[From ws17/10 p. 7 – November 27-December 3]
“We should love, not in word or with the tongue, but in deed and truth.” – 1 John 3:18
[audio mp3="http://beroeans.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ws1710-p.-07-Love-in-Deed-and-Truth.mp3"][/audio]
(Occurrences: Jehovah=20; Jesus=4)
The first question in this week’s Watchtower study is:
- What is the highest form of love, and why is that so? (See opening image.)
How would you answer that after seeing this image?
Now it has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. One reason is that the image goes directly to the brain bypassing any filters or interpretive cerebral elements. While some might dispute that point, few would deny that what we see has an immediate impact and can lead us easily to a particular point of view.
To illustrate, ask a young child that same question directing him to the above image and what do you think the answer will be? Would it surprise you if they said, "Cleaning the Kingdom hall, or building a Kingdom hall"?
The actual answer from the paragraph is that the highest form of love is unselfish love “based on right principles”. Would it shock you to learn this is not true?
To prove this, read Paul’s words to Timothy.
“Do your utmost to come to me shortly. 10 For Deʹmas has forsaken me because he loved the present system of things, . . .” (2Ti 4:9, 10)
The verb translated “loved” in his passage comes from the Greek verb agapaó, corresponding to the Greek noun agapé. Demas’ love for this system of things which caused him to abandon Paul in his need can hardly be called an ‘unselfish love based on right principles’.
This is an example of what has become of the spiritual nourishment provided to Jehovah’s Witnesses—“food at the proper time” they like to call it. It is bad enough that the analysis of agapé in this article is superficial, but what is far worse is that it is misrepresented.
There are four words in Greek for love. Agapé is one of the four, but in Classical Greek literature it is rarely used. For this reason, it had few cultural connotations, making it the perfect word for Jesus to seize upon so as to define something new: A kind of love rarely found in the world at large. John tells us that God is agapé. So God's love becomes the Gold Standard by which all Christian love is measured. For this reason, among others, he sent us his Son—His perfect reflection—so that we could learn how this love should be manifested among humans.
In imitation of God’s exceptional love, followers of Christ should also have agapé for one another. It is undeniably the greatest of all Christian virtues. Yet, as we see from Paul’s words, it can be misapplied. Demas was selfish, yet his agapé was still based on reason. He wanted what the current system of things offered, so it was only logical for him to abandon Paul, put himself first, and go off to take advantage of what the system could provide. Logical, but not right. His agapé was based on principles, but the principles were flawed, so the expression of his love was perverted. So agape can be selfish if the love is directed inward, toward oneself; or unselfish, if directed outward for the good of others. Christian agapé, since by definition it imitates the Christ, is outgoing love. Yet, defining it only as "unselfish love" is too superficial a definition, much like defining the Sun as a hot ball of gas. It is that, but it is so much more.
William Barclay does an excellent job of explaining the word:
Agapé has to do with the mind: it is not simply an emotion which rises unbidden in our hearts; it is a principle by which we deliberately live. Agapé has supremely to do with the will. It is a conquest, a victory, and achievement. No one ever naturally loved his enemies. To love one’s enemies is the conquest of all our natural inclinations and emotions.
This agapé, this Christian love, is not merely an emotional experience which comes to us unbidden and unsought; it is a deliberate principle of the mind, and a deliberate conquest and achievement of the will. It is in fact the power to love the unlovable, to love people whom we do not like. Christianity does not ask us to love our enemies and to love men at large in the same way as we love our nearest and our dearest and those who are closest to us; that would be at one and the same time impossible and wrong. But it does demand that we should have at all times a certain attitude of the mind and a certain direction of the will toward all men, no matter who they are.
What then is the meaning of this agapé? The supreme passage for the interpretation of the meaning of agapé is Matt. 5.43-48. We are there bidden to love our enemies. Why? In order that we should be like God. And what is the typical action of God that is cited? God sends his rain on the just and the unjust and on the evil and the good. That is to say—no matter what a man is like, God seeks nothing but his highest good.[i]
If we truly love our fellow man, we will also do what is best for him. This doesn’t mean we will do what he wants or what pleases him. Oftentimes, what is best for someone is not what they want. When we share truth with our JW brethren that contradicts what they’ve been taught, they are often very unhappy with us. They may even persecute us. This is in part because we are undermining their carefully constructed world view—the illusion that gives them a feeling of security, albeit one that will ultimately prove to be false. Such a deconstruction of a preciously held "reality" is painful, but holding on to it to the bitter end will prove far more painful, even devastating. We want them to avoid the inevitable outcome, so we speak up, though it often means risking our own security. Few of us enjoy conflict and discord. Frequently, it will turn friends into enemies. (Mt 10:36) Yet, we take the risk over and over, because love (agapé) never fails. (1Co 13:8-13)
The one-dimensional thinking of this study as regards Christian love is evident when it gives the example of Abraham in paragraph 4.
