[From ws15/04 p. 22 for June 22-28]
“Trust in him at all times, O people.” – Psalm 62:8
We trust in our friends; but friends, even very good friends, may abandon us in our time of greatest need. This happened to Paul as paragraph 2 of this week's Watchtower study shows, yet Paul asked that they not be held accountable. This reminds us of the greatest test Jesus faced and how he also experienced the abandonment of his friends. (Mt 26:56)
While friends may leave you, it is far less likely that a loving parent will do the same. That is because it is a different relationship. In fact, we might even have a friend to whom we are so close that we think of him as a brother—or to her as a sister. (Pr 18:24) Even then, we still boost the relationship up another notch when we speak of the special relationship between parents and children. What mother or father would not sacrifice their own life to save that of their child?
Lately the Governing Body has been banging a lot on the “friend” drum. At this year’s convention, they make the point that Jehovah was Jesus’ best friend, using John 15:13 to make their point. Reducing the relationship between Jehovah and Jesus to that of “best buds” is demeaning in this writer’s opinion. Why would they do it, misapplying John 15:13 to try to make it Scriptural? There is an obvious agenda. By blurring the definition of the term they hope to make the “also rans” that comprise the other sheep feel like they are not missing out on anything by not being sons of God.
It is true that friendship is based on love and implies a level of intimacy. A son also loves his father and shares an intimate relationship. However, in imperfect human society, often a son loves his father, but has no intimate relationship with him; or if he does, it differs from that which he has with friends. A father is a father, but friends are chums, pals, compadres.
It is true that Abraham was called God’s friend, but that was at a time when the adoption as sons was unknown, part of the great mystery, the “Sacred Secret”. (James 2:23) Once this secret was revealed, a new relationship with God was made possible—that of a child with a Father. (Ro 16:25)
The scope of this relationship is beyond us to grasp at present. Please carefully consider the following passage revealed by Paul.
“But we speak God’s wisdom in a sacred secret, the hidden wisdom, which God foreordained before the systems of things for our glory. 8 It is this wisdom that none of the rulers of this system of things came to know, for if they had known it, they would not have executed the glorious Lord. 9 But just as it is written: “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, nor have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” 10 For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God.” (1Co 2:7-10)
Prior to Jesus’ arrival, eyes had not seen, nor ears heard, nor hearts conceived what God had in store. Even with his arrival, it was only by means of holy spirit that such things could be searched out. It takes time to search and grasp hold of the deep things of God—to understand what being a child of the true God fully encompasses. Starting off on the wrong foot, believing we are only friends, will not get us there.
However the best the Governing Body can do without destroying their doctrinal infrastructure is to use similes. The Christian Scriptures are short on such things given that the reality had arrived with the Christ, so they again have to dip into the Israelite well.
“Why does Jehovah not give us an immediate response to our every request? Recall that he likens our relationship with him to that of children with a father. (Ps. 103:13)” – Par. 7
Here, the Psalmist uses the father/son relationship as a simile to help the Israelites understand how Jehovah viewed those who obeyed him then. Removing the need for metaphor, Jesus came to establish legal adoption as children of God.
“However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name.” (Joh 1:12)
The publishers of The Watchtower do not want their readership to have this relationship. Instead, Witnesses are told repeatedly that they are only God’s friends. Still, they continue to trip over this Bible based relationship in their dialogue with phrases like the forgoing and this one from paragraph 8: “Therefore, he does not expect us to endure in our own strength but offers us his fatherly help.”
They would have us continue to view our God as the Israelites did—like a father—instead of how the first Christians did—as their actual Father.
