[From ws11/17 p. 8 – January 1-7]
[audio mp3="http://beroeans.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ws1711-p.-8-Are-You-Taking-Refuge-in-Jehovah.mp3"][/audio]
“Jehovah is redeeming the life of his servants; none of those taking refuge in him will be found guilty.”—Ps 34:11
According to the box at the end of this article, the arrangement of cities of refuge that were provided under the Mosaic law provide ‘lessons that Christians can learn from.’ If so, then why are these lessons not laid out in the Christian Scriptures? It is understandable that some arrangement had to be made in the nation of Israel to handle cases of manslaughter. Any nation needs law and a judicial and penal system. However, the Christian congregation was and is something new, something radically different. It is not a nation. Through it, Jehovah was making provision for a return to the family structure instituted in the beginning. So any attempt to turn it back into a nation is going against the purpose of God.
In the interim, as we move toward the perfect state under Jesus Christ, Christians live under the rule of secular nations. Therefore, when a crime like rape or murder or manslaughter is committed, the superior authorities are considered to be God’s ministers placed in their positions to keep the peace and enforce the law. Christians are commanded by God to submit to the superior authorities, recognizing this is an arrangement our Father has put into place until such time as He replaces it. (Romans 13:1-7)
So there is no evidence in the Bible that the ancient Israelite cities of refuge constitute “lessons Christians can learn from.” (See box below)
Given that, why is this article and the next one making use of them? Why is the organization going back 1,500 years before the arrival of Christ for lessons Christians can supposedly learn from? That is really the question that needs to be answered. Another question that we should bear in mind as we consider this article is whether these “lessons” are really just antitypes by another name.
He must…present his case in the hearing of the elders
In paragraph 6 we learn that a manslayer had to “’present his case in the hearing of the elders’ at the gate of the city of refuge to which he had fled.” As stated above, this makes sense because Israel was a nation and therefore needed a means to handle crime committed within its borders. This is the same for any nation on earth today. When a crime is committed, the evidence has to be presented before judges so that a ruling can be made. If the crime is committed in the Christian congregation—for example the crime of child sexual abuse—we must present the wrongdoer to the superior authorities in accordance with the command of God at Romans 13:1-7. However, this is not the point that is being made in the article.
Confusing crime with sin, paragraph 8 says: “Today, a Christian guilty of serious sin needs to seek the help of congregation elders to recover.” So while the title of this article is about taking refuge in Jehovah, the real message is taking refuge within the organizational arrangement.
There is so much wrong with paragraph 8 that it is going to take a little time to weed through it. Bear with me.
Let’s begin with the fact that they are taking the scriptural arrangement under the nation of Israel wherein a criminal was required to present his case in the hearing of the elders at the city gate and saying that this ancient arrangement corresponds to the modern congregation wherein a noncriminal, such as a drunkard, smoker, or fornicator, needs to present his case before the elders of the congregation.
If you need to present yourself before the elders after having committed a serious sin because in ancient Israel the fugitive needed to do that, then this is more than a lesson. What we have here is a type and an anti-type. They are getting around their own rule not to make up types and antitypes by relabeling them as "lessons".
That’s the first problem. The second problem is that they are only taking the parts of the type that are convenient for them, and ignoring the other parts which do not serve their purpose. For example, where were the elders in ancient Israel? They were in public, at the city gate. The case was heard publicly within the full view and hearing of any passersby. There is no correspondence—no "lesson"—in the modern day, because they want to try the sinner in secret, far from the view of any observer.
However, the most serious problem with this new anti-typical application (let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?) is that it is unscriptural. True, they quote a scripture in an effort to give the impression that this arrangement is based on the Bible. Nevertheless, do they reason on that Scripture? They do not; but we will.
“Is there anyone sick among you? Let him call the elders of the congregation to him, and let them pray over him, applying oil to him in the name of Jehovah. 15 And the prayer of faith will make the sick one well, and Jehovah will raise him up. Also, if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, openly confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. A righteous man’s supplication has a powerful effect.” (Jas 5:14-16 NWT)
Since the New World translation wrongly inserts Jehovah into this passage, we'll look at a parallel rendition from the Berean Study Bible to present a balanced understanding.
"Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick. The Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power to prevail." (Jas 5:14-16 BSB)
Now in reading this passage, why is the individual told to call the elders? Is it because he has committed a serious sin? No, he's sick and needs to get better. If we were to reword this as we'd say it today, it might go like this: “If you’re sick, get the elders to pray over you, and because of their faith, the Lord Jesus will make you well. Oh and by the way, if you’ve committed any sins, they will also be forgiven you.”
Verse 16 talks about confessing sins “to each other”. This is not a one-way process. We're not talking publisher to elder, laity to clergy. Additionally, is any mention whatsoever made of judgment? John is talking about being healed and being forgiven. The forgiveness and the healing both come from the Lord. There is not the slightest indication that he is talking about some kind of judicial process involving men judging the repentant or non-repentant attitude of the sinner and then extending or withholding forgiveness.