Abraham put his love for God ahead of his own feelings when he was commanded to offer up his son Isaac. (Jas. 2:21) – par. 4
What a transparent misapplication of Scripture. James is talking about Abraham’s faith, not his love. It was faith in God which caused him to obey, willingly offering his own son in sacrifice to Jehovah. Yet the writer of this article would have us believe this is a valid example of unselfish love. Why use this poor example? Could it be that the theme of the article is "love", but the purpose of the article is to promote self-sacrifice on behalf of the Organization?
Consider the other examples from paragraph 4.
- By love, Abel offered something to God.
- By Love, Noah preached to the world.[ii]
- By Love, Abraham made a costly sacrifice.
Bearing in mind the opening images, we can start to see a pattern emerge.
Genuine Love Versus Counterfeit Love
Many of the examples set forward in this article promote the idea of serving the organization. Defining agapé as “unselfish love” flows right into the idea of self-sacrificing love. But to whom are the sacrifices offered?
Similarly, love for Jehovah and our neighbor moves us not only to ask God ‘to send out workers into the harvest’ but also to have a full share in the preaching work. – par. 5 [This would be the preaching work controlled by the Organization.]
Likewise today, apostates and others who create divisions in the congregation use “smooth talk and flattering speech” to make themselves appear to be loving, but their true motive is selfish. – par. 7 [Love for the Organization would cause us to reject anyone who disagrees with us.]
Hypocritical love is especially shameful because it is a counterfeit of the godly quality of self-sacrificing love. – par. 8 [Those who contradict us, do not have true love.]
In contrast, genuine love moves us to find joy in serving our brothers without fanfare or recognition. For instance, the brothers who support the Governing Body in helping to prepare spiritual food do so anonymously, not drawing attention to themselves or revealing the material they have worked on. – par. 9 [True love will mean we will never take the limelight away from the Governing Body.]
All of this reasoning evaporates when we realize that true Christian agapé is about doing the right thing despite the personal cost. We do the right thing, because that is what our Father, who is agapé, always does. His principles guide our mind and our mind rules our heart, causing us to do things we may not want to do, yet we do them because we seek always the advantage of others.
The Governing Body wants you to demonstrate sacrificial love toward the Organization. They want you to obey all their directives even if that requires you to make sacrifices. Such sacrifices are done, according to them, out of love.
When some point out the flaws in their teachings, they accuse these ones as hypocritical apostates who demonstrate counterfeit love.
Hypocritical love is especially shameful because it is a counterfeit of the godly quality of self-sacrificing love. Such hypocrisy might fool men, but not Jehovah. In fact, Jesus said that those who are like hypocrites would be punished “with the greatest severity.” (Matt. 24:51) Of course, Jehovah’s servants would never want to display hypocritical love. However, we do well to ask ourselves, ‘Is my love always genuine, not tainted by selfishness or deception?’ – par. 8
Jesus said: “However, if YOU had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones.” (Mt 12:7)
Today, the focus is also on sacrifice and not mercy. More and more we see "guiltless ones" standing up to be heard, and these are roundly condemned as apostates and hypocrites.
Jesus’ principal complaint against the Jewish Governing Body comprised of the priests, scribes, and Pharisees was that they were hypocritical. However, do you think for a minute that they viewed themselves as hypocritical? They condemned Jesus of that, saying that he expelled demons by the power of the Devil, but never once would they turn that light upon themselves. (Mt 9:34)
Agapé may at times be unselfish, and at times self-sacrificing, but what it is above all else is love that seeks the best long-term benefits for the one to whom that love is expressed. That loved one might even be an enemy.
When a Christian disagrees with a teaching of the Governing Body because he can prove it to be false based on Scripture, he does so out of love. Yes, he knows this will cause some division. That is to be expected and is inevitable. Jesus' ministry was based entirely on love, yet he foretold that it would result in great division. (Luke 12:49-53) The Governing Body wants us to quietly comply with their directives and to sacrifice our time and resources for their projects, but if they are in the wrong, it is only the course of love to point that out. A true follower of the Christ wants all to be saved and none to be lost. So he will courageously take a stand, even at great risk to himself and his well-being, because that is the course of Christian agapé .
