Treasures from Gods Word – Are You Serving Jehovah Continually?
Daniel 6:7-10 : Daniel risked his life in order to serve Jehovah continually. (w06 11/1 24 para 12)
Once again we see the non-scriptural splitting of the Christian congregation into two parts. It quotes Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:4 as proof. However these scriptures both mention ‘holy’ ones from Greek ‘hagion’ which means ‘different’ or ‘set apart’. All true Christians should be ‘different’ from the world, and are ‘set apart’ because God drew them, hence they are all holy in this sense. (John 6:44).
Daniel 6:16,20 : King Darius noted Daniel’s close relationship with Jehovah (w03 9/15 15 para 2)
The reference cites Daniel 9:20-23 which shows that Daniel was someone whom Jehovah viewed as ‘very desirable’ and ‘a man greatly loved’. The Hebrew word is ‘ha’mu’do’wt [Strongs Hebrew 2550] and means ‘greatly beloved’, from ‘to desire’, ‘take pleasure in’.
According to the Organization’s teachings, this faithful Hebrew though specifically mentioned as ‘very desirable’ by God, will not be one of the earth’s new rulers in the new system of things. Yet, according to the Organization, men such as the current Governing Body will be rulers of that new earth. It follows that these ones are more desirable to God than Daniel. Ezekiel 14:20, also in the reference, talks of Daniel being righteous. He was an ethical man. Would misleading the Lord’s flock be righteous or ethical?
The video from the CLAM meeting for the week 11th-17th September entitled ‘Organizational Accomplishments’ was presented in a misleading way. How so? In that to a non-technical audience they could easily get the impression that providing facilities for ‘remote working’, ‘mobile email’, ‘single sign on’, ‘single domain’ were technologies developed by the organization itself (after permission from the governing body!) to streamline and unify the computer work done and were unique to the organization. There is no mention that they have used new technologies available from outside the organization to facilitate these enhancements. Those who work secularly, particularly in larger firms, but even in many small firms will know that these facilities are commonplace, and treated as necessities rather than something exceptional. Is broadcasting such misrepresentation or ‘alternative facts’ ethical? There are many similar glossy misrepresentations which we could provide. We will let the reader decide.
Daniel 4:10-11, 20-22 : What did the immense tree in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream represent? (w07 9/1 18 para 5)
The second sentence of the reference claims ‘since the rulership extended “to the extremity of the earth,” however, the tree must signify something far grander.’ Why? When we read the whole of Daniel chapter four we see that the dream emphasized to Nebuchadnezzar that he was king only by permission of Jehovah God. Why the need to ‘signify something far grander’? At this time the Neo-Babylonian Empire stretched to close to the known ends of the earth. It was all powerful, therefore ‘to the extremity of the earth’ was a good summary of the situation. This understanding is confirmed in Daniel 4:22 where Daniel states that Nebuchadnezzar’s rulership went ‘to the extremity of the earth’. Where does the link to Jehovah’s sovereignty come? In Daniel 4:17,32 , these events were occurring , ‘to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is ruler in the kingdom of mankind, and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it’. So, there is no scriptural or logical need for this dream to ‘signify something far grander’ nor to have ‘two fulfillments’.
We also need to ask, if indeed this dream does have two fulfillments, why would Jehovah use the example of a sinful, proud pagan King whom he was about to punish, to represent his own sovereignty? That does not make any sense. Additionally, when did Jehovah punish himself and his sovereignty over mankind? And why? Or is it once again, putting a type/anti-type where the organization wants one, rather than where one exists scripturally? Why would Jehovah’s sovereignty require being taught a lesson that Jehovah is the supreme ruler and other rulers only rule by his permission? Of course the very thought is ridiculous. So once again, we find yet another antitype that does not stand up to scrutiny. There is only one fulfillment that is valid scripturally and that is the one shown clearly in Daniel 4:24 to be applying to Nebuchadnezzar according to Daniel’s own words.
Daniel 5:2,3 gives evidence that the Book of Daniel was written contemporaneously to the events described and at the location where the events took place. A quote from The Pulpit Commentary (by no means the only source) on these verses says ‘the presence of women at Babylonian feasts was not so uncommon as it was in the rest of the East, as we learn from the Ninevite remains. Certainly Quintus Curtius mentions this in connection with Alexander’s visit to Babylon (v. 1). But was an obscure Jew likely to know this in Palestine? It is very difficult for a person writing in a different age to keep strictly to verisimilitude in these matters.’
