144,000 & The Great Multitude

[Dr. Shane]

Rev. 7

2. And I saw another angel ascend from the sunrising, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a great voice to the four angels to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

3. saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we shall have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.

4. And I heard the number of them that were sealed, a hundred and forty and four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel:

5. Of the tribe of Judah were sealed twelve thousand: Of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand; Of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand;

9. After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands;

10. and they cry with a great voice, saying, Salvation unto our God who sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb.

11. And all the angels were standing round about the throne, and about the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

12. saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honor, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

13. And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, These that are arrayed in white robes, who are they, and whence came they?

14. And I say unto him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

15. Therefore are they before the throne of God; and they serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them.

[:"blue"] Are the 144,000 and the great multitude the same group of people? [/]

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

[:"blue"] Are the 144,000 and the great multitude the same group of people? [/]

---

I did an informal research project on that some years ago, and came to the conclusion that they are indeed the same group of people. First, the prophet hears the number of those who are sealed. Then, he sees the group. We keep in mind that the verse and chapter divisions were not in the original.

The reason for my research project was a statement made by someone in a church, that while he didn't expect to be in the 144,000, he felt he would be in the great multitude. That is a false hope. There is only one standard, and one description, of those who will be living when Jesus comes, and be saved in His kingdom. That description is found in Rev. 14:1 - 6. Anyone who does not meet that description, and is alive when Jesus comes, will not go to heaven.

Regards, Dave

[jasd]

An adversarial point of view may be of interest…:

>>4. And I heard the number of them that were sealed, [:"red"]a hundred and forty and four thousand[/], sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel:

…

9. After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which [:"red"]no man could number[/], out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues,<< [ed.]

Now, it may be said that there are those of the sons of Israel in every nation, tribes, peoples, and tongues…; however, I would forward that the 144,000 and the great multitude are not one and the same, as most any man, would be able to number a hundred and forty and four thousand; whereas, he may not be able to number a great multitude.

(then again, the OT injunction against numbering peoples may carry over in this instance... though highly doubtful, as we've seen the 144,000 numbered; though, in fairness, not by man)

>>…that while he didn't expect to be in the 144,000, he felt he would be in the great multitude.<<

In that the text reads in an absolute sense, that is, each of the 144,000 is a member (and no other need apply) of the posterity of Jacob/Israel, and insomuch that that “someone in a church” may not have been a son of Jacob/Israel through descent (adopted seed of Abraham, notwithstanding) and therefore… not “sealed”, as such, he may have had sufficient reason to believe he was not of the 144,000.

>>There is only one standard, and one description, of those who will be living when Jesus comes, … That description is found in Rev. 14:1 - 6.<<

The text places the 144,000 “on the mount Sion”, singing a “new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders:” – much before the culmination of earth’s final hours, and before the advent of “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; …" Revelation 19:11

The great multitude…

Rev 7:15. … are they before the throne of God; and they serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them.

In contrast, the 144,000…

Rev 14:4 … These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.

[Ron Lambert]

I agree that the 144,000 is the same as the Great Multitude. The former is a figurative description; the latter is who they are literally, given in explanation of the former. Revelation commonly answers logically anticipated questions in this way. Who are the 144,000? The Great Multitude is described in answer to this natural, expected question.

I find it amusing that those who insist that 144,000 is a literal number, invariably balk at being consistent and also claiming that the 12,000 from each tribe are literal. Those are admitted to be figurative descriptions, perhaps based on character. But since these twelve groups of 12,000 from each of the tribes of Israel are presented as components of the 144,000, it seems to me that if one is figurative, so must the other be.

[archierieus]

Tagging onto Ron's post . . .

Certainly much of the confusion surrounding the 144,000, existing in some circles, arises from the belief that their description is literal . . . that is, men, virgins, Jews. I do not understand that to be literal. Revelation is a symbolic book. "Virgins" would refer to purity of doctrine and religious practice. "Women" in this passage would be the daughters of the harlot mother, the false churches. "Jews" is a reference to spiritual Israel, which Paul makes clear in Romans and Galatians. WE are part of 'spiritual Israel.'

