It appears that the sole purpose of this, the third study article in the July 15, 2013 The Watchtower is to establish the premise for the new understanding put forward in the final article in this issue. If you have already read the magazine’s study articles, you will know that we are now taught that the eight members of the Governing Body make up the faithful steward in its entirety. How do we know that Jesus was referring to such a small number of men when speaking of a faithful slave whom he appoints to feed the domestics? The reasoning, as laid out in this third study article, is that he set the precedent for this arrangement by the way he performed a particular miracle, the feeding of thousands using only a few fishes and loaves of bread. His disciples did the feeding.
The article will now make the point that Jesus performed this miracle so that he could show how the feeding of his sheep would take place two thousand years in the future.
This is the fallacy of circular reasoning combined with the weak analogy fallacy. The article’s conclusion needs scriptural support, but there is nothing declared in Scripture to support the idea of a central committee feeding millions of followers. So the writer has found a miracle which, among its many components, has the element of a few feeding many. Presto, bingo! We have proof.
Having found his analogy, the writer would have us believe that Jesus performed this miracle to teach us that some 2,000 years in the future this is how his disciples would be taught. The reason Jesus himself gives for performing this miracle is to care for the physical needs of his listeners. It is an example of his superlative loving kindness, not a object lesson on how the sheep are to be taught. He did refer back to this on one other occasion to teach an object lesson, but the lesson had to do with the power of faith, not how to feed the flock. (Mat. 16:8,9)
Nevertheless, the fact is that the eight men of the Governing Body feed the millions of Witnesses worldwide, therefore, this miracle must support this reality. And since there is such a miracle, then the modern-day feeding must be supported in Scripture. You see? Circular logic.
Fair enough. But does even our analogy, such as it is, work in actuality? Let's run the numbers. He gave the food to his disciples to distribute. Who were the disciples? The apostles, right? The trouble is, the math doesn’t work if we leave it as that. Factoring in women and children—since only men were counted in those days—we are conservatively talking about some 15,000 individuals. That many people would cover a number of acres of land. It would take many hours for only 12 men to carry that much food if each one was responsible for feeding well over 1,000 persons. Just imagine walking the length of a football field enough times to provide food for an assembly hall full of people and you have some idea of the task before them.
Jesus had more than 12 disciples. At one point, he sent 70 out preaching. Women were also counted as part of the group of his disciples. (Luke 10:1; 23:27) The fact they divided the crowd into groups of 50 and 100, indicates the likelihood that one disciple was assigned to each group. We are probably talking about a couple of hundred disciples. However, that doesn’t fit with the point the article is trying to make, so the illustrations in the magazine only depict two disciples.
This is all academic in any case. The real question is: Was Jesus performing this miracle to teach us something about the way the faithful and discreet slave would be structured? Seems like a leap in logic, particularly so since he makes no connection between the miracle and the parable in question.
The reason he performed miracles, as we’ve been told on numerous occasions, was to establish himself as the Son of God and give a foregleam of what his eventual Kingship would accomplish.
It seems we are once again reaching for some imagined prophetic parallel to try to bolster an interpretation of Scripture not otherwise evident in the inspired record, supporting it with a very weak analogy and a good deal of circular reasoning.
Paragraphs 5 through 7 speak of the choosing of the 12 apostles who were given “an office of oversight” and told to ‘feed Jesus’ little sheep’. Jesus did this just days before departing for good, just as the parable of the faithful and discreet slave depicts. (Mt. 24:45-47) However, we will be told in the next article that the apostles never constituted that faithful slave. In paragraphs 8 and 9 we show how just as a few fed many with the fishes and loaves, so the few apostles fed many following Pentecost.
“Let the Reader Use Discernment”
This is where we have to be careful and use our powers of discernment. For the analogy to work in support of our new understanding, the apostles and their replacements (the few) will have to continue feeding the many throughout the first century. Only if that is the case will this prophetic type serve as support for our modern-day antitype of the Governing Body feeding the worldwide congregation.
So what really happened in the first century? The few, the 12 apostles, trained thousands of newly converted men and women and eventually sent them on their way back to their homes. Did the apostles continue to feed them after that? No. How could they? Who fed the Ethiopian eunuch, for instance? Not the apostles, but one man, Philip. And who directed Philip to the eunuch? Not the apostles, but an angel of the Lord. (Acts 8:26-40)
How was new food and new understanding dispensed to the faithful in those days? Jehovah, through his son Jesus, used male and female prophets to instruct the congregations. (Acts 2:17; 13:1; 15:32; 21:9)
The way this works—the way it has always worked—is that a few with the knowledge train many others. Eventually, the many go forth with their newfound knowledge and train many more, who go forth and train still more. And so it goes. Not just with the Good News, but in any intellectual endeavor, this is how information is disseminated.
Now in paragraph 10 we are told that “Christ used this small group of qualified men to settle doctrinal issues and to oversee and direct the preaching and teaching of the Kingdom good news.”
This is the pivotal paragraph. It is the paragraph where we establish the crux of the argument that a few (the Governing Body) feeds the many, the worldwide brotherhood. We state categorically that:
- There was a first century governing body.
- It was comprised of a small group of qualified men.
- It settled doctrinal issues for the congregation.
- It oversaw and directed the preaching work.
- It oversaw and directed the teaching work.
For proof of the foregoing, we offer up three Scriptural references: Acts 15:6-29; 16:4,5; 21:17-19.
Acts 15:6-29 relates the case involving the circumcision issue. This is the only time in the Bible that the apostles and older men of Jerusalem are consulted over a doctrinal issue. Does this single incident prove the existence of a first century governing body that performed all the aforementioned duties? Hardly. In fact, the reason Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem was because the dispute in question originated from there. Why were certain men from Judea promoting circumcision of the gentiles? Is this evidence of the direction and oversight of a first century governing body? Obviously, the only way to stop this false teaching was to go to the source. This isn’t to say that the congregations didn’t respect the older men and apostles in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, it is a big, unsupported leap of logic to conclude that this implies a first century equivalent to our modern Governing Body.
Next, Acts 16:4,5 is provided as proof of their directing the work. What is relayed there is the fact that Paul, having received a letter from the apostles and older men of Jerusalem, was carrying it to the gentile Christians in his travels. Of course, he would do this. This was the letter that ended the dispute over circumcision. So we are still dealing with the one issue. There’s nothing in the Greek Scriptures indicating this was common practice.
Finally, Acts 21:17-19 speaks of Paul giving a report to the apostles and older men. Why wouldn’t he do this. Since the work originated there, they would want to know how things were progressing. It is likely he reported on the activities of other congregations each time he visited a congregation in a new city. How would making a report constitute proof of all we claim?
