RE: [JWquestions-and_answers] Questions on Little Flock
HTML clipboardI think that pointing to "out of" at Revelation chapter 7 is an interesting objection. First of all a word or phrase almost always has more than one meaning in English, or any other language. So you have to look at the context and similar relevant passages to discern the meaning at a place in question. Look at the following definitions I found on Wikipedia:
- From the inside
to the outside
- The audience came out of the theater.
- Having emerged
- The cat is out of the bag
- Not part of.
- This is out of my area of expertise.
- With the motivation
- I give money to charity out of pity.
- Without; no longer in possession of;
not having more; divested
- Sorry, we're out of bread.
- 1874, Thomas
Hardy, Far From the Madding Crowd, 2005 Barnes & Noble
Classics publication of 1912 Wessex edition, p276:
- Once out of the farm the approach of poverty would be sure.
- Not in a customary or desired state.
- They will soon be out of business.
- This train will be going out of service at the next station.
- Beyond the range or limits of.
- He forgot to put the food out of reach of the dog.
 Derived terms
- (having come out of) out of nowhere
Also the Israel cited in Revelation chapter 7 refers to a particular situation of those adopted as spiritual sons of God. In Romans chapter 11 there is an illustration of a spiritual olive tree which has a number of branches predetermined by God. The phrase "out of" is used here also:
(Romans 11:19-26) 19 You will say, then: “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 All right! For [their] lack of faith they were broken off, but you are standing by faith. Quit having lofty ideas, but be in fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 See, therefore, God’s kindness and severity. Toward those who fell there is severity, but toward you there is God’s kindness, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise, you also will be lopped off. 23 They also, if they do not remain in their lack of faith, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much rather will these who are natural be grafted into their own olive tree! 25 For I do not want YOU, brothers, to be ignorant of this sacred secret, in order for YOU not to be discreet in your own eyes: that a dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, 26 and in this manner all Israel will be saved. Just as it is written: “The deliverer will come out of Zion and turn away ungodly practices from Jacob.
Of course you should read the entire chapter , but if there were not to be a predetermined number of branches then there would be no need for some to be broken off so that others could be grafted in so that "the full number" of branches could be saved. The Olive tree is the spiritual Israel, and when some of those of natural Israel proved unworthy of the privilege of being part of that number of spiritual Jews, then God grafted in a number from the "wild olive" people from the nations, to make up the full number of spiritual Israel. It is the tribes of this spiritual Israel that are listed in Revelation chapter 7, and has been mentioned before, the list of tribes there is not the same as the list of the tribes of the nation of physical Israel. So the argument that these are physical Jews isn't supported by the wording of Revelation chapter 7, or by a consideration of what Paul and others wrote about fleshly verses spiritual Israel; for instance consider the symbolism of Sarah and Hagar:
(Galatians 4:22-26) 22 For example, it is written that Abraham acquired two sons, one by the servant girl and one by the free woman; 23 but the one by the servant girl was actually born in the manner of flesh, the other by the free woman through a promise. 24 These things stand as a symbolic drama; for these [women] mean two covenants, the one from Mount Si′nai, which brings forth children for slavery, and which is Ha′gar. 25 Now this Ha′gar means Si′nai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
When Paul wrote "our mother" he was referring to himself and all others who make up the spiritual Israel. It is fitting that Paul explained this in his letter to the Galatians when you consider that in chapter 3 he showed that the true seed of Abraham is determined by those having faith like his, and not according to his natural descendants. This seed, that is first mentioned in Genesis 3:15 is an integral part of the theme of the Bible , and it is the same seed which is described in more detail in Daniel chapter 7, Revelation chapter 7, and chapter 14, among other places through out the Bible.
On the question of the meaning of the phrase "defile" themselves with women" please note that this is not the same as "a wife". In ancient times prostitution was often practiced in or near pagan temples, and that is most likely why "Babylon the Great" is pictured as not only a harlot in the book of Revelation, but also as "the mother of harlots."
- From the inside to the outside of.
- Brittany Osborne wrote:
Please may I correct. My King James Bible of 1947 has Jehovah in it on several places. (More than 2700 that I know of; + several different additions like Jehovah sjalom, Jehovah-Jiregh, -shamah, -nissi, - -tsidkenu, Jah). I do agree in later editions you find the Name of God not as often, but you still have the different forms of the Name Jehovah in them. But I do have still different editions with Jehovah's name in it. Two years ago the Restored Names KJV was brought out to set everything right again.(The RNKJV is also available for free in e-Sword)The only way you're going to know for sure if a translation is the most accurate is if you learn the ancient language and translate it yourself, I guess. I like the NWT because it's in "todays" language and I can better understand it. The only thing is that its not very grammatical. The King James' Version is written in sort of the old english, and its very flowery sounding, and doesn't have "Jehovah" in it. My history teacher told us that William Shakespeare was one of the translators for the KJV. Just wanted to put my 2 cents in :) TJ always has the most heartfelt and informative answers :)