One key change is that the appointment of the faithful and discreet slave over all the Master`s belongings did not occur in 1919, but is yet to happen. That will happen at Armageddon. This is a most welcome and gratifying change to our understanding, and anyone who is a regular visitor to this forum would not be surprised that we feel this way. (Click here for more details.)
A second new understanding we welcome is that the domestics are no longer restricted to the anointed, but now include all Christians.
Let us look at the other aspects of our new understanding to see what support there is for them in Scripture.
The slave was not appointed in 33 C.E.
The basis for this understanding is that Matthew 24:45-47 is part of the last days prophecy, so it must be fulfilled during the last days. If that is the only basis for this new take, than one might ask: How would you word the prophecy in the case where the slave was appointed in the first century and continued to feed the domestics down through the ages until the Master’s arrival referred to in verse 46? Could you not still express it exactly as it is written in Scripture? Of course you could, and indeed you would. Are we suggesting that if Jesus wanted to teach us that the slave would exist in the first century and continue existing right up to the last days, Matthew would have had to record this prophecy somewhere else in his book, outside of the context of the last days prophecy?
Another reason for rejecting 33 C.E. is that there was no clear channel for the distribution of the food in the middle ages. Wait a minute! Christianity never ceased to exist from its inception. Jehovah didn’t reject Christendom during the middle ages any more than he rejected his pre-Christian slave, Israel, despite their times of apostasy. If no food was being dispensed in those centuries, then Christianity would have died out and Russell would have had nothing to work with when he came on the scene. The growing season existed throughout the centuries from 33 C.E. onward down to the modern-day harvest. Growing plants need food.
Our premise, as you’ll see soon, is that the feeding by the slave is done by means of a highly visible channel comprised of a small group of men. If that is true, then this line of reasoning might seem at first blush to work. But isn’t that reasoning backward from a conclusion? We should be letting the evidence lead us to a conclusion, not the other way round.
One last point. If the slave didn’t make its appearance in the first century, then how do we explain that the basis for all our meals comes from then? We may prepare the modern-day recipes, but all our ingredients—our food—comes from things written by the first century slave, as well as its antecedent, Israel.
The slave was appointed in 1919.
No scriptural evidence was given at any of the meeting parts to support 1919 as the year in which the slave was appointed. So how is it that we arrive at this year?
We used to get there by assuming some correspondence between 1914-1918, and 29 C.E. when Jesus was baptised and 33 C.E. when he entered the temple to cleanse it. That 3 ½ year period in Jesus’ life was, we believed, prophetically significant. Applying the 3 ½ years to our modern era, we counted from 1914 to 1918 to find the year Jesus cleansed his spiritual temple, then we added one year to get 1919 as the year he appointed the slave over all his belongings.
Well, we can’t say that anymore since we now say that his first entry into the temple to cleanse it is what corresponds to 1919. That occurred a scant six months after his baptism. Given that, what basis is there for still concluding that 1919 is prophetically significant?
Indeed, what Scriptural basis is there for concluding that Jesus’ dual entries into the ancient temple to cleanse it have any prophetic significance at all to our day? Certainly there is nothing in Scripture to lead us down this path. It appears to be based solely on conjecture?
The fact is that our continued adoption of this date as significant is further complicated by our next change in understanding.
The governing body is the slave.
We now believe that the slave corresponds to the members of the governing body, not individually, but when they are serving as a body. In 1919, in accordance with Russell’s will, an editorial committee of five approved all Watchtower articles. For the most part, food in book form was written by J. F. Rutherford and bore his name as author. Prior to 1919, Russell, like Rutherford, headed the organization, but conferred with trusted members of the corporation who also wrote articles. So there is no real basis for claiming that the slave came into existence only in 1919. Using the same reasoning we are currently using, it could easily be argued that 1879, the year the Watchtower was first published, marks the appearance of the slave.