Trusting in Jehovah Implies Obedience
Paragraphs 14 thru 16 deal with our trust in Jehovah when dealing with the trial that results from a family member being disfellowshipped. The illustration on page 27 is heart breaking, depicting a son leaving—or being forced to leave—the family home because he has been disfellowshipped from the congregation. He is to blame for the suffering of his loving parents. Their test is to remain loyal to Jehovah no matter how difficult it may seem. To do this, they must learn to trust in Jehovah. In fact, paragraph 14 suggests that the disfellowshipping of the child may actually benefit them by helping them to build greater trust in God:
“Can you trust that your heavenly Father will give you the fortitude you need to be resolute in abiding by the Bible’s direction about disfellowshipping? Do you see here an opportunity for you to make your relationship with Jehovah stronger by forming a closer bond with him?” – par. 14
This approach—call it the “every cloud has a silver lining” approach—will likely seem insensitive to those whose children are currently cut off from them by the Organization’s disfellowshipping policy. Nevertheless, the article assures us that this is policy is Bible based.
“From your study of the Bible, you know how disfellowshipped ones are to be treated. (1 Cor. 5:11 and 2 John 10)” – par. 14
The two scriptures just cited read:
“But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1Co 5:11)
“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.” (2Jo 10)
Obviously, if we are obeying the Bible commands from these two Scriptures, we have reason to trust in Jehovah; reason to believe that he will support us and be there for us. Why? Well, simply put, because any suffering we are experiencing is a direct result of our obedient compliance with his commands. He is righteous. He will not forsake us if we suffer out of loyalty to him.
Ah, but there’s the rub as Hamlet said.[i]
What if we are not being obedient to Jehovah in our treatment of those we flag as disfellowshipped? Can we expect him to help us then? Let us apply the counsel of this week’s study article to two actual case histories to see how we might measure up before God.
Two Real-Life Situations
In line with the illustration on page 27, I would like to relate a couple of situations of which I had firsthand knowledge when I served as an elder. In the first one, a young brother still living at home began to experiment with marijuana. He did this in the company of other Witness friends over a period of a few weeks before they all came to their senses and decided to stop. After a few months, still feeling guilty, he and the others decided to make confession before the elders.[ii] All were privately reproved save this one, who was disfellowshipped. Remember, he came forward voluntarily and had not sinned for months. Years later, two of the three elders on the committee admitted to the father that they had been mistaken in their judgment. The third elder had already passed away.
In the second case, a young sister was having sex with her Witness boyfriend. She was in love with him and planned to marry. However, he unexpectedly dumped her, leaving her feeling cheap and used. Guilt ridden, she went to the elders to confess. She did not need to as no one else knew of the sin. They disfellowshipped her.
Both these young ones remained in their disfellowshipped state for over a year despite regularly attending meetings.
They both had to write letters repeatedly asking for the “privilege” of reinstatement.
Eventually, they are both reinstated.
This is the reality of Jehovah’s Witnesses as regards disfellowshipping. We are told it is all solidly based on Scripture. If the current article is correct in its assertions, the family members in these two cases could have trusted in Jehovah to help and sustain them as long as they remained resolute in not “keeping company” with their disfellowshipped children.
If we obey God and suffer, we have reason to “trust in Jehovah” to sustain us through a trying time, for he is loyal and will not abandon his faithful ones.
“For Jehovah loves justice, And he will not abandon his loyal ones” (Ps 37:28)
However, if our actions are not just, will Jehovah still support us? If we are obeying men rather than God, will he be there for us? What if we are withholding love from our children by treating them as disfellowshipped when there is no Bible basis for that judgment? We could actually end up forsaking God and in so doing, losing our basis for trusting in his support.
“Anyone who withholds loyal love from his fellow man
Will forsake the fear of the Almighty.”
(Job 6:14)
Failing to forgive a repentant sinner is withholding our love. We are failing to imitate our heavenly Father as depicted in the illustration of the prodigal son. (Luke 15:11-32) We have therefore forsaken our fear of God.
Applying the Article’s Logic
This particular Watchtower article makes no mention of being loyal to the organization’s policies on disfellowshipping. It only points to the Bible as the basis for how we treat a disfellowshipped one. Very well, let’s do that with the aforementioned case histories.
