Melinda Mills

The Book of Hebrews

Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
 
? Proof of Trinitarian Error
Trinitarians claim God the Father addresses Jesus as "God" in this verse.
? The Claims vs. The Facts
The facts show that the Trinitarian interpretation and translation is impossible and the writer is rather describing how the exalted Jesus now has the authority of God's throne.
? The Problems with the claims of Trinitarians
Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6.
Side-by-side
Hebrews 1:8 - But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Psalms 45:6 - Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; The above translation of Hebrews 1:8 is another example of Trinitarian translation bias. Here they outrageously try to claim that God the Father is addressing Jesus as "O God." This translation crudely violates the context for the sake of Trinitarian tradition.
1. The Greek Grammar and Intentional Translation Bias

Concerning Hebrews 1:8, Trinitarian apologists are somewhat pretentious and would have you believe their "O God" translation is the only possible translation. So they always cherry pick the vocative "O God" translation for their apologetic agenda. However, Trinitarian Greek translation scholars openly admit the Greek grammar does indeed allow for a different translation. Trinitarian scholars admit that "God is your throne (or Your throne is God) is grammatically correct (see Robertson or Westcott for example). Some of these scholars also concede that it makes theological sense. This is also evidenced by a review of various major translations. The RSV translates Psalm 45:6 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever." The NRSV footnote for Psalm 45:6 reads, "Your throne is a throne of God" and the Hebrews 1:8 footnote reads, "God is your throne."
NOTE: Some grammarians have even argued that the vocative is an artificial category created by translators. In other words, they argue that it is a category which is an English speaking convention which would have never been conceived in a Koine Greek speaker's mind.
The word "throne" in Scripture
With the exception of a few informed scholars, Trinitarians generally seem to dismiss the "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God," translation because they can't imagine how God could be Jesus Christ's throne. Some even conclude this is silly because, they object, it would have God being used as Jesus' chair (throne). However, the ignorance is actually their own. The problem is that they are equating the word "throne" with a chair to sit upon. This notion comes from ignorance concerning the use of the word "throne" in the Scripture.
David and Solomon sat on "the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah we see this in the 2 verses that will be mention below
1 Chronicles 29:23 - Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD [YHWH] as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him. 2 Chronicles 9:8 - Blessed be the LORD [YHWH] your God, who has delighted in you and set you on his throne as king for the LORD [YHWH] your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them forever, he has made you king over them, that you may execute justice and righteousness.” And these two sat over the Kingdom of God,
1 Chronicles 28:5 - And of all my sons (for the LORD [YHWH] has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD [YHWH] over Israel.  
This does not mean they sat on God's chair in heaven. To sit on a throne means one assumes the authority signified by that throne. When David and Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah it meant they were given the right to execute the authority of God's throne over the nation of Israel, that is, God's authority over Israel. God promised David that He would establish his throne forever (2 Samuel 7:13,16) but it doesn't mean God is establishing a chair. It means God will establish David's Kingdom authority. When Benaiah says, "may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my Lord King David!" (1 Kings 1:36), he isn't suggesting that Solomon will have a better chair to sit on than David. When Gabriel informs Virgin Mary that God will give baby Jesus the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32), he wasn't suggesting that God was going to give a chair to Jesus. The word "throne" is a reference to kingly authority. Also see Colossians 1:16 were "thrones" are in a list of varies authorities. When Jesus said he sat down with his Father on His throne (Revelation 3:21), the main idea is not that Jesus squeezed up beside the Father on the Father's chair in heaven. The point is that Jesus assumed the authority signified by that throne and was given the right to execute his God's authority. And this is the concept expressed by the translations, "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God."
It is important to recognize how the word "throne" is used in the Bible and for the reader to see that the Trinitarian objection to the "God is your throne" translation is implicitly based on a false premise. A physical throne symbolizes kingly authority. The word "throne" at Hebrews 1:8 is being used to refer to authority not where Jesus is physically sitting. This is made obvious by the immediate context, "...the scepter of your Kingdom..." To be given a throne is a way of saying someone is given kingly authority. So a translation which says, "Your throne is God" would not be saying, "The place where you sit is God" as Trinitarians are necessarily presuming in their objections and or claims. Rather, this language would be a way of saying either:
(1) Jesus' authority is God" (God is over Jesus in terms of authority), or (2) Jesus' authority is God's authority granted by God to Jesus to execute (just as Joseph's authority was Pharaoh's authority). In context, the latter of the two would make the most sense. When it is clearly understood how the word "throne" is being used here, and in places like Luke 1:32, it is also clearly seen why the Trinitarian objection to the "God is your throne" translation is feeble at best.
2. Psalms 45:6

