Comment by Apollos on 2012-07-09 21:55:04

Until the master arrives is it really possible to label the slave as either "faithful and discreet" or "evil"? It is a strange turn of phrase to talk about him being "faithful and discreet" and then continue by referring to "that evil slave" as if talking of the same person. However if the slave in the parable is simply one who has the potential to be either then the question cannot be finally answered until the master's arrival, and the judgement will be his, not ours. Therefore, at the risk of spinning your article in another direction, in my opinion the first question to be addressed is whether the master has yet arrived in the context of this passage.
Apollos

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-07-09 23:03:07

  No risk at all. This is one of the directions I had hoped the discussion would go. We claim the Master arrived in 1914, but didn't turn his attention to the slave until 1918. I'm not sure of the justification for this four-year delay, but that isn't critical at this point. The real point is if the Master arrived at that time, then both the faithful slave and the evil slave have been judged. That implies the faithful slave can do no wrong. It's fate was sealed almost 100 years ago. It judgment is an historical event. Does that make sense?
  In addition, we only came to our current understanding of the slave's role in 1925 under Rutherford. It seems odd that Jesus would appoint the slave over all his belongings with the commensurate responsibilities and duties that entrails in 1918, but not let them know of their appointment until 7 years later.

Comment by Apollos on 2012-07-10 00:54:21

Well then we would simply need to examine Rutherford's scriptural evidence for the claim. Personally I have never gotten to grips with it, and so have had to relegate it's level of importance within my own framework of understanding. I would be keen to take another look if someone can provide the necessary explanation.
The problem is now that you and I don't seem to be in any disagreement, which in itself is fine, but it puts our discussion at risk of sounding like one of those convention parts "Questions About xyz" to make a predetermined point.
Someone needs to step into the breach to defend on this one. Outside of that I'll just agree with the implications of your last reply.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-07-10 15:55:03

  If you look at Luke 12:41-48 there appear to be four categories of slave or steward.
  1. The faithful one.
  2. The evil one who is assigned to the unfaithful ones.
  3. The one who understood, but didn't get ready and receives many strokes.
  4. The one who didn't understand and therefore only gets a few strokes.
  We say the faithful one refers to a class of humans, specifically, the anointed. Therefore, the other three must also be classes of humans. Who are they? More important, where do numbers 3 and 4 fit in? They aren't assigned to the unfaithful ones, who go off into destruction. When a slave is bad, you whip him so that he learns and behaves next time. So which one gets many strokes and what happens to him. And the one who gets few strokes, where is he and how is he differentiated from the others?
  This gets very confusing if we consider these are all classes of individuals.
  We refer to the first verses of the parable repeatedly in our publications to shore up the authority of the governing body, but we ignore the remaining verses for the most part. Yet they are all part of the same parable.

  • Reply by hezekiah1 on 2012-07-10 22:26:32

    Thanks Meleti for this post. I did some research in the WT library about slave 3 and 4. There was only one reference I could find in the Insight book under the heading "Beating", it said: Jesus went on then to show that one who has greater responsibility and fails to take care of it is more reprehensible than one who does not know or understand his duties so well. Such a one’s punishment, the number of “strokes,” would be proportionate to his responsibility.—Lu 12:47, 48.
    I thought the explanation of "beating" seemed reasonable, however it leaves many question regarding the slaves 3 and 4.
    Who are these slaves? How would you identify them? What is it they do specifically that is deserving of strokes (action or inaction?)? It also leaves unanswered the questions you asked in your post.
    I think most important is when will they be revealed? If it is when the Master arrives, would that not be a future event since we do not know who they are now? Wouldn't the Master reveal all four at the same time, instead of just two, and then wait decades to reveal the other two?
    However if the Master's coming is still a future event, this will lead to another question. Who really is the faithful slave today?
    I'm sure this will be a interesting discussion going forward.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-07-11 12:35:18