The Governing Body loves to characterize anyone who disagrees with them as an apostate who uses “’smooth talk and flattering speech’ to make themselves appear to be loving”, referring to such ones as selfish deceivers. But let’s look at that a little more closely. If an elder in the congregation starts to speak up because he sees that some of what is written in the publications is inaccurate—even false and misleading—how is that deceptive? Moreover, how is that selfish? That man has everything to lose, and apparently nothing to gain. (In fact, he has much to gain, but that is intangible and only perceived with eyes of faith. In reality, he hopes to gain Christ’s favor, but all he can realistically expect from men is persecution.)
The publications praise faithful men of the past who stood up and spoke the truth, even though they did cause divisions in the congregation and did suffer persecution and even death. Yet, similar men today are vilified when they do the same work in our modern congregation.
Are not the hypocrites the ones who proclaim how righteous they are while continuing to teach falsehoods and persecute "the guiltless ones" who courageously stand up for truth?
The ignominious irony of paragraph 8 is not lost on those who truly agapé truth, Jesus, Jehovah, and yes, their fellow man.
ADDENDUM
The Watchtower uses the term "self-sacrificing love" in this article. This is one of those Watchtower terms that seems appropriate and unobjectional when viewed superficially. However, one has to question the repeated use in the publications of a term which does not appear in the Bible. Why does God's word never speak of "self-sacrificing love"?
True, the love of the Christ includes a willingness to make sacrifices in the sense of giving up things that we hold precious, like our time and resources, to benefit another. Jesus did willingly offer himself up for our sins, and he did this out of love both for the Father and for us. Yet, to characterize Christian love as "self-sacrificing" is to limit its range. Jehovah, the greatest embodiment of love, created all things out of love. Yet he never expresses this as a great sacrifice. He's not like some rare mothers who constantly guilt their children by reminding them of how much they suffered in giving them birth.
Are we to view every expression of love as a sacrifice? Does this not distort our view of this most divine of qualities? Jehovah wants mercy and not sacrifice, but it seems that the Organization has it the other way round. In one article and video after another, we see sacrifice emphasized, but when do we speak of mercy? (Mt 9:13)
In Israelite times, there were whole burnt offerings (sacrifices) where everything was consumed. It all went to Jehovah. However, the majority of sacrifices left something for the priest, and from this they lived. But it would have been wrong for the priest to have taken more than his allotment; and even worse for him to pressure the people to make more sacrifices so he could profit from them.
The over-emphasis on making sacrifices is completely of Organizational origin. Who is really benefiting from all this "self-sacrificing love"?
_______________________________________________
[i] New Testament Words by William Barclay ISBN 0-664-24761-X
[ii] Witnesses believed that Noah preached from house to house, despite any evidence of this in the Bible. After 1,600 years of human procreation, the world was likely populated extensively—which is why the Flood had to be global—making it impossible for one man on foot or horseback to reach everyone in the short time available to him.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by lost in space on 2017-11-27 00:03:09
It seems a sacrificial based works will lead us to a Governing Body approved salvation. With our true Saviour, Christ Jesus being held hostage. Indeed, a sad situation arises when false-anointed ones claim an exclusive relationship with Christ as their Mediator only.
Christs love is NOT limited to that capacity 1 Tim 2 :1-6.Reply by Devora on 2017-11-27 09:16:08
BEAUTIFULLY-put,All of you.Thank you too Meliti for Barclay's essay.May many more realize & grow into this superior,True Love,as Jah+Christ=right heart/mind/whole soul=loving words+actions for them and humanity=persecutions;sufferings=Love tested;Proved.It does, (and will)Win in the end!..thinking of many Scriptures on this..& also,my own testings and efforts,as someone put it,to"BE the love".
Comment by Ludavid on 2017-11-27 02:29:44
Love in the Jehovah witnesses organization it's very conditional and without really substance, especially on the organization level.
Like you well pointed out Meleti, when somebody stood up for truth and righteousness (especially "to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation" Jas. 1:27 aka. pedophilia problems) is taking on himself great risk to lose all friends and family etc.
As you have sad "man has everything to lose, and apparently nothing to gain. (In fact, he has much to gain, but that is intangible and only perceived with eyes of faith. In reality, he hopes to gain Christ’s favor, but all he can realistically expect from men is persecution.)"