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation of the Septuagint translation of Psalm 45:6-7. The 45th Psalm celebrates an ancient Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia. This event occurred a several centuries before Jesus was born. The identity of the king in question is uncertain but most scholars think it is probably Solomon. So if we translated the Greek text as Trinitarians do, it would look like the following:
So shall we conclude that Solomon was being called "God"? To claim that Jesus is being called "God" at Hebrews 1:8 is to also claim Solomon is being called "God" at Psalm 45:6. That just isn't going to make any sense whatsoever. Or perhaps we should add Solomon to the Trinity and end up with a Quadrinity? An honest person will see the seriousness of the problem here, even to the point of calling out such problem, should need be.
"Dual" Prophecy
Like many Psalms, this refers to both the ancient Davidic King and the Messiah. This is common in Scripture and this type of thing is commonly called "dual prophecy" with a "near and far fulfillment." God's promise to David at 2 Samuel 7:11-14 is said in Scripture to be fulfilled in Solomon as well as Jesus.
2 Samuel 7:11-14 - (11) from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. (12) When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. (13) He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (14) I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, Isaiah 7:14 was necessarily fulfilled in the days of King Ahaz, as a sign to Ahaz, but was also fulfilled when Jesus was born.
Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 42:1 is obviously referring to Israel but Matthew applies the verse to Jesus (because he is the King of the Jews). Hosea 11:1 was fulfilled in both Israel and Jesus. These are but a few of several examples.
Isaiah 42:1 - The Lord's Chosen Servant - Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. Hosea 11:1 - The Lord's Love for Israel - When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. Psalm 45:6 is referring to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. If we assume that King is Solomon, it would be disingenuous to say the language used here means "Jesus is God" but deny the same language means "Solomon is God." Hence, the only reasonable conclusion is that Solomon is not being called God and neither is Jesus.
David and Solomon were God's Christ, His Anointed One. This meant they were given the right to sit on the throne of God ruling over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:20-23). In other words, they ruled on God's behalf; they executed God's authority. This occurred because Israel had rejected God as their King (1 Samuel chapter 8th) and wanted a human king. The result was that God did his ruling through a human king. This fact is very significant to a thoughtful interpretation of Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8.
3. God's God

A very serious problem with the Trinitarian translation is the resulting implications of their translation.
Hebrews 1:8-9 - (8) But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (9) You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” The result of this translation is that God has a God and God's God anoints God so that God's God would make God to be above God's peers. It's unbelievably ludicrous in multiple ways.
Even further, if we follow the "O God" translation to it's logical conclusion, we have even more preposterous consequences. Consider verses such as Psalm 43:4,
Psalm 43:4 - Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy, and I will praise you with the lyre, O God, my God. In Scripture, when anyone addresses the God of Israel as "O God" it means they are acknowledging that the addressee is their God. For this reason, it is absurd to suggest God the Father would address anyone as "O God" since it would imply the son is the Father's God.
The Trinitarian translation results in a situation where God addressed someone else as God and then says that God's God anoints God so that God will be above God's peers. Let the reader appreciate the utter implausibility of such a claim.
4. Translation Inconsistency

Another problem with the Trinitarian claim is translation inconsistency. At Hebrews 1:8-9, the Greek term ho theos ("the god") occurs 3 times. The term ho theos ("the God") is the usual Greek way of referring to God in the Bible and our English word "God" without the article is the normal way to translate this Greek term with the understanding that capital "G" God is an English way of referring to "the God" (although we sometimes translate it as "the God"). Trinitarians inconsistently translate ho theos as "O God" in verse 8 but as "God" in verse 9. More technically, they are inconsistently interpreting ho theos as "O God" in verse 8 but as "the God" in verse 9.
The Greek term ho theos normally means "the God" but Trinitarians would have it that here it means "O God." But there is no reason to translate this Greek term in this manner except to promote a man-made tradition, that is, the doctrine of the Trinity.
It should be clear to every reasonable and honest person that the above facts demonstrate that something is very amiss about Trinitarian claims concerning Hebrews 1:8-9 (Psalm 45:6-7). Trinitarians admit that "Your throne is God" is a grammatically viable translation. Some also confess it also makes contextual sense. And their standard objection to this translation is based on a naïve presumption. Hebrews 1:8-9 quotes Psalm 45:6-7 which is about an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. If these words identify Jesus as "God" then they also identify another human being as "God" who lived hundreds of years before Jesus. And if Jesus is being identified as God, then the Father is being identified as God's God which is ridiculous. The implications of the "O God" rendering catapults the passage into absurdity. By definition, God cannot have someone else as his God when there is only one God. And again, it is also clear that Trinitarians are inconsistently translating ho theos in two different ways within this selfsame passage. Even further, it is clear that this chapter is about a man who became superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4) not the one God who always is/was superior to His angels. Facts like these show us that the Trinitarian claim is based on spin rather than facts.
Analyzing the Facts
1. The Greek Text
2. The Structure of Psalm 45:6-7 & Hebrews 1:8-9
 