Now bear this in mind: This is the best Scripture that the organization can come up with to support its judicial arrangement requiring all sinners to report to the elders. It gives us pause for thought, doesn't it?
Inserting oneself between God and men
What is wrong with this JW judicial process? That can best be illustrated by the example presented in paragraph 9.
Many of God’s servants have discovered the relief that comes from seeking and receiving help from the elders. A brother named Daniel, for example, committed a serious sin, but for several months he hesitated to approach the elders. “After so much time had gone by,” he admits, “I thought that there wasn’t anything the elders could do for me anymore. Still, I was always looking over my shoulder, waiting for the consequences of my actions. And when I prayed to Jehovah, I felt that I had to preface everything with an apology for what I had done.” Finally, Daniel sought the help of the elders. Looking back, he says: “Sure, I was scared to approach them. But afterward, it seemed as if someone had lifted a huge weight off my shoulders. Now, I feel that I can approach Jehovah without anything being in the way.” Today, Daniel has a clean conscience, and he was recently appointed as a ministerial servant. – par. 9
Daniel sinned against Jehovah, not the elders. Nevertheless, praying for forgiveness from Jehovah was not enough. He needed to get the forgiveness of the elders. The forgiveness of men was more important to him than the forgiveness of God. I've experienced this myself. I had a single brother confess fornication that was committed five years in the past. On another occasion, I had a 70-year-old brother come to me after an elders school in which pornography was discussed because 20 years in the past he had viewed Playboy magazines. He'd prayed for God's forgiveness and stopped this activity but still, after two decades, he couldn't feel truly forgiven unless he heard a man pronounce him free and clear. Incredible!
These examples together with that of Daniel from this article indicate that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a real relationship with Jehovah God as a loving Father. We cannot entirely blame Daniel, or these other brothers, for this attitude because this is how we are taught. We are trained to believe that between us and God there is this middle management layer made up of the elders, the circuit overseer, the branch and finally the Governing Body. We've even had charts to illustrate it graphically in the magazines.
If you want Jehovah to forgive you, you have to go through the elders. The Bible says that the only way to the Father is through Jesus, but not for Jehovah's Witnesses.
We can see now the effectiveness of their campaign to convince all Jehovah’s Witnesses that they are not the children of God, but only his friends. In a real family, if one of the children has sinned against the father and wishes the father’s forgiveness, he doesn’t go to one of his brothers and ask the brother for forgiveness. No, he goes directly to the father, recognizing that only the father can forgive him. However, if a friend of the family sins against the head of that family, he might go to one of the children recognizing that he has a special relationship with the family head and ask him to intercede on his behalf before the father, because the outsider—the friend—fears the father in a way that the son does not. This is similar to the type of fear Daniel expresses. He says he was “always looking over his shoulder”, and that he “was scared”.
How are we to take refuge in Jehovah when we are denied the very relationship that makes that possible?
[easy_media_download url="http://beroeans.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ws1711-p.-8-Are-You-Taking-Refuge-in-Jehovah.mp3" text="Download Audio" force_dl="1"]Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by River on 2017-12-31 08:27:44
Despicable satanic organisation. In line with the Catholic church, or what is the big difference? Confessing sins for a priest is repeated here under disguise. The best tool to open the eyes of witnesses is to mention the elders secret handbook, how an elder can continue to be an elder after fornication and hiding his sin for several years. Despicable and satanic.
Comment by if ever on 2017-12-31 08:58:43
Hello Meleti, I have also noted they are now using scriptural texts to point to lessons instead of using the traditional type and antitype application. I have also noted the 2014 Annual Meeting talk by D. Splane where direction was clearly given about the use of types and antitypes. A quote from the talk is provided below:
"We need to exercise great care when applying accounts in the Hebrew scriptures as prophetic patters if these accounts are not applied in the scriptures themselves. We simply cannot go beyond what is written. Where the scriptures identify them as such we embrace them. But where the Bible is silent we must be silent." D Splane.
Yet the Watchtower from March 2015 quoted in this weeks study only uses the phrase, "we should be reluctant" instead of "we should be silent."
I am finding great joy in studying the Bible again and learning about the Christ, I thank you and all who contribute to make this site a source of refreshment when reviewing the Bible based themes under discussion.
Comment by pquin7 on 2017-12-31 09:02:54
Very well said my brother love the audio feature.
Comment by Scrubmaster on 2017-12-31 11:08:37
Thanks for the article. Again another example of the organization picking scriptures to prove a point they want to make. I find it interesting other religions are called out for doing the same thing.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-12-31 11:23:33
Good question, Brain. When indeed. If we look at the Pharisees, the "when" was when Jehovah dealt with them, which wasn't very pretty. ;)
Comment by eve04 on 2017-12-31 16:28:22
This was taken from a 1995 WT. (I wanted to see just how many anti-types,types are out there).