What does the Bible record really teach about that meeting with the supposed governing body? Here is the account. Do we see evidence of Paul addressing a small body of qualified men as depicted by the illustration on page 19?
(Acts 15:6) ...And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair.
(Acts 15:12, 13) ...At that the entire multitude became silent, and they began to listen to Barnabas and Paul relate the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations.
(Acts 15:22) ...Then the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation favored sending chosen men from among them to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was called Barsabbas and Silas, leading men among the brothers;
“The entire multitude”? The “older men together with the whole congregation”? Where is the scripture that supports the artist’s conception on page 19?
What about the claim they oversaw and directed the preaching and teaching work?
We’ve already seen that Jehovah used prophets and prophetesses in the congregations. There were other gifts as well, gifts of teaching, of speaking in tongues and of translating. (1 Cor. 12:27-30) The evidence is that the angels were directing and overseeing the work directly.
(Acts 16:6-10) Moreover, they went through Phrygia and the country of Galatia, because they were forbidden by the holy spirit to speak the word in the [district of] Asia. 7 Further, when getting down to Mysia they made efforts to go into Bithynia, but the spirit of Jesus did not permit them. 8 So they passed Mysia by and came down to Troas. 9 And during the night a vision appeared to Paul: a certain Macedonian man was standing and entreating him and saying: “Step over into Macedonia and help us.” 10?Now as soon as he had seen the vision, we sought to go forth into Mac·e·do?ni·a, drawing the conclusion that God had summoned us to declare the good news to them.
If there indeed were such a body overseeing and directing the work, why were they not in the loop when Paul was commissioned to preach the good news to the nations.
(Galatians 1:15-19) ...But when God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called [me] through his undeserved kindness, thought good 16 to reveal his Son in connection with me, that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not go at once into conference with flesh and blood. 17 Neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles previous to me, but I went off into Arabia, and I came back again to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and I stayed with him for fifteen days. 19 But I saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.
If there was, as we declare, a body of older men and apostles in Jerusalem overseeing and directing the preaching and teaching, then it would have been improper for Paul to have deliberately avoided going “into conference with flesh and blood”.
A hundred years from now, a survivor of Armageddon could look at any of our modern publications and have no doubt about the existence of a Governing Body directing the preaching and teaching work. Why then is there no such evidence in the Greek Scriptures supporting our contention that a first century counterpart to this modern body existed?
It is beginning to look like we have created a fiction in an effort to shore up the authority of our Governing Body.
But there is more. Paragraphs 16 to 18 sum everything up, laying the foundation for what is to come in the final article.
- Russell and the pre-1914 Bible Students were not “the appointed channel through which Christ would feed his sheep”, because they were still in the growing season.
- The harvest season began in 1914.
- From 1914 to 1919 Jesus inspected and cleansed the temple.
- In 1919, the angels began to gather the wheat.
- Jesus appointed “a channel to give out spiritual “food at the proper time” during the time of the end—after 1919.
- He would do this using the pattern of feeding the many through the few.
Take these six points. Now think how you would prove them to someone you might meet out in service. What scriptures would you use to prove any of this? Is it not true that all these "doctrinal truths" are really just unfounded assertions which we accept because we are trained to accept anything from the Governing Body as if it were the very word of God?
Let us not be that way. As were the ancient Beroeans, so are we.
Four prophecies are intertwined in this interpretation.
- The seven times of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness.
- Malachi’s messenger of the covenant.
- The parable of the wheat and weeds.
- The parable of the faithful steward.
For number 1 to work in support of 1914, we have to accept eleven distinct and unproven assumptions. For number 2 to work, we have to assume that it has a secondary application and that said application took five years to achieve fulfillment—from 1914 to 1919. We also have to assume that number 2’s fulfillment is linked with that of number 1, even though there is no evidence of this connection in the Bible. For number 3 to work, we have to assume it is linked to numbers 1 and 2. For number 4 to work, we have to assume it is linked to numbers 1, 2, and 3.
What is of interest is that neither Jesus nor any Bible writer makes any connection whatsoever between these four prophecies. Yet not only do we link them all together, but we also tie them to the prophetically unsupported year of 1919.
An honest examination of the facts will force us to admit that the entire interpretation is based on nothing but assumptions. There is no historical evidence that Jesus spent five years from 1914 to 1919 inspecting his spiritual temple. There is no historical evidence that the wheat began to be harvested in 1919. There is no more evidence that he didn’t choose Russell prior to 1914 as his appointed channel of communication than there is that he did choose Rutherford in that capacity after 1919.
As those who worship "in spirit and truth", are we being loyal to our master by accepting human speculation as Bible truth?
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 2013-04-28 14:39:31
With regard to decision making at the Jerusalem council, after both private and open discussion before the "multitude" verse 19 of Acts 15 records that it was James who made the final decision "my decision" (Greek I am judging), on what should be done to resolve matters. This I believe to be consistent with perhaps a position of oversight of the Jerusalem Christian religious congregation (ekklesia). James on a number of occasions is referred to separately relative to other brothers and elders.
Peter after his miraculous release from prison at Acts 12:17, instructs that a report of his experience should be made to "James and the brothers". Acts 21:18 records that Paul on his return to Jerusalem went in with others to "James and all the older men" who were also present. On another occasion when Paul visits Jerusalem he stays with Cephas but sees no one else other than James. ( Gal 1:19). Fourteen years later Paul again visits Jerusalem he agrees with James, Cephas and John to continue witnessing to the nations and they to the Jews. He also acknowledges that both he and Peter received their authorization as apostles from Jesus Christ himself and not any supposed governing body. (Gal 2:7-9). Later when Cephas visits Antioch, Paul refers to "the arrival of certain men from James" (Gal 2:12). In the light of these scriptural references it appears James may have had special authority in the Jerusalem congregation and as such it would have been consistent with this that he make the final decision as recorded at the Jerusalem council and not a governing body as we have been led to believe.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-04-28 17:53:04
I see your point and it appears to be well supported Scripturally. Actually, you got me thinking of something. We refer to the "first century governing body". (You've provided good proof it wasn't really a committee so much as a council of elders or advisers with James making the final decision.) Be that as it may, It could only have been in place for a maximum of 30 years. The Christians left Jerusalem in 66 C.E., never to return. What then of the first century governing body?
When John was directed by Jesus Christ to write to the seven congregations some 30 years later, no mention is made of any centralized authority overseeing and directing the work. Each congregation is given direct counsel from Jesus and appears to have been operating autonomously. So even if there was a governing body--highly questionable--it only existed for 30 years.Reply by Steve on 2013-04-28 22:26:34
It is also interesting to note that in Galatians 2 Paul identifies them as men of reputation, which would be quite the understatement were they the governing body.
