deposed by Valerius Gratus, governor of Judea, about 15 C.E. He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. After being deposed, he continued to exercise great influence.—Lu 3:2; Joh 18:13, 24; Ac 4:6)

(Appointed by Valerius Gratus, Governor of Judea)

ISMAEL (son of Phabi)

ELEAZAR (son of Annas)

SIMON (son of Camithus)

JOSEPH CAIAPHAS (Officiated during Jesus’ earthly ministry and the early part of the apostles’ ministry. He presided as high priest over Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin, in company with his father-in-law Annas. [Mt 26:3, 57; Lu 3:2; Joh 11:49, 51; 18:13, 14, 24, 28] He and Annas called Peter and John before them and commanded them to stop preaching. [Ac 4:6, 18] Caiaphas was the high priest who authorized Saul to receive letters to the synagogue at Damascus for the arrest of Christians.—Ac 9:1, 2, 14)

(Appointed by Vitellius, Governor of Syria)

JONATHAN (son of Annas)

THEOPHILUS (son of Annas)

(Appointed by Herod Agrippa I)

SIMON (Cantheras) (son of Boethus)

MATTHIAS (Mattathias) (son of Annas)

ELIONAEUS (son of Cantheras)

(Appointed by Herod, King of Chalcis)

JOSEPH (son of Camydus)

ANANIAS (son of Nedebaeus) (Presided over the Sanhedrin at Paul’s trial.—Ac 23:2; 24:1)

(Appointed by Herod Agrippa II)

ISMAEL (son of Phabi)

JOSEPH (Cabi) (son of former high priest Simon)

ANNAS (Ananus) (son of Annas)

JESUS (son of Damnaeus)

JESUS (son of Gamaliel)

MATTHIAS (Mattathias) (son of Theophilus)


PHANAS (Phannias or Phinehas; son of Samuel) (Made high priest not by Herod Agrippa but by the people during the war against Rome)

The quest to deprivilege our home planet hits a snag again.

Paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Suggests Our Solar System Is Exceptional
Casey Luskin September 10, 2015 9:27 AM

Back in July, around the time I was busy running our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, biologist Jeff Schweitzer wrote a polemical article in the Huffington Post, "Earth 2.0: Bad News for God." Schweitzer, who served under the White House Science Advisor in the Clinton Administration, rails against religion, contending that the discovery of extraterrestrial life would refute the great Abrahamic faiths. I could go on about Schweitzer's simplistic and naïve theological analysis, including the tortured logic he uses to claim that the Bible's silence on extraterrestrial life is really a denial that ETs could exist. But I'm more interested in looking at his scientific assertion that our solar system isn't special and that in fact there must be "thousands or millions or even billions of such earth-like planets in the universe."

Schweitzer is excited about the discovery of what he calls "Earth 2.0," an extrasolar planet otherwise known as Kepler 452-B. If you believe what the Huffington Post tells you, it's probably a rocky earthlike planet thought to orbit its star within the region where liquid water is possible. He calls it "possibly habitable." In reality, many parameters beyond the mere existence of water are necessary for a planet to be habitable, so it has not been established that Kepler 452-B is habitable, or even "possibly habitable," like Earth. Schweitzer wants people to believe that this suggests habitable earthlike planets are extremely common in the universe. A quick check of the technical scientific literature shows he is mistaken.

According to an April 2015 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "Jupiter's decisive role in the inner Solar System's early evolution," a review of the sizes and orbital radii of known extrasolar planets shows how exceptional our solar system is:

The statistics of extrasolar planetary systems indicate that the default mode of planet formation generates planets with orbital periods shorter than 100 days and masses substantially exceeding that of the Earth. When viewed in this context, the Solar System is unusual. ... The Solar System is an unusual member of the galactic planetary census in that it lacks planets that reside in close proximity to the Sun. [emphasis added]
The problem for Schweitzer, essentially, is that the vast majority of extrasolar planets we've discovered orbit their stars much closer than even our earth orbits the sun -- and, these extrasolar planets are much larger than earth. Both of these properties make these planets uninhabitable. Moreover, large planets like Jupiter -- which in our solar system help keep earth habitable by sweeping up comets and asteroids -- almost never exist far out in the solar system, as Jupiter does. 