So why stick with 1919? We could still make our case for a modern-day slave in the form of the governing body with another year. Since there is no Scriptural support for any particular year, 1879 provides historical support at least, something that 1919 lacks. However, it may well be that dropping 1919 might be like pulling a single thread on a woven garment. The danger is that the whole fabric might start to unravel, given that 1914, to which our 1919 interpretation is connected, is so central to the interpretation of virtually every last days prophecy we have explained. We can’t stop applying it now.
How can an 8-member slave class be appointed over all the Master’s belongings at Armageddon?
One of the members of the Governing Body in his talk stated that certain aspects of our old understanding simply did not make sense. Such candor is laudable. Questioning an understanding because it makes no sense, or to put it another way, because it is nonsense is sound reasoning. Jehovah is a God of order. Nonsense is akin to chaos and as such has no place in our theology.
This may sound like a derogatory statement, but in all honesty, after several tries and redrafts, the application of our new understanding to the future event of the appointment of the slave over all the Master’s belongings still sounds nonsensical.
Let’s take one last stab at expressing this: All the anointed get appointed over all the Master’s belongings. The anointed are not the slave. The anointed are not appointed to feed the domestics. The slave consists of the Governing Body. The slave gets appointed over all the Master’s belongings only if it is found doing the job of feeding the domestics which include the anointed who also get appointed over all the Master’s belongings, but not for feeding the domestics of which they form a part. If the slave doesn’t feed the domestics, it doesn’t get the aforementioned appointment. The anointed do get the appointment even though they don’t feed the domestics.
To try to illustrate how this new understanding can work, one of the annual meeting parts presented this example: When Jesus said that he was making a covenant with his apostles for a kingdom, he was not excluding the rest of the anointed from that covenant even though they weren’t present then. That’s true. However, he also wasn’t differentiating his apostles from the rest of the anointed. He didn’t appoint them as some special class with special privileges and a special duty that they must perform as a class to get the reward. In fact, the first century governing body—if we can use a non-scriptural term for clarity here—did not consist exclusively of Jesus’ apostles, but of all the older men from all the congregations in Jerusalem.
What about the other three slaves?
One point made at the meeting was that the verb and noun referring to the slave in Mat. 24:45-47 is in the singular. Therefore, they conclude that individuals are not referred to but a class of men. Throughout all the discourses, Mat. 24:45-47 was referenced, but the more complete account of Jesus’ prophecy is found at Luke 12:41-48. That account was never referenced, leaving unanswered, indeed unraised, the question of who the other three slaves are. For if the faithful slave is the Governing Body as a class, then who is the evil slave class, and who is the class represented by the slave who doesn’t do what he knows he should and so receives many strokes, and who is the class represented by the slave who unknowingly fails to do what he should and so receives few strokes. How can we speak with authority and conviction, promoting an understanding as truth that fails to explain three quarters of the prophecy in question? If we do not know what the other three slaves represent, then how can we teach with any authority what the faithful slave represents?
In Summation
If we are to reject an understanding because it lacks support in Scripture and simply does not make sense, should we not be doing the same with our new understanding? There is no Scriptural nor historical support for 1919 as the date of the appointment of the slave. We didn’t start feeding the domestics in 1919 in any way that we hadn’t already been doing for 40 years prior to that date, when the first Watchtower was published. Even more so does it not make sense for a small group of men—currently numbering eight—to be appointed as a class not as individuals over all the Master’s belongings at Armageddon, and there seems to be no sensible way to reconcile this appointment for having fed the domestics with the appointment of all the anointed to the very same position though they haven't fed the domestics.
An editorial thought
All our forum members hold both the members and the office of the Governing Body in high regard. However, this does not overcome a feeling of disquiet that this latest interpretation has raised in us, and others that also contribute to this forum.
In one of the talks given by a GB member at the 2012 annual meeting, it was explained that two principles guide the members of the Governing Body in the preparation of spiritual food for us.
