Serve Jehovah with fear And be joyful with trembling.
Kiss the son, that He may not become incensed
And YOU may not perish [from] the way,
For his anger flares up easily.
Happy are all those taking refuge in him.
(Psalm 2:11, 12)
One disobeys God at one’s peril. Jesus, as Jehovah’s appointed king, is loving and understanding, but he does not tolerate willful disobedience. Obedience to him is truly a matter of life and death—eternal life or eternal death. Still, obedience to him is pleasurable; in part, because he doesn’t burden us with endless rules and regulations.
Nevertheless, when he does command, we must obey.
There are three commandments in particular which are of interest to us here. Why? Because there is a connection between all three. In each case, Christians were told by their human leaders that a) they could disregard a commandment of Jesus with impunity, and b) if they went ahead and obeyed Jesus anyway, they would be punished.
A remarkable situation, wouldn’t you say?
Commandment #1
”I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another.” (John 13:34)
There is no condition attached to this commandment. No exceptions to the rule are given by Jesus. All Christians must love one another in the same way that they have been loved by Jesus.
Yet, there came a time when the leaders of the Christian congregation taught that it was alright to hate one’s brother. During times of war, a Christian could hate and kill his brother because he was of another tribe, or nation, or sect. So Catholic killed Catholic, Protestant killed Protestant, Baptist killed Baptist. It wasn’t simply a matter of being exempted from obeying. It goes much further than that. Obedience to Jesus in this matter would bring down upon the Christian the full wrath of both church and secular authorities? Christians taking a conscientious stand against killing their fellow man as part of the war machine were persecuted, even killed—often with the full endorsement of the Church leadership.
Do you see the pattern? Invalidate a commandment of God, then add to it by making obedience to God a punishable offense.
Commandment #2
“Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU” (Matthew 28:19, 20)
Another clearly stated commandment. Can we ignore it without repercussions? We are told that if we do not confess union with Jesus before men, he will disown us. (Mt. 18:32) A matter of life and death, is it not? And yet, here again, Church leaders have stepped in saying that the laity doesn’t have to obey the Lord in this instance. This commandment only applies to a subset of Christians, a clergy class, they say. The average Christian does not have to make disciples and baptize them. In fact, they again go beyond excusing disobedience to a scriptural commandment, and add to it by making it punishable in some way: Censure, excommunication, imprisonment, torture, even being burned at the stake; all have been tools used by church leaders to keep the average Christian from proselytizing.
The pattern repeats itself.
Commandment #3
“This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as YOU drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:25)
Another simple, straightforward commandment, isn’t it? Does he say that only a particular type of Christian needs to obey this command? No. Is the statement so convoluted that the average Christian would have no hope of understanding it and therefore obeying without the help of some scholar; someone to decipher all the relevant texts and decode the hidden meaning behind Jesus’ words? Again, No. it's a simple, straightforward commandment from our king.
Why does he give us this commandment? What is its purpose?
(1 Corinthians 11:26) . . .For as often as YOU eat this loaf and drink this cup, YOU keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives.
This is part of our preaching work. We are proclaiming the death of the Lord—which means the salvation of mankind—by means of this annual commemoration.
Yet again, we have an instance where the leadership of the congregation has told us that, except for a tiny minority of Christians, we don’t have to obey this commandment. (w12 4/15 p. 18; w08 1/15 p. 26 par. 6) In fact, we are told that if we go ahead and obey anyway, we are actually sinning against God. (w96 4/1 pp. 7-8 Celebrate the Memorial Worthily) However, it doesn’t stop with imputing sin to an act of obedience. Added to that is the considerable peer pressure we will face should we partake. We will likely be viewed as presumptuous, or perhaps emotionally unstable. It can get even worse, for we must be careful not to reveal the reason we have chosen to obey our king. We have to keep silent and say only that it is a deeply personal decision. For if you explain that we are partaking simply because Jesus commands all Christians to do so; that there was no unexplained, mysterious calling in our heart to tell us we had been selected by God, well, be prepared for a judicial hearing at the very least. I am not being facetious. I wish I were.
We won’t get into the Scriptural basis for concluding that this teaching of our leadership is wrong. We’ve already gone into that in depth in a previous post. What we want to discuss here is the reason that we seem to be repeating this pattern of Christendom by urging our rank and file to disobey a clearly stated commandment of our Lord and King.
It appears, regrettably, that Mt. 15:3,6 applies to us in this instance.
(Matthew 15:3, 6) “Why is it YOU also overstep the commandment of God because of YOUR tradition?... And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition.
