The 144,000 in Rev. 7

[Steve53]

http://www.gotquestions.org/144000.html

Question: "Who are the 144,000?"

Answer: The book of Revelation has always presented the interpreter with challenges. The book is steeped in vivid imagery and symbolism which people have interpreted differently depending on their preconceptions of the book as a whole. There are four main interpretive approaches to the book of Revelation: 1) preterist (which sees all or most of the events in Revelation as having already occurred by the end of the 1st century); 2) historicist (which sees Revelation as a survey of church history from apostolic times to the present); 3) idealist (which sees Revelation as a depiction of the struggle between good and evil); 4) futurist (which sees Revelation as prophecy of events to come). Of the four, only the futurist approach interprets Revelation in the same grammatical-historical method as the rest of Scripture. It is also a better fit with Revelation’s own claim to be prophecy (Revelation 1:3 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%201.3); 22:7 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%2022.7), 10 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%2022.10), 18 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%2022.18), 19 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%2022.19)).

So the answer to the question “who are the 144,000?” will depend on which interpretive approach you take to the book of Revelation. With the exception of the futurist approach, all of the other approaches interpret the 144,000 symbolically, as representative of the church and the number 144,000 being symbolic of the totality—i.e., the complete number—of the church. Yet when taken at face value: “Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel” (Revelation 7:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%207.4)), nothing in the passage leads to interpreting the 144,000 as anything but a literal number of Jews—12,000 taken from every tribe of the “sons of Israel.” The New Testament offers no clear cut text replacing Israel with the church.

These Jews are “sealed,” which means they have the special protection of God from all of the divine judgments and from the Antichrist to perform their mission during the tribulation period (see Revelation 6:17 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%206.17), in which people will wonder who can stand from the wrath to come). The tribulation period is a future seven-year period of time in which God will enact divine judgment against those who reject Him and will complete His plan of salvation for the nation of Israel. All of this is according to God’s revelation to the prophet Daniel (Daniel 9:24-27 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Daniel%209.24-27)). The 144,000 Jews are a sort of “first fruits” (Revelation 14:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%2014.4)) of a redeemed Israel which has been previously prophesied (Zechariah 12:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Zechariah%2012.10); Romans 11:25-27 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%2011.25-27)), and their mission is to evangelize the post-rapture world and proclaim the gospel during the tribulation period. As a result of their ministry, millions—“a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%207.9))—will come to faith in Christ.

Much of the confusion regarding the 144,000 is a result of the false doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses (http://www.gotquestions.org/Jehovahs-Witnesses.html). The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that 144,000 is a limit to the number of people who will reign with Christ in heaven and spend eternity with God. The 144,000 have what the Jehovah’s Witnesses call the heavenly hope. Those who are not among the 144,000 will enjoy what they call the earthly hope—a paradise on earth ruled by Christ and the 144,000. Clearly, we can see that Jehovah’s Witness teaching sets up a caste society in the afterlife with a ruling class (the 144,000) and those who are ruled. The Bible teaches no such “dual class” doctrine. It is true that according to Revelation 20:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%2020.4) there will be people ruling in the millennium with Christ. These people will be comprised of the church (believers in Jesus Christ), Old Testament saints (believers who died before Christ’s first advent), and tribulation saints (those who accept Christ during the tribulation). Yet the Bible places no numerical limit on this group of people. Furthermore, the millennium is different from the eternal state, which will take place at the completion of the millennial period. At that time, God will dwell with us in the New Jerusalem. He will be our God and we will be His people (Revelation 21:3 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%2021.3)). The inheritance promised to us in Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%201.13-14)) will become ours, and we will all be co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%208.17)).

[brasadero]

To try to compromise what Paul teaches in Romans 2: 28-29, in Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 4: 24-26 is to make use of the
dialectic rather than the didactic by which scripture is interpreted, "It is written." To try to compromise Paul's Gospel, and these texts
are part of the Gospel, is to preach another Gospel and another Christ. It is following tradition (Matthew 15: 2-6), the tradition of dispensationalism, and it is part of the process of the leavening of the Gospel (Luke 13: 21). And to try to say that Paul might have written
that there are two Israels, but there are still the "church" and physical Israel as God's people is double minded. And to admit Paul said that an inward Jew is anyone of any race who is born again in Christ, but Jews must remain Jews, and "all Israel shall be saved" in the Jewish dispensation during the dispensationalist tribulation is also double minded.