- “And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.” (Dan. 12:4)
- “Do not go beyond the things that are written, in order that YOU may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other.” (1 Cor. 4:6)
It does not appear as if these guiding principles are really being followed in this instance.
We are told that it is not for us to engage in unauthorized independent Bible study. We are counselled that doing so or considering, even in our minds, that ideas put forward by the Governing Body may be wrong or that they will eventually recant is tantamount to “testing Jehovah in our heart”. We are instructed that forums for Bible study like this one are wrong. With this new understanding of the slave, it is very clear that the Governing Body is now to be the only channel by which Scriptural understanding is to come. Since that is the case and since they do not go beyond the things written, then how do they reconcile what is written at Daniel 12:4 where it is prophesied that “many will rove about”. Is the number eight now to be considered as “many”? And how do they reconcile that the many began to rove about in the 19th Century, decades before we now claim the slave made its appearance?
One talk explained that many ideas come from circuit and district overseers as well as zone overseers, yet they are not considered part of those that feed us. What is actually written in Scripture is that the slave is appointed to feed the domestics. Brother Splane drew a comparison of this to the role of cooks and waiters. There are many cooks in a large restaurant and even more waiters. Cooks prepare the food and waiters deliver it. The things written speak only of the role of feeding the domestics. Do these eight men cook all the food? Do they deliver it to hungry domestics? If the articles are written by many; if ideas come from circuit and district overseers; if talks are delivered by many instructors; if instruction is dispensed worldwide by a multitude of teachers and counsellors, how can eight men claim that only they constitute the slave appointed to feed the flock?
To justify this new understanding, one speaker used the analogy of Jesus feeding the multitude by dispensing the fishes and bread through the hands of his apostles. The principle applied in that talk is that he uses “a few to feed many”. Assuming for a moment that the miracle of feeding the multitude is intended to explain who the faithful and discreet slave would turn out to be, we still end up with something that doesn’t fit our current understanding. The apostles took the food from Jesus and handed it to the people. Who is handing out the food to the nearly eight million domestics today? Certainly not just eight men.
At the risk of carrying an analogy too far, in one occasion Jesus fed 5,000, but since only men were counted, it is likely that he fed far more, possibly 15,000. Did 12 apostles personally hand each one of these his food? Did each apostle wait on over 1,000 people? Or did they carry the large provision baskets from Jesus to groups of individuals who then handed them off down the line? The account doesn’t say either way, but which scenario is more believable? If this miracle is being used to illustrate how the slave feeds the domestics today, then it doesn’t support the idea of a slave of only eight men doing all the feeding.
One last point about not going beyond the things that are written: Jesus spoke about a master that appoints a slave to feed his domestics. Then the master "upon arriving" will reward him if found doing so. It doesn't say in this parable that the master leaves, but it is implied, otherwise how could he subsequently arrive? (Other master/slave parables do explicitly speak of a master leaving and then returning to review the work his slaves have done in his absence. There is no parable of Jesus where a master appoints a slave and then hangs around or "is present" while the slave goes about his business.)
We say that Jesus arrived in Kingdom power and then appointed the slave over his domestics. He never departed after that but has been "present" since then. This doesn't fit with the parable's scenario of feeding the master's domestics during his absence.
Is there clear Scriptural support for the slave's appointment anytime or any year during our modern era? If there were, it would surely have been presented at the annual meeting. Is there Scriptural evidence for the appointment of the slave to feed the domestics at any time in history? Absolutely! What did the Master do before departing for heaven? He commissioned Peter, and by extension, all the apostles, by saying three times, "feed my little sheep". Then he left. He comes back at Armageddon to see how we've done.
That is what is written.
Who bears witness that the Governing Body is the slave? Is it not the self-same Governing Body? And if we should doubt or disagree, what would become of us?
If we are not to go beyond what is written, then how do Jesus’ words apply to this slave that bears witness about itself. We refer to John 5:31 which says, “If I alone bear witness about myself, my witness is not true.”