Also note the parallelism between "the throne of you ho theos" and "God, your God, has anointed you." Each of the ancient Davidic Kings such as Saul, David, Solomon, were God's Anointed One. Each of these men were the Anointed as Kings of Israel, God's Chosen King, God's Anointed One. Read into these verses:
1 Samuel 2:10; 10:1, 12:3,5; 15:17, 16:12-13; 24:6,10, 26:9,11,16,23 2 Samuel 1:14,16,21 2 Samuel 23:1 Psalm 2:2, 18:50, 89:20 God anointed David with the Holy Spirit and it was by this Spirit which David ruled and judged God's Kingdom of God, that is, the Kingdom of Israel. In this way, David and Solomon sat down on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah (1 Chronicles 29:23). This does not mean they sat on God's chair but they were given the authority of God's throne, the right to execute God's authority over His Kingdom, the nation of Israel. This throne authority was given to the Davidic King when God anointed these men with His Holy Spirit. Their throne was the fact that God had anointed them to rule as Kings and God accomplished this anointing by bestowing the Spirit upon them. Men anointed these Kings with actual oil and God anointed them with His Spirit. The authority of their throne was God Himself since they ruled and judged by the Spirit of God. An actual literal throne symbolizes a King's authority and the word "throne" simply refers to their Kingly authority.
For example, when Gabriel announces that God will give to Jesus the throne of his father David, it means that God will give that same Kingly authority to Jesus, God's Anointed One. That Kingly authority was the anointing of God's Holy Spirit, that is, God Himself. Their Kingly authority is God, that is, each of these men were God's Anointed One and they were anointed by God with the Spirit of God to rule and judge by the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God, God Himself, was their Kingly authority. Thus one could say to this Davidic King, "Your throne is God" or "God is your throne" since this means "Your Kingly authority is God Himself," or "God Himself is your Kingly authority."
The Davidic King's throne is the righteousness of God, that is, His rule is the righteousness of God. His scepter is the righteousness of God. The Davidic King ruled and judged by the Spirit of God in which God had anointed him.
1 Samuel 16:13 - Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah. Compare the following and note how Hebrews 1:8 is expressing the same idea:
3. The Context
In the book of Hebrews, the writer refers to how Jesus sat down at the right hand of the throne of God several times:
Now observe how Hebrews 1:8 fits into the immediate context of Hebrews chapter 1:
It should be clear to anyone that the same idea is being presented in all three of these verses. And the same idea is presented here as well:
Let us not forget that these words were spoken to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day at Psalm 45:6. The Davidic King sat "on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah" over "the Kingdom of Yahweh/Jehovah" (1 Chronicles 29:23, 2 Chronicles 9:8, 1 Chronicles 28:5, 2 Chronicles 13:8). God had promised King David that his descendant would sit on this throne, that is, he would have this Kingly authority. And Gabriel confirms that this promise to David was about to be fulfilled when baby Jesus was born, the son of David. As David had sat down on God's throne, Jesus would sit down on God's throne. This throne is a divinely established throne because the Davidic King, whether David or Jesus, is Anointed by God to rule and judge in His name. He is God's representative and or spokesman, His chosen King. His Kingly authority is God Himself because this King is Anointed by God in the Holy Spirit to rule and judge in His name.
The Hebrew writer's point throughout this chapter is that God made the risen Jesus superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4,6,8-9,13). The word "throne" signifies kingly authority. The risen Jesus' authority is the authority of God's throne. Such authority is greater than the authority of the angels.
4. The Davidic Divine Throne: David, Solomon, Jesus the son of David

It also needs to be understood that the word "throne" does not simply mean a fancy chair to sit upon. For example, the angel Gabriel stated that Jesus would receive the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32-33; see also Psalm 94:20). This doesn't mean he would receive a chair to sit upon but that he would assume the position of the Davidic King just as David was King over Israel. The word "throne" refers to a position of authority and indicates Kingly authority.
1 Kings 1:37 -  As the Lord has been with my lord the king, even so may he be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord King David.”
At Hebrews 1:8, the throne in question is a reference to the Kingly authority of God. When he rose from the dead, Jesus sat down on his Father's throne (Revelations 3:21). To sit at "the right hand of God" means Jesus was given the right to execute God's authority, the authority of God's throne. The words "right hand of God" indicate that this authority is not inherently his to execute but that God has appointed him to execute this authority much like Pharaoh did with Joseph. In other words, Joseph ruled Egypt on behalf of Pharaoh and the risen Jesus now rules creation on behalf of God the Father. To be at the right hand of God means that the authority is inherently God the Father's but Jesus was given the right to execute that authority in the same way Joseph ruled on Pharaoh's behalf.
Genesis 41:40-43 - (40) You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” (41) And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” (42) Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. (43) And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt. Additionally, verse 9 indicates God anointed Jesus to be above his peers. This is a Biblical way of saying God anointed Jesus as King just as the ancient Davidic Kings were anointed to rule over Israel sitting on the throne of God. Jesus was anointed to sit on the throne in question in verse 8, that is, to execute the authority of the throne of God. In light of these facts, the words "the throne of you ho theos" is quite obviously to say that Jesus has been given the authority of his God's throne.
The ancient Davidic Kings were anointed to sit on the throne of God over Israel; the risen Jesus, promised son of David, was anointed to sit on the throne of God over all creation - "your throne ho theos". Jesus sat down on his Father's throne (Revelations 3:21). Indeed, this concept is the main idea in this chapter and into the next (Hebrews 1:3,8,13; 2:5-9). The God (ho theos placed Jesus over all the works of His hands (Hebrews 1:1-13; 2:5-9). The way this is done is to grant him the authority of the Father's throne, God's throne, "Your throne ho theos."
5. Manuscript Evidence