The alternative would be somewhat grim: no women would have a chance at being part of that group; indeed, women 'defile,' if it is to be taken literally. And, no married man would have a chance, either. However, each of those items is contrary to Scripture. (Unless one accepts the authority of the 'Gospel According to Thomas', which states that in order to be saved, a woman must become a man!) And, of course, those of us who are Gentiles (most Christians) are out of the running. And so forth. Rather amusing, I would say.

Regards, Dave

[Nicodema]

I'm familiar with our usual SDA interpretations of the language describing the 144k. But Dave or Ron or anyone, could you offer some solid biblical texts to back up these interpretations? I'm a bit rusty & could do with the refresher. Thanks.

[Ron Lambert]

This is one of many cases where the Bible does not spell things out explicitly. We are often expected to make logical deductions based on the information given. God challenges us this way to help improve our minds and encourage us to learn to weigh things with wisdom and discernment. If God gave us everything on a silver platter, we would not grow. "The entrance and unfolding of Your words give light; their unfolding gives understanding (discernment and comprehension) to the simple." (Psalms 119:130; Amplified Bible)

[Nicodema]

Still, I know there are verses in scripture that establish the use of these prophetic symbols as such. I just cannot recall where they are.

[Dr. Shane]

How about this? Israel is actually symbolic of the Seventh-day Adventist church. The twelve tribes are actually symbolic of the SDA world divisions (I know there are actually 13) And the great multitude includes some lucky believers from the daughters of the harlot mother... well maybe even some believrs from the harlot herself.

[jasd]

>>The former is a figurative description; the latter is who they are literally, given in explanation of the former.<<

Without offense, that appears to be whole cloth in search of a purse. There is no exposition for that position.

>>Revelation commonly answers logically anticipated questions in this way. Who are the 144,000? The Great Multitude is described in answer to this natural, expected question.<<

Forget logically whatever for the moment… how does text read? The text reads,

Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. v5 Of the tribe of Juda [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad [were] sealed twelve thousand. {and so on…}

And, the other text reads,

Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number,

Why can no man number this lot? The inference would be that it truly was a great multitude – that no man could number… (equivocating exceptions noted)

It takes neither mathematical genius nor logic to read that which is written straightforwardly; and lacking a subtext elsewhere to indicate symbolic, figurative, analogous, euphemistic, or any other lacking indicator – the text demands to be read without the adding-to or taking-away of eisegesis (I should talk ).

Though the following query does not disallow symbolism in Revelation… where is the authoritative text in Writ to impose ‘symbolism’ upon that which argues for a straightforward read – namely, the text under discussion?

>>I find it amusing…<<

Gotta love the jollity one encounters …these boards

>>…that those who insist that 144,000 is a literal number,<<

Whazamatter? don’t take a whole lot o’ math to know that 144,000 is a literal number

>>…invariably balk at being consistent and also claiming that the 12,000 from each tribe are literal.<<

I’m s’posing you’re acquainted with those that balk or who do not claim “12,000 from each tribe are literal” but is rather a euphemism for psychological esoterica or t’other; however, would that also include those not of your acquaintance? As for me and my house,

we’re not balking, we’re consistent in claiming that when Gd says “12,000 from each tribe”, He means 12,000 from every tribe of the COI, as delineated --and He oughta know; else He would provide a rational construct to the contrary.

>>Those are admitted to be figurative descriptions,<<

Now, is that willowy or is that insubstantial?

>>…perhaps based on character.<<

Do I need ask for the construct? from Writ, please.

>>But since these twelve groups of 12,000 from each of the tribes of Israel are presented as components of the 144,000, it seems to me that if one is figurative, so must the other be.<<

Now, now… I have already cornered the market on “seems to…”. Enyway,

“if one is… so must…” whazat?

:proofed

[jasd]

>>Certainly much of the confusion surrounding the 144,000, existing in some circles, arises from the belief that their description is literal . . .<<

And there is that which testifies to its non-literalness?