The young man went to the elders after having stopped smoking marijuana for several months. He confessed a sin they would not have known about had he remained silent. The basis for disfellowshipping is (1) a practice of sin combined with (2) a lack of repentance. Not only is this the Biblical basis, but it is also the basis as laid down in the book elders use. (See “Shepherd the Flock of God”, ks10-E, chapter 5 “Determining Whether a Judicial Committee Should Be Formed”.) Would not desisting of sin for a period of several months plus a willingness to make confession indicate repentance? One would have to ask, what else would be required? Did not the fact that even after being disfellowshipped, the young man continued to regularly attend meetings demonstrate a repentant attitude?
Similarly with the young sister, it was exceedingly courageous of her to sit alone before three men and reveal the intimate details of her fornication. She could have kept it hidden, but she did not, nor was she continuing to practice her sin. Yet, she too was disfellowshipped.
We may say that we can’t know all the facts. How can we since the meetings are held in secret despite the wishes of the accused to have moral support? We may say that we have to trust in the wisdom and spirituality of the elders who alone are privy to the facts of the case. Of course we must, since no public record is kept of the proceedings.[iii] We therefore surrender our judgment and our conscience to others—men who have been appointed by the Governing Body to their post. We may feel safe in this position. We may feel it excuses us from personally applying the counsel in 1 Corinthians 5:11. But that is a cop-out, plain and simple. It won’t hold water on Judgment Day, so let us not delude ourselves with the old saw, “I was only following orders.”
Let us again review what the Bible says:
“But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1Co 5:11)
While not speaking of modern drugs per se, we can accept that the principle of not being a drunkard applies. The young man we spoke of was not “a drunkard”. He had stopped smoking the marijuana months before his case was heard. The adage, “You do the crime, you do the time”, is not found in Scripture. What God cares about is whether or not you have renounced the sin. This, the young brother had done. So while three men in a secret meeting[iv] that no one was allowed to attend[v] pronounced him disfellowshipped, there is no Bible basis for us to obey such men in this. We are told at 1 Corinthians to make our own determination.
The same situation existed with the young sister. Willing confession, a desisting of the wrongdoing, and yet disfellowshipped. Should the congregation and family members have obeyed men, or God?
What the Article is Really Saying
Jehovah’s Witnesses worship their God within the strict confines of an ecclesiastical authority structure. Those who do not conform to the rules of that structure are dealt with severely by being cut off from family and friends. This is done, allegedly, to protect the congregation from contamination. However, a disciplinary system that depends on secret meetings where no observers are permitted and where no public record is kept is completely incompatible with the law of the Christ, a law based on love. (Gal. 6:2) Such a system is about control. Such a system has been seen frequently throughout history. That is why Western societies have drafted laws to protect the citizenry from the abuse of power. Power corrupts is the time-honored maxim. We acknowledge that we are all sinful. Yet the Governing Body has put in place a system for which there are few, if any, checks and balances. When an injustice has been done, time and again the response by those with the power to set things right has been for the victims to exercise patience and to wait on Jehovah. The reason for this is that they fear a challenge to the authority structure upon which their rule is based. The authority of all levels of the structure is paramount. The needs of the one, or the many, do not outweigh the needs of the few at the top.
A similar system was in place in the first century. A hierarchy that instilled fear in its flock and persecuted any who disagreed. (John 9:22, 23; Acts 8:1) There was nothing that the true followers of Christ could do to fix that system and it was best they did not try in keeping with Jesus’ admonition. (Mt 9:16, 17) For them, it was best to wait on Jehovah to fix things which he did when he brought destruction on the Jewish system of things in 70 C.E. Likewise today, we cannot fix what is wrong in the Organization. All we can do is be true to Jehovah, obey the law of the Christ, act in love but with prudence, and wait for Jehovah to fix things. It would seem history will soon repeat itself.