An apology
This all sounds very critical of the Governing Body. That was not our intention. This site is in place to provide sincere Jehovah’s Witnesses a forum for expression and unbiased Bible study. We seek Scriptural truth. If we find that a teaching being handed down doesn’t conform to Scripture, or at least appears not to, we have to be honest and point this out. It would be wrong to allow sentimentality or fear of offending to color or compromise our understanding of God’s word.
The fact that two elements of our new official understanding were already arrived at by members of this forum indicates that there is not one exclusive channel for the revelation of Bible truth. (See forum category “faithful slave” including the comments section.) This is not to blow our own horn or take pride in ourselves. We are good-for-nothing slaves. Besides, we are not the only ones to have arrived at such understandings. Rather, this is advanced as proof that Scriptural insight is the providence of all of Jehovah’s servants. Otherwise, He would hide it from the us individually and reveal it only through a chosen few.
At the same time, we want to speak with respect of those taking the lead among us. If we have failed to do so here, we do apologize. If we have gone too far, any are free to express this via the Comments section of the forum.
We continue to believe that the men making up the Governing Body have our best interested at heart. We acknowledge that Jehovah’s blessing is on their efforts and the work they do. Whether they are in fact the slave or whether they have gotten this wrong yet again doesn’t change the fact that they are at the administrative head of Jehovah’s organization, and we would have it no other way.
As brother Splane said, this new understanding changes nothing as regards how we will continue to proceed in carrying out the work.
So why are we spending so much time on it here in this forum? Why do we devote so much time and column inches to it in our publications? What does it matter? Isn’t it simply an academic exercise? One might think so, but in fact it is not treated that way in our organization. The understanding of these verses do in fact matter very much. It has to do with establishing the authority of men. However, rather than deal with that here in this post, we’ll address it separately in the near future.
One final thought: It is interesting that Jesus didn’t identify the slave, but framed the prophecy as a question.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by S E on 2012-10-22 09:34:55
I think the spirit is pushing the Governing Body in the right direction, even though we haven't reached the complete understanding.
There are very interesting chronological words that Luke uses in his account at Luke 21 when he describes Jesus' discourse regarding events leading up to the end of this system of things.
At Luke 21:8, 9, Jesus states: "Look out taht you are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, 'I am he,' and, 'The due time has approached.' Do not go after them." Although Luke's account makes it seem that Jesus was only forewarning the disciples that this could happen, in Matthew's account, Jesus was foretelling that many would be misled. (Matthew 24:5) Next, all three Gospel accounts harmonize by describing "wars and reports of wars," or as Luke puts it "wars and disorders."
We typically take the "wars and disorders" to be synonymous with the many wars we've seen during the last days. However, Jesus makes it a point to separate the two. After he describes "wars and disorders," he describes wars of a more potent nature. "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom." In fact, the "wars and disorders" seem to be the result of his preceding statements regarding "many being misled."
How do we apply this? Well, first-century writers were aware of a great apostasy that would precede the presence of Christ. Where did they get this knowledge? We typically take it as a direct revelation by the inspiration of holy spirit. However, it would not be such a far-fetched idea to realize that they may have gotten this information from Jesus very discourse under examination. When Jesus foretold that "many would be misled" by "false Christs," we can easily see how this could apply to the apostasy that developed shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and after the death of the Apostle John around 100 CE.
What was the effect of this apostasy? "Wars and disorders." Christendom developed, causing mass "wars and disorders" within Christianity. Everything from Constantine and the split of the Roman Empire to the Reformation showed how chaotic Christendom had become. And according to Luke, Jesus forewarned his disciples not to be "terrified, for these things must occur FIRST." So Luke introduces a chronological aspect to Jesus discourse. Then he goes on to say, "but the end does not occur IMMEDIATELY." (Luke 21:9) In other words, these "wars and disorders" for last for quite some time. And they did. What would happen next?