I don't know why John describes the 12 tribes of Israel the way he does in Revelation 7: 4-8, but I am going to follow the New Testament in defining what and who the 144,000 are rather than a man-made theology which does not follow Scripture very well on many of its teachings.
The 144,000 cannot be unsaved physical Israelites. They cannot be all saved Jews. The New Testament does not recognize a spiritual difference between former Jews and former Gentiles. Your theology does. There could be some former Jews among them.

Find out what the dialectic method is as compared to to the didactic. That difference is more important than you might think. Google "dialectic,"
"didactic," "Dean Gotcher," and "diaprax." Your teachers in the seminaries and in the pulpits probably would not want you to fully understand the difference between the didactic and the dialectic as applied to the interpreption and discussion of scripture.

[Hootmon]

Also, I agree with this quote by Arnold J. Fruchtenbaum:

"The term 'Israel' appears exactly 73 times in the New Testament and not once does it refer to the Church. It will sometimes refer to all Jews in general and sometimes specifically to Jewish believers, but never to Gentile believers and never to the Church. Therefore, Dispensationalism affirms that what God promised to Israel He will keep to Israel and what He promised to the Church He will keep to the Church and the Church does not replace Israel in God’s covenantal program. Therefore, whatever promises have not been fulfilled up to the present time will be fulfilled in the future."

- Arnold J. Fruchtenbaum:thumb

I dont agree with Dr. F about everything, but there is no denying that he knows a lot about how Israel 'fits' into Scripture. Israelology has been one of the primary foci of his lifes work.

[Steve53]

What is your theology brasadero?

[Hootmon]

To try to compromise what Paul teaches in Romans 2: 28-29, in Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 4: 24-26 is to make use of the dialectic rather than the didactic by which scripture is interpreted, "It is written." How do you justify that statement with ignoring what Revelation plainly states about 12000 men from each of the twelve tribes?



To try to compromise Paul's Gospel, and these texts are part of the Gospel, is to preach another Gospel and another Christ. Since you seem keen to 'compromise John's Gospel' as pointed out above, Id advise you to stop using statements like that.



It is following tradition (Matthew 15: 2-6), the tradition of dispensationalism, and it is part of the process of the leavening of the Gospel (Luke 13: 21). And to try to say that Paul might have written that there are two Israels, but there are still the "church" and physical Israel as God's people is double minded. And to admit Paul said that an inward Jew is anyone of any race who is born again in Christ, but Jews must remain Jews, and "all Israel shall be saved" in the Jewish dispensation during the dispensationalist tribulation is also double minded.All Israel will be saved, but not all Jews survive the Trib. Do you dispute those facts?



I don't know why John describes the 12 tribes of Israel the way he does in Revelation 7: 4-8, but I am going to follow the New Testament in defining what and who the 144,000 are rather than a man-made theology which does not follow Scripture very well on many of its teachings. So... Denying that John meant what he said is 'following Scripture very well'? Talk about 'double-minded'...



The 144,000 cannot be unsaved physical Israelites. They cannot be all saved Jews.Why not?



The New Testament does not recognize a spiritual difference between former Jews and former Gentiles. Your theology does. There could be some former Jews among them.This statement demonstrates that you dont understand 'our theology' as well as you may think. Id suggest asking more questions and making fewer declarations.



Find out what the dialectic method is as compared to to the didactic. That difference is more important than you might think. Google "dialectic," "didactic," "Dean Gotcher," and "diaprax." Your teachers in the seminaries and in the pulpits probably would not want you to fully understand the difference between the didactic and the dialectic as applied to the interpreption and discussion of scripture.Same comment...

[Hootmon]

What is your theology brasadero?:popcorn

[mikie33]

What is your theology brasadero?




Well this is going to be interesting....





Someone just woke up a sleeping giant.... Hey brasadero its not nice to be..:monkd....... around...








