(Luke 8:10) . . .He said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of God, but for the rest it is in illustrations so that, though looking, they may look in vain, and though hearing, they may not get the sense.
How about a little Q&A about this verse just for fun.
- Who is Jesus speaking to?
- To whom are the sacred secrets revealed?
- When are they revealed?
- From whom are they hidden?
- How are they hidden?
- Are they revealed progressively?
You get a passing grade if you answered:
- His disciples.
- His disciples.
- At that time 2,000 years ago.
- Those who rejected Jesus.
- By using illustrations.
- Yes, if you mean he didn’t give them all the answers at once. No, if you mean that he answered them incorrectly, then again incorrectly, then again incorrectly, then finally correctly (maybe).
(Incidentally, as trivial as this test may sound, getting a passing grade is really important.)
At our district convention[i] during the Friday afternoon session we were treated to a 20-minute discourse titled, “Sacred Secrets of the Kingdom Progressively Revealed.”
It quotes Mat. 10:27 wherein Jesus exhorts his disciples: “What I tell you in the darkness…preach from the housetops.” Of course, the things Jesus told us are in the Bible for all to read. The sacred secrets were revealed 2,000 years ago to all his disciples.
Apparently, however, another undocumented process has been going on. There have been refinements regarding the Kingdom of God which Jehovah has revealed in a progressive manner. The talk then goes on to explain five of these which we are to “preach from the housetops”.
Refinement #1: Jehovah’s Name and His Universal Sovereignty
The speaker stipulates that while the ransom is a key belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses, God’s name and sovereignty came to take first place among us. He stated, ‘that it is only proper that Jehovah’s name be held separate from and higher than all others.” While this is axiomatic, the question is: Should this replace our focus on the ransom? Is the sovereignty issue more important than the ransom? Is the Bible’s message about God’s sovereignty or about mankind’s salvation? Certainly, if it is about sovereignty, one would expect the theme to have been the focus of Jesus’ preaching. The word should be sprinkled throughout the Christian Scriptures. Yet, it does not occur even once.[ii] However, certainly Jehovah’s name, being the focus for Christians as we claim, would appear in the Christian Scriptures. Again, not once—unless you use the NWT where men have arbitrarily inserted it.
There is nothing wrong with using Jehovah’s name. The efforts of other religions to remove it from the Bible are nothing short of reprehensible. But we are talking about the focus of our preaching here. Who set that up? Did we or did God?
Surely we can discern the focus of our preaching by examining the focus of the preaching of the apostles and first century Christians. What message from Jesus were they “preaching from the housetops”? Click on these scripture references and you be the judge. (Acts 2:38; 3:6, 16; 4:7-12, 30; 5:41; 8:12, 16; 9:14-16, 27, 28; 10:43, 48; 15:28; 16:18)
Refinement #2: Being Called Jehovah’s Witnesses
This is a truly remarkable assertion. We are claiming that when Rutherford chose the name Jehovah’s Witnesses back in 1931, it was the result of a revelation from God—albeit an uninspired one. The basis for the “secret” being revealed was Rutherford’s understanding of Isaiah 43:10. The speaker calls this a “Scriptural name”. That might be going a little far, don’t you think? After all, if you are bearing witness for me in a court case, and I say, “You are my witness”, does that mean I’ve given you a new name? Nonsense. I’ve merely described a role you are playing.
Nevertheless, let us grant them this in the spirit of Proverbs 26:5. If saying this to the Israelites gave them a “Scriptural name”, then what “Scriptural name” did Jehovah inspire Jesus to confer on Christians? Again, you be the judge: (Mat. 10:18; Acts 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:6; Rev. 1:9; 12:17; 17:6; 19:10; 20:4)
Given the overwhelming Scriptural evidence, our position on these first two refinements disqualifies them from being secrets, sacred or otherwise. They are the unscriptural assertions of men. The question is: Why are we being asked to believe that these teachings come as secret revelations from God?