There is a very important manuscript variant reading of verse 8 (p46; Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.). This is represented by the NASB which reads "HIS Kingdom instead of "your Kingdom." If this is the correct manuscript reading, it would mean the writer was quoting a version of the Septuagint with this reading. So should it read "Your Kingdom" or "His Kingdom"? This is very significant since the throne in question in this verse is the throne of the Kingdom, God's Kingly throne. It appears that the best manuscript evidence may favor "His Kingdom" which grammatically can be taken to refer to the Father's Kingdom. If "His Kingdom" is the correct reading, then it is even more clear that the first instance of ho theos in verse 8 refers to God the Father and the vocative translation "O God" is not correct. This fact has also been acknowledged by Trinitarian academics. The pronoun "His" would be referring back to the Father in the phrase "the throne of you ho theos" which means this phrase refers to the Father's Kingly throne which the risen Jesus sat down upon in order to rule God the Father's Kingdom. See verses Hebrews 1:10-13 and 2:7-8 (see Psalms 8:6) where it says the risen Jesus was placed over the works of the Father's hands. Since Psalms 45 is being quoted here, one should not overlook the fact that this is also the scenario when David and Solomon sat on the throne of God ruling over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:20, 23). It is no surprise then that the Hebrews writer is quoting Psalms 45:6-7 where the context shows us that it refers to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. Indeed, David/Solomon ruled over God's Kingdom ("His Kingdom") have sat down on God's throne.
It is also interesting that the "throne of Yahweh/Jehovah" which David sat upon is also called the "throne of David" in the Scriptures. Notice how the same concept at Revelations 3:21.
The Old Testament tells us that God's Christ, David and/or Solomon, sat on the throne of God over the Kingdom of God. This means they were granted the right by God to execute the authority of their God's Kingly throne as His Christ, His Anointed One, that person whom God chose to rule over His Kingdom, the people of Israel. At Hebrews 1:8-9, writer is quoting Psalms 45 which is referring to an ancient Davidic King on His wedding day (see scholarly commentaries). These facts about the ancient Davidic King fit perfectly with God and His Christ, Jesus, the promised son of David. Read 2 Samuel 7:11-14.

With those particular Scriptural facts in mind, and since God's throne signifies His Kingly authority just as it did in the days of David, this would mean the risen Jesus was given the right to execute God the Father's authority. And that is what the rest of the verse is alluding to, "the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His Kingdom." This means Jesus is given the right to execute authority over all the works of the Father's hands. And that is precisely what the writer goes on to emphasize (Hebrews 2:5-9).
6. God is your throne

Trinitarian apologists have illustrated their ignorance here many times. It is not uncommon to see them mocking, rave and rant over people, one of their primary targets being the Jehovah's Witnesses and their Watchtower translation (The New World Translation/NWT) by supposing it means Jesus' throne is God and Jesus therefore sits on God. The Trinitarian ignorance here is stunning, obvious and continues to be quite absurd for the sake of their doctrine. Regard the following verse for example:
Luke 1:32 - He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
The words "God is your throne" or "Your throne is God" mean that Jesus Christ's authority is the Kingly authority of God. He executes God the Father's authority. David sat on the throne of God over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:23). For that reason, all Israel bowed down and worshiped (proskuneo) Yahweh/Jehovah and King David (1 Chronicles 29:20). This means that David executed God's authority on God's behalf much like Joseph ruling on behalf of Pharaoh. This is also what is happening at Psalms 45:6-7 where the Psalmist is speaking to the Davidic King on his wedding day. He sits on the throne of God, the God of Israel. And that is what the language of Hebrews 1:8 means. "Your throne is God" means that he has been given the Kingly authority of God, his God.
Conclusion

When all the facts are laid out before us, the truth of the matter is plain and it should be evident to the reasonable mind that the weight of the evidence is heavily against the absurd Trinitarian translation. The Trinitarian translation not only results in an absurd statement concerning God's God, it results in an ancient Davidic King (Psalms 45) who lived long before Jesus being called "God." Trinitarians inconsistently translate ho theos at Hebrews 1:8-9 and the implications are that God has a God and God's God anoints God so that God will make God to be above God's peers. It's ridiculous on the face of it.
However, when we understand how Scripture uses the word "throne" to refer to Kingly authority, and when we understand that the Davidic King, whether David or Jesus, was anointed by God in His Holy Spirit to rule and judge, the verdict is clear and undeniable. The Davidic King's, throne, his Kingly authority to rule, is God Himself who rules and judges through his human King because He has anointed that King by His Spirit to do so (i.e. "God is your throne"). His Kingly authority is God, his throne is God. He executes the authority of God's throne, that is, the Davidic King executes his God's authority and he is anointed to do so by the Holy Spirit of God. The Kingly authority by which he rules is the authority/throne of God Himself. This Kingly authority means that the King's judgments are thereby God's judgment because God has given the King this authority to make these judgements. Hence it says, "Your throne ho theos." Moreover, the manuscript evidence strongly suggests the verse is not only referring to the Father's throne but to "His Kingdom". Since God's throne signifies His Kingdom authority, the verdict concerning this verse should be clear.
Additional Notes:
 