___________________________________________
[i] From Hamlet’s famous soliloquy: “To die—to sleep. To sleep—perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub!”
[ii] There is no requirement in Christian law to confess one’s sins to men. James 5:16 and 1 John 1:9 are often misapplied to support the idea that we cannot truly get God’s forgiveness without bringing the elders into the equation. We are again imitating the Catholic Church by using this method as a means of controlling the membership to ensure compliance with the directives of the Governing Body.
[iii] In boldface on page 90, the “Shepherd the Flock of God” book states: “Recording devices should not be allowed.” Yet in the civilized world, every word spoken in a court case is recorded and made public for all to review. How else are we to ensure that our rights are not stripped away from us? The issue of confidentiality does not apply if the accused asks for the proceedings to be made public.
[iv] Not only is this against Israelite law (the supposed precedent for all JW judicial matters) where capital cases were heard openly in the public gates, it is also against the law codes of every civilized nation on earth. The Catholics held secret trials during the dark ages. We have become the very thing we have hated.
[v] The most notorious secret trial in the Bible, in which the accused was denied the support of family and friends is the nighttime Sanhedrin trial of our Lord Jesus. This is the company that Jehovah’s Witnesses keep by following the dictates of their Governing Body. At judicial hearings, elders are instructed that “observers should not be present for moral support.” (ks10-E p. 90, par. 3) Why would you deny your brother moral support?
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by qspf on 2015-06-22 18:36:34
Meleti, I have but two things in reply.
1. I am in complete agreement with what you have written.
2. I am in complete dismay and sadness regarding (1).
Comment by Buster on 2015-06-22 19:16:33
I love the nerve of the Big "O" talking about this study and the disfellowshipping and we all know that there gonna be Assemblies that will be doing the study this weekend. And of course this summer Assembly is about Jesus, I wonder how many people he disfellowshiped, yeah I think he did not.
Great review and keep them coming Love to all
Comment by outsidethebox on 2015-06-22 20:38:56
Nice article. First let me say that I love this site and find it very comforting because I've struggled mightily with what I see in the religion versus what the Bible says. It seems like so much of what they do is going above and beyond scripture. It helps to see that I'm not alone.
Second, let me say that nobody ever seems to acknowledge ALL of 1 Cor 5:11, particularly that part where it mentions a person that IS a (insert name of sin here). In the examples you gave, those disfellowshipped weren't necessarily maintaining that same course of contact, therefore the word IS doesn't apply. However, what about all of the people that get disfellowshipped and clean up their lives but don't want to come back to the organization, or that no longer believe in what they were taught due to the trauma they went through being ousted from their previous lives? They are no longer living in those sins and yet they are still to be shunned forever? It seems that the rhetoric now is ramped up more and more to intensify shunning.
There was a much more balanced view back in the w74 8/1, starting on page 466. That was the title of the article, Maintaining A Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones. My wife and I are currently shunned by our families and many friends because we visited a disfellowshipped relative after many years of strict shunning because that person now lives a clean life and has moved on. He has a family now too. To hold his past against him forever when he's made changes just seems to petty and like psychological bullying, which I don't want to be a part of. Now we get just a tiny taste of what that must have been like as we've watched our friends and families turn their backs on us and shun us. I think that the whole policy is just a disaster that has destroyed a lot of people, even if they can come up with one example here or there to parade in front of everyone to show how family pressure made someone come back. And besides, aren't they supposed to come back for Jehovah, not to relieve themselves of the shame put on them by family?
Comment by Wild Olive on 2015-06-22 22:47:53
@qspf amen as well!
As for history repeating itself,every dictator comes to an end, they are met with an force equal to the force they used, it's not looking good for the GB.