Jesus criticized the Pharisees for ‘enlarging the fringes of the garments.’ (Mt 23:5) These fringes were mandated by the Mosaic law as a visible means of identification to keep the Israelites separate from the corrupting influence of the nations surrounding them. (Nu 15:38; De 22:12) Christians should be separate from the world, but that separateness is not based on false teaching. Our leadership isn’t as concerned about separateness from the world as they are about separateness from all other Christian religious sects. They have achieved that by deemphasizing Jesus’ pivotal role and over-emphasizing Jehovah’s name beyond anything he directed us in Scripture to do.
God’s sovereignty is the key issue, but it is not the Bible’s theme. We either obey God or we obey man, whether other men or one’s self. It is that easy. That’s the issue upon which everything is based. It is a simple and self-evident issue. The complexity derives from how that issue is to be resolved. The resolution of that issue became a sacred secret which was only revealed some 4,000 years after the events that put everything in motion.
Redefining that as we have changes the very nature of the good news we are to declare and changing the good news is a sin. (Ga 1:8)
Refinement #3: The Kingdom of God Was Established in 1914
Based on what the speaker explains, we must conclude that the revelation to Russell that the Kingdom of God was established in 1914 was a sacred secret progressively revealed. We say ‘progressively’ because Russell got it wrong, placing the presence in 1874 while the coming of the Christ in the great tribulation was to be in 1914. In 1929, a progressive revelation was made to Rutherford fixing 1914 as the start of Christ’s presence. If you believe that the current understanding is a revelation from God, perhaps you would like to examine what God’s word truly has to say about the importance of this year. Click here for a more detailed examination, or click the “1914” category on the left of this page for a complete listing of every post dealing with this topic.
Refinement #4: That There Are 144,000 Kingdom Heirs in Heaven
We used to think that the “other sheep” were also going to heaven as some sort of secondary class, ones who didn’t quite measure up because of being guilty of negligence in serving God. This wrong view was corrected by Rutherford in a talk in 1935. This is the fourth sacred secret which Jehovah has revealed to us through the Governing Body.
Unfortunately, Rutherford—as the then sole-member of the Governing Body having disbanded the editorial committee in 1931—“corrected” this wrong view with another wrong view that has held sway till this day. (Based on the historical evidence, “progressive” in JW vernacular means, “getting a teaching wrong repeatedly, but always accepting the latest definition as absolute truth”.)
Again, we have written extensively on this subject, so we will not repeat those arguments here. (For even more information, click the category “The Anointed”)
Refinement #5: Kingdom Illustrations.
Apparently, two illustrations were refined or clarified as part of the progressive revelation of sacred secrets, that of the Mustard Grain and that of the leaven. Prior to 2008, we believed these, and virtually all the Kingdom-of-God-is-like illustrations, related to Christendom. Now we apply them to Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Here is where the ‘reader must use discernment’. According to the convention discourse’s theme scripture of Luke 8:10, Jesus spoke in illustrations to hide the truth from those unworthy of it.
The fact that we, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, have been fed multiple re-interpretations of virtually all of Jesus’ illustrations should serve a warning to true Christians.
The Watchtower Index 1986-2013 has a section titled “Beliefs Clarified”. This is very misleading. When you clarify a liquid, you remove substances that cloud its transparency, but throughout the process, the core liquid remains the same. When you refine something, like sugar, you remove impurities and other elements, but again the core substance remains the same. However, in the case of these illustrations, we have changed the very substance of our understanding completely, and have done so several times, even reversing our interpretation several times, returning to previous understanding only to abandon them again.
How presumptuous of us to classify our bumbling attempts at interpretation as the progressive revelation of sacred secrets from Jehovah.
So there you have it. As you listen to this discourse for yourself, remember that Jesus revealed his sacred secrets 2,000 years ago to his true disciples. Remember also Paul’s exhortation for us not to be quickly shaken from our reason “by an inspired statement”, which is what the revelation from God of a sacred secret is. – 2 Th 2:2
____________________________________________
[i] We don’t start calling them “regional conventions” until 2015.