There's something about our solar system that appears to be unusual. For some reason, most of our bigger planets are far away from our host star, while closer in are smaller, rocky worlds, including Earth itself.
This is not the case for many extrasolar systems that have been discovered. So-called "hot Jupiters" -- huge gas giant planets that nestle close to their star -- have been found in a few examples. In other instances, planets slightly bigger than Earth are so close to their stars as to be uninhabitable.

What this means is that our solar system stands out dramatically compared to other solar systems we've discovered and that getting rocky planets orbiting near their star as Earth does, in the circumstellar habitable zone, requires a very exceptional set of circumstances. As the paper explains:
Perhaps the most important exoplanet-related discovery has been the realization that roughly half of the Sun-like stars in the solar neighborhood are accompanied by systems of one or more planets on low-eccentricity orbits with periods ranging from days to months, and masses falling in the 1M⊕ p < 50 M⊕ range, where M⊕ is an Earth mass unit. This dominant population of planets (which often presents tightly packed, nearly coplanar multiple systems) contrasts sharply with the Solar System, whose inner edge is marked by Mercury's 88-d [0.4 astronomical units (AU)] orbit (see Fig. 1). An iconic example from the new planetary catalog is the Kepler-11 system, which encompasses at least six planets comprising more than ∼40 Earth masses (4). In short, the exoplanetary surveys have revealed a hitherto unrecognized oddity of the Solar System. Relative to other Sun-like, planet-bearing stars, our terrestrial region is severely depleted in mass.
By "depleted in mass" they mean that nearly all known extrasolar planets orbiting at or around earth's radius are many times bigger than earth and uninhabitable. True, Kepler 452-B is an exception to this rule, but its mass is still about five times that of the earth, and may even be a gas-based planet. It is therefore thought to be a "super-earth" or perhaps a "gas-dwarf" which would make it high in volatile elements. This fits with what the paper predicts, that "the majority of Earth-mass planets are strongly enriched in volatile elements and are uninhabitable," like a mini version of Neptune.
Indeed, others have claimed that the data suggests Kepler 452-B is volatile-rich, gaseous planet and not habitable. Physicist Andrew LePage who closely monitors claims of habitable planets writes:

A recently published analysis of the mass-radius relationship for extrasolar planets smaller than Neptune performed by Leslie Rogers strongly suggests that planets transition from being predominantly rocky planets like the Earth to predominantly volatile-rich worlds like Neptune at radii no greater than 1.6 RE (see "Habitable Planet Reality Check: Terrestrial Planet Size Limit"). While rocky planets larger than this are possible, they become more uncommon with increasing radius. Using a model based on recent work by Torres et al. (see "Habitable Planet Reality Check: 8 New Habitable Zone Planets"), I estimate that there is something like a 40% chance that Kepler 452b with a radius of 1.6 RE is a rocky planet. This is somewhat less than the often repeated claim of "greater than 50%" chance found in media reports.
Unfortunately, the chance that Kepler 452b is a terrestrial planet might not be as good as even 40%. Recent work by Dawson et al. strongly suggests that planets with masses greater than about 2 times that of the Earth (or 2 ME which would have a radius of about 1.2 RE, assuming an Earth-like bulk composition) which orbit stars with a high metallicity are more likely to be mini-Neptunes. This is because stars with higher metallicities tend to have more solid material available to form planetary embryos more quickly making it more likely for them to acquire some gas directly from the protoplanetary disk before it dissipates. Stars with lower metallicity tend to form planetary embryos more slowly and they might not reach the required 2 ME mass threshold fast enough to begin to acquire more than trace amounts of gas before the it has already dissipated from the disk. Only 1% or 2% of a planet's total mass of hydrogen and helium is sufficient to puff up its observed radius and make it a mini-Neptune. With a iron-to-hydrogen ratio about 60% higher than the Sun, Kepler 452 has a slightly higher metallicity than the Sun increasing the odds somewhat that Kepler 452b is a mini-Neptune.