Comment by qspf on 2015-06-22 23:11:31
Meleti, you wrote these remarks at one point:
"The publishers of The Watchtower do not want their readership to have this relationship [as God's children]. Instead, Witnesses are told repeatedly that they are only God’s friends. Still, they continue to trip over this Bible based relationship in their dialogue with phrases like the forgoing and this one from paragraph 8: “Therefore, he does not expect us to endure in our own strength but offers us his fatherly help."
Note the word, FATHERLY. That is an adverb. Another way of saying basically the same thing is, father-LIKE. (That's where we got the -LY suffix; it's from the German word for LIKE, which changed over time into -LY.)
So, the WT is telling us that for the great crowd, God's help is LIKE the kind of help that a father WOULD give, IF God WERE our father. So, for the anointed, God gives THEM His real, genuine help as their Father, but for everyone else, God's help is not the help of a real father, but - what? A cheap knock-off, a pale imitation, a second-best but nice-try effort?
I am straining to try to describe this in some manner that is not disrespectful to the Almighty, but words fail me, and I need some help here.
Comment by Katrina on 2015-06-23 06:10:18
2Cor 6 :17 "Therefore, come o," says the Lord. "come out of their midst and do not touch was is unclean ; And I will welcome you. 18"And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty.
Are the GB saying that the GC have not come out of false worship and are still touching the unclean thing...
Galatians 3:26 For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Are the GB saying that the GC have no faith in Christ Jesus.
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. – Romans 8:14
The Watchtower of 12/15 2011 pp. 21-26 states in paragraph 12 that “Both the ‘little flock’ and the ‘other sheep’ are guided by holy spirit”. But as we know, JW only accept that the “anointed”, “little flock” of Christian Sons of God are led by the Spirit of God.
Comment by Katrina on 2015-06-23 06:39:26
The unloving JC and DF shunning practices of the GB have causes so much misery for the b/s, depression, emotional anxieties, humiliation and feeling worthless unloved even by their own families. It seems that the GB are only interested in the group on individuals.
Spiritual ruin for some, mental illness as said, but more is the suicides, I have known of four in the past few years alone all DF all shunned by family members, especially when some already have a depressive illness to begin with.
This is the legacy of human rules not based on Gods loving provisions for caring for his little sheep.
As far as reform if they can't see what they have done by now, I just can't see any reform not by them. With Christs authentic return to help his sheep is the only hope, I just can't see them putting Christ ahead of their own desires for control and prominence before the justice and mercy for his sheep.
They are truly the ones in fear, fear of losing control and a following, fear of those that will expose the truth by Gods word.Reply by alskadedotter2@gmail.com on 2015-06-24 07:14:57
When your child has committed an act that is contrary to everything you have taught him/her, do you punish them for a year or years, do you stop talking to them, and isolate them from the family to prove a point. If we would not do this to our children, why do JWs believe this what our heavenly Father wants done. Parents discipline and then lovingly show the child how they must behave, what is correct and right. When you isolate someone from all they have known, friends and family, most humans will reach out to find companionship, acceptance and love from whatever avenue is available. Thus DF can actually cause persons to not return and perhaps never reconcile themselves with Jehovah and Jesus.
Comment by Skye on 2015-06-23 06:54:47
It's tragic that so much harm has been done to so many people through religious organisations that claim to serve God and Jesus Christ.
Comment by Skye on 2015-06-23 07:48:30
For those who have children and choose to remain Jehovah's Witnesses. When your child/children grow up and leave, as many do. Then, when they marry, you may discover that they, and the family they marry into, will blame "you" for bringing them up as Jehovah's Witnesses, and the consequences of that can be tragic for any parent to have to carry that guilt.
If you leave the Organisation, you can still teach your children God's Word and godly principles - it's not difficult. And you can give your children the opportunity of a "normal" childhood.