      Thanks hezekiah1 and welcome to the discussion and forum.
      Your point taken from what the Insight book says on the subject of "Beating" does indeed complicate the fulfillment of this parable from our official point of view. If the Slave is a class and the judgment of the slave is on a class level, then the same must be true for the two slaves that are given strokes. Two classes are beaten; one many times and one few. However, we teach that the faithful slave gets the reward of everlasting life and the evil slave of everlasting destruction. What then of the slave of many strokes and the slave of few. Death is death. It is absolute, not relative as in getting more strokes or getting fewer. The strokes do not seem to relate to a judgment of death. So as you put it, who are these slaves and what does their punishment represent.
      There is another question. Mt. 24:45 does not tell us who the slave is, only that he is appointed over the Master's domestics. That means all four types of slave are appointed over the Master's domestics, but only one is found to be faithful upon the Master's arrival. The basis for judgment is how each slave has performed his appointed duties, i.e., feeding the domestics. Now the only ones the Master appointed were his followers. These went apostate for the most part, but some retained the truth. It would follow then that all those who follow the Christ, that is, all who claim to be Christian, must make up the collective. Does that mean all individuals in all Christian religions, or only those who are charged to oversee the flock?
      John 21:15-17 and James 3:1 seem to indicate that those who feed the flock are a subgroup within the congregation. So it could be argued that the slave in question--whether a class or individuals within a class--represents those appointed to feed and teach the flock of Christ.
      Finally, your thought about the arrival of the Master being a future event tallies with the context of the parable. Look at Mt. 24:44. This certainly seems to be referring to Jesus' arrival at the end. This verse immediately precedes the parable. There is no indication he is talking about two distinct arrivals. If the arrival mentioned in vs. 44 refers to his invisible coronation as King, then the rest of the verse is nonsensical. Why bother proving themselves ready? All the anointed alive today were not around in 1914 to be judged as a class. Are they now home-free, because the Master judged their predecessors as a class? Do they not have to worry about what they do collectively, because the judgment of the slave took place almost a century ago? That seems to be really stretch one's credulity. Additionally, was some class of individuals--the evil slave--punished with the greatest severity at the start of the 20th century. Were there two other classes of individuals that were somehow beaten with strokes of some kind after 1914? Where is the historical evidence that such events took place. Surely if it were there, we'd be all over it in our publications.
      The preceding verse (Mt. 24:43) refers to the illustration of Jesus' coming as a the thief. This same illustration is used at Luke 12:39, 1 Thess. 5:2, 2 Pet. 3:10, Rev. 3:3, and Rev. 16:15. None of these verses points to an invisible arrival a century or more before the Great Tribulation. Of those five verses where the meaning of the arrival can be drawn directly from the wording itself, it points to the time of the end.
      From this, I would have to accept your conclusion that the arrival is a future event and the various slaves are yet to be judged. I would postulate that since the judgment starts with the house of God (1 Pet. 4:17) the time of judgment being referred to in the parable of the slave would be that pertaining to the great tribulation, i.e., the destruction of Babylon the great, and not that pertaining to Armageddon.