[ii] It also does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures in the NWT except in two footnotes.
[…] two parts from the Friday sessions of this year’s convention are but one case in point. (See “Sacred Secrets of the Kingdom Progressively Revealed” and “How Babylon the Great Has ‘Shut Up the […]
Meleti, or anyone else who has heard this talk at a convention:
Do you recall what example of “new light” was given in the interview towards the end of the part? I have only heard this talk through the stream of the NJ international, where the brother related how encouraged he was by the clarification of the FDS being solely the GB.
I am curious if this was a suggested point, or if it there is a wide variety of things across the different conventions.
I recall the brother was referring to the “new light” involving the new “overlapping generations” teaching.
The New Jersey international that can be found online had a brother who mentioned the redefining of the FDS as solely the GB. This touched his heart because it gave him confidence that he can trust anything they say (paraphrasing).
At this day one of convention Jesus was mentioned more than Jehovah. I was shocked.
Just finished day 2 at the convention. The ressurection clip on day was was attributed to what Jesus would do. Everything was Jesus during the first 2 days. Has the society had a change. I felt like a christian and not a
Jehovah-ite this weekend. Totally changed my view. Good by friends.
JW’s do not have a personal relationship with Jesus because since 1954 they have been directed by the WT organization not to pray to him. They maintain that they sustain a personal relationship with Jehovah by taking in knowledge of him and praying to him. On the same basis by not communicating with Jesus they deny themselves a personal relationship with him. Jesus invited Christians to pray to him recorded at John 14:14 where in the JW Greek interlinear the Greek says “if ever anything you should ask ME in the name of me this I shall do”. The New… Read more »
But you yourself are doing what those in Christendom are doing you say “JW don’t have a relationship with Christ.” All JW’s? Are you saying you know how Christ is going to judge us? How do you know what any JW’s relationship to Christ is? In Jesus Model prayer he prayed to God. So that’s what we should do. I partook and I am not anointed. Youncant clump anyone’s salvation into your view. Acts 9:14 isn’t a prayer to Christ. Acts 9:21 isn’t a prayer. We call on Christ. Just not pray to him. The others you stated are not… Read more »
Here are Jesus’ own words about prayer. “But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. But when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathens do.For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. In this manner, therefore, pray:Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.… Read more »
“Don’t assume because people call upon the name of someone is a prayer” I would offer the following to support that to call on Jesus includes praying to him. QARA AND CALLING UPON JEHOVAH AND JESUS Hebrew Qara “Call”. To “Call” on God’s name is to summon His aid; calling in this sense constitutes a prayer prompted by a recognised need and directed to one who is able and willing to respond. An example of this is recorded at 1 Kings 18:24, 36, 37. Elijah says he will call on the name of Jehovah in verse 24. He does this… Read more »
” Don’t assume because people call upon the name of someone is a prayer” I would offer the following to support that to call on Jesus includes praying to him. QARA AND CALLING UPON JEHOVAH AND JESUS Hebrew Qara “Call”. To “Call” on God’s name is to summon His aid; calling in this sense constitutes a prayer prompted by a recognised need and directed to one who is able and willing to respond. An example of this is recorded at 1 Kings 18:24, 36, 37. Elijah says he will call on the name of Jehovah in verse 24. He does… Read more »
“Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God …” (Philippians 4:6) “Praise is awaiting You, O God, in Zion; and to You the vow shall be performed. O You who hear prayer, to You all flesh will come.” (Psalm 65:1-2) “… Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.” (John 16:23-24) “And whatever you ask in My… Read more »
Absolutely so we can ask both Christ and the Father. Paul was clearly entreating the Lord Jesus as recorded at 2 Cor 12: 7-10 from whom he received a reply. At John 14:14 you are quoting the NWT, however in the Greek verse 14 it says “if ever anything you should ask me in the name of me this I shall do”. Check your Kingdom Interlinear.