 

When Jehovah outlined the consequence of her sin to Eve in the Garden of Eden, He said: "I will greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy" Genesis 3:16.
So childbirth would have been physically painful for perfect women, the possibility of that pain having existed prior to the sin of Eve. There is nothing to indicate that the case will be otherwise in the future. 
Of course the eventual absence of the effects of Adamic sin on the health of mothers, resulting in inherited and/or acquired factors causing  complications effecting childbirth will likely see that Jehovah, through the admistration of the benefits of Christ's ransom, will "greatly decrease the pain of...pregnancy".

Could you give a reference for this one please.
This isn't really as controversial as it seems. The term "Christ" or "Messiah" was used scripturally  in the past of a number of priests, kings, prophets, (both faithful and unfaithful Israelite) and even Cyrus, a pagan king. It only becomes sensational when viewed against the great significance of the term when applied to Jesus Christ and also in the light of eschatological warnings regarding false christs. So Russell's musings on applying the term to the Christian congregation of anointed followers so clearly termed as the "body of Christ" in Scripture are quite understandable, especially when viewed against Peter's words at 1Pet.2:9.
That these "musings" should be blown out of proportion in the manner outlined by @JWInsider is for me a combination of what, very likely, was the effect of such statements in the mind of impressionable contemporaries. One only has to look at the reaction today of similarly impressionable folk today when "religious pronouncements" are made by those deemed as having the authority to do so. This must be coupled, I might add, with with some highly creative writing in observation of those latter 19th-early 20th Century beliefs.
As for the erroneous perception of Christ's parousia and the fanciful the chronology of late 1800s, is this as far-fetched as it appears at first sight?
Indeed, Jesus himself stated that he would be with his followers until the conclusion of the system of things. (Matt.28:20). And I think it would be safe to say that this statement would be applicable to his true followers only, in the light of Matt 18:20 and Matt.7:22-23. So it seems to me entirely plausible that sincerely motivated followers of Christ could be made aware of a presence of Christ, who, after all,  is the active head of the true Christian congregation, ( comp. Rev. Chaps.2&3), regardless of any errors members of that congregation made in the timing of their eschatolgy, and their interpretation of whatever was taking place at the time. What men believe is of no consequence to Jehovah or Jesus in terms of ensuring that their will is carried out. Correction of thinking can be carried out later, as long as the priority actions are in progress. Compare Prov.21:1:"A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases.".
Hence the feasabilty of the following observation in connection with Charles Taze Russell and associates, both contemporay and subsequent:
?

Well, a partial answer can be found by considering:
Zephaniah 2:3: "Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger."
Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good. And what is Jehovah requiring of you? Only to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, and to walk in modesty with your God"
Jeremiah 29:10: "“‘For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ declares Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope"
2Pet.2:8-9: "However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones............he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."

Just posting this to see where it fits into the topic, if it fits in.  Just thought of it.
(Hebrews 11:26) because he considered the reproach of the Christ to be riches greater than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward.   
(Refers to one being sent on behalf of Jehovah, not to Jesus himself.)

 

Just posting this to see where it fits into the topic, if it fits in.  Just thought of it.
(Hebrews 11:26) because he considered the reproach of the Christ to be riches greater than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward.   
(Refers to one being sent on behalf of Jehovah, not to Jesus himself.)

 

Just posting this to see where it fits into the topic, if it fits in.  Just thought of it.
(Hebrews 11:26) because he considered the reproach of the Christ to be riches greater than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward.   
(Refers to one being sent on behalf of Jehovah, not to Jesus himself.)

 

Is it possible that in raking over old "manna" we are sure to find "worms"? Exodus 16:20.