Luke continues, right in line with what all the other parallel accounts state: "nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom and there will be great earthquakes and in one place after another pestilences and food shortages." So after the apostasy and apostate wars and disorders, World Wars erupted, beginning in 1914.
In fact, Luke's account seems to imply that the "appointed times of the nations" would take place "before" "nation would rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom." Notice Luke 21:12-24 taken all together: "But BEFORE ALL THESE THINGS people will lay their hands upon YOU... FURTHERMORE, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near... and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, UNTIL THE APPOINTED TIMES OF THE NATIONS ARE FULFILLED." So when the "appointed times of the nations" concluded, "nation would rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom." In fact, that is what happened. 1914 saw the eruption of the first world war.
So Jesus discourse seems to be chronological in nature, beginning with events of the first century. In fact, not only does Jesus describe the apostasy, but he describes the destruction of Jerusalem as well as the haling of Christians before kings and governors, something that the Apostle Paul aptly fulfilled. Taken all together, these things seems to describe events since the first-century all the way until the "gathering" of the anointed remnant to their heavenly positions and the "shaking of the (governmenal) heavens." (Matthew 24:29-31)
So if the "faithful and discreet slave" was to "keep on the watch," then they would have to be present during all these events, from the first-century destruction of Jerusalem until the end destruction of the system of things. But the "arrival" of the master seems to take place over a period of time. Why?
Matthew's account describes two other illustrations that not Luke neither Mark describe: the ten virgins and the 3 slaves. Particularly, the 3-slaves illustration shows that he master rewards and punishes in an orderly fashion. First, the slave with the most talents is rewards. "Next," the slave with the lesser amount of talents is rewarded. "Finally," the evil slave is punished. (Matthew 25:20, 22a, 24a) In line with what other parts of the Bible say, the anointed will be sealed and rewarded first, during the "presence" of Jesus, and then afterwards, the wicked slave is punished. Since the resurrection of the anointed is taking place during the "presence" or the "last days," and the evil slave Christendom has not been made aware of his wickedness and thereafter punished, we can see how the "arrival" of the master has been taking place and will conclude at the great tribulation.
So for this reason, the holy spirit seems to be moving the Governing Body, bringing to their attention who "this generation" that Jesus spoke of in this discourse is, as well as who "the faithful and discreet slave" is. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before they recognize these things. That's why it is a good idea to wait, because their understanding is Jehovah's lead, so if he does not want them to understand these things yet, it must not be time for the entire congregation of God's people to know these things yet.Reply by apollos0falexandria on 2012-10-23 08:37:38
Hi SE.
You raised some points that made me consider certain aspects of the chronology in a new way. I will have to give that further consideration. In the meantime I do wonder how much we all tend to try to fit square pegs into round holes. I know I have been guilty in the past of starting with a premise or framework and then trying to make everything fit. At times it's only when I've been prepared to relinquish some of the fixed premises that things have finally started to make sense.
In your proposed chronology my foremost question would be - what is the evidence that 1914 was the termination of the "times of the gentiles" of which Jesus spoke of as recorded by Luke? There has been a lot of detailed discussion of that on the site here, and I don't want to reproduce it in detail in a sub-comment, but I would like to see someone make a solid defence of the current understanding in the light of the many scriptural and historical problems that have been raised.
I understand your point about Luke 21:12 "But before all these things ..." However I don't see the evidence that the end of v24 therefore wraps back around to v10, or even if it does that the pivotal moment was therefore August or October 1914.
I also tend to question who the intended audience was at any moment in time. It seems apparent that for the passage as a whole it must primarily be i) early Christians prior to the fall of Jerusalem, and ii) Christians living in the final part of the days. Your suggestion seems to be that Luke 21:8,9 is primarily directed to a third audience in time i.e. Christians during the long gap between those two periods. And yet the discourse is all about the presence and the conclusion of the system of things. Hence it seems to me that Jesus is giving a warning to end-time Christians not to be premature in our expectation. Matt 24:23-27 seems to be a direct warning against believing claims that Jesus is present, and I think v5,6 (and corresponding passage in Luke) could be referring to the same, since those elements - war and disorder - would be used to try to support the idea that Christ had returned but we just couldn't see him.