I’m not going to argue with you. And I didn’t quote the NWT. I can out du you in a bible debate. However, I’ve been in battles with Mormons and baptists quoting sharps rule of Greek grammar explaining all of this to people. Because I love to debate. However, it’s ineffective. And if we can call on both in prayer because they are one then why are you do concerned with not praying to jesus. I pray to god as Jesus said to do. I dint care what you think a Greek word can mean when it doesn’t tell me… Read more »
John 14:14 and the New World Translation Robert Bowman in his Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991: “John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads: “If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.” The Greek text in the KIT [Kingdom Interlinear Translation], however, has me after ask, so that it should be translated: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern editions of the Greek New Testament… Read more »
http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-1414-to-me-or-not-to-me-that-is.html?m=1
I think you mean John 14:14. Read this.
Miken , I am beginning to share the view that they may be worthy of the same status based on my personal reading of the scriptures . Whoever calls on Jesus or Jehovah will be saved Joel 2:32 , Acts 2:21 They are both saviors/only savior Isaiah 43 :11 Luke 2:11 John 4:42 We have to put faith in both Jehovah and Jesus John 14:1 (a) John 14(b) Both are worshipped by angels Revelation 7:11 Hebrews 1:4-6 Both are worshipped Revelation 5:13-14 Revelation 11:15-17 ( Jehovah’s name is inserted in the NWT) I am undecided on prayer however. I tend… Read more »
Well as God and the Lamb share the same throne your prayers should get to the right place. Rev 22:1, 3.
I concur Miken. Praying to Jesus requires me to engage in scriptural interpretation as justification, while praying to Jehovah only requires me to be obedient to Jesus.
▪ I thought it might be useful to post the society interpretation of 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 from the Questions From Readers in the Watchtower November 15, 1987, page 29 ▪ Was Paul referring to Jehovah or to Jesus when he wrote: ‘The Lord said to me: “My power is being made perfect in weakness”’? It seems that the apostle Paul was referring to the Lord Jehovah. By noting Paul’s words in context, not only can we see why this is so but we can also deepen our appreciation for the relationship between God and his Son. Paul wrote: “That I… Read more »
I’m going to go by what Jesus said. He says pray to the father. I’m not going to dig in Greek to make am assumption about what I may or may not think is correct. It seems to me that over the years if I don’t see black and white then I’m not going to try to make what I want of if. You’ve heard “when in doubt leave it out”. If I have to say “I think” or “I believe” then more thank likely it’s not black and white. Jesus said directly to pray to the father. I’m not… Read more »
There is no question that, according to the Bible, Jesus occupies the highest position in heaven next to God. Does that, however, mean that we should pray to Him? Many people, because of their love for Jesus, direct prayers to him, but what does Jesus himself think about such prayers directed to him? Why would such a question arise? Because, for one thing, the Bible at Psalm 65:2 refers to Jehovah God as the “Hearer of prayer” and at Ps. 5:1-3 the psalmist David said: “To my sayings do give ear, O Jehovah; Do understand my sighing. Do pay attention… Read more »
Obviously you haven’t read what was stated about John 14:14 I posted. Can’t argue with illogical people.
Re John 14:14: There is a difference in our use of “name” and the ancient Hebrew use. We use names as labels, so that when someone of western Greco-Roman descent uses a “name” it has so little reference to the person, his personality or character. We simply attach the name “Jesus” to the end of our prayers presuming that our prayers will be answered for mechanically tacking it onto the end. The problem with this western culture is attitude. We have the attitude that our “will” precedes the “will of Jesus and God” and then we wonder why our prayers… Read more »
The two-witness rule has a foundation in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. However, it is but one law. In the Organization, we quote it when it suits us, but overlook other legal practices under the Mosaic law code what would prove inconvenient. Consequently, our application of divine law demonstrates an evident hypocrisy. For example, what is described in Leviticus 5:1 and explained in the w87 9/1 p. 13 Watchtower article “A Time to Speak”—When?” is given no place in our judicial process. w87 9/1 p. 13 “A Time to Speak”—When? Another Bible guideline appears at Leviticus 5:1: “Now in… Read more »
I agree with your evaluation meleti .so the problem yet again is not with gods laws but with the blatent misapplication of it . Its obvious that the 2 witness rule does not require a person to remain silent about what they have seen or experienced . Infact this could be illustrated in the scenario described in the law at dueteronomy 22 v 25 to 27 about the young girl who was raped in the field with no one there to deliver her . Isnt it really a very similar case to the many acts of child abuse done in… Read more »
For more discussion on the “two witness rule”, imjustasking said this:
“The two witness rule is an absolute non starter.