Jehovah meant to rule over mankind but the human pair listened to Satan who told them they could be happy doing their own thing. So they rejected Jehovah's rule over them and obeyed Satan.  Satan is really the one who sponsored man's rule over man. Rev 13:1,2  shows that the wild beast with seven heads and ten horns represents human rulership sponsored by Satan, since it shows that the wild beast gets its power and authority from the dragon, Satan the devil. Matthew 4 which we just did at the meeting  shows Satan offering Jesus of all people the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would do one act of worship to him, Satan.  Thus, Satan shows that the kingdoms of the world are really his.
However sometime after man's rebellion Nimrod, a hunter in opposition to God,   began to build cities in order to rule over people.
"*** it-2 p. 503 Nimrod ***
Observes the Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong: “That the mighty hunting was not confined to the chase is apparent from its close connection with the building of eight cities. . . . What Nimrod did in the chase as a hunter was the earlier token of what he achieved as a conqueror. For hunting and heroism were of old specially and naturally associated . . . The Assyrian monuments also picture many feats in hunting, and the word is often employed to denote campaigning. . . . The chase and the battle, which in the same country were connected so closely in aftertimes, may therefore be virtually associated or identified here. The meaning then will be, that Nimrod was the first after the flood to found a kingdom, to unite the fragments of scattered patriarchal rule, and consolidate them under himself as sole head and master; and all this in defiance of Jehovah, for it was the violent intrusion of Hamitic power into a Shemitic territory.”—1894, Vol. VII, p. 109."
God did not agree to this scheme and scattered those people from there all over the earth by confusing their language.
In the 16th century B.C.E. when Israel was formed as a nation, it in time asked for a king, in imitation of the pagan nations around.  Jehovah meant to rule over his people by having priests, judges and prophets to enforce his laws. So when they asked for a king Jehovah warned them of the consequences of having  human rulers, and told Samuel that they were not rejecting him Samuel  but they were rejecting him Jehovah as king. However, the Davidic line of kings of the tribe of Judah were said to be sitting on Jehovah's throne, and continued to represent Jehovah having a kingdom on earth.
(1 Chronicles 29:23) And Solʹo·mon sat on Jehovah’s throne as king in place of David his father, and he was successful, and all the Israelites were obedient to him.
(1 Kings 11:36) To his son I will give one tribe, so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen for myself as the place to put my name.
In time Jesus came to the earth (Gal 4:4) and started the  preaching work, and commanded true Christians to  continue this work of preaching and teaching until the end.(Matt 24:14;28:19,20) Christians would then be a public spectacle needing protection from the state. They would need freedom of association, freedom to share beliefs and freedom of conscience.  Authorities are usually able to guarantee such protections. Guided by Holy Spirit the apostles wrote letters concerning our attitude towards these human authorities. The apostle Paul said at 1 Timothy to pray for governments that we may be able to focus on our work and that men of all sorts of people will hear the good news of the Kingdom and put themselves in line for life.
(1 Timothy 2:1-4) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all sorts of men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. 3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.
For any project to progress and come to fruition there must be order in the environment. (That's why there is so little food in war years - farmers cannot do their work without fearing for their lives and people overrunning that they are doing.) Same with the preaching work - it needs good order to progress.
Then Paul showed what attitude Christians should have toward these authorities; also the obligations of Christians, as follows:
(Romans 13:1-7) Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor.
Jehovah can maneuver anyone or anything to do his will. He once cause a donkey to talk to a wicked prophet.  He can maneuver or put in the hearts of authorities whatever he wishes that will cause his work to be accomplished. We saw that in the case of the Persian empire using Queen Esther and Mordecai how he preserved his  people from extermination; with the Roman empire with its good roads and ships to enable travelling throughout the empire,  enabling missionary journeys and establishing congregations throughout the empire. We saw the Emperor causing people to travel so Jesus could be born in the city it was prophesied he would be born in; in other words, whoever has the means and the authority to facilitate God's work, Jehovah will that one to do so. He is the King of the Universe. Proverbs 21:1 speaks of this:
(Proverbs 21:1) A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases.
In the great tribulation he is also going to put in the hearts of these authorities to destroy the "harlot", false religion. (Rev 17:16,17)
So Jehovah allowed governments to exist  and keep things going  so the warning  and harvesting work could go on until his time to bring to an end all human rule. (Dan 2:44; Eccl 8:9)  He does not sponsor human rule, but he can use governments or individuals in governments to accomplish what he wants.

No. Not human ones. He is going to replace them forcibly. Dan.2:44.
Meantime, a measure of order is sustained. Part of the Devil's deception in promoting independence from Jehovah's sovereignty is to allow some success in human endeavour. (Luke 4:6).
Meantime, the structure of the current system enables the preaching of the good news and all the logistics that go with that work, sometimes in a very constructive manner (Rev.12:15-16).  Jehovah can even intervene if necessary to fulfill that purpose without compromising on the issue of Sovereignty. (Is.60:22). He can also intervene to push things along a little in the executional area once He is satisfied with the outworking of His strategy. (Rev.17:16-17). Additionally, he can intervene to ensure overkill is not a result either. (Comp. Matt. 24:22).
I know it's all a bit difficult for some to get their heads around but Proverbs 28:5 did warn that "Evil men cannot understand justice, but those who seek Jehovah can understand everything." So, keep chipping away. It will all come clear.

It is about the IDEA of human governments being placed in their relative positions by God.
Not specific governments.
The alternative is total anarchy, where every man and woman are a law unto themselves ... which is worse than the WORST human governments.
It's free-for-all non stop carnage.
You have to mentally visualize how really terrible anarchy would be on a day to day basis to understand that.