It is also worth noting that the letter says the false teachers went out from among them, which is shocking if they were the governing body.
Steve
Comment by junachin on 2013-04-29 14:22:33
I think some kind of case can be made for some sort of central authority based in Jerusalem in the 1st century. First, take Acts 15:2
But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Bar?na·bas with them, they arranged for Paul and Bar?na·bas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute.
First, if this was just an inter-congregational problem, why go all the way to Jerusalem to deal with it? Why not just send a letter?
Then, after the decision is made, we read:
(Acts 16:4, 5) Now as they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem. 5 Therefore, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day.
The 'apostles and older men in Jerusalem' apparently had the authority to emit decrees, and that authority was accepted by the rest of the congregations. Still, it is noteworthy that, unlike today's GB, the apostles and older men of Acts 15 are invisible, undefined and unnamed unless they speak.
Also, I see no reason why such a central authority, whatever its makeup and scope, would have ceased to exist when the Christians fled Jerusalem in 66. It would simply have moved to a new location. Toward the end of the first century John writes:
(3 John 9, 10) 9 I wrote something to the congregation, but Di·ot?re·phes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not receive anything from us with respect. 10 That is why, if I come, I will call to remembrance his works which he goes on doing.
. .
Who is the “us” from whom Diotrephes receives nothing with respect? Could it not be whatever central authority existed at the time?
As I said at the outset, this is “some kind of case”, but surely not an airtight one. And the “apostles and older men” seem quite cautious in exercising whatever authority they wielded. Even in the above quote from 3 John, John does not threaten any particular course of action, but rather simply vows to “call to remembrance his works”. And in Revelation any central authority is either bypassed or deliberately snubbed by Jesus.
Whatever hierarchical system they may have had back then is probably irrelevant anyway. The scriptures seem deliberately thin on information about the administrative aspects of the first century congregation, probably because future generations would not have the benefits of direct angelic oversight, visions and outpourings of holy spirit. How far would we get as an organization if the GB were to resign tomorrow? If we had no publications and every yahoo elder out there were suddenly free to do as he pleases? I have serious doubts about how many minutes we would survive. There must be a happy medium between the anarchy of a headless earthly institution and the doctrinal tyranny and administrative micro-managing of the present one.
That's not to say I don't appreciate all the hard work the GB does. But they really need to give up these just-so stories with their poor logic and assumptions of blind faith. That's not helping my faith at all.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-04-29 14:37:27
I agree with your viewpoint completely. We do need--humans have always needed--some governing authority. I would imagine that even under Jehovah's righteous rule after the 1,000 years have ended, there will be some level of authority or hierarchy. The Bible speaks of that among the angels. We have benefitted and continue to benefit from the lead the Governing Body and others take and from much of their direction. Not all, but that is where imperfection has a hand.
However, as you point out, they go too far. They exceed their authority in teaching us things which are the result of human speculation. This latest understanding of the faithful slave seems to go beyond a too-eager willingness to explain Scripture. This seems to be a move for prominence. This has happened before. Jesus repeatedly counselled and reproved his disciples about the desire for prominence. He succeeded, but the trait is always present in us. The written record of Judge Rutherford, the supposed first member of the Faithful and Discreet Slave speaks volumes of this attitude, and his failure to get the master over it. Are the current members leaning in that direction, or am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Time will tell.
Thanks for sharing your insights.
Reply by Steve on 2013-04-29 17:03:01
I don't find it clear that this relates to them in any way as a central authority. Instead, authority seemed generally distributed, based upon the giving of revelation and the presentation of evidence.
For example, Peter alone received the revelation on the acceptance of gentiles, and word spread on this and it was accepted. He did not consult with a centralized body and have them distribute the teaching. Would we not expect this if such a structure existed?
The "us" in 3 John would appear to be Gaius himself. This is evident from the "we" in verse 8, which includes him with John.
SteveReply by junachin on 2013-04-29 18:32:45
Hi Steve,
It could be, as you say, that when John says "us" he's referring to himself and Gaius, but I've read the entire book (all 15 verses!) again and it seems far from clear who the "us" is. Here are some excerpts from the ESV that I think show that it is at least ambiguous:
Verse 9: I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.
Verse 12: Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself. We also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true.
In verse 9 we see an implication of authority being challenged and in verse 12 the "we" could include Gaius or not, there's no way to tell. The "we" in verse 8 obviously includes John and Gaius, but might also be intended as a general principle inclusive of all true Christians. It also doesn't necessarily follow that every "we" in 3 John is referring to the same exact group of people.
My point was that while I don't see a clear picture of a central authority in the NT, neither do I think a central authority of limited scope can be easily dismissed. Which means that we can hardly use the early Christian congregation as a model on which to base our present hierarchical structure, but we might be able to justify some kind of central authority and whatever infrastructure it would need to be effective. That's still a far cry from what the WT article under discussion is claiming.
Comment by theapologeticfront on 2013-04-30 11:21:18
I can see where they come up with the inspection and whatnot, but where do they get the 5 years 1914-1919? Is there even a verse that can be misinterpreted to come up with that.
Comment by JimmyG on 2013-05-06 00:09:16
It's interesting to note that Fred Franz, in a discourse given to the 59th Gilead class at their graduation (September 1975), obviously knew there was no Governing Body in the 1st century.as taught by the WT. This discourse is still available online in audio and printed form.
Comment by StillHaveFaith on 2013-09-22 01:00:26
Your evidence is presented so logically that you could argue this in a court of law and win. [not only in this article but many of the other articles on this website] However, logical deductions do not seem to be compatible with the Governing Body's "indoctrination" and thus the vast majority of JWs will continue to follow the GB like "sheep to the slaughter" before they will be willing to recognize that the GB are just human men (whom I no longer believe to have a "direct channel to Jehovah"). If 1+1 = 2 and the GB instructs that 1 + 1 = 3, JWs are expected to believe it because the GB said so.
Any type of human organization requires leadership to function effectively, but all organized religion has a track record of "My Way or the Highway".....the various churches have always claimed that their doctrines are the ONLY correct teachings and anyone deviating is on the "Highway to Hell". Whereas JWs are taught that if they even question or do their own Biblical research, they are "apostate" and therefore on the Highway to Destruction at Armageddon..... they are summarily kicked out the door and thrown to the wolves. I have been wondering who really are the "wolves in sheep's clothing?"
I am very grateful for the enlightenment that I have received through JWs regarding so many false teachings that I was raised to believe as a Catholic: Hellfire, Trinity, Idolatry of Saints and Mary, on and on. The Pope has always claimed to be the "Vicar of Christ", as the representative of Christ on earth, "Infallible"-- even though the rules keep changing according to different Popes throughout history, the Pope is to be obeyed without question. The Protestants are "heretics" and "apostates" so burn them at the stake for reading the Bible and discovering that they are not being taught the truth in God's Word by the Catholic leadership....