Comment by on 2015-06-23 08:23:26
Those who have family members who are DF might struggle with those paragraphs 14-16, they may find some comfort in that there putting there trust in Jehovah. For those who face isolation, because they don't have any social interaction while there sitting on the bench, may feel it's an opportunity to meditate on their relationship with Jehovah, hopefully draw closer to him, however I find it difficult to understand that as a human father discipline's his child, doesn't stop his child from playing, socialising with friends and family- I can't see jehovah doing the same. Sorry probably not as articulate as I would like it to be, but we live in hope, hope that some of these wrongs can be made right.
Comment by Nemorino on 2015-06-23 09:14:44
It's a tragedy that the Organization has turned from what in earlier years was a much more enlightened approach to Congregational discipline. Back in the period from the 50s through the early 70s, the prevailing attitude was to consider disfellowshipping as a last resort, limited to conduct specifically condemned by Scripture and to individuals who were either unrepentant or openly defiant.
In some of the earliest cases I can recall, even the nature of the transgression was even mentioned, to admonish the congregation to circumspection. Persons guilty of offenses not explicitly condemned in the Bible, such as smoking, etc.were regarded as "immature" and disqualified to serve as exemplars in positions of oversight. One "Question From Readers" I believe it was in the August 15, 1958 Watchtower, regarding a repentant congregant that confesses to having taken a blood transfusion, recommends exactly that sort of treatment, even for so serious an offense.
Sadly, the Organization's definition of "wrongdoing" has been broadened far beyond the Bible's rather specific boundaries, with a proportionate increase in severity of punishment.
Comment by Katrina on 2015-06-23 09:41:51
I think once the GB came on the scene the rules upon rules just piled up, and also the fear of what happened in the 70's at bethel with the 607 controversy.
measuring line upon measuring.
Also much of not announcing the sin I think has a lot to do with legalities, the org has become so legalistic secular thinking.Reply by Nemorino on 2015-06-23 10:24:03
Katrina, you're quite right about the legalities of mentioning the transgression; yet there are biblical precedents (1 Tim 5:20) which the GB, at the behest of their legal department, have overruled.
What I can tell you is that when I was at Bethel in the mid sixties at the morning breakfast table, Brother Knorr spared no words in his rebuke of individual Bethelites, naming names of course and reciting in detail the nature of their offenses, not to mention the consequences.
For me, it was just just another example of the unspoken rule that "what happens at Bethel stays at Bethel."
Comment by Katrina on 2015-06-23 10:42:05
Interesting. Once the political correctness became so prominent, people were taking others to court on just about anything.
With the write up in the WT on the apostates being mentally diseased and so many were in an uproar about it wouldn't surprise me if they had many letters of complaints by exJW, they removed it from their revised bible also.
Just a hunch but I wouldn't be surprised at all if bethelites view many sites.
They are worried about keeping their charity status that means good image, and obeying the law even if it means disobeying Gods law.
Comment by kc on 2015-06-23 16:59:49
Yes. There was a young man that came to me once he had stopped coming to the meetings because he did not want to practice hypocrasy as he was living with his girlfriend. He wanted to come back and he married the girl and came back. He was disfellowshipped for 12 months by the elders even though he had put the matter right. Being obedient to jehovah ? What a joke. 1. They should not be holding secret trials 2. Its up to the individual brothers wether they wish to associate with these ones. 3 a lot of the offences are not even mentioned in the bible. 4. They need to review what loose conduct. Adultery. Fonication. Actually means in the greek. 5. How on earth can 2 john apply to all cases of disfellowshipped people. I've had with this religion and its man made rules.
Reply by Skye on 2015-06-24 05:25:01
The WT cult mentality is scary - many of their teachings are NOT from God's Word, and are very odd. They have been successful in programming their members, many of whom are kind people, into believing that being cruel by shunning is the loving and right thing to do. We must read God's Word for ourselves and learn about Jesus Christ and follow his direction. Learn about the Good News of the Kingdom of God as Jesus taught.