We are invalidating God’s word due to our tradition. "Surely not", you say. But what is a tradition if not a way of doing things that is justified by its own existence. Or to put it another way: With a tradition, we don’t need a reason for what we do—the tradition is its own reason. We do it that way simply because we’ve always done it that way. If you don’t agree, bear with me for a moment and allow me to explain.
In 1935, Judge Rutherford was facing a dilemma. Memorial attendance was growing again after the decline caused by the failure of his prediction that the righteous men of old would be resurrected in 1925. (From 1925 to 1928, memorial attendance fell from 90,000 to 17,000) There were tens of thousands of partakers. Counting the tens of thousands from the first century and allowing for our belief in an unbroken chain of anointed ones throughout the previous 19 centuries, it was getting difficult to explain how a literal number of 144,000 hadn’t already been filled. He could have reinterpreted Rev. 7:4 to show that the number was symbolic, but instead he came up with a whole new doctrine. Or the holy spirit revealed a hidden truth. Let's see which it was.
Now before going further, it behooves us to recognize that in 1935 Judge Rutherford was the sole author and editor of all that went into The Watchtower magazine. He had disbanded the editorial committee that was set up under Russell’s will because they were blocking him from publishing some of his ideas. (We have the sworn testimony of Fred Franz in the Olin Moyle libel trial to assure us of that fact.) So Judge Rutherford is viewed by us as being God’s appointed channel of communication at that time. Yet, by his own admission, he did not write under inspiration. This would mean he was God's uninspired channel of communication, if you can wrap your mind around that contradictory concept. So how do we explain the revelation of, to use the old term, new truth? We believe that these truths were always in God's word, but have been carefully hidden awaiting the proper time for their revelation. The holy spirit revealed to Judge Rutherford a new understanding in 1934 which he revealed to us through the article, “His Kindness”, in the August 15, 1934 issue of The Watchtower , p. 244. Using the ancient cities of refuge and the Mosaic law arrangement surrounding them, he showed that Christianity would now have two classes of Christian. The new class, the other sheep, would not be in the New Covenant, would not be children of God, would not be anointed with holy spirit, and would not go to heaven.
Then Rutherford dies and we quietly back away from any prophetic parallel involving the cities of refuge. The holy spirit would not direct a man to reveal a falsehood, so the cities of refuge as the basis for the two-tier system of salvation we now have must have come from a man. Still, that doesn't mean his conclusion is wrong. Perhaps it was now time for the holy spirit to reveal the true scriptural basis for this new doctrine.
Alas, no. If you care to prove this for yourself, simply perform a search using the Watchtower Library on CDROM and you'll see that in the last 60 years of publications no new basis has been advanced. Imagine a house built on a foundation. Now remove the foundation. Would you expect the house to remain in place, floating in midair? Of course not. Yet whenever this doctrine is taught, no real scriptural support is given to base it on. We believe it because we’ve always believed it. Isn’t that the very definition of a tradition?
There is nothing wrong with a tradition per se as long as it doesn’t invalidate the word of God, but that is exactly what this tradition does.
I don't know if everyone who partakes of the emblems is destined to rule in heaven or if some will rule on earth or if some will simply live on earth under the rulership of the heavenly kings and priests under Christ Jesus. That doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion. What we are concerned with here is obedience to a direct commandment of our Lord Jesus.
The question each of us must ask himself or herself is will our worship be in vain because we "teach commands of men as doctrines.” (Mt. 15:9) Or will we submit to the king?
Will you kiss the Son?
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by miken on 2013-06-19 12:14:18
“Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU” (Matthew 28:19, 20)
WT Version since 1985:-
“On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?”
“Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?
Blatently ignoring Jesus specific command, the reason is clear.
The NWT translators deliberately ignored Rev 22:18, 19 which repeats Deut 4:12 and 12:32 removing the square brackets originally indicating additions not in the original scriptures since the 2006 printing (brackets still included in NWT on the library CD). Jehovah is added to the Christian greek translation yet not one greek scriptural document or fragment has been found that includes the tetragrammaton. Further to this there are significant words in the original scriptures that are not included in the NWT for instance in John 14:14 "ask me" where Jesus invites his disciples to communicate directlyy with him.Reply by Robert on 2013-06-19 12:45:31
Has anyone else noticed that the NWT adds a whole phrase > "not doing so out of respect for Jehovah" < to the end of 2 Peter 2:11 which isn't found in the Greek source text? See the KIT.