If we are willing to "connect the dots" we would have to admit that there are some similiarities between the Pope and the GB.Reply by Andrew on 2013-09-22 10:53:08
Read the papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, and you’ll realize that there is much more than a similarity between the Pope and the GB. In it, he wrote that in order to receive eternal salvation, you must be a member of the Catholic Church, and that you must be in subject to the Pope. Sound familiar?
Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-22 12:36:37
Excellent points, made by both "Andrew" & "StillHaveFaith"!
I wholehearted agree.
I am reminded of a couple of quotes from the publications, some years ago which highlighted the danger of confusing one's holy dedication to Jehovah with any man, or any organization, including the Watchtower Society & Jehovah's Witnesses as a congregation. For example this one:
"A Christian therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of ANY ORGANIZATION, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit." -- July 1st, 1955 Watchtower pg. 411 par. 15.
...or this one,
"Jehovah is the giver of life. 'For with you is the source of life.' (Ps. 36:9) We cannot keep everlasting life in view without staying CLOSE TO JEHOVAH, the source of life ... This is what we mean when we dedicate our lives to Jehovah. We DO NOT DEDICATE OURSELVES TO A RELIGION, nor to a man, nor to AN ORGANIZATION. No, we dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a VERY PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN US AND JEHOVAH. For this reason, all dedicated ones are not only privileged but obligated to draw near to Jehovah in prayer. James 4:8 tells us: 'Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you." -- October 1st, 1966 Watchtower pgs. 603, 604 paragraph 14, 15
Additionally, the questions for that particular study article paragraph, to re-emphasize the point was:
"What principles must we keep clearly in mind in our relationship to Jehovah? What should we know about dedication? What necessary thing will help us to stay close to Jehovah, keeping him always before?
So then, why am I bringing up these quotes from yesteryear publications?
Well, consider the earth-shaking changes and adjustments, made to our baptismal, dedication questions that are propounded to all new baptismal candidates world wide, as of the summer of 1985. Questions, from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. These questions are:
1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in ASSOCIATION WITH GOD'S SPIRIT-DIRECTED ORGANIZATION? (See June 1st, 1985 Watchtower pg. 30 paragraphs 3 &4.)
Before that time, (before 1985) the dedication questions for all baptismal candidates were simply,
1) Have you recognized yourself as a sinner and needing salvation from Jehovah God? And have you acknowledged that this salvation proceeds from him and through his ransomer, Christ Jesus?
2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for redemption have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to Jehovah God, to do his will henceforth as that will is revealed to you through Christ Jesus and through God's Word as his Holy Spirit makes it plain? (See 1970 Watchtower pg. 309 paragraph 20.)
Since I was baptized BEFORE 1985, then I only agreed before God and man, to "do his will henceforth as that will is revealed ... through Christ Jesus and through God's Word as His Holy Spirit makes it plain." That's what I agreed to. And today, I am satisfied that, I am still doing that too, following this public dedication to the "letter-of-the-Law." So then, there was nothing in there about me being, loyal and obedient to a "spirit-directed organization," no matter what. I didn't agree to that.
According to the 1966 Watchtower magazine quoted above, we must always keep in mind, our dedication brings us "close to Jehovah," and we must always stay close to Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and the bible which is the product of God's Holy Spirit. Therefore according to my dedication, the bible then & now, is the LAST WORD to me, and ultimate determining factor, on all doctrinal matters and becomes the genuine foundation of my religious belief system, or of any persuasion of religious belief, that I personally hold to God Almighty, Jehovah, and His heavenly enthroned, "only-begotten" Son & King, Jesus. -- 2 Tim. 3:16, 17
So, our personal dedication to God (shown publicly at our water baptism), is supposed to guarantee all who witness it, of that agreement. And all Jehovah's Witnesses gladly do this, with this understanding of this important event.
So then why oh why, after feeding us correct information on our dedication in years past, information that would make us clearly all have a proper understanding of what our personal dedication really means and the important of us having this correct understanding, right up till the year of 1985, then why oh why, would one want to CHANGE OUR BAPTISMAL DEDICATIONS, under the guise of making "new light" adjustments for our "benefit"? Why would someone do that, I ask?
I believe, this should have been a very disturbing development for Jehovah's Witnesses, a development proceeding directly from the Governing Body, since the year of 1985.
...With these new dedication question being accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses ... Sounds a lot like the present-day situation the Catholics face, in having to obey without question or dissent, the so-called "Vicar of Christ," namely the Pope.
...my opinion.
Observer17Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-23 00:23:54
It has been suggested that the reason for the 1985 change in the baptismal questions has more to do with legal issues than anything else. Say you have stopped attending meetings for some time, then start talking with friends about doctrines of the Organization you no longer agree with. Next thing you know, you'll have the elders inviting you to a judicial hearing. You may decline saying you do not wish to attend, and they exercise no authority over you. Therefore, they cannot compel you to attend, nor do they have the right to disfellowship you anymore than they have the right to disfellowship any citizen of the country. In that case, they'll threaten to disfellowship you in absentia. In these situations, some have sued the society claiming they have no jurisdiction. Reportedly, in such cases, the plaintiff's lawyer will get a thick packet of papers from the legal desk showing the many cases we've won; claiming the right of ecclesiastical authority. That right is now bolstered by the change of question 2 to one that acknowledges submission to the ecclesiastical authority of the Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Reply by Kyp on 2013-09-23 06:42:39
A very sad development in 1985, and we all ask, what the change of the question has to do with the Bible while the New Testament contains no focus on organisation.
Sometimes I think by myself: If I only I had noticed these tendencies and questionable background earlier.
Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-23 10:12:01
Thanks Meleti, for your comment. And yes, I have heard that suggestion too.
Observer17
Reply by StillHaveFaith on 2013-09-23 14:35:37
It seems to me that the right of ecclesiastical authority regarding disfellowshipping is in direct conflict with the constitutional right of Freedom of Religion, which was originally designed to protect individuals as well as religious organizations. As individuals we do not have the right under the jurisdiction of the Governing Body to practice our faith according to our own personal beliefs. Some government authorities in Europe are investigating the WTBTS under the premise that their citizens rights to freedom of religion are being removed according to the control methods utilized regarding disfellowshipping "apostates", and thus breaking up families.
