Johnson often made lists of 7 or 10 items because of the significance of the numbers. At times this was quite forced. For example, In Ephesians 6:10-17 (and 1 Thessalonians 5:8) the Apostle Paul shows the armor of God to be the following:
1. Belt of truth (girded)
2. Breastplate of righteousness
3. Feet fitted with gospel of peace (sandals)
4. Shield of faith
5. Helmet of salvation
6. Sword of Spirit, the Word of God (only offensive weapon)
Evidently, since this is not a list of 7, Johnson saw it as incomplete. So he added another part to the armor called the Greaves (leg armor) from 1 Sam. 17:6. See PT 1966 p. 52, PT 1977 p. 42
This leg armor was used by Goliath.
Why would this Old Testament reference to armor worn by an enemy of God be included in this list for God's faithful?
If we include it, why wouldn’t we also include then the other parts of Goliath’s armor (or weapons) such as the “target of brass between his shoulders”, or “the staff of his spear”, etc. in the armor of God as well?
Although, this is really a very minor point, most people in the LHMM take it as fact without questioning. This shows the significance they place on Johnson for interpretation of Scripture. When this question was posed at a convention it was defended as true without reasoning.
In Epiphany volume 9, The Parousia Messenger, Chapter 9 (see page 561, etc.), we read of a type concerning David and Goliath. Here it is suggested by Johnson that David is a type of Pastor Russell and Goliath is a type of evolution. Today we see evolution deeply affecting the thinking of almost everyone, even Christians that may think they are free from it. (See www.answersingenesis.com for some good defenses against evolutionary thinking.) In the type David destroyed Goliath.
How can we say this type is accurate if, in the antitype, Pastor Russell only argued against evolution and didn’t destroy it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
If you check Isaiah 59, I believe vs. 17, you will see JEhovah added a seventh part here... not the greaves,... but the cloak of zeal, mentioned in connection with the helmet of salvation and breastplate of righteousness..etc
I wonder if that was alright?
Then that means Johnson was wrong? Johnson stated that you and I do not have the right to interpret the Scriptures. You are not a "Star Member" or the "mouthpiece of the Lord". What gives you the right to figure that out?
If Johnson was wrong, then he's fallible and then there is little reason to believe much of what he said because so much of what he wrote on NOT reasonable conclusions one would draw from a proper reading of Scripture and good Biblical Hermeneutics.
What did I figure out here? I read the Bible to you. If bro Johnson was wrong then he's fallible? Or course, and it is not all that difficult to find places where he was wrong. You insist that we insist that he was never wrong? No wonder you left.
Post a Comment