The overall trend in this data makes our solar system look highly unusual, and from what we know so far, Kepler 452-B is probably not habitable. Schweitzer's back-of-the-envelope calculation invoking even billions of earth-like planets evidently pleased the editors of the Huffington Post. As science, it's less than compelling.

Materialists "borrow" from design advocates' toolbox

Extinct Aliens Could Yield a Design Inference
Evolution News & Views September 13, 2015 4:31 AM

National Geographic jokes about the silence of the space aliens.

For more than 50 years, we've been eavesdropping on the cosmos, searching for transmissions that would reveal the existence of intelligent, extraterrestrial life.
To date, nobody's bothered to call.

Is it something we said?

If the silence keeps up, the alternatives get narrow. (1) We are alone in the universe as intelligent beings or (2) "the morbid alternative: Intelligent life periodically emerges on other worlds, but has an unfortunate tendency to self-destruct." (3) A third possibility is that aliens know about us but cloak their presence for some reason.

Possibility #2, that alien civilizations have a tendency to self-destruct, is being seriously considered by some who look at humans' bad example of creating devastation "during our relatively brief span as the dominant species on this planet."

That's why a trio of scientists recently published a guide to help astronomers detect alien apocalypses -- whether it's the chemical signature of a world filled with rotting corpses, the radioactive aftermath of nuclear warfare, or the debris left over from a Death Star scenario where an entire planet gets blown to bits. [Emphasis added.]
We see here the makings of a design inference. It might be called Cosmic Forensics. Since forensics is a type of intelligent design science (e.g., determining whether a death was natural or intentional), why not apply the same principles to alien beings? It is, after all, a search for extinct extraterrestrial intelligence (SEETI). That's a goal far beyond astrobiology, the search for biomarkers that could indicate life down to the microbial level. SETI and SEETI are looking for beings "at least as clever as we are," as Seth Shostak likes to say.

The clues for SEETI could be very indirect and faint:

SEETI research, however, is not looking for biosignatures -- signs of life. Instead, scientists have to hunt down necrosignatures -- signs of death -- that would indicate destruction on a colossal scale.
Consider a scenario in which biological warfare rapidly wiped out a planet's population. Microorganisms that cause decomposition would gorge themselves on alien corpses. In doing so, they would excrete chemical compounds, dramatically increasing the levels of methane and ethane in the atmosphere.

If the population size of the alien world were comparable to that of Earth, the methane and ethane gases would dissipate in about a year, so there would be only a short window of opportunity to detect the cataclysm.

However, if the biological arsenal included a genetically modified virus capable of jumping species, then the planet's casualties might also include its animal life. In that case, the telltale signs of catastrophic biowarfare could be visible for several years.

The leftover glow of a nuclear holocaust could be another clue. Planets don't typically nuke themselves. Some intelligent cause would have had to push the button.

It's repulsive to think about global destruction, but intelligent design doesn't distinguish moral purposes from immoral ones. ID merely looks for evidence of something intentional. Like SETI, SEETI depends on the researcher being able to tell the difference between a purposeful act and a natural act.

SEETI thinkers even consider "speculative technologies" of aliens. If advanced civilizations create self-replicating nanobots that run haywire, they could reduce a planet to a "grey goo" of dust where once an intelligent society thrived.

But, what sort of evidence would exist for this heinous act? One remote possibility is the detection of artificial compounds in the debris disc, indicating that the planet was once home to a technologically-advanced civilization.
A "heinous act" is an intentional act, implying moral and intellectual responsiblity. We don't call a lion taking down a wildebeest "heinous." Something unnatural has happened.

Perhaps, as evolutionists, the trio of scientists contemplating SEETI as a research program view human planetary destruction on a continuum with animal death -- just a particularly egregious advanced form of ecological collapse. Why, then, call it SEETI with emphasis on the "I"? Animals like birds and dolphins have intelligence. Is human intelligence just more of the same?