Reply by BeenMislead on 2013-09-23 08:28:10
The only explanation given for the change is as follows which seems to suggest that all the people baptized before 1985 did not fully comprehend what their dedication and baptism meant. Which is you now must adhere to the authority of the organization:
(W87 4/15 pg. 15 - Gaining Peace With God Through Dedication and Baptism - {under the Footnotes})
“Recently the two questions addressed to baptismal candidates were simplified so that candidates could answer with full comprehension of what is involved in coming into intimate relationship with God and his earthly organization.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(What does the Bible Really Teach - Pg. 183)
“Remember, too, that you have made a dedication to Jehovah God himself, not to a work, a cause, other humans, or an organization. Your dedication and baptism are the beginning of a very close friendship with God—an intimate relationship with him.”
As you can see the change to the second question seems to be in contradiction with what it says in our current publications about dedicating ourselves to an organization.
------------------------------------------------------------
What did Jesus tell us at Matthew 28:19,20?
“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, ...”
There is no mention of an organization there!!Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-23 11:28:16
Excellent point, "BeenMislead"!
I must admit, 'm a little shocked, amazed even.
I must have missed that particular issue of the magazines or something. That is the 1987 Watchtower quote you mentioned, shown below.
I find this quote, after meditating upon it, particularly disturbing:
(W87 4/15 pg. 15 – Gaining Peace With God Through Dedication and Baptism – {under the Footnotes})
“Recently the two questions addressed to baptismal candidates were simplified so that candidates could answer with full comprehension of what is involved in coming into intimate relationship with God and his earthly organization.”
Did they openly say, an "intimate relationship with his earthly organization"???
Isn't that idolatry??? What!?![See Isaiah 42:8]
Isn't that putting "their doorpost" and their "threshold" right next to Jehovah's, which would automatically lead to Jehovah "exterminating them" in his anger??? [ See Ezekiel 43:8.]
That's something that I don't believe even Jesus, His "only begotten Son" would try. [See John 8:29.]
So if I'm to believe what they just said, then how can we, as Jehovah's dedicated servants, have an "intimate relationship" with an impersonal "organization"? [Maybe, that is kind of like having an "intimate relationship" with an inanimate "Golden Calf," I wonder.] How is this possible?
My opinion: I see this as a COMPLETE DEPARTURE from what we previously believed in 1966.
Let's review it, again.
I have no doubt, the 1966 Watchtower article was approved and sanctioned by the then President of the Watchtower Society Nathan Knorr, and also Vice President Frederick Franz, for all baptismal candidates back in the year of 1966. It plainly states:
“Jehovah is the giver of life. ‘For with you is the source of life.’ (Ps. 36:9) We cannot keep everlasting life in view without staying CLOSE TO JEHOVAH, the source of life … This is what we mean when we dedicate our lives to Jehovah. We DO NOT DEDICATE OURSELVES TO A RELIGION, nor to a man, NOR TO AN ORGANIZATION. No, we dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a VERY PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN US AND JEHOVAH. For this reason, all dedicated ones are not only privileged but obligated to draw near to Jehovah in prayer. James 4:8 tells us: ‘Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you.” — See October 1st, 1966 Watchtower pages 603, 604 paragraphs 14, 15.
Let's think for a moment.
We pray ONLY ... ONLY to Jehovah God, right? And so, we rightly dedicate our lives to Him and to Him alone, as the 1966 Watchtower article says, right?
Sooooooooooo,
... Isn't this, these new dedication questions since 1985, a full, unabashed demonstration of a COMPLETE "DEPARTURE" [See Greek word for "apostasia"] from our original position of what we taught and believed was genuine "truth" back in 1966, I ask? In short, isn't this a marked "departure from truth," exactly what the Greek word "apostasia" actually means, when we "adjust" those dedication questions,I ask?
If we are responsible servants of Jehovah, that actively teach God's Word to others in our ministry in good conscience, certainly we gladly adhere to the words of 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Timothy 2:15, where we are told to always "be ready to make a defense" for our beliefs to those we publicly preach to, and we should always "rightly divide" [KJV] God's Word so that we can correctly teach the message of Christ before others? Isn't that the we, as Jehovah's Witnesses, feel about things?
So if we were asked this question in our public ministry, namely:
"...Should we dedicate ourselves to Jehovah and His Organization as the new questions say, or should we dedicate our lives to Jehovah, Alone, and only Him ... which viewpoint would we say, before God and men? Which viewpoint, would we "recommend ... to every human conscience in the sight of God"? (See 2 Corinthians 4:2.)
...just my opinion.
Observer17
Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-23 12:50:03
Okay, now I remember reading that April 15th, 1987 article a while back. Thanks, for reminding me of it, "BeenMislead." Somehow, I had just forgot about it.
...go figure.
I guess I'm getting old. (LOL)
Observer17
Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-30 14:42:21
Just recently, in the July 15th, 2013 Watchtower article on "Who Really Is The Faithful Slave And Discreet Slave?" this insidious statement was made, concerning whether a person could have a quote, "healthy spiritual relationship with Jehovah" ... without having one with the Governing Body. I believe, this statement itself, ties in quite nicely with the great change in the baptismal questions of 1985. Notice this "enlightening" comment in that particular study article, for our benefit.:
Comment found in paragraph #2 of the 4th study article in the July 15th, 2013 magazine, where it states:
" ... That faithful slave is the channel through which Jesus is feeding his true followers in this time of the end. It is vital that we recognize the faithful slave. OUR SPIRITUAL HEALTH AND OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD DEPEND ON THIS CHANNEL.—Matt. 4:4; John 17:3."
In other words, your personal relationship with Jehovah, completely depends on your having a close, "healthy," "relationship" with that "channel" that God is using. That specific "channel" now is specially, as mentioned above, namely the "New Light" Revealed "Faithful And Discreet Slave" of our modern day era.
Were we aware of this fact, mentioned in this paragraph?
Maybe all Jehovah's Witnesses baptized before 1985, did not know this, actually. I know I didn't. Yes, this is a new point for all to consider.
Let's mention that point again because of its great importance.
This means of course, you personally cannot have a "healthy," yes that's "healthy," spiritual "relationship with Jehovah," without...without the Governing Body [representing the "spirit-directed" organization, being the main or leading part of it]. And that's the real reason for the big change in the baptismal questions all the way back to the summer of 1985. Its all about getting [or stealing] "glory" for themselves, plain and simple. Its about stealing from Jehovah God! Remember, first [back in 1985] we needed a close, "intimate relationship" with the "spirit-directed Organization." But nowadays, a few years later, you need more specifically, a close, "healthy, spiritual relationship" with the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses...before you can have one with Jehovah. -- See Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 42:8; Ezekiel 43:8.
Again I would ask, did we all know this?
See link to July 15th, 2013 Watchtower magazine, covering 4th study article entitled "Who Really Is The Faithful And Discreet Slave?" paragraph #2, where this statement is made:
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magaz ... eet-slave/
Observer17Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-30 14:44:42
If the link doesn't work, you can try this one:
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/
Observer17
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-23 00:11:32
Except that the current Governing Body has more power over people's lives than the current Pope.
Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-24 10:27:16
Hi Meleti,
Wow!
So if the present-day Governing Body has MORE POWER than the Pope as you say, and over 7 million Jehovah's Witnesses certainly publicly condemns this as HEINOUS IDOLATRY on the Catholics' part and all, why are we doing the exact same thing in making our Governing Body [or letting them become] an UNTOUCHABLE, "Golden Calf" too, I ask?
For example, what was wrong with the original baptismal questions accepted by the organization back in Oct. 1966, presented to us by President Nathan Knorr and Vice President Frederick Franz? Personally, I thought they were perfect. -- See October 1st, 1966, pgs. 603, 604, par. 14 & 15.
Nowaday, we are made to know our dedication must bring us into an "intimate relationship with the organization"??? -- See W87 4/15 pg. 15
Isn't that a direct contradiction of our original stance on this issue?
Observer17
PS: If you wish to NOT reply or give your opinion to this question publicly, you can email me at Observer17@netzero.com...or, if anyone else wishes to comment privately. I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-24 10:48:00
The new question is subtly worded so that it can be argued that it is not a direct contradiction of our original position. Having said that, the reason given for the new question does show the true intent and is not only a direct contradiction of our previously stated position, but it is also and more importantly contrary to Scripture.
(W87 4/15 pg. 15 – Gaining Peace With God Through Dedication and Baptism – {under the Footnotes})
“Recently the two questions addressed to baptismal candidates were simplified so that candidates could answer with full comprehension of what is involved in coming into intimate relationship with God and his earthly organization.”
However, the actual wording of the question implies that our baptism merely "identifies us" as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It makes no suggestion of what is really intended: that we are dedicating ourselves to the Organization as well. If we disagree with the Organization at some point, they can disfellowship us, essentially nullifying our dedication to God--at least in their minds.
The whole thing is really is quite reprehensible.Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-24 12:11:25
Hi Meleti,
You said:
***... It makes no suggestion of what is really intended: that we are dedicating ourselves to the Organization as well. If we disagree with the Organization at some point, they can disfellowship us, essentially nullifying our dedication to God–at least in their minds. ... The whole thing is really is quite reprehensible.***
Yes, that is the way they [Watchtower Society] see life, and Jehovah as God.
However, if Jehovah Himself agreed with "anointed" Nathan Knorr & "anointed" Frederick Franz's original position on our dedication questions back in 1966, and thinks that ONLY ... ONLY Jehovah Himself, should be the One that we dedicate our lives to, alone ... then it really is I-D-O-L-A-T-R-Y on all of our parts, "reprehensible" on all of our parts, for letting them make themselves into a "Golden Calf" before us all. They did it right in front of our eyes!
I mean, either we should be dedicated to Jehovah alone, or its appropriate to dedicate our lives to and have an "intimate relationship with the organization," as the Governing Body says.
In other words, I see it like this. From an ancient perspective, I see Moses [or Jesus] went up on Mt. Horeb to get us God's Law, and before He could get back with the Law, we have all apostasized from God, by observing the entire Israelite camp and High Priest Aaron [Governing Body] make us a "Golden Calf" for worship, telling us this is our new "God," this image that has been made. Now, what should be Moses' [Jesus'] reaction to that, I ask?
If in fact, their [Governing Body's] great "power" over us, exceeds the Pope's as stated above, then are we willingly accepting "Idolatry" from the hand of the Governing Body, accepting "apostasy" against Jehovah God [with full knowledge] by way of accepting these new dedication questions, I ask?
Well, if that is the case, then we won't have to worry about being disfellowshipped at all from the Headquarters Staff at Watchtower.
No, because Jehovah Himself took care of that for us back in 1987...we are ALREADY disfellowshipped [and have been for some time now], by Jehovah God Himself. Whatsmore, this "disfellowshipping" action on God's part, has been sanctioned wholeheartedly by Jesus Christ, our initial Exemplar too. In other words, the decision is unanimous, to get rid of us as "light-bearing" servants of His. No, true "light" from henceforth.
All of which may explain some things. This may explain some strange happenings among Jehovah's Witnesses of late. Kind of like when "Apollos" said we haven't seen any evidence of "spirit-direction" by any religious body on earth, for a long, long time. Yes, I agree!
So maybe this recent escapade of the Governing Body becoming the F&DS [up & coming in next Watchtower lesson], at the expense of the apostles and first century christians, as well as CT Russell and company, NOT being qualified to be considered F&DS any longer in the eyes of 7 million plus Jehovah's Witnesses world wide, is ample proof of this EARTH WIDE disfellowshipment from Jehovah God & Jesus Christ, and irrefutable evidence of no "spirit-direction" coming from this religious body in New York, ever since the year of 1987, when they clarified exactly what that change in those dedication questions really, really meant.
...it sure would explain a lot of things, I'd say.
...my opinion.
Observer17 [email: Observer17@netzero.com if anyone wants to reply privately.]Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-24 13:30:25
(Jeremiah 51:45) 45 “Get out of the midst of her, O my people, and provide each one his soul with escape from the burning anger of Jehovah.
(Revelation 18:4) . . .And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues.
Jehovah's faithful ones are described as being inside Babylon as her destruction is imminent. At that point, the individual salvation of each one will depend on separating himself or herself from the target of Jehovah's anger. I find I am becoming increasing less concerned with the direction the Organization is heading and more concerned with the direction I and my friends are taking. Our concern should be with our brothers and sisters, fellow Christians who are owed our love. Those who remain loyal to human organizations that stand in opposition to God will only suffer the fate awaiting such entities.
Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-27 04:29:13
I would like to make one additional thought for sincere pondering on this topic:
... With the Governing Body controlling the contents of the Watchtower magazine, one needs no imagination to see how this special "tool" [Watchtower magazine] could be easily used to capture and manipulate the "minds and hearts" of sincere persons earth-wide and eventually exact unquestioned obedience, as would a "god" over a period of time. -- See 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4.
This is what I've noticed, over the years.
...my opinion.
Observer17
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-09-22 21:39:56
Dear Observer17,
You're not alone in this and while I sympathize immensely, this is the result of screw-tightening by our present micro-managers. When the change occurred we didn't pay any attention since many thought it was spirit directed to give us a better sense of unity while legally protecting us, blah, blah, blah.....Face it, we all felt the same at the time.
Then came the new disfellowshipping announcement when those so named were "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." Excuse me, I said, but if what God has yoked together in marriage could not be put apart by men, how is it that a far more serious vow can now be 'put apart' by a mere committee of men?
sw
Comment by Observer17 on 2013-09-22 22:32:30
Thanks, SW. And you are right. That's the way it was back then, in 1985.