All they need (GB - organization) is "self - sacrifing love" that is beneficial for organisation but is very often damaging for r&f, especially on long-term condition.
But we still can find some kind of real love in JW congregation , love that seeks the best long-term benefits for the one to whom that love is expressed, not becouse "spiritual food" and organizations instructions that goes top-down, but becouse some r&f have real love for Bible and have personal relationship with Jesus and Jehovah DESPITE "spiritual food" and organizations instructions that they get from it.
Thank you once more for all yours efforts and hard work.
Comment by John of ARC on 2017-11-27 03:35:59
I used to answer a lot at the meetings, often showing other sides/principles/priorities to what the WT stated. Some R&F stated clearly that such answers were deeply needed. By giving such answers, I came to feel that I was giving legitimacy to the org as-is, and be part of the silk glove covering the iron fist. Something I came to realize, was that hardline/cold COs and elders actually reflected the org’s teaching and true spirit as close as possible. I think if loving brothers and sisters stop covering up the iron fist, the R&F will understand the wrongness sooner rather than later. Now I would be happy to present my views (trying to do so in a Christian way) to individuals, but not publicly in the congregation (stopped going to meetings). This is what my current conscience induced me to do, but I know that a time may come when I need to express my submission to Christ and not men publicly. Other’s take on this (how and when we should present our understanding) is welcome.
Thanks for a great article and explanation of agape, Meleti.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2017-11-27 09:54:36
Hi Meliti. If the congregation had a Watchtower study article, simply explaining the meaning of Agape love, what it is and what it is not, and included the Barclays quote, I would have felt that was a good study and it would have benefited me and the congregation.
Such a shame that all the spiritual food presented has to have the same twist (share in pioneering, share in the building work, trust the GB).
Comment by Psalmbee on 2017-11-27 10:41:09
Elementary question of course, but why and since when does an old Greek word inserted into a translated English text become so much more meaningful and noteworthy? Keeping in mind that according to best known resources Matthews' Gospel was from original Hebrew tongue. Am I the only one lost or is there any others lost with me? (Matt 15:24)
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-11-27 11:16:57
Which word are you referring to, Psalmbee?
Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-11-27 12:10:27
I was referring to agape in this particular article, but the question stands for anytime a Greek word is inserted into English text that already has an equivalent.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-11-27 13:52:53
I understand. However, there is no English equivalent for agape. There are four words in Greek which can all be translated by the English word love. The Greeks had a word for erotic or passionate love and another for the love of friends and a third for family love and finally there is agape. Now the first three we can translate fairly adequately using modifiers, but the fourth is a challenge. It requires an understanding of Scripture to properly grasp the nuance Jesus has imposed on this otherwise pedestrian word.
A man can love a woman. A father can love a son. A friend can love a friend. Yet it is possible for these three types of love to exist without any of them including agape. In Greek, it is possible to say, "John loves his wife, but he doesn't love her." or "Harry loves his son, but he doesn't love him." In English that makes no sense, because we only have the one word, but in Greek, each sentence would have two distinct words for the one English Word.Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-11-27 14:21:46
Thank you Meleti, You say the fourth is a challenge but not impossible! You used the term "John loves his wife, but he doesn't love his wife" not making sense in English, but if you say "John loves his wife but he is not in love with her" then it does make perfect sense in English!
Comment by Joseph Anton on 2017-11-27 11:34:12
This passage: "For instance, the brothers who support the Governing Body in helping to prepare spiritual food do so anonymously, not drawing attention to themselves or revealing the material they have worked on." So by this reasoning those that don't prepare spiritual food anonymously or reveal their deeds and works ARE drawing attention to themselves. Looking at you GB. Also, how is this not a valid argument against turning in time cards?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-11-27 11:40:58
Good point, Joseph
Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-11-27 14:35:19
I find it interesting the part about not revealing the material they have worked on. Why keep this secret? Is it to hide the source material so it could not be questioned or scrutinized more carefully, or so the validity of the research could not be independently evaluated? WT is notorious for obscuring references and footnotes. I am unclear how keeping these things secret provides any genuine benefits to anyone but the GB itself.
Comment by eve04 on 2017-11-27 14:49:08
The question is what is the highest form of love? and they show a picture of Bro and Sister cleaning the hall and building halls? Not what I got out of the theme scripture.