Since you seem keen to 'compromise John's Gospel' as pointed out above, Id advise you to stop using statements like that.



Not a very good way to start out on the 2nd post....:target.............

[acceptedintheBeloved]

:thumb

I dont agree with Dr. F about everything, but there is no denying that he knows a lot about how Israel 'fits' into Scripture. Israelology has been one of the primary foci of his lifes work.

:nod I don't agree with everything of his, either, but I definitely agree with the quote of his, I posted earlier.


I forgot to add one other scripture that many in the "Replacement Theology" camp also get turned around, and that is Galatians 6:16, "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." Those who hold to Replacement Theology make the phrase "the Israel of God" to mean "the Church" (i.e. "the new Israel")... but (agreeing with Dr. Fruchtenbaum's quote, in my earlier post), it means "those of (national) Israel who BELIEVED." When you read these passages with this in mind, you can see where Paul is talking about those of (national) Israel who believed... not that the Church has now replaced Israel in God's scheme of things.

The 144,000 (Rev 7) are indeed (literally) of the 12 tribes of Israel... and will (at that future time period) be "believers." :nod :thumb

[brasadero]

"What is your theology brasadero?"

As worded, thats asking which of the man-made theologies that have been around the last couple of hundred years I follow. I am using
the term "theology" to mean a system of interpretation of scripture which in most cases has been around long enough to become a tradition of men as used in Matthew 15: 2-6.

From what I have seen on this thread about the 144,000 it appears that the people here have never encountered someone who does not follow any of the doctrines of dispensationalism, and is willing to say the theology does not agree with the New Testament. The majority is right. Or is it?

But what some of the people who responded have said is interesting. For example, a guy quoted what I said, "Following what Paul says in Galatians 3: 28, when a person of any race
becomes a Christian, he or she is no longer of his or her original
ethnic origin, but all are one in Christ."

Then he replied:

"Be careful to not 'overbake' that notion. It also says there is no
more male or female. They are 'equals' in Christ, but that still
doesnt mean they are identical."

This is an excellent example of one form of the dialectic in discussion of scripture. Just as the Pharisees set up a strong conflict in Luke 11: 14-27 between the fact that Jesus Christ as fully God is able to cast out demons and more and their assertion that he is casting out demons by the power of Satan, so the theology (dispensationalism) sets up a conflict between what Paul says in Romans 9: 6-8, Galatians 4: 24-26, Romans 2: 28-29 and Galatians 3: 28-29, and its postulate that God now has two distinct peoples, the "church" and physical Israel, without making the distinction between the two Israels that Paul makes.

The dialectic side steps the main issue, that in Christ there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. It comes against the thesis, or the issue, that there is no spiritual difference between Jew and Gentile when both are in Christ, by saying that since men and women are physically different, then somehow this proves the thesis to be wrong. This side step in this example is really not relevant to the thesis at all, because we know that men and women are physically different, but they are not different spiritually in Christ. But its dealing in the area of relationships and feelings, which is a key to the effectiveness of the dialectic.

That is, those who read this and have a relationship (involving affection) with dispensationalism, with some teacher of this theology, or their preacher who is a dispensationalist, may not see the irrationality of the statement. And again, this is a majority or broad way approach to scripture interpretation, and the assumption is that how could so many Christians be wrong.

The effectiveness of the dialectic depends upon its targets having a "love relationship" with something. They are willing to drop belief in a truth to continue their relationship. In other words, they are operating in the physical, in the carnal. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

There are some who have a relationship with scripture instead of with a man-made theology and with its teachers and preachers. See II Thessalonians 2: 10-12. I try to do that. I was in a southern Baptist church for a year or so when I was a teenager, but dropped out of it and out of Christianity when I was in college. Later when I was in my forties, I became a Christian, and for some reasons I never did join a church, and so I never came under the authority of a dispensationalist. By the way, in the Southern Baptist churches of the Midwest, South and Texas its sometimes hard to tell the difference between Christianity and Freemasonry.

[Steve53]

"What is your theology brasadero?"



The question remains unanswered brasadero. Care to try again?