Reply by JimmyG on 2013-06-19 22:44:03
Another word addition is in Phil 1:7, where 'legally' is inserted. There is no Greek equivalent in this verse. For confirmation of this, refer to the Greek Interlinear.
Reply by Hugo I. Matias on 2013-06-20 18:03:05
Regarding John 14:14, the word "??" (me) does not appear in all ancient manuscript and that's why Westcott & Hort puts it into brackets, so, the translation "ask in my name" seems to be correct, specially if we take not of what John 16:23 says on asking to the Father.
Diaglott includes a footnote with the rendering "ask me", but does not include that translation in the main text. King James version renders this scripture: "If ye shall ask any thing in my name" and many Spanish translations does not translate "Ask me" but "ask in my name" only.Reply by Hugo I. Matias on 2013-06-20 18:03:41
*take note.
Reply by miken on 2013-06-21 05:56:26
"Regarding John 14:14, the word “??” (me) does not appear in all ancient manuscript and that’s why Westcott & Hort puts it into brackets, so, the translation “ask in my name” seems to be correct, specially if we take not of what John 16:23 says on asking to the Father"
Other scriptures indicate that Jesus disciples did understand that they were to ask Jesus directly as well as asking the Father in his name. The scriptures clearly show that the early Christians prayed to Jesus see Acts 7:59, 9:14, 9:21; 1 Cor 1:2, 2Cor 12:8-10 and also Paul's personal relationship with Jesus is demonstrated at Acts 23;11.
In 1 Cor 1:2 for instance "calling upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ" the greek for calling is Epikaleomai meaning call, appeal to.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-06-21 08:48:24
Of course, there is no doubt that we must pray to Jehovah, the Father. Jesus set the example numerous times and taught us how to pray to Jehovah. This is a simple and obvious truth, clearly stated in Scripture.
Should we also pray to Jesus? You cite:
(Acts 7:59) And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
Stephen is having a vision in which he sees Jesus at God's right hand. Unusual circumstances. It would seem that if we are having a vision in which Jesus figures, we could address him, but is that the same as praying to him instead of to Jehovah.
(Acts 9:14) And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name.”
(Acts 9:21) But all those hearing him gave way to astonishment and would say: “Is this not the man that ravaged those in Jerusalem who call upon this name, and that had come here for this very purpose, that he might lead them bound to the chief priests?”
Is calling upon his name the same thing as saying a prayer to Jesus? The seventy said to Jesus, "Lord, even the demons are made subject to us by the use of your name." (Luke 10:17) They called upon his name, but they were not praying to him.
(2 Corinthians 12:8-10) In this behalf I three times entreated the Lord that it might depart from me; 9?and yet he really said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is being made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast as respects my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may like a tent remain over me. 10?Therefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in cases of need, in persecutions and difficulties, for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am powerful.
Paul had many visions. Jesus spoke to him directly upon his conversion. Here he is quoting directly what Jesus said to him. Any of us in these circumstances would address Jesus, but is that a blanket statement that it is he to whom we should pray?
The concept of praying to Jehovah is very well supported in scripture. One does not have to be a Bible scholar to learn that truth. We even have instruction on the proper way to pray, clearly laid out by our Lord. (Mt. 6:9-15) Serious Bible students with a good brain between their ears must always guard against what might be called a "Da Vinci Code Mentality". The desire to decode the Scriptures, to reveal hidden truths, is seductive and can lead us to "truths" that simply are not there. I'm sure it is such a mentality that led Russell to his many date-related conclusions. This is not evil in and of itself, but all too human.
Something as fundamental as who we should pray to would not be couched in terms that can only be deciphered by intense Bible study. The Bible is written by the layman and must be understandable by him without the need of scholarly consultation. That truth alone should establish in our minds that an invisible presence in 914 and the two-tier system of salvation are inventions of men. I think, with all due respect, that the idea of praying to Jesus falls into the same category.
Reply by Hugo I. Matias on 2013-06-22 02:52:53
I'm totally agree with Meleti's comment. In cases you mentioned (Estephen and Paul) they were talking directly to Jesus. Estephen saw Jesus in that very moment. I don't see that words as "prayer". He was just talking to somebody who he was seeing.
Paul also had direct communication with Jesus, as Acts 18:9 and 1 Corinthias 7:10 shows. Again, that's not "prayer"... is a talk.
Regarding "call upon" and ???????? (Epikaleoo), that word means to call upon the name of somebody, appeal or use the name of somebody in self-favor, but it also may mean RECOGNIZE the position or authority of somebody.