I don't think this completely negates the broad sequence of what you are suggesting, but if we are to be on the watch we surely need to have an awareness of what might lie ahead, and if we've already relegated certain events to the past then are we not in danger of missing out on some of the warnings given? It's worth bearing in mind that none of the conclusions that some of us have reached imply any delay of the great day of God the Almighty - they actually give us great incentive to keep watching world events and to keep measuring them against Jesus' words, along with the rest of God's inspired prophecies.
Apollos
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-10-22 11:23:50
I don't have time to get into this in depth, but a few off-the-cuff observations can be made.
First, it is interesting that you view Luke's account as chronological. I have had the opposite impression, considering it the least chronological of the three accounts--Matthew's being the most. For example, verses 10 and 11 speak of wars, earthquakes, pestilences, food shortages and great signs from heaven. We have yet to see the great signs from heaven. It is one example of what to me is Luke's more thematic approach to the "last days" prophecy. Matthew, on the other hand, presents everything in order--perhaps due to the mindset of a accountant.
Your comment on understanding in context Jesus' revelation of the "appointed times of the nations" led me to review the contextual verses that immediately follow that verse. Verse 25 reads: "Also, there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations...." I hadn't viewed things this way before. In context, that would lead one to understand that the appointed times of the nations are not fulfilled until the time that these next verses are fulfilled. That would mean the appointed times of the nations end at the arrival or presence of Jesus at Armageddon.
Concerning the final paragraph of your comment, I believe that we must see evidence as to how the holy spirit is guiding the governing body before we can state categorically that the spirit is involved in any particular aspect of their work.
For example, the preaching and disciple making work is steadily growing and expanding. That proves to me that the holy spirit is guiding them to direct it. The international construction work is proving beneficial. Again, evidence of Jehovah's spirit. The HLC program is a resounding success internationally. Once again, evidence of Jehovah's spirit. We have an international brotherhood of love, due in no small part to the feeding program the governing body coordinates. Once more, evidence of divine direction and blessing.
Our record of speculative interpretation of prophecy, however, is far from unblemished. The holy spirit does not make mistakes. It cannot guide us to an error. If we have gotten something wrong, that is due to human error. When we have gotten things wrong in the past, we continue to say that the holy spirit is guiding us through ongoing "refinements" and "adjustments". However, a refinement refers to something from which impurities are stripped away. The essence still remains. When you refine gold, you strip away more and more impurities, but the gold you started with remains. When you adjust something, you are fine-tuning it, not changing it entirely. If a radio station is not coming in clearly, and I say I'm going to adjust it, you do not expect me to tune to an entirely different station, do you? When we flip-flop on an interpretation, completely reversing ourselves, as we did four times with the application of the ten toes in Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image, we are not refining nor adjusting, and therefore cannot say that we were guided by holy spirit all along the way. Our record with the interpretation of "this generation" is another example of this.
I'm not suggesting that the governing body is not being led by the holy spirit. Not for a minute. However, that doesn't mean that everything they do is a product of the leading of the holy spirit. Jehovah does not bless us when we overreach; when we act immodestly. (Micah 6:8) The evidence speaks for itself. The Bible clearly says that interpretations belong to God. (Gen. 40:8) When Jehovah chooses to reveal something to us, it will be clear and indisputable. The truth of the revelation will be easy for all to grasp and we won't have to change it or adjust it down the road. Truth never needs to be refined nor adjusted. It simply is.
We have no problem with the governing body attempting to explain some passage of scripture. It would be edifying however if they admitted that what is being published is a speculative understanding rather than treating it as revealed truth. It would also be nice if we could just admit a little more frequently that we simply don't know what something means yet.