  • Reply by Apollos on 2012-07-11 01:05:04

    Interpreting the slaves as classes seems to inconsistent both internally and when measured against Jesus' general use of slaves in parables.
    For example take the ten slaves entrusted with varying numbers of minas (Luke 19). We do not try to say that each slave represents a "class" in the sense that they equate to a named group today. Rather each Christian has the opportunity to fit into one of the categories portrayed, and skilfully by using just three characters plus the king, Jesus covers the gamut.
    In the case of the unmerciful slave in Matthew 18 we would not try to say that it applies to a class of people, but again it becomes a simple way for each of us to examine how we are measuring up.
    Turning to the faithful and discreet slave, there is an appointment made by the master to care for the domestics during his absence. If found to be doing so the slave receives a greater appointment on the master's return. First of all, it's pretty evident that the appointment over all the belongings is yet future at the coming of Christ. If someone wants to argue against that and to claim multiple arrivals and comings and goings then maybe it's better to deal with that in a separate post. That having been said, it doesn't leave the slave without an appointment in the present day, because that was made for the entire period of the master's absence, and the duty to look after the domestics must therefore currently still be in effect. Previously I had reconciled the whole picture in my mind based on that framework i.e. the governing body are fulfilling that role and awaiting (along with all the anointed) the appointment over all the belongings at the marriage of the lamb and the start of the Kingdom rule.
    However, I am encountering some issues with this as a result of the present discussion. If the slave is being judged on the basis of the fulfillment of the feeding assignment, then where does that leave the 99% of the anointed who have no option to take part in this? The scripture clearly says "if his master finds him doing so". The obvious counter to that is that of course other anointed Christians do not sit idle. They do their best to proclaim the word of God and attract others to the spiritual food. However, if we take this line then the assignment suddenly encompasses any form of spreading the gospel, as long as the message is absolutely based on the truth in the Bible. This would be more consistent with Jesus' other parables. All Christians have the commission and the potential to spread the good news.
    Now as per the aforementioned parable of the minas, this would not water down the parable of Matt 24 as just applying to all Christians to the same degree. Clearly some have been entrusted with more assets and a greater capability to fulfill this role.
    Jas. 3:1 - Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we shall receive a heavier judgement.
    With this in mind the governing body most certainly must be involved, since they have openly taken the role upon themselves. In their particular case they may turn out to be the slave that turned one mina into ten. But likewise perhaps any who have the capability to fulfill the Christian commission to spread the good news (provided what they are teaching is true) has the potential to equate to one of the slaves in the parable of Matt 24 and be judged accordingly.
    Interestingly, if we were to proceed with this reasoning, then as long as we maintain certain currently accepted beliefs, the conclusion would appear in a practical sense to amount to the same as our official understanding. If we accept 1) that a limited number of Christians are anointed and thus have been given this commission and 2) only JW's have scriptural truth, then all anointed Christians who remain faithful would finally be the ones judged as having been faithful and discreet slaves, and the governing body would have taken the lead in dispensing the food. The timing of the final appointment over all the belongings would be future, but as I said earlier I see that as a given anyway.