It is so simple.
They are quoting the old Mosiac Law – which was ABOLISHED, even as Paul stated – this is a point the Society have made many, many times in the publications!!”
For his more detailed comment, and to get the organization’s own teaching about the Mosiac Law…..and also to put that question in the right discussion, go here:
http://discussthetruth.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=376
I dont get that sister if the 2 witness rule is abolished then why did paul recommend ir at 1 timothy 5 v 19 also why did jesus restate it at Matthew 18 v 16 im not saying your wrong im just asking a question about it thanks kev
Jesus reiterated the two witness principle at John:17 & 18 and Paul at 1 Tim 5:19. This should not prohibit elders reporting allegations or confessions of criminal activity to the appropriate authorities Rom 13:1.
The “new light” of the convention relates to the third heavens Paul saw in vision – evidently in reference to a future paradise: *** it-2 p. 576 Paradise *** A Spiritual Paradise. Throughout many of the prophetic books of the Bible, divine promises are found regarding the restoration of Israel from the lands of its exile to its desolated homeland. God would cause that abandoned land to be tilled and sown, to produce richly, and to abound with humankind and animalkind; the cities would be rebuilt and inhabited, and people would say: “That land yonder which was laid desolate has… Read more »
That sounds about right to me as well maxwell kev
anderestimme, The two witness rule is regarding child abuse. If a child claims to have been abused sexually by a brother, it is not considered reliable unless there was a second person who witnessed the abuse. This is absurd, since most sexual acts take place in privacy, so there would be no witness. Since the child cannot prove the brother abused them, they are often made out to be a liar and are ostracized by the congregation for trying to make trouble for a brother. This two witness policy makes a mockery of child abuse, which often takes place at… Read more »
Oops, let’s try the 2 scenarios again: 1. Is our leadership culpability mostly the fact they refuse to upgrade the testing method? Do they in good faith trust the mark they etch on each product is reliable? Are they reluctant to retest with the modern method because they fear the results? Do they fear the possibility that long standing featured products may have to be pulled from the shelf, melted down and scrapped? Or, 2. Does leadership possess new equipment, and have they retested every product in the offering using improved methods? Here’s the crux of the matter for me:… Read more »
I realize I went off topic, but my comments are related to the premise of the talk and discussion by Meleti. In that the 24 carat “mark” on the sacred secrets progressively revealed was a reading from the old tester, which one (if any) of these truths can we hang our hats on?
Maxwell
Not at all. Your comment was timely for me as I’m preparing an article on the man of lawlessness for release on Wednesday and your comment made me realize I was not taking something important into consideration. So you helped me avoid a public faux pas.