Anyway, the original comment was: "Further to this there are significant words in the original scriptures that are not included in the NWT for instance in John 14:14 “ask me” where Jesus invites his disciples to communicate directlyy with him." and the topic at stake was if the NWT is accurate in this verse or not, and not if we should pray to Jesus or not. So, we're descusing the TRANSLATION of a verse and not a doctrine of the scrpitures, and, as we saw, the translation "ask in my name" instaed of "ask me in my name" is possible and accurate too.
Cheers, dear brothers and sorry for my English.Reply by miken on 2013-06-22 10:46:45
With regard to Stephen at Acts 7:59 even the JW's New World Translation (NWT) Reference bible in a footnote to this verse says "Or invocation; Prayer". The NIV also says Stephen "prayed". I think in the situation this was far more than just talking directly to Jesus as his disciples did during his ministry. Cross reference Luke 23:46 where Jesus uses a similar phrase at his moment of death, was this just talking directly to his Father? See also Matt 27:46.
"Paul also had direct communication with Jesus, as Acts 18:9 and 1 Corinthias 7:10 shows. Again, that’s not “prayer”… is a talk".
I agree communicated instructions from Jesus to Paul, however Paul communicating with Jesus, praying to him at 2 Cor 12:7-10 is not just talk. Paul entreats (NWT), pleaded (NIV) to Jesus three times. The greek used here Parakaleo, means beseech, entreat, to beg, call to one's aid, there many examples in the bible of prayer being used exactly in this way.
"So, we’re descusing the TRANSLATION of a verse and not a doctrine of the scrpitures,"
However the translation is influenced by the pre-existing doctrine of JW's who were directed from 1954 onwards not to worship Jesus. Hence the omission of the "ask ME" in John 14:14 despite the ME being included in their English-Greek Kingdom interlinear. John 14:13 Jesus says ask in his name and HE, not the Father, will do it to the Father's glorification. In this context it makes more sense to include the ME in verse 14 that not to.
Comment by silas on 2013-06-20 07:32:22
All may like to refer to the Question from Readers W 07 5/1 p30
The Watchtower society has since abolished the date 1935 as being the date that the gathering of the anointed was completed.
The article states in part:
*** w07 5/1 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***
In 1935 the “great crowd” of Revelation 7:9-15 was understood to be made up of “other sheep,” Christians with an earthly hope, who would appear on the world scene in “the last days” and who as a group would survive Armageddon. (John 10:16; 2 Timothy 3:1; Revelation 21:3, 4) After that year, the thrust of the disciple-making work turned to the gathering in of the great crowd. Hence, especially after 1966 it was believed that the heavenly call ceased in 1935. This seemed to be confirmed when almost all who were baptized after 1935 felt that they had the earthly hope. Thereafter, any called to the heavenly hope were believed to be replacements for anointed Christians who had proved unfaithful.
Without a doubt, if one of the anointed unrepentantly falls away, Jehovah does call another individual to take his place. (Romans 11:17-22) However, the number of genuine anointed ones who have become unfaithful is likely not large. On the other hand, as time has gone by, some Christians baptized after 1935 have had witness borne to them that they have the heavenly hope. (Romans 8:16, 17) Thus, it appears that we cannot set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends.
How should a person be viewed who has determined in his heart that he is now anointed and begins to partake of the emblems at the Memorial? He should not be judged. The matter is between him and Jehovah. (Romans 14:12) However, genuine anointed Christians do not demand special attention. They do not believe that their being of the anointed gives them special “insights,” beyond what even some experienced members of the great crowd may have. They do not believe that they necessarily have more holy spirit than their companions of the other sheep have; nor do they expect special treatment or claim that their partaking of the emblems places them above the appointed elders in the congregation. They humbly remember that some anointed men in the first century did not qualify to serve as elders or ministerial servants. (1 Timothy 3:1-10, 12, 13; Titus 1:5-9; James 3:1) Some anointed Christians were even spiritually weak. (1 Thessalonians 5:14) And sisters, although anointed, did not teach in the congregation.—1 Timothy 2:11, 12.
(end of article.)
( Note the words. "it appears that we cannot set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends".)
This basically means that the door to the heavenly calling was wrongly shut to all in 1935. All like me that have been in the truth for 45 years or more have always thought there was no hope of becoming an anointed. Now all of a sudden the door is wide open again. Note also in this article: there is no comment about the effect that this revision could have on the "Other sheep" and potentially when, if ever their gathering was to commence.