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
It’s funny in paragraph 7 they say Likewise today, apostates and others who create divisions in the congregation use “smooth talk and flattering speech” to make themselves appear to be loving, but their true motive is selfish. – par. 7
Have they been on the internet? I used to think maybe they were trolling but apparently not if they think the apostates and others that cause divisions speech is smooth and flattering and loving. Most of it is filled with condemnation and hate in exposing this organization, they are not hiding their motives. The brothers and sisters will never know because they can’t check to see if that statement is true.
As far as not drawing attention to themselves I bet that is the first thing they tell a person when they meet them. Bethelites were quick to let you know they are Bethelites and Pioneers are quick to let you know they are pioneers, missionaries, etc etc. Thanks to JW Broadcast we know who the GB and their helpers are. Good point JA on turning in time cards. Maybe they're in a different organization then me. LOL
Thanks Meleti for the true meaning of agape not the orgs version.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-11-28 07:15:43
Quite right, Brain. If you want to practice badness, just accuse those who would unmask your actions as doing the very thing you practice. It will fool a lot of people.
Comment by Psalmbee on 2017-11-28 09:59:05
I would say that most JW's don't know about Australia. The ones that do dismiss it as apostate lies and the very few that may be looking into it may be taking a second and third look! Does anybody know when they started teaching and claiming that Micheal and Jesus are one and the same? I have been trying to slap some sense into a certain elder that I know who thinks he's been working on me but I see it as the other way around.The alarm clock is going off and he's stretching but has not opened his eyes yet.Thank you to anyone that can come up with that date!
Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-11-28 10:15:42
Every once I a while I see discussions of Michael vs. Jesus, and sometimes I get drawn into them, but over time these debates hold less and less interest for me. Suppose Michael and Jesus really are two names for the same thing? Or, suppose they are different persons. How does a determination either way change anything? The only significance I can see is for Trinitarians. If Jesus is an arch "angel", then he appears to be "just" an angel - and so not a "divine" part of a Trinity. That would be seen as a dismissive attitude toward Christ if he were really 'god'.
For sake of argument, let us assume there is no Trinity. If so, what significance does the Michael = Jesus debate have then? As far as I can see, none. Think about the entire history of the Bible, all the prophecies, the role of Christ, the Christian congregation, the prospect of Armageddon, the kingdom, the new world, etc. etc. What difference does ANY of that make whether Michael and Jesus are the same or two people?
Before I would ever get drawn up in the Michael debate, someone would have to explain to me why I should care one way or the other. I fail to see how it's of any importance at all.Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-11-28 12:53:06
I see your point Robert and also feel similarly as you, however at Jn 17:3 as you know says that we need to take in knowledge of the one who was sent forth. When they say that Micheal & Jesus are one in the same they are going way beyond what is written and are whitewashing the scriptures. To me this is a good subject to get them stuttering on and can lead to more light being shed upon them. I know that the hardcore Witnesses just take this teaching with a grain of salt and just keep right on going like it is no big deal,but to those of us who really love the Messiah or Christ it cuts deep to the bone to knock the rank of Jesus down to being just an archangel.
Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-11-28 14:24:19
That is where I have difficulty in this debate. Since when is having a title of archangel "just" a term, so that if Christ were one, it is some kind of bad thing to be called that? That, too, is going beyond what is written.
These words like "archangel" are just Greek terms in the Bible that are trying to explain something to us. Why is it that conveying an accurate explanation is, in any way, demeaning to Christ (if in fact that is the right understanding of it)? I just don't see how.
Besides, "archangel" may not mean merely the "chief-most angel", but rather 'he who is above all angels'. That is, Christ may be "above" the other angels, even if he is not 'technically' one himself. If that is a more correct understanding, how could that be seen as a 'bad' description of Christ?
Finally, "angel" primarily means "messenger", and is a term even applied to humans in Revelation. Jesus, as the Word of God, unquestionably was and is a messenger conveying the words of God to mankind. If being the Word of God did not demean Christ, then how could being called an 'angel/messenger' demean him, since it has the same basic meaning?
If "angel" as applied to humans merely describes a role they play, without 'uplifting' humans to something greater than what they really are, applying "angel" to Christ likewise need not imply anything negative.
Yes, the word "angel" has CONNOTATIONS that might imply something else (and for people worried about the Michael issue, that implication seems demeaning in their eyes), but the Greek word on its own does not require us to view the role of Christ in any sort of diminished way.Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2017-11-29 11:09:24
Archippus. Now that's a bit fishy.
Sorry. Especially to those who don't get it.
Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-11-28 14:47:45
Just one more scripture of interest and I'll leave it alone. Jn 17:20. Jesus prays to the father about another group that shall believe on him through "their" word. Who is he speaking of?