I wonder if this study was funded by a sugar based corporation?

It usually depends, not just if the person is JW, but the culture of some people. For JWs in America can hold a small reception of members of their community and that of family members and friends who were very close to the deceased, while elsewhere, perhaps like in DR or Haiti, it is a very small get together in the home of someone very close to the deceased, no food no nothing, perhaps tea or coffee, but that is about it, while some of them literally have no form of reception at all. Elsewhere, like in some parts of Africa, as well as the EU some simply just bury the the dead and remain in the household of the one who lost their loved one and care for them until they feel better.
But it differs for some people. Outside of the realm of religion, there are some, crazy and perhaps, even morbid display of sending some off to be buried in Sheol, there is one particular trend I have noticed in the US that is someone haunting and disturbing.
But yes, usually depends on the customs of the people and the culture at times, so it is not something common, granted that JWs come from different backgrounds and racial groups with various cultures and practices that differ from each other, even though they are of the same faith community.

The best text related to the issue being discussed is the data provided by Jesus himself, at Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43, which starts off as follows:

"Jesus told them another parable: "The Kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner's servants came to him and said, "Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?" "An enemy did this", he replied. The servants asked him, "Do you want us to go and pull them up?" "No", he answered, "because while you are pulling the weeds, you root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn." (NIV)


Not wanting to allow for a variety of future interpretations of the above parable, Jesus himself, explained it in 13:36-43 as follows: "Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field". He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world [kosmos], and the good seed stands for the sons of the Kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his Kingdom everything that causes sin, and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."


Jesus explains that while he was on earth he, the "Son of Man", spread a specific message, "the seed of wheat", that resulted eventually in the formation of a body of original followers and/or co-workers, "the wheat". However, when his co-workers, the faithful apostles and their principal associates died, or "went to sleep" [death is compared to a type of sleep in over 700 places in the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures], an enemy, the Devil, over-sowed the body of believers with others, "the weeds", who were not of the same ilk as the original community once was – resulting in a contamination, a negative infusion that proved to compromise that which was established by Jesus and his first followers.


As noted in the parable, it is only during "the end of the age", the time of the end, the last days, in which one would see a harvesting that would bring together once again the wheat, but now separate from the weeds – indeed, the call made at Revelation 18:4, for his people, to get out.


Interestingly, the koine Greek word translated as "weeds" is "zizanion" which is a kind of darnel, the bearded type, which significantly resembles wheat in "appearance", but only in appearance [Matthew 7:15-23] – a degenerate wheat.


Also interesting regarding zizanion, it is not until the time approaching harvest, that the zizanion becomes visible – and it does so because unlike wheat, it puts forth little black seeds at maturity, which become visible, and if eaten, can be deadly. It is the fruit, or "seeds" of this plant, which make it distinguishable from the true wheat.


The reason why Jesus chose this particular plant by word becomes obvious - the zizanion represented individuals "planted" by the oversower into the developing Christian institution. Who would claim to be genuine Christians, genuine "wheat". According to the parable, this poisoned and contaminated version of "Christianity" would be allowed to persist until the time of the end at which time a separating would transpire, i.e., the restoration.

In a sense Jehovah's Witnesses are like Alex. They did not stay under the authority of the major religions like the Catholic Church, but examined the matter of what the real authority the Bible said, regardless of the consequences,  whereas the majority of persons accept the authority of the Church and its erroneous teachings and refuse to look any further. 
Hosea 4:6 shows that people will be silenced for lack of knowledge.  Second Thessalonions 1: 6-9 shows that people will undergo judicial punishment because of not knowing God and not obeying the good news. The case above shows the good sense of letting the real authority of the Bible speak. God's true sheep know the sound of the  truth/his voice.  Look at the amazing fruit that resulted when one honest-hearted lady  helped her family to know the truth as well. 

So far, you have not demonstrated in what way post-funeral hospitality amongst Witnesses is in any shape or form bound up in superstitious or pagan practices, or that it is a "worldly" practice.
"Worldly" weddings are also "connected to folkloric, custom, beliefs, superstition . . .   And here we have great variety of customs around the world."  We don't eschew weddings simply because some of the customs worldly people include originate in superstitious practices.  We omit what would be offensive to Jehovah.  Likewise with funerals and association thereafter.