Their language betrays something unique about human intelligence that carries over to alien intelligence. They talk about warfare. Animals have predator-prey relationships, but they don't engage in warfare. Animals don't "genetically modify" other organisms for the purpose of wiping them out. Animals don't create "artificial compounds" that can be distinguished from natural compounds.


The SEETI thinkers are looking for signs of intention. Even in global death, they believe they could separate natural causes from intelligent causes. That's the design inference.

Voltaire's letter on England's Antitrinitarian revivival

LETTER VII.—ON THE SOCINIANS, OR ARIANS, OR ANTITRINITARIANS.

There is a little sect here composed of clergymen, and of a few very learned persons among the laity, who, though they do not call themselves Arians or Socinians, do yet dissent entirely from St. Athanasius with regard to their notions of the Trinity, and declare very frankly that the Father is greater than the Son.

Do you remember what is related of a certain orthodox bishop, who, in order to convince an emperor of the reality of consubstantiation, put his hand under the chin of the monarch’s son, and took him by the nose in presence of his sacred majesty?  The emperor was going to order his attendants to throw the bishop out of the window, when the good old man gave him this handsome and convincing reason: “Since your majesty,” says he, “is angry when your son has not due respect shown him, what punishment do you think will God the Father inflict on those who refuse His Son Jesus the titles due to Him?”  The persons I just now mentioned declare that the holy bishop took a very wrong step, that his argument was inconclusive, and that the emperor should have answered him thus: “Know that there are two ways by which men may be wanting in respect to me—first, in not doing honour sufficient to my son; and, secondly, in paying him the same honour as to me.”

Be this as it will, the principles of Arius begin to revive, not only in England, but in Holland and Poland.  The celebrated Sir Isaac Newton honoured this opinion so far as to countenance it.  This philosopher thought that the Unitarians argued more mathematically than we do.  But the most sanguine stickler for Arianism is the illustrious Dr. Clark.  This man is rigidly virtuous, and of a mild disposition, is more fond of his tenets than desirous of propagating them, and absorbed so entirely in problems and calculations that he is a mere reasoning machine.

It is he who wrote a book which is much esteemed and little understood, on the existence of God, and another, more intelligible, but pretty much contemned, on the truth of the Christian religion.

He never engaged in scholastic disputes, which our friend calls venerable trifles.  He only published a work containing all the testimonies of the primitive ages for and against the Unitarians, and leaves to the reader the counting of the voices and the liberty of forming a judgment.  This book won the doctor a great number of partisans, and lost him the See of Canterbury; but, in my humble opinion, he was out in his calculation, and had better have been Primate of all England than merely an Arian parson.

You see that opinions are subject to revolutions as well as empires.  Arianism, after having triumphed during three centuries, and been forgot twelve, rises at last out of its own ashes; but it has chosen a very improper season to make its appearance in, the present age being quite cloyed with disputes and sects.  The members of this sect are, besides, too few to be indulged the liberty of holding public assemblies, which, however, they will, doubtless, be permitted to do in case they spread considerably.  But people are now so very cold with respect to all things of this kind, that there is little probability any new religion, or old one, that may be revived, will meet with favour.  Is it not whimsical enough that Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius, all of them wretched authors, should have founded sects which are now spread over a great part of Europe, that Mahomet, though so ignorant, should have given a religion to Asia and Africa, and that Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Clark, Mr. Locke, Mr. Le Clerc, etc., the greatest philosophers, as well as the ablest writers of their ages, should scarcely have been able to raise a little flock, which even decreases daily.

This it is to be born at a proper period of time.  Were Cardinal de Retz to return again into the world, neither his eloquence nor his intrigues would draw together ten women in Paris.


Were Oliver Cromwell, he who beheaded his sovereign, and seized upon the kingly dignity, to rise from the dead, he would be a wealthy City trader, and no more.