Reply by MarthaMartha on 2017-11-28 16:04:01
I may be missing something Pslambee, but from reading John 17:20
"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, "
It seems obvious to me that 'those who will believe in me through their word' are the disciples that would be gathered in the future by the disciples present with him at the time,who would continue to bear witness to him after he was gone.
After Jesus death the disciples who had been with him would give testimony about him and others would put faith in him by their word.
He goes on to say they would all be one, so all disciples of Christ from then on would be one flock. Which also adds to the argument that WT idea of the other sheep is wrong, and Jesus simply meant the Gentiles who would be gathered from a different fold than the Jews.
That's my take on it ....Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-11-28 16:27:55
Thank you, MarthaMartha! I most definitely appreciate your kind remark and clarification. I must admit that I was thinking he had some other group that had their own Bible that was different than what we all have, something of a special order so to speak. Thanks again.
Reply by Lois on 2017-11-28 20:01:05
I don’t comment that much, but I have recently been doing some research on Michael/Jesus. I believe it is important that we understand who Jesus is and could perhaps use this as a topic to talk to JW ‘s . If the org is not clear on our Lord Jesus’ identity, would he appoint them as the only true congregation on earth ? These are the scriptures I thought I could use, Heb, 1:5. (To which of the angels did he ever say “You are my son...). Also Heb 5:1. Jesus is the perfect High Priest, and High Priests are taken from amoung men (so angels can’t be high priests). Some may say Michael isn’t an angel, he is an Arch angel. But as someone else mentioned, a queen bee is still a bee. So, while this may seem trivial, it also relates to who Jesus is, which is important for us to understand.
Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-11-28 22:21:16
Thank you for commenting Lois. You bring out some excellent points and scriptures for debunking their theory on this subject. I'm still looking for a date when they started this teaching. Certain facts I like to keep up with, for example: 1976 was the first year they capitalized the W in Jehovah's witnesses after the failed prediction of 1975.
Reply by Vox Ratio on 2017-11-29 02:00:50
Hi Psalmbee,
I'm not sure if this will help your analysis, but I made a comment to Meleti here on this same subject a few months back that draws on both currents of thinking.
Basically, I don't think that a Jesus as Michael Christology is as cut and dried as most of us would like.Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-11-29 08:43:51
Thanks, Vox Ratio you made me break out my dictionary again. (LOL) Very interesting. You know it seems to me that while Jesus was on Earth with his Apostles and disiples as well as many others he could have said "Look man my name used to be Micheal before I got here and that's what it's gonna be after I leave here". Then there would be no confusion as the Bible clearly states that God is not the author of confusion. Hey BTW is that your You Tube channel?
Reply by Vox Ratio on 2017-11-29 21:27:45
Not my channel, Psalmbee. The world is rife with identity theft these days!! :) ;)
Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-11-29 21:54:10
I know what you mean, just like false prophets and Legions of Doom.
Reply by Lois on 2017-11-29 07:42:58
Thanks Psalmbee. I didn’t know about the capitalization of the W. That is very interesting. I am not sure when the Michael/Jesus teaching started. Apparently Russell thought Michael was the Pope (Finished Mystery pg. 188) or so I was told, I haven’t verified this.
Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-11-29 09:05:43
For sure for sure Lois you are Quite Welcome, Yeah I don't think it was during Russell's time almost positive about that. I'm thinking more like Nathan or Freddie! I think it was more like Russel thought the Pope (next man to God according to Catholic hierarchy) was trying to imitate the Angelic Micheal.
Reply by Lois on 2017-11-29 19:04:21
That makes sense Psalmbee, thanks!
Comment by huang on 2017-11-28 10:55:43
"The ignominious irony of paragraph 8 is not lost on those who truly agapé truth, Jesus, Jehovah, and their fellow man" - set me thinking.
Par 7 will likely be open season on suspected apostates. I expect signicant pushback in comments as the par gives the green light to apostate-bashing. However there is a silver lining in par 8:
“ hypocrites would be punished “with the greatest severity.” (Matt. 24:51)
This is another godsend line which can easily be re-engineered to yield a hefty payload, thus:
"Referring to Mt 24:51 we read of parable of the slaves. Beside the faithful and discreet slave there is another slave - an evil slave who beat his fellow slaves and will be assigned with the hypocrites and be punished “with the greatest severity. Certainly we do not want to display hypocritical love like this evil slave and be identified with the hypocrites."
Expect some gnashing of teeth.