We've all been there and done that. Most Witnesses have come from a false religious background. I came from a Roman Catholic background and had aspirations of becoming a nun. I associated with nuns after school, cleaned the classrooms and sang in the choir, so my background was fully vested in the teachings of the Trinity, immortal soul, hellfire, purgatory, limbo, Jesus was Catholic, the infallibility of the Pope - he was god on earth.
But a life changing experience happened one day, a man came to our door and began to show my mother scriptures proving his point on the areas they discussed. My mother, a strong person who also had deep respect for the Bible listened and in that discussion something touched her heart.
The young man had his mother revisit my mother and discussed what had previously been initiated by her son. Within the same time frame a Seventh Day Adventist was visiting my mother voicing her version of scripture and offering a Bible study. My mother, in order to make her decision on which one to choose, asked each one to explain what the Sabbath meant and should it still be enforced as in the Law.
She listened and looked up Scripture and there was no comparison in teaching, she was confident that Jehovah's Witness had the TRUTH of the matter. She began to study the Bible and was baptized in 1952. My mother began to speak about the Bible to her siblings (who were all different religions and scattered around the U.S.) they began to study the Bible and were baptized at different times and places.(4 brothers, 2 sisters and her father and her three children)
So we've been there and indoctrinated in a variety of different religions before a selfless individual came to our door in obedience to Jesus command at Matthew 19:28,29. Yes, that Good News is being preached in 239 Lands and Islands and in over 900 languages - in over two hundred thousand congregations worldwide.
The noise that you hear on the internet cannot drown out the preaching of the Good News and the gathering of the sheep. Jesus said: John 10:3" But the one who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep. The doorkeeper opens to this one, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought all his own out, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. 5 They will by no means follow a stranger but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
 
Apostates and other opposers are very busy in these days and the scripture tells us why Ezekiel 29:4 " And I will put hooks in your jaws and cause the fish of your Nile canals to cling to your scales. And I will bring you up out of the midst of your Nile canals and all the fish of your Nile canals that cling to your very scales. 5 And I will abandon you to the wilderness, you and all the fish of your Nile canals. Upon the surface of the field you will fall. You will not be gathered up nor be collected together. To the wild beasts of the earth and to the flying creatures of the heavens I will give you for food. 6 And all the inhabitants of Egypt will have to know that I am Jehovah,"
 
Yes Indeed! Jehovah has put the hooks in the jaws of Satan and his demonic cohorts and they cannot turn back and as Ezekiel's prophecy makes clear, it is for one reason - identify and destroy.
 
As the apostle Paul points out at 2Corinthians 4: 3 "If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."
 
 
 
 

We have two separate things Suza:
1. Hospitality in general sense and understanding
This one sort of behavior of humans is human like, and all groups of all kind show it, it is not characteristic of  specific group, atheist, religious or "worldly shape" people    
2. Hospitality to people who came to funeral
This is connected not only with mere hospitality people want to show to others, but is connected to folkloric, custom, beliefs, superstition that is in relation with death and dead. And here we have great variety of details in customs around the world. 

It is not common where I live. If it is done people might say we are imitating customs that are foreign.  Like the large funeral wakes held in  countries like Japan and Africa.   The programmes usually say the family wants to spend the period after the funeral in quiet reflection. Some family members visit with the relatives at the residence, but the majority of attendees go their own way.

It is not common where I live. If it is done people might say we are imitating customs that are foreign.  Like the large funeral wakes held in  countries like Japan and Africa.   The programmes usually say the family wants to spend the period after the funeral in quiet reflection. Some family members visit with the relatives at the residence, but the majority of attendees go their own way.

Ever since I can remember it has been the custom here in Australia for an announcement to be made after the funeral inviting mourners back to the home of the deceased or close relative for refreshments.  It's always just been coffee/tea and small savouries such as quartered sandwiches, sausage rolls, pastries, etc., not a full-on lunch.  In the past several years, the trend has been for these refreshments to be served in the kingdom hall straight after the service.  I think it's a lovely idea, enabling mourners to pass on condolences to relatives, and mingle with brothers and sisters they may not have seen for years and reminisce over shared memories.  
Since when has hospitality been a "worldly" custom?  

I think its a cultural thing too. Some countries do this, others don't so much.

Why do JWs have huge lunches / dinners after funerals?
...because they are really, really hungry?

A relatively young elder gave a funeral talk for the "unbelieving" son of an elderly sister. It was very well attended and I was glad that I witnessed for the first time a talk being given about a person, what he did for other persons, what he did for the community at large, how he treated his mother, etc, etc.  And he got in many scriptures too.   It was different from the usual talk which is somewhat disassociated from the person, and dwelling only on the hope for the future and the resurrection.
Love it that people are willing to remember the person who died.  Most people come because of the person.  And there are so many things we don't know about people, peculiarities and good qualities. That is why it is emotionally fulfilling to go there and be different, and it leads to some kind of closure for the family and all who loved the person.
So, Tom, you saw what you did for the policeman relative.  That is needed, too.

When my aunt died, the entire Catholoc family converged on my uncle's house after the funeral, where they ate, laughed, visited and caught up on family. Meanwhile, he lay inconsolable on the couch, and was left alone. I recall thinking what a horrible spectacle it was. But now I think it is one of those things which must be. The best way to help anyone cope with such a blow is for family to gather around. He sees that normal life continues, and in time, it may be a long time, he joins in.
And no, I did not witness to him. I would have had to have done so before everyone, none of whom were Witnesses, and I did not have the comfort level and freeness of speech that I have today.
Today I would have done it, even if it was before all. It might even have been better that way.