" After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. The time has come, he said. The Kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" Mark 1:14,15
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2015-06-24 05:17:27
"Allow me to extract the straw from your eye! Hypocrite! First extract the rafter, stump, plank, tree trunk from your own! For only then can you see clearly to extract the straw from your brother's eye!"
I was raised in a church that taught the greatest sermon ever, came from the mount where Jesus taught. Millions have copied it, dramatized it and explained it, but none have done it so brilliantly and eloquently as Jesus! Central to that famous sermon I was taught to say the Lord's prayer every day as follows:
"Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed by thy name . . ."
And then JW's brought me the name of the Father with the further admonition that my prayers should not be thoughtless, elusive mantras as uttered by Christendom's hierarchies, Now, as I look back I find it incredible how quickly and easily my mind was shielded by the very rafter of which Jesus spoke, a tree trunk so huge that an entire forest was thoroughly hidden of the primary point of the "Our Father" prayer.
So when I was sent out to extract the straws from the eyes of my brothers in Christendom, how was I to know how blinded I was by a hypocrisy that only Jesus could see so clearly? How was I to know that it was by this hypocrisy alone we have been so thoroughly blinded to reject our adoption as sons? How was I so completely deluded to reject myself along with my Father's sons who were brought to adoption by Jesus in this most basic teaching?
So I ask any Governing Body member reading this today: What was the hypocrisy that made the Pharisee so blind? Is it really the same one that makes us so blind today? Was it by mere accident or mere mistake by which we have all been deluded to redefine our Father as a mere friend? Or is this teaching as old as the Pharisee in collaboration with the only one who could have hatched it and so brilliantly carried it out? Oh, blind guide, who is your father that you should follow his desires and so blindly do his bidding?
swReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-06-24 08:38:06
Thank you smolderingwick1. I will use this reasoning the next time I get an opportunity to speak to a witness friend about these things.
Reply by on 2015-06-24 23:25:17
Yes I concur with your reasoning , I asked a brother the other day, how he viewed Jehovah a Friend or His Father? He said a friend, I then said to him, why is it in prayer we start with our father, not our friend:-
Reply by alskadedotter2@gmail.com on 2015-06-25 06:57:54
Anonymous, what was the brother's answer
Reply by on 2015-06-25 09:17:30
His response was a friend. I guess technically that would be ones response if not one of 144,000 until the 1,000 yr reign is over, as were taught, however, my reasoning is what I wrote above and that he could decide by his own study of scriptures if our relationship is one of father-son or father-friend...I never make a issue of these things...Just present I hope what the bible teaches.
Comment by Buster on 2015-06-24 21:49:48
Galatians 3:26. So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,
If that does not make us sons of god, I don't know what does, the Big O can say all they want
Comment by Anonymous. on 2015-06-27 23:08:19
How does Isaiah 65:24 fit the statement at the end of paragraph 7 of the study article?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-06-28 10:13:25
Interesting question.
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2015-06-28 11:44:26
When we understand that prayer is in the name of the Father and that name represents His entire character, Jehovah never acted outside of His character.
Comment by Tony McGurk on 2015-06-30 01:40:29
It is interesting to read verse 9 also of (2 John 9, 10) 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.
Pushes ahead & does not remain in the teaching of the Christ... How often & regularly has the GB pushed ahead of the teachings of the Christ in their distorted speculative reasonings & interpretations of the scriptures?
In Verse 7 it says "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist."
Correct me if I'm understanding it wrong but when we look at the whole section of scripture in context, not just a single verse to justify the GB's shunning policy of DF & DA people, it is actually speaking of those who are of the Anti-Christ & not acknowledging that Jesus came in the flesh. These are the ones that have pushed ahead & not remained in the teaching of the Christ that we are not to say a greeting to or welcome into our homes. They are those who have completely rejected Christianity or teaching within Christianity that Jesus didn't come in the flesh. Surely then it's not those that have just sinned & been DF'd or have just left the WT denomination due to disagreement on WT teachings.