>>that is, men, virgins, Jews.<<

St John, being shown, did not understand how to relate the term “men” for his readers? and virgins, men virgins…, there are those who practice celibacy and remain virgins until marrying – in practically every society. I gave up profligate hedonism on a dime when I first became aware of HIV; and had I been virginal before then I would have remained one. It is certain that Gd would have no difficulty finding 144,000 virgin men of the descendants of Jacob/Israel.

Jews: Revelation 7 speaks of more than “Jews”.

>>I do not understand that to be literal.<<

And, of course, you’ve seen that I disagree… taking the position that the text reads literally, and without the provided subtext indicating that it should not be read literally – then it cannot be otherwise.

>>Revelation is a symbolic book.<<

Revelation contains symbolic language. Were the seven churches symbolic?

>>"Virgins" would refer to purity of doctrine and religious practice.<<

Let me ask, how pure were the doctrines and religious practices of the priests and Temple services of the Second Temple period – in which Jesus participated? Remember,

the ark and its place of Shechinah, or resting place, for Gd’s presence -- had long been missing (6th century BC) from the Sanctum Sanctorum; yet, there remained Moses’ seat… what would that mean?

>>"Women" in this passage would be the daughters of the harlot mother, the false churches. "Jews" is a reference to spiritual Israel, which Paul makes clear in Romans and Galatians. WE are part of 'spiritual Israel.'<<

Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.

You’re doing what you’ve suggested Ron Lambert does, that is, reading into text that which is not there.

Gd covenanted with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, and their wives and mothers – before He covenanted at Sinai. Their posterity

exist today – outside of the Jewish commonwealth of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, and some add Reuben and Simeon. I suggest that shortly, due to the increasingly and accessible DNA testing for genetic markers - many will find themselves to be singularly of Joseph/Ephraim, as well as other tribal groups of the COI. Whether that is too imaginative or no,

it remains that Gd has already declared that He keeps track…

>>The alternative would be somewhat grim: no women would have a chance at being part of that group;<<

Well, aren’t there those of the .Org that already feel justified in excluding women from the pastoral “group”? and who find no dichotomy with that position? Justifiably,

there may, imo, be cause to gripe about the lack of women who follow Jesus here and there; and therein, may be found the symbolic mystery of the passage.

>>…indeed, women 'defile,' if it is to be taken literally.<<

Would it have been possible for St Paul or any other man, depending upon a oath made or a vow taken, not to mention having been sealed by the Living Gd -- to have been defiled by a woman… or by any number of causes? It may be inappropriate to apply

a clinical standard in this instance…

>>And, no married man would have a chance, either.<<

So, Gd has a few prerogatives…

>>However, each of those items is contrary to Scripture.<<

How so?

>>And, of course, those of us who are Gentiles (most Christians) are out of the running.<<

Why so? what if most Xtians are the bloodline descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel…? with most Xtians being of Joseph/Ephraim? So, how do

the following texts play in your book?

Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Sounds mostly like Xtians to me. Besides, isn’t it

enough to be saved without attempting to sit at the higher seats… presuming upon Christ and the Father?

>>And so forth. Rather amusing, I would say.<<

You would? You did

[jasd]

>>This is one of many cases where the Bible does not spell things out explicitly.<<

But it does; moreover, it does so without a suggestion that this passage has been intended symbolic. Unless, one knows

of a certainty that a passage (upon every evidence) presented straightforwardly should, indeed, be taken symbolically… it should be read in the manner it suggests itself –be read.

>>We are often expected to make logical deductions based on the information given.<<

Indeed.

>>God challenges us this way to help improve our minds and encourage us to learn to weigh things with wisdom and discernment.<<

The above assumes and implies two things…

/ that the text under discussion is one in which Gd has withheld its meaning from the simple, and

/ that those who gave us 3-5 different time-settings for the Second Advent, the nonTrinity’s evolution to the Trinity, the three or more lists of the ten horns, etc – is finally correct in this instance.