Daniel 5:25-28: How did Daniel arrive at the interpretation recorded of Mene, Mene, Tekel and Parsin?
Mene comes from the verb menah (Hebrew manah; Babylonian manu). ‘Manah’ [Strongs Hebrew 4487] means to count, reckon, number, assign, tell, appoint, prepare.
Teqel, comes from two roots: the first, teqal, “to weigh,” and the second, qal, “to be light or wanting” (Hebrew qalal; Babylonian qalalu).
Perec (or parcin) also comes from two roots: first, perac, “to divide” (Hebrew paras or parash; Babylonian parasu), and the second as denoting the proper name Parac, “Persia.”
Using these meanings, Daniel’s interpretation makes good sense and is fully justified by the context and by the language employed. If the original text was in Babylonian, the signs were ambiguous; if they were in Aramaic, the consonants alone were written, and hence, the reading would be doubtful. In either case, the inscription was apparent but not readable, except by Daniel with the aid of God. Daniel’s interpretation was accepted by Belshazzar and the rest of the account shows that the interpretation of the signs was reasonable and convincing when once it had been made.
Train Them to Serve Jehovah Continually
This item is all about preaching, as if preaching is what will keep someone serving Jehovah.
- It ignores developing Christian qualities and a love of God and of what is right.
- It ignores encouraging the student to develop a better knowledge of the Bible by personal Bible study and meditation thereon.
- It ignores building a relationship with Jehovah as their father, and a relationship with Christ as their mediator and means of salvation.
All these are vital if someone is to serve Jehovah and Jesus Christ continually. However, it seems the organization believes the only way to ensure someone serves Jehovah is by getting them into a routine, by regularly knocking on the doors of empty homes, and being effective in placing literature.
Congregation Book Study (kr chap. 18 para 9-20)
‘Governing body, he speak with forked tongue!’ He say ‘we do not need to be coerced into giving.’ Then he say ‘Why are we so willing to give?’ – prod, prod, prod.
If ‘we do not need to be coerced into giving’ then why discuss the subject anymore?
Paragraph 10: ‘A true Christian is not a reluctant or forced giver. Rather he gives because he has ‘resolved in his heart’ to do so. [So far so good.] That is, he gives after he has considered a need and how he can fill it.’ Surely, it should be ‘whether he can fill or part-fill it’. The way the paragraph reads it is obliging the reader to fill any need they find in the finances of the organization rather than contributing if they want to and if they are able to. Their statement is a complete corruption of the intent of 2 Corinthians 9:7. They are also making the organization synonymous with God, a very dangerous precedent, when they say ‘we make voluntary contributions because we love Jehovah’ because the contributions go to the organization not Jehovah.
Paragraph 11: Once again a misapplication of a scripture. This time the kr book cites 2nd Corinthians 8:12-15 to support giving to Jehovah [they really mean the organization] according to how we appreciate our blessings. Yet the scripture is talking about directly giving material things to fellow brothers in need, not to an organization, and to fellow brothers that were suffering hardship due to famine and hard economic times, not a property rich organization masquerading as a charitable organization.
Paragraph 12 again shows the complete bias in favour of preaching. It implies we cannot love Jesus Christ unless we do ‘all [bold ours] within our power’ to use all ‘our time, energy and material resources to promote the Kingdom-preaching work’.
Yet ‘Jesus’ “word”’ for us to follow included far more than just preaching. What about Matthew 6:2-4? Why are they not promoting gifts of mercy? Could it be that most Witnesses are of little means, so if they were to engage in charitable works, there might be little left over for the organization.
Paragraph 16 confirms that the organization reminds us or prods us through an annual Watchtower article how to donate to the organization. Why not replace the yearly article with a short note to say ‘Those who wish to support the organization in some way can contact the treasury department of the local Bethel to obtain further details’.? If Jehovah is truly blessing their work, this would be a good test to confirm that.
Where do our donations go? You will notice that only one small part of the many destinations could be considered charitable, that of Disaster Relief. We will analyse the reality of that work when it is covered in a future CLAM. Suffice to say at this stage that this is only a very small part of the expenditure, and that unlike the congregation accounts report, and the circuit assembly accounts report (which seem to be always in deficit!), the organization does not publish an accounts report for its global, branch, or country financial activity, including regional conventions. Why not?