Thanks for your comments maxwell.always find them interesting . Ive got a feeling it could be scenario 2 but who can say for certain apart from jesus ..Luke 12 is interesting verse 47 onward .that slave that understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do in line with his will will be beaten with many strokes but the one that did not understand and so did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few indeed everyone to whom much was given much will be demanded of him and the one whom people put in… Read more »
Kev, At this point, I say it’s much about PRIDE. They are afraid if they own up to the mistakes of the past and present, they lose face and the confidence of the R&F. They fear loss of support for their self appointed position of authority. The problem with this thinking is, if they don’t admit their error, and if they continue to repeat the mistakes of the past, they lose even more credibility each day. I believe thinking R&F are waking up and smelling the coffee. They’re danged if the do, and danged if they don’t. But the lesser… Read more »
To be honest with the governing body i always had the idea that they werent claiming to be gods spokesman as i understood that they beleived gifts of prophesy were already done away .. I could and did accept the claim that they were perhaps a or even the faithful slave of matthew 24 . I didnt think that that carried the same weight as gods spokesman .I knew they had got things wrong in the past . I just thoght they were honest hearted individuals who were doing their best to serve god and give an honest interpretaion of… Read more »
Kev I think we all have given the FADS/GB the benefit of the doubt. Not that many years ago, it would have been at best, next to impossible for you and I to conduct our own personal research on a given topic, accessing original language word definition and “outside the box” theological commentary. In years past, only a handful within the organization were privileged with such resources. Speaking for myself, growing up acquainted with several thousand witnesses, I don’t recall knowing or hearing of any that studied the original languages, nor any who studied outside the box theological commentary. I… Read more »
Well said, Maxwell. I’m in complete agreement with your take on this.
This was masterfully said, MSJW.
One totally off-topic question I have is this: I keep hearing people taking issue with the two witness rule. Since I certainly don’t want to be tried and convicted on the evidence of just one witness, what am I missing? (Or should I start a topic for this on discussthetruth.com?)
Anderstimme i personaly feel that the two witness rule is scriptural and legal 1 timothy 5v 19 do not admit an accusation against an older man accept on the evidence of two or three witnesses. I did lots of research the other night about all the different greek words that are translated as judge judgement accusation ect .the one at this verse is Katagoria g2724 a complaint a criminal charge based on katagoros complainant at law .We can understand the danger of banding around these accusations when its just one persons word against anothers . Of course this has been… Read more »
After researching what the Bible teaches us about handling judicial matters that come up in the congregation, I have arrived at the conclusion that we are obliged to report criminal activities that occur within the congregation, whether or not we can act on them ourselves. They are “God’s minister” for justice and we should respect that divine appointment. This is more fully discussed under the topic “Disfellowshipping–Handling Sins of a Criminal Nature“. I personally know of two friends who were falsely accused of child abuse by adolescent children. One was a step-daughter who wanted to live with her biological father… Read more »
Meleti-
“The two-witness rule is Biblical as is the requirement to submit to the “superior authorities”
You have balanced those two scriptures nicely. I am in full agreement.
When X-JWs wear placards outside of our conventions shouting contentious words over the flaws of our religion, how often have I heard my fellow attendees say: “How sad that their entire religion is built on targeting us.” Yet what have we done? Have we not built our entire religion on exposing the lies of false religion? And when we are exposed, what do we do? The same as Christendom. We excommunicate. What did Jesus call anyone who attempts to remove the straw from the eye of his fellow? “Hypocrite! First remove the rafter (log, plank) from your own eye, and… Read more »
“progressive” in JW vernacular means, “getting a teaching wrong repeatedly, but always accepting the latest definition as absolute truth”…What an absolutely brilliant summation-Love It!
GodsWordIsTruth, another scripture from one of Meleti’s articles which comes to mind is Matthew 7:15,16 “Be on the watch from false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By there fruits you will recognise them…..” They are producing their fruit now and they are showing their true wolf like characteristics. We know why people have been so mislead by them – because of their sheep’s covering, but surely now things are being revealed and more and more faithful brothers and sisters will be set free.