( I dare say that if I was Satan and I wanted to prevent Christs brothers from being called, closing the door to the heavenly calling in the minds of Jehovah's Witnesses since 1935 would have been a pretty successful strategy. )Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-06-20 07:57:50
Your last point is well taken. When some contend that the mistaken teachings of the Governing Body have done no real harm, the teaching that the vast majority of Christians do not go to heaven springs to mind.
To deny a faithful follower of Christ the hope extended to him or her hardly seems like a trivial matter.
Comment by mark watts on 2013-06-21 06:36:52
Thank You, Meleti for highlighting a pivotal time for the development of so many confusing doctrines.”Kissing the Son”and following his commands is the wish of our Heavenly Father Jehovah.
For myself. The annual Memorial of Jehovahs Witnesses, is a testimony to how far removed the Watchtower society is from understanding the one hope that all believers have.Christ simply invites all,who have truly repented and believe in Him, to to a meal, in which we can all respectfully partake.You may have already asked yourself.Whoever gets invited to a meal or dinner, but is expected to go home hungry!
The fact that, the majority of Jehovahs Witnesses don't eat or drink when they are invited to such an esteemed banquet is odd, to say the least.
I have to ask the question .Does the average JW understand the gift they are being offered.?Do they understand the terms and conditions of the contract between the repentant sinner and Christ.After all. According to the society only “Christ’s Brothers” have “no condemnation”(Romans 8 1).only 'they 'have the free gift of being made righteous! Watchtower July 15 2011 p.15 paragraph 20. Declares, that those with the earthly hope. “These have not received “the free gift of righteousness” and also says that “ friendship with God(the other sheep) differs from “the free Gift”!
The Nation of Israel, in the first century.The majority of, although Gods chosen people.Rejected the doorway to repentance when he came, Jesus Christ.
Why was this?Did they value tradition more than truth.Did they not want to repent?.Was it pride.Or, did they put too much trust in men?
What ever might have been the reason.The fact is that, having faith in Jesus Christ and understanding the free gift of righteousness.brought about a circumcision of the heart.This required the sinner to make the ultimate commitment!The desire to put to death the fleshly man.Jesus Christ as our King and High Priest has the authority to do this. A spiritual circumcision.Isn't this, the anointing that everyone receives upon true repentance?Or a putting in of a “new spirit”.
Ezekiel 36 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
Again, the society seems to say that Ezekiel 36 26, only applies to a select few!Watchtower Sept 15 1988 p.24 paragraph 10.
If we don't understand or know what the free gift is, or what the terms and conditions of the contract are, and pacifically. Who? can grant us this gift!( Acts 4 2 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.) Can we truly be Saved?
The Good News, that our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his followers to preach until he returns.Is still the same one.
Acts 2 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
The terms and conditions are simple to understand.
Ephesians 2 8 By this undeserved kindness, indeed, ?YOU? have been saved through faith; and this not owing to ?YOU, it is God’s gift.9No, it is not owing to works, in order that no man should have ground for boasting.Reply by StillHaveFaith on 2013-06-23 03:39:29
RE: "The majority of, although Gods chosen people.Rejected the doorway to repentance when he came, Jesus Christ.
Why was this?Did they value tradition more than truth.Did they not want to repent?.Was it pride.Or, did they put too much trust in men?"
Did they value tradition more than truth....did they put too much trust in men? Perhaps their minds and hearts were blocked from the truth due to indoctrination by their religious leaders and manmade "traditions of men". There was also the issue of fear of persecution and being expelled from the synagogue to the extent that this also prevented the majority from following Christ. It appears to me that these same issues exist among our own, Jehovah's Witnesses.
Comment by Remember Those Who Instructed You | Beroean Pickets on 2013-10-13 11:01:13
[…] [i] See Are You in the New Covenant; The Spirit Bears Witness; Who Should Partake; and Kiss the Son. […]
Comment by WT Study: ‘This Is to Be a Memorial for You’ | Beroean Pickets on 2014-02-24 18:04:46
[…] that we have been failing to obey Jesus’ command all these years. (For more information see “Kiss the Son”.) However, because the organization has created a stigma for anyone desiring to partake, many […]
Comment by WT Study: Are You Convinced That You Have the Truth? Why? | Beroean Pickets on 2014-10-27 08:01:37
[…] the Lord’s Evening Meal”, w15 1/15 p. 13 [ii] For a detailed discussion of this topic, see “Kiss the Son”. [iii] While not a complete list, an example of the extensive work done by other Christian […]