Comment by Filius90 on 2017-11-29 13:12:31
When I would try explaining the Michael/Jesus subject to people I was to trying to reach. I would often bring up that many Seventh Day Adventist I knew also believed Michael and Jesus were the same (common ground).
Further, I would ask, why is it in the book of Jude verse 9, Michael wouldn’t allow himself to overstep in bringing a judgment of abusive terms against Satan in a “dispute over Moses body”? But then in the book of Revelation 12:9 he leads the charge in hurling Satan down to the earth? In Jude no keys to the Kingdom. By now in the book of Revelation, Christ is King and he handles his rightful business. Just a thought everyone, please don’t eat me alive.
Also, it’s interesting to check out the various translations of scripture pertaining to when Jesus was tempted. In the (NWT) Matt 4:3 Satan says “if you are A son of God-” others may say “if you are THE son of God-”. Or just “son of God”. Could never get an answer to the difference.
Based off the (NWT) “if you are A son always made me ponder on how bitter Satan was by not wanting to recognize Jesus as THE SON. After all Satan once was a son too. Just a few thoughts.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-11-29 13:47:46
This topic seems to have legs! Since there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that Michael was a name Jesus had in his prehuman existence, we seem to be engaging in speculation. Nothing wrong with a little speculation, mind you, as long as it is not treated as fact.
If we are going to suggest that Jesus might have been Michael, then we are pretty much required to view him as an angel despite the argument that Archangel could mean non-angelic leader of the angels. (Since Jehovah is the ultimate leader of the angels, could we call him the Archangel? Just sayin'.) The reason I say this is because Michael is referred to as "one of the foremost princes" at Daniel 10:13. This makes him one of a group of peers. He is not the foremost prince, but "one of the foremost princes". Since Michael is an archangel, that makes him one of the foremost archangels. If there is only one archangel, only one leader of all the angels, and that one is Michael, then Gabriel could hardly refer to him accurately as one of the foremost princes. By definition, he would be the foremost prince.
It is hard to understand how the only one referred to as The Word of God (John 1:1; Rev 19:13) and the one called the firstborn of creation (a unique designation) and the one for whom and by whom all things were created (which would include all the angels) could be at one and the same time an equal, a peer, of any group of angels.Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-11-29 15:33:11
I find your reasoning well thought out, Meleti. You make a good case for Michael not being Jesus.
We must wonder, if Michael really were Jesus, and this fact were really important, why wouldn't the Bible just come out and say it? Why all the "coy disguises"? By the time Jude was written, it was really "late in the game". Why keep this fact (if it were one) a secret, so late into the first century, since the writing of the Bible was almost completed? The very fact that no further information is given on the subject leads me to believe that resolving was not seen as important. Why not? Because the Bible never *said* that the two were the same, so there was no need to re-emphasize something they should already have known.
That's how it seems to me, anyway.
Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-11-29 21:22:06
1 Thes.4:16 has a little bit to say about that. Sorry about the growing legs Meleti. I was only asking for a date!(LOL). And by the way I want to thank you for all you do here! You are a true Defender of the Word in my opinion.
Reply by Vox Ratio on 2017-11-29 21:25:10
Hi Meleti,
You've raised some excellent points. You can take the Witness away from speculation, but you can never take the speculation away from the Witness!
Except for a couple of instances, Daniel's use of prince (SAR) uniformly represents heavenly rulers. His use of king (MELEK) is also surprisingly uniform in representing earthly rulers. If these distinctions were deliberate, then it doesn't appear to me that Daniel was operating within the same conceptual framework that we moderns do when considering imperial hierarchies. It seems to me that this is why Daniel was fine with referring to God as the "prince of princes" – him being the ruler of all rulers (Dan. 8:25).*
As such, when Michael is referred to as one of the foremost princes, he is being classified into a category that God is already in (a partitive construct). Of course, this category must be functional – not ontological – since the true God is not first among equals, but stands wholly apart in person and nature. Nevertheless, that Michael the prince must stand in relation to one who is the prince superlative ought to help us see why he can only be referred to as "the great prince" or "one of the foremost princes" and not the “greatest prince” or "the foremost prince". These classifications would also seem to align with Jewish notions of subordination within the heavenly courts.
*Alternatively, even if we say that the prehuman Jesus is the "prince of princes" in Daniel chapter 8, then we are still confronted with the issue that Michael is classified within the same category that the prehuman Jesus is – yet another reason why we ought to consider the use of prince (SAR) as denoting something on the order of function, rather something on the order of being.