Comment by Apollos on 2012-07-10 11:27:40

It's quite a challenge to analyse why 1918 became a special date, but note these extracts from The Finished Mystery published in that year (formatting may not be perfect as extracted from PDFs of old document):
The data presented in comments on Rev. 2:1 prove that the conquest of Judea was not completed until the day of the Passover, A. D. 73, and in the light of the foregoing Scriptures, suggest that the Spring of 1918 will bring upon Christendom a spasm of anguish greater even than that experienced in the Fall of 1914. Reexamine the table of the Parallel Dispensations in STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, Vol. 2, pages 246 and 247; change the 37 to 40, 70 to 73 and 1914 to 1918, and we believe it is correct and will be fulfilled ?with great power and glory.? (pg 62)
The awakening of the sleeping saints, A, D. 1878, was just half way(three and one?half years each way) between the beginning of the Times of Restitution in 1874 and the close of the High Calling in 1881. Our proposition is that the glorification of the Little Flock in the Spring of 1918 A. D. will be half way (three and one?half years each way) between the close of the Gentile Times and the close of the Heavenly Way, A. D. 1921. The three days? (three years — 1918?1921) fruitless search for Elijah (2 Kings 2:17?18) is a confirmation of this view (pg 64)
there is evidence that the establishment of the Kingdom in Palestine will probably be in 1925, ten years later than we once calculated. The 70 jubilees, reckoned as 50 years each, expire October, 1925. (B186.) Gen. 15:1?16:3, read connectedly, indicates that Abraham?s vision as to when he would receive the Kingdom was not granted until ten years after the Covenant was made, or 2035 B. C. The ages of the animals offered aggregated eleven years, which, applied prophetically, on the scale of a year for a day, equal 3960 years, the length of time from the date of the visions to A. D. 1925 (Z.?07?79). It seems conclusive that the hour of Nominal Zion?s travail is fixed for the Passover of 1918. (See Rev. 3:14.) That will be 7 years prior to 1925. At that time there is every reason to believe the fallen angels will invade the minds of many of the Nominal Church people, driving them to exceedingly unwise conduct and leading to their destruction at the hands of the enraged masses, who will later be dragged to the same fate. (pg 128)
A letter from one of the Bethel workers, written shortly after Pastor Russell?s death, says: ?About three months ago I asked several questions at the table, the last one being as follows, ?Since I now see that the Jewish Time of Trouble did not end until the year 73 A. D., as I fully proved to myself by consulting the historians, what then are we to expect in the parallel year 1918?? Brother Russell put the question to three prominent brethren, all of whom replied that they did not know, but were willing to wait and see. When he called upon me I said, ?Since the year 73 A. D. saw the complete overthrow of nominal Natural Israel in Palestine, so in the parallel year 1918, I infer we should look for the complete overthrow of nominal Spiritual Israel; i. e., the fall of Babylon. (Rev. 18.) Brother Russell replied: ?Exactly. That is exactly the inference to draw.?? (pg129)
In comments on Rev. 3:14, reasons are given for anticipating the deliverance of the Little Flock about Passover, 1918. There we noted the Lord?s use of the half?week principle. In this prophecy, we have the same principle. The French Revolution is Divinely provided as a picture of events now at hand, and we therefore expect three and a half years of proscription of the Truth, from the spring of 1918 to the fall of 1921. (pg 177)
The shaving of the beard was part of the ceremonial treatment of a leper (Lev. 14:8, 9), and signifies that after 1918 Christendom will be treated by outraged Justice as a moral leper, unclean with incurable iniquity, the perverseness, which, in the face of continual preaching of the Gospel, led up to the recent wars. (pg 398)
After 1918 the people supporting churchianity will cease to be its supporters, be destroyed as adherents, by the spiritual pestilence of errors abroad, and by the famine of the Word of God among them. The Sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17), which is the Word of God, will be wielded in the hands of ?Present Truth? believers in such a manner as to cause conscientious supporters of ecclesiasticism to cease to be supporters. (pg 399)
The year 1918, with its fearful revolutions, and succeeding anarchy, is at the door. (pg 405)
It was in the fall of 1916 — a year and six months before the city was to be smitten in the spring of 1918 — that the forces of laborism, revolution and anarchy, began to assert themselves against the established order of things in Christendom — the siege of the city began. (pg 481)
Also, in the year 1918, when God begins to destroy the churches and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of ?Christianity.? (pg 485)
As the fleshly?minded apostates from Christianity, siding with the radicals and revolutionaries, will rejoice at the inheritance of desolation that will be Christendom?s after 1918, so will God do to the successful revolutionary movement; it shall be utterly desolated, ?even all of it.? Not one vestige of it shall survive the ravages of world?wide all?embracing anarchy, in the end of the time of trouble (pg 542)
I could go on, but that's probably sufficient to make the point. In many ways the failure of the predictions surrounding 1918 was greater than that in 1914. So it would seem that the same tactic was applied - claim it all occurred but invisibly.
That essentially appears to be the foundation for our current belief about the appointment in 1918.
I will also add this small extract from a commentary on Revelation around the same time (no explanation required.):
Unto the churches: Unto the seven epochs, ending respectively in A. D. 73, 325, 1160, 1378, 1518, 1874 and 1918. (The Revelation of Jesus Christ)