Question fo all:
BTW, has that word "spirit-directed" [organization] ever been scripturally defined by anyone, since that year in 1985, since they sprung the word on us back then? I mean, how does this particular designation, differ from the plain word everybody else uses, namely "inspired"? I don't hear any other churches using that word. They just say "inspired" and not "spirit-directed."
In other words, Is this word, "spirit-directed" uniquely to be found ONLY among us, Jehovah's Witnesses? Is it unique to our vocabulary, and no one else?
...just wondering.
Observer17
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-23 00:28:38
Saying "spirit-directed" instead of "inspired" is to make a distinction which constitutes no difference whatsoever. These are essentially synonymous terms.
Comment by Vassy on 2013-09-23 08:39:58
Hello brother Meleti,
Time does not allow me to post on your blog as much as I would like but I deemed necessary to draw your attention to some facts. I think the WTS’s assertion that Jesus fed many through the hands of a few is not entirely without basis.
Let me first refer to your assertion that more than twelve (possibly 70) disciples were involved in the feeding activity. Frankly, there is no basis for such a conclusion. Had there been 70 disciples, one of the four writers would have mentioned it. In fact, the opposite is true, Luke specifically mentions that “the TWELVE now came up and said to him…” (Luke 9:12). But although this event may not (or may have, we don’t know for sure) have anything to do with the SPIRITUAL feeding, the fact remains that the apostles played a central (or even “centralized”) role in dispensing spiritual food in the form of instructions, advice, correction etc to all congregations of the first century. Although this aspect may not be apparent by analyzing Bible accounts in isolation, I think the overall message of the Christian Scriptures is that they were regarded as occupying a leading position among the Christians. Consider, for example, Jude’s words in verses 8, 17 and 18. In verse 8, he mentions “lordship” and glorious ones”. Who else may these be but the apostles and their representatives? Verses 17 and 18 state: “As for YOU, beloved ones, call to mind the sayings that have been previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how they used to say to YOU: In the last time there will be ridiculers, proceeding according to their own desires for ungodly things.” Since this is a general letter addressed to all congregations, it naturally follows that the words of the apostles were also disseminated to all congregations throughout the Roman Empire. It may also be said that Jude, as cousin of Jesus and brother of James, was likely one of the Jerusalem elders, therefore a member of the “glorious ones”.
But the central role of the apostles is most appropriately depicted in Revelation 21:14 where the foundation stones of the new city bear the name of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Since the entire structure of the spiritual city rests on the twelve apostles, how could one say that the apostles (and those closely associated with them) did not serve as a centralized governing element in the first century?
You say “The few, the 12 apostles, trained thousands of newly converted men and women and eventually sent them on their way back to their homes. Did the apostles continue to feed them after that? No. How could they? Who fed the Ethiopian eunuch, for instance? Not the apostles, but one man, Philip. And who directed Philip to the eunuch? Not the apostles, but an angel of the Lord. (Acts 8:26-40)” You fail to notice that the account in Acts 2 is mentioned by the Society not in relation their CONVERSION but in relation to “devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles”. The apostles were those “few” whose “teaching” was adhered to. And although, after going back to their homes, they had no longer direct contact with the apostles, the “teaching” they received continued to feed them afterwards. Likewise, the Ethiopian eunuch was CONVERTED by Philip, just as any one of us may CONVERT a worldly person to the truth. The intent of the WT article is to describe the feeding process WITHIN the Christian congregation, made up of ALREADY CONVERTED people. Therefore, the account of the eunuch is irrelevant in this case.
You say “How was new food and new understanding dispensed to the faithful in those days? Jehovah, through his son Jesus, used male and female prophets to instruct the congregations. (Acts 2:17; 13:1; 15:32; 21:9)” Yes, Jehovah may have used male and female prophets to instruct the congregations but you should remember that the gift of prophecy could only be imparted through the hands of the apostles. In fact, the prophets in the Antioch congregation came from Jerusalem as representatives of the apostles. (Acts 11:27) This highlights again the centralized role of the apostles.
If you think my reasoning is somehow flawed, feel free to make the necessary adjustments. But I think the notion of a centralized governing element in the first century cannot easily be discarded.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-23 10:23:16
Brother Vassy, you make some excellent points. While it is just speculation as to how many of the disciples were involved in the distribution of food, it seems logistically impossible that only the 12 apostles could have fed so many thousands. What is likely is that the twelve distributed food from Jesus to a secondary group of disciples who either passed it out to a third distribution point or directly to the end users. However, that is not really the point. The point is that it is a speculation that Jesus performed this miracle to illustrate how the feeding work would be done in the last days. He explains why he performed it and in so doing, makes no mention of the so-called principle of feeding many by the hands of a few.
I don't dispute that the apostles held a pivotal role in the dispensing of spiritual food, especially at the start. That is well documented. Additionally, as the only ones directly appointed by Jesus (with the notable exception of Saul) and apparently as the only ones through whom the gifts of the spirit were distributed, they were highly esteemed and their teachings carried great weight. They also gave direction at times to the congregations. However, there is nothing in scripture to support the idea that they formed a governing body such as we have today. The modern claim is that ALL THE FEEDING is done through the Governing Body. That was not the case in the first century.
It is true that the teaching the initial group received came through the apostles. However, the teaching that those new disciples in turn engaged in resulted in even more disciples taught, not by the few--the apostles--but by the many. Our model is that a few--the Governing Body--teach the many--the millions of Jehovah's Witnesses. ALL THE FOOD comes from the Governing Body. That was not the pattern of the first century. Initially the Apostles dispensed the food, but after that, the food that was dispensed came from the newly taught disciples.
We could argue that ALL THE TEACHING was initially received from the apostles, so what was taught after that was merely passed on, but that doesn't fit the facts. The fact is that all those the apostles taught were converted people. Converted from Judaism to Christianity. The converted ones then went out into the world and converted more and those in turn converted yet more. All of these thousands of converted ones met together on a regular basis to be taught or fed--not by the apostles or some centralized authority as that was physically impossible in those days. So the food at the proper time was dispensed by the holy spirit via the gifts of tongues, translation, and prophecy as guided in each congregation by the holy spirit.
It is true that on one occasion prophets from Jerusalem arrived in Antioch, but to prove that such an instance is not proof of a centralized Jerusalem-based authority, take the account where the spirit directed the brothers in Antioch to adopt the name "Christians". From thenceforth, this was the name we were known by. Jerusalem and the apostles had to follow the direction of the spirit as transmitted through the Syrian congregation in Antioch. Does this not belie the notion of a centralized authority? You don't read of the apostles standing up and saying, "Wait a minute! You can't decide on a name for us. We are the appointed apostles of Christ. If he wanted a name for the congregation, he would have told us first!"