Reply by amoreomeara on 2017-11-29 17:16:08
Hi F90, I’m not sure that I really follow your point.
I thought I would check rev12:9 in a few different translations, but it doesn’t say it was Michael that hurled Satan down. In fact in v11 we see it is attributed entirely to the blood of the lamb and the power of “their” testimonies.
Also as Meleti says, Michael is clearly not of a unique stature/position, unlike Jesus being the only begotten son. Satan has no claim to being begotten, but that wouldn’t stop him being jealous! (Hope you don’t feel eaten! ?)Reply by Filius90 on 2017-11-29 17:51:44
I wasn't trying to make a point. I was only sharing a thought based off of what I was taught most of my life. "Michael leading the charge (Michael and HIS angels) he's leading, he gets the credit" which results in the dragon being hurled down to earth. The thought stemmed from my reading of 7,8 and 9. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not attempting to teach in my comment nor do I claim to be a Bible scholar or live a life of speculation I was just sharing some thoughts. As far as Satan goes (jealous or whatever), that expression was to indicate he no longer was a "spirit son" in good standing.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-11-29 23:15:13
No worries, Filius90. I thought it was a good point.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-11-29 23:14:05
The difference between Jude and Revelation, Filius90, is that Jude is describing a situation that occurred before judgment was passed on Satan. It was only after Jesus died faithfully that the final answer was given to Satan's accusations and judgment could be passed. Nevertheless, even in Revelation, Michael isn't judging but is acting in accord with judgment already passed. He is the bailiff who obeys the instructions of the judge and carries the prison off to jail.
If we recognize that Michael is not Jesus, we can have a reason to speculate on the time of Satan's ouster. Jesus had just died. Unlike earthly courts that can take a long time to rule on a case, Jehovah ruled on Satan immediately that the final element, Jesus' faithful death, was in. Michael could then act. Jesus, upon his resurrection, was then able to "preach to the spirits in prison".
Comment by Psalmbee on 2017-11-29 17:53:53
It was after 1954 because in 1954 when they were coming out with the NWT it was starting to be taught not to pray or render idolatrous worship to Christ Jesus. Although it had been in the WTBTS's Charter since the start-up that they were rendering worship to Jehovah & Jesus Christ and the worship of Jesus didn't get removed from the Charter until 1999. So for 45 years they were under Charter to worship Jesus but were teaching and preaching the total opposite. Imagine that! Thank you JWfacts.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2017-12-03 06:26:14
Busy week so my comments are late.
All the fuss over Agape. Paragraph 1 is clear - Agape can be known only from the actions it prompts - absolutely correct. But the implication in the item is that Agape always represents unselfish love, which is only the case when the Christian applies it correctly. As Meliti points out in Demas case, and so does John in 1 John 2:15, Agape can be applied to wrong Christian thinking too. Agape seems to cover all actions motivated by our desires, whether good or bad. The important thing is that a Christian must work hard to control his desires so that they benefit others. Demas chose, on the other hand, to do his own thing.
Does that sound reasonable ?
On paragraph 7 does anyone have experience of Apostates creating divisions in the congregation using "smooth talk and flattering speech" to make themselves appear to be loving ? Where are these ones ? Walkill ?
Excellent point on paragraph 4, Meliti. Abel, Noah, and Abraham were all moved by faith (Hebrews 11). It is only by suggesting the idea that because these ones had faith, which moved them to do what is right, that you get anywhere near joining up faith and agape love. James of course said that faith without works is dead, so we do good things because of faith, which will then be a demonstration of Agape love in action. However, I am not quite sure how anyone can connect Abel's sacrifices, and Abraham offering up Isaac with that idea.Reply by tyhik on 2017-12-05 04:26:59
I too was wondering about apostates and flattering speech. I think the aim is to just sow paranoia against anybody in the congregation who dares to question anything that comes from the GB. Apostates are a convenient enemy. They have taken the role of Satan. They can appear in 1000 variations and lurk for devoted jws anywhere. They even prowl in kingdom halls and cause divisions with their flattering speech.
Reply by Psalmbee on 2017-12-05 09:44:13
A person guilty of apostasy does not cease to be a follower of Christ. He may repent and return to his former good standing; " for there is a place where the repentant sinner stands, which the perfectly righteous can not reach". (perspicacious). I have often wondered about family shunning. Do they take it as far as the cemetery and not allow them to be buried next to one another? I would ask a Kingdom Hallogist (Elder), but they reject my conversation!