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-07-10 15:44:15

  
  About the Master’s Arrival
  In recent years I’ve become increasingly impressed by the absolute truthfulness of the Bible. That may seem a remarkable statement, because we hold the Bible to be the word of God, so why wouldn’t I have always felt that way. The fact is—and we all do this—I would read a Bible principle and accept it as true in the broad sense, but I would immediately, and largely subconsciously, start making up exceptions.
  For example,
  “Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.” (Ps. 146:3) I acknowledged that to be true, but of course, that didn’t apply if the earthling man in question was divinely appointed to a high office in the organization.
  This is just one example. They are too numerous to mention here, and besides, that would take us off topic. Suffice it to say that I’ve learned the hard way that making exceptions to the application of Bible principles will always get you in trouble. When Jehovah says not to do something, then don’t do it. There are no caveats; no exceptions.
  Take the divine injunction found at Acts 1:7, ““It does not belong to YOU to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction”. When I raised this point with a friend while discussing 1914, he countered with the thought that it was up to Jehovah to determine when it would be placed in our jurisdiction. His feeling was that just prior to 1914, Jehovah must have intended for us to understand the significance of that year.
  The sheer weight of speculative numerology listed in your comment, Apollos, from Studies in the Scriptures shows how completely that principle was ignored prior to 1914. I can also see where brother Franz got his penchant for prophetic antitypes which dominated so much of our theology prior to 1990.
  What is interesting is that this whole theology made sense to a lot of studious and intelligent men. This is the seduction of numerology. It is remarkable how numbers can be used to signify great things when in fact, they end up meaning nothing.
  I’m sure the references to 1925 in these excerpts were part of the structure that led us to believe the ‘ancient worthies’ were going to be resurrected in that year. We even went to the expense of building a house for them.
  How foolish we are made to look when we ignore a Scriptural injunction. The failure of all these calculations just lends weight to the argument that no exception was made for the modern-day congregation with regard to the application of Acts 1:7. It still does not belong for us to know the times and season which Jehovah has placed in his own jurisdiction. So why do we insist on continuing to try. Do we think the next time it will work for us?
  We are not even consistent within our own interpretation. We believe the Master arrived in 1914, but if that’s so, then that’s when he appoints the Faithful Steward over all His belongings. Yet, we say that didn’t happen until 1918. And of course, we have no visible proof that this even happened then.
  We have such an abysmal record with regard to forecasting dates. Can we prove any of the last holdouts are true? 1914, 1918, 1919, 1922 are all significant in our theology, but there is no visible proof for any of them. The fact the First World War started in 1914 doesn’t prove Christ was enthroned in heaven that year.

  • Reply by Apollos on 2012-07-11 20:06:10

    Actually technically the "arrival" in this context was supposed to happen in 1918/19.
    All of the Bible's references to the arrival of the Lord can be perfectly understood to occur once only in order to commence his presence which is yet future. The mere fact that we have to have so many arrivals to make our theology fit should be enough to have us wondering why the emperor left his clothes at home this morning.
    Occam's razor anyone?

Comment by junachin on 2012-07-11 23:07:43

*** w88 10/1 p. 9 Keep Ready! ***
Continuing the illustration, Jesus points to the possibility that not all members of that steward, or slave, class will be loyal, explaining: “If ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and should start to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him . . . , and he will punish him with the greatest severity.”
How adroitly we make "that slave" mean "the slave class" in one verse and individual 'members of that slave class' in the next. That alone should let us know that something's amiss. I agree that these passages are probably referring to future events, whatever they may be.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-07-11 23:44:56

  Very good point. I had completely missed that inconsistency.

Comment by A First Century Governing Body – Examining the Scriptural Basis « Beroean Pickets on 2012-07-18 12:16:54

[...] The identification of the Faithful and Discreet Slave class has been discussed extensively under Meleti’s earlier article, and in the current context is really a moot point since in the capacity as God’s channel and [...]

Comment by The Faithful Steward – in Summation « Beroean Pickets on 2012-08-23 15:20:09

[...] a previous post, several of the forum members provided valuable insights on this subject.  Before moving on to [...]

Comment by Steve on 2012-12-04 22:19:10

In Luke 12 we must consider that Jesus was answering Peter's question concerning whether he spoke to his immediate group of disciples or all there present (I.e the "little flock" vs the "multitude."). The issue in view was being ready for Christ's return. Jesus' answer to Peter's question with this question would seem to imply the one who he was telling to be ready would be the faithful slave, which is to say any faithful individual is such a slave.
The various slaves simply reflects that there would be Christians, both faithful and unfaithful, who would act in various ways.
Considering the account in Matthew we reach a similar conclusion. The context immediately prior and then into chapter 25 provides parables showing the importance of being ready for his return. What is presented is a parable in illustration of the urgent need to be ready for his return.

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-12-04 23:32:35

Well put. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Comment by Robert on 2019-09-20 04:35:51

As you alluded to in another post that the 2nd coming of Christ is yet future, that being the case? the Master has not yet arrived to make an inspection of his household, there fore the faithful slave has not yet been appointed over all the masters belongings. So would it not mean then; that neither the faithful slave nor the evil have been identified?

Comment by Kyriakos on 2022-03-28 21:25:04

I think this article has aged poorly... Sorry! I just relatively recently discovered this website.. it's been only a few months since I "woke up".. the Matthew 24 series were mind blowing... Good work