I do not minimize the role of the apostles in any way by this. They were appointed by Jesus. They form the twelve columns of the new Jerusalem. The absence of a centralized authority does not detract from their appointed role in any way. However, the teaching of a centralized authority--then and now--does detract from the exalted God-appointed role of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is a serious sin.
Jesus gave no direction that there would be an apostolic succession. Therefore, there is no basis to conclude that after they died off, there would be other apostles appointed by Jesus to fill their shoes. Yet that is what we are now teaching. While denying we have an apostolic succession and criticizing other religions like Catholicism and the Mormons for practicing this, we have merely dropped the name, but kept the concept. Our Governing Body of eight is now said to be appointed directly by Christ to perform the work that we claim the apostles of Jesus performed. It is an apostolic succession in all but name.Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-23 17:19:56
Hi Meleti,
There are some interesting cross-overs between our comments. I hadn't seen yours before I posted that reply to Vassy. I guess we're on the same wavelength on this.
Apollos
Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-23 10:43:37
Vassy,
I think you make some thought provoking points. There are some issues to be separated however. I'm not saying you haven't done that. You've been very careful to define the points in Meleti's article that you are challenging, and I can see where you are coming from.
But if we accept that the 12 apostles were indeed a "governing body" in that they were the foundation of the congregation, laid on the cornerstone of Christ Jesus, we still have to get from there to the idea of some sort of apostolic succession. This to me is a much more central point of the topic under consideration.
As Meleti points out, there are many scriptural references to show that as the congregation grew, the angels and holy spirit were the primary guides for the evangelizing process. Why should this have been the case if Jehovah wanted to impress upon us the need for human direction? Surely he could have had the holy spirit just guide the 12 apostles then, and give accounts of how they directed everything throughout the first century. But this is not what a reading of the Greek Scriptures naturally impresses upon our mind. We have to search and filter the scriptures for validation of such a position.
What we are really trying to establish is whether a group of humans today (and I mean generally speaking, not just the JW GB), can claim central authority based upon the pattern set in scripture. If it is so, then it is remarkably well hidden. The use of the feeding miracles to shore up such a position feels like a real stretch. Why isn't such an important structure made explicit if salvation depends upon it?
Perhaps the argument goes that God concealed these things in scripture in order to test our faith and motivations. Okay then, but he could at least have followed through in a clear way by allowing the "fruit" from a particular channel to demonstrate that it was "inspired"/"spirit-directed". But on this score we are again at sea without an anchor. Any group of Christians that makes best endeavours to live by Bible principles will be able to demonstrate some positive benefits, but as far as being a custodian of accurate Bible prophecy and doctrine, I don't see anybody fulfilling that role right now.
Apollos
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-09-24 04:30:34
Dear Meleti,
While I do not wish to belabour this—we should remember whenever we read Acts 15, we should also read the first two of chapters of Galatians. Only there are we informed of how long it was before Paul and Barnabas were finally invited to Jerusalem to visit with those “who SEEMED to be pillars.” Fourteen years! And that doesn’t count the three Paul waited before visiting Peter alone, having never met the rest.
So for seventeen years Paul preached—going from Jew to gentile, directed to cover no other territory than that to which he was led by the spirit. With no counsel or direction coming from Jerusalem, he obeyed no other but the voice of Christ, forming congregation after congregation throughout so many of the Roman provinces untouched by the 12 apostles. Only when certain ones of the circumcision became discontented with the uncircumcision of those in Antioch did they take any note, pressuring Peter and others of the "pillars" to travel all the way from Jerusalem to Antioch to settle the problem. How little they knew they would become the problem.
What does the account say? “However, when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I (Paul) resisted him face to face.” Why? Because “he went withdrawing and separating himself” in fear of the circumcised class and with the rest of the Jews joining in “so that even Barnabas was led along with them in their pretense.” So what did Paul do? Ask for direction from Jerusalem? Hardly. He publicly reproved Peter “before them all,” (maybe even reminding him that if circumcision wasn’t necessary for the first gentile convert, Cornelius—Peter being the one to baptize him) “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do, and not as Jews do,” reasoned Paul, “how is it that you are compelling people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?” (Galatians 2:11-14)
Now we know why Paul and Barnabas took the long route back from Antioch to Jerusalem, collecting experiences along the way on his second missionary tour according to Acts 15. It wasn’t to get approval from any governing body. And keep in mind that it was James, the brother of Christ who wasn’t even one of the twelve who said at the end of that long meeting, “Hence MY decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God—” So I say, neither should any one of us put on some pretence of inquiry so as to flex the muscle of Christ before one another. If the apostles were humble enough to be reproved before all onlookers, so shouldn’t the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses be as they expect of us? (Acts 15:19-20)
Affectionately,
swReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-24 09:51:05
Good points all. Given the reluctance of the Governing Body to accept counsel from those beneath them, the account of Paul publicly reproving Cephas before all onlookers is not a comfortable one. How does our current Governing Body resolve this Scripturally-induced dilemma? Simple. They have appointed Paul to membership within the non-existent first century governing body.
*** w85 12/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
It is reasonable to conclude that Paul was a part of the Christian governing body in the first century.Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-09-24 18:31:10
Notice how the answer to that question concludes: "But at other times he (Paul) brought matters before the entire body, as the account in Acts 15 illustrates."
Acts 15 is the ONLY time.
Then they say, "So while traveling, Paul certainly spoke for the central governing body.—Acts 16:4, 5."
That it was all, one SINGLE meeting I find so misleading. And that one single decision was considered as multiple events of precedent-setting permanence gives even less credit to Paul for bringing the whole matter to a head, correctig THEIR mistake (something those of the circumcised never could figure out).
So, no wonder the "congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day!" The decrees from one meeting had finally released the gentile converts from those 'dogs of the flesh.' (Philippians 3:2)
sw
Comment by shadow on 2013-09-26 18:00:36
isn't it curious that Paul would write a letter to the congregation where the "governing body" was located? couldn't the governing body even take care of their own congregation???
also strange that Paul didn't seem to know who was on the governing body with him??? Gal 2
and that another member of the governing body had difficulty understanding what paul was writing about? 2 Pet 3:15,16
and that not one of the 27 books was written collectively by the governing body?Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-27 00:24:15
Actually, 2 Pet. 3:15, 16 doesn't indicate that Peter had difficulty understanding Paul, only that some found his writing difficult to understand.
Comment by “We Want to Go with You” | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2016-03-19 21:01:49
[…] he never received from Jesus Christ. (Read an analysis of the Governing Body’s position here, then what the Bible really says about the subject […]