This is hands down one of my favorite articles on this site so far! This article provides a sound and scripturally based response to the GB’s claim to represent Jehovah as “prophets” . “For an answer, people should listen to the plain preaching by the remnant prefigured by Jeremiah, for these preach to men the present-day fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies. Who made them a prophet to speak with the authority that they claim? Well, who made Jeremiah a prophet?” Watchtower 1959 Jan 15 pp.39-41 “So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to… Read more »
So we Have been shouting “correctable” truth issued by Father and Son from housetops? Amazing! And re: ‘The basis for the “secret” being revealed was Rutherford’s understanding of Isaiah 43:10. The speaker calls this a “Scriptural name,”’ How strange that the new DF’ing rules state that so-and-so is no longer one of JW’s by the decision of 3 men. When Jesus said what God has yoked together let no man put apart, does that mean marriage is more sacred than one’s dedication to God? Is it my uniformed brain or someone else’s twisted thinking that a scriptural name can so… Read more »
Very good point Sw
This secret that they are talking of is the greek word mysterion isnt it strongs 3466 meaning to shut the mouth and its a secret thats imposed by initiation into religious rites . I did some research on this word a while back and it seems that its carries the thought of knowledge thats known only by a select few . In other words to know the secret you have to be in the club .Ephesians 3 v5 in other generations this secret was not made known to the sons of men as it has now been revealed to his… Read more »
Thank you for this article, Meleti. All the cited scriptures backed everything up and the information will prove very helpful for anyone who starts asking questions about the Society – it’s good to have this at our fingertips. I’m afraid I didn’t get question F right though – but never mind – no one knows everything!
“Rutherford—as the then sole-member of the Governing Body having disbanded the editorial committee in 1934”
Just a small point Meliti, Rutherford disbanded the editorial committee in 1931. The October 1st issue of the Watchtower 1931 was the last to list the editorial committee as J F Ruherford, W E Van Amburgh, J Hemery, R H Barber and E J Coward. Subsequently no committee was listed just two officers F Rutherford President and W E Van Amburgh Secretary,
Thanks miken. I was going from memory. I’ve corrected that statement.
the sacred secret according to WT as I was taught was the 1.4000 the seed would go to heaven, as before Christ no one know about heaven as a destination, only an earthly hope.
What is interesting about the Kingdom illustrations that the speaker referred to: The old WT understanding that the illustrations of the mustard and leaven referred to apostate Christendom – This was an explanation championed by W. E. Vine dating back to at least 1940. See Leaven and Mustard. It would be interesting to see if the idea dates farther back, both from the WT perspective and as a non-WT idea. When we studied the so-called “new light” on these parables a few years ago, I was struck by how closely the new WT explanation followed what was already taught in… Read more »
You mean the light wasn’t really new and it wasn’t even from us!? I’m shocked, brother. Shocked! 🙂 Seriously, thanks for that insight. I was reading Luke 12:1, 2 today and something struck me that had escaped my notice before. The leaven of the Pharisees was their hypocrisy. So what corrupted them and corrupts any like them is hypocrisy. Appearing to be one thing, while being another; putting up a false front, and all that goes with that. Right after pointing that out, he states that “there is nothing carefully concealed that will not be revealed, and nothing secret that… Read more »
Good points brother…but one area I think you need to correct. It is on your statement I quote : These fringes were mandated by the Mosaic law as a visible means of identification to keep the Israelite separate from the corrupting influence of the nations surrounding them. (Nu 15:38; De 22:12) Actually brother the Tzitzit that the people of Israel wore, where not any visible identifications, Instead they where to be ONLY visual REMINDERS to keep God’s teachings or Instructions. It was the Pharisee’s who through there later traditions changed what God Originally intended them for..This is why Jesus criticized… Read more »
Thanks for clearing that up, Peter. Another legacy of my JW upbringing. 🙂
Shalom brother. Thanks for that
To my knowledge there is only one “sacred secret” in the scriptures. It centers on the identification and role Jesus Christ plays in the outworking of God’s purpose (Rom 16:25,26; Col 2:2). This secret was completely revealed through the scriptures and has been available in its entirety to Christians AND the nations since the latter half of the first century. The word “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψις εως,ἡ – apokalupsis) used in Rom 16:25 literally means unveiling, uncovering, revealing, disclosing. The uncovering carries the thought of someone removing their clothing, laying themselves bare, standing naked. It does not carry the thought of a… Read more »