Caution encourages a 'sniff' test regards teachings taken to be foundational.

>>If God gave us everything on a silver platter, we would not grow.<<

jasd 12:12 There is a time and a season for all things under the sun, a time to cast away the old skins that held the wine of our youth; the old straw upon which we laid - lo, these many years; the garments and sandals of very age and shabby with satisfaction; v12 yea, e’en the old stories… for the times of refreshing are come - and come also is the time for gathering the new yield, heavy with ripeness and golden unto the gladness of our spirits… for dost not Gd provide and didst not the prophet Joel prophesy of these?

"The entrance and unfolding of Your words give light; their unfolding gives understanding (discernment and comprehension) to the simple." (Psalms 119:130; Amplified Bible)<<

Exactly, the “unfolding” or the opening of the leather-bound and red-letter Word (KJV, for instance) gives understanding – even to the most humble or the simplest among us.

:proofed

[Dr. Shane]

Does anyone else get the feeling that jasd has alrady made up his mind on this?

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

Still, I know there are verses in scripture that establish the use of these prophetic symbols as such. I just cannot recall where they are.

---

Yes, there are such verses. Firstly, in regard to 'women,' Paul describes Christ's church as a pure woman, in Eph. 5. God depicts the apostate church as a woman named Babylon, in Rev. 17, along with her harlot daughters, which would seem to indicate fallen churches, as well. Paul also identifies false teaching as defiling a church, in several places. ("pillar and ground of the truth," etc.) In regard to the female gender, does the Bible teach that women somehow defile? Not at all. God created man in His image, male and female. Often, women are more spiritually aware than men are. And, God depicts His church as a woman. Nothing defiling about women, clearly. Who are the ones who are not defiled with 'women' in Rev. 14? The Greek text simply says "hoi" which is a plural pronoun. True, it is masculine, but that alone does not limit the identity of the 144,000, to men. In those days, as is still the case sometimes today, mankind, including men and women, was referred to by the masculine. (Especially back then, in a patriarchal society!) Besides, the text does not specifically say, "androi," for example. Simply, "the ones." Finally, regarding the description of the 144,000 in ch. 7, from the 12 tribes. Okay, the Jews were given 490 years to make their final decision. They did, and their house was left desolate. Paul very clearly states, Romans 9 - 11, that the natural branches were broken off, and the Gentiles grafted in as the "true" Jews. Galatians speaks of the children of faith, as the true descendants of Abraham. Peter describes the Gentile converts who once were not a people, as now the people of God. ( 1 Pet. 2:9, 10)

Well, that's a start. I hope it is helpful.

Regards, Dave

[Clio]

From the Pen of EGW, and her take on speculation regarding the 144K

Quote:

---

The One Hundred and Forty-four Thousand

Christ says that there will be those in the church who will present fables and suppositions, when God has given grand, elevating, ennobling truths which should ever be kept in the treasure house of the mind. When men pick up this theory and that theory, when they are curious to know something it is not necessary for them to know, God is not leading them. It is not His plan that His people shall present something which they have to suppose, which is not taught in the Word. It is not His will that they shall get into controversy over questions which will not help them spiritually, such as, Who is to compose the hundred and forty-four thousand? This those who are the elect of God will in a short time know without question. {1SM 174.3}

[Ron Lambert]

Clio, thanks for the reminder. That statement by Ellen G. White is one I try to keep in mind whenever this topic comes up (after I sigh and think to myself, "Oh no, not again!).

I have to observe though that it seems to me that the ones who are always the most eager to enter into heated debate about this are the ones who are determined that the 144,000 has to be a literal number. For some reason, they seem very defensive about it. I had a Bible study group go south once because a very conservative church member who I allowed to join us got off on this subject, which turned out to be a "hobby horse" of hers. The non-SDAs and new SDAs in the group were really turned off by what they could clearly perceive was a fanatical spirit. Since then I have resolved to be very careful what church members I allow to join in a Bible study group for new people.

[Clio]

Spoiled milk will make you sick.

Spoiled meat will kill you.