Comment by jomaix on 2012-10-23 01:37:48
I'm gonna wait to see what the printed publications said regarding this new understanding, and then, will give my oppinion. I'm thankful to find people like you, with my own way of thinking regarding our Organization. Jehovah bless you. I hope to be here frequently to read what you have to say.
Greetings from Guatemala.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-10-23 08:26:45
You are most welcome to our forum. If you have a new topic you'd like to open up, let us know and we can initiate a discussion thread on it starting with an introductory post.
Reply by Pauline Spearing on 2012-11-10 10:13:43
Can anyone show me a scripture... ANY scripture... which says that I am only a second hand Christian... and that Jesus' statement, "...if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever..." (John 6:51), doesn't apply to me...?
I worry constantly that by not taking the emblems, I am not personally accepting his sacrifice...
This doctrine was only introduced by Judge Rutherford...because he reasoned that space in Heaven was running out...!? He was wrong about, "Millions now living..."... and yet we continue to conform to most of his doctrines still...?Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-11-10 17:36:12
This is a topic that has troubled me of late, and I know it has been on the mind of others. Apollos has researched it more than I. Perhaps we can persuade him to share his thoughts on the matter.
Reply by Pauline Spearing on 2012-11-10 18:16:52
Thank you...x
I only found you today, through my research...!
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-11-11 09:09:44
Your question regarding taking the emblems has plagued me of late. It's a serious issue. I have some thoughts on the subject but I'm not quite ready to share them. Thanks for helping me see that others out there are having the same misgivings as I am. It's not that we want to rebel against established doctrine. It's that we want to obey God as ruler rather than man. If a doctrine appears to contradict the direct commandment of our Lord Jesus, we have to be really sure that the apparent contradiction can be explained away, otherwise....
Reply by Pauline Spearing on 2012-11-11 12:38:18
Thank you...
This is a fundamental issue - Eternal Life and Death - If we are wrong on this, everything we have built our lives upon so far disintegrates...
Maybe that's why we find it so hard to broach the subject...? the unravelling would begin... and fear can restrict courage...
But, "Perfect Love throws fear outside...", (1John 4:16-19) and we trust in Jehovah and His Son, that He may see into our hearts and know we are not contentious..., but neither are we willing to accept such important issues on face value...
May Jehovah God Bless and keep you safe...x
Comment by The Annual Meeting Report – Food at the Proper Time « Beroean Pickets on 2012-11-10 17:12:52
[...] we’ve already dealt with this new understanding elsewhere in this forum, we won’t belabor the point here. Rather, in the spirit of the ancient Beroeans, [...]
Comment by Shahida on 2012-11-15 02:29:58
My question is. ..since we are made to understand that the partakers are the 'spiritual israel'....didn't the alien resident prefiguring the other sheep also celebrate and share in the passover?
I always ask Jehovah to forgive me if at all I show lack of appreciation for the ransom provision by not partaking as Jesus said we should.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-11-15 07:45:58
Excellent point. This subject is worth further research.
Comment by Shahida on 2012-11-15 02:37:22
I believe this is simply a parable,..taking a part of the illustration and trying to turn it into a prophesy complicates it and raises a lot of questions.
Comment by Shahida on 2012-11-15 05:01:31
I fully agree with your comment Meleti.
I find it difficult to see how God's holy spirit would be involved in erroneous interpretation.
I may accept this new understanding to be 'truth', but a few years to come, it may become old, and I'll be required to accept a new light. .so why should I believe any new light now?
I'm only thinking out loud, been a Witness almost all my life and had to cheerfully accept new light without question.
Comment by The Faithful Steward – Another Look at Luke 12 | Beroean Pickets on 2013-03-30 17:16:56
[...] 24:45, and yet avoid the parallel account in Luke 12. As Meleti has previously highlighted in his article about the annual meeting, if we did use Luke’s account we would be required to explain who each of the other three [...]