What is the antitypical city of refuge? It is not some geographical location like Hebron, one of the six Levite refuge cities and home of Israel’s high priest. Today’s city of refuge is God’s provision for protecting us from death for violating his commandment about the sanctity of blood. (Genesis 9:6) Whether willful or unintentional, every violator of that command must seek God’s forgiveness and the cancellation of his sin through faith in the blood of the High Priest, Jesus Christ.
The GB does not believe this, because it would take all authority from judging away from them.
They have so many types and antitypes that if they really get rid of them they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, so now they are lessons to learn from. They even have a antitype of Achan, the modern day parallel- Apostates. 1986 Dec 15th WT . I thought it was interesting and a real stretching of that account.
I guess continuing to be more like the Pharisees and following laws are better then the love of the Christ. It works better for an organization and not the true body of Christ.
Comment by Karen on 2017-12-31 19:41:34
Thank you again Meleti for this latest insight.
I had stopped reading this site for some time as I felt overwhelmed with reading watchtower articles merely to have them refuted. I was at a point where I could not bear to read anything anymore, having felt so many years wasted in study and research that was a lie.
However you have lifted a weight from my shoulders with this latest article. The process of confessing some, even minor so called sin from years ago, after an individual has gone before Jehovah and talked it through, with a group of men behind closed doors, is both cruel and sick. I see that now, I didn't back then, none of us did, so indoctrinated we were to believe ourselves bad or unworthy.
There is neither the trust between a loyal friend to confide is some self imposed feelings of unworthiness or bad conscience over a thought or deed. That trusted friend then feels compleelled to go before the elders and 'report' the converstation. Hence you may find yourself dragged before a committee of elders pouring your most private thoughts out to be judged by men!!
Something very sinister and obscene about the whole process!!
Thank you Meleti!
Hope you enjoyed your American holiday??Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-01-01 08:57:48
Glad to have you back, Karen. I understand your initial reticence. It seems that every week brings some new understanding about the power of indoctrination and the games they have played with our minds. I'm beginning to understand what true nature of the "power of wicked one". (1 John 5:19)
Comment by John of ARC on 2017-12-31 19:50:36
When the Society developed the book “Commentary on the letter of James”, the writer, Ed Dunlap, supported by Raymond Franz, originally proposed that James 5:14-16 could refer to physical healing, referring to Mark 6:13, where oil was used under healing of physical illness. Fred Franz’ sarcastic counter was:
“This material should be corrected to eliminate the inclusion of physical sickness. Otherwise, elders in making “shepherding” calls on sick persons will have to carry along a bottle of oil for greasing purposes. Which brand of oil, olive oil, peanut oil, Russian mineral oil, or what specific kind of oil? Will the “shepherding” brothers have to grease and rub sisters who are sick? On what part of her body should they rub the oil?”
(Source: Franz, “In search of Christian freedom”, 2nd edition, p. 721 )
Not an honorable process. We all know what was, and continued to be, the preferred doctrine.Reply by James on 2018-01-01 08:43:11
Despite Fred remarks, the explanation on "confess to one another" in the Commentary book is never advocated.I asked a couple of elders about it they were mute. I offers the explanation from the Commentary book which they had not read or heard off, instead of asking for the basis of my explanations they said am advocating for sisters to be elders. I had to show them as a last resort that its not my explanations but the "Society's", since the commentary said sisters can seek out mature sisters to confess sins to.
This happened some years back.
Down to this day, neither the GB nor the elders I spoke to advocate the confessing of sins to one another correctly explained by Ed Danlap in that Commentary on the Letter of James, how sad.
They will not because of the judicial system,the reporting system, the Clergy and rank and file system.
Thanks Meleti for the review, thanks to all for your comments.Reply by John of ARC on 2018-01-01 10:17:28
“Advocating for sisters to be elders”. That sound like a typical straw man argument to divert the attention from your real question/issue!
Thanks for providing your thoughts and experience on the matter, James.
Reply by Tadua on 2018-01-07 08:46:39
Hi John of ARC
Interesting insight. It is also fascinating to see that in the NWT (at least the WT Library edition) the Reference Bible and Study edition both still have cross references to Mark 6:13, Luke 10:34 and Psalm 141:5 at James 5:14. After reading these references and the context of James 5:14-16 those verses clearly do refer to literal oil. (olive oil). It was physical illness not spiritual.
Comment by Yehorakam on 2018-01-01 00:50:58
Nice article Meleti.
Perhaps a better way of saying "confess your sins to one another" is: 'when conversing with others, be honest about the mistakes that you yourself have made.' This is good counsel, for there are many that 'pride themselves in their own righteousness and consider others to be nothing.' It also helps to maintain humility when we remind ourselves of our own shortcomings.
Although talking to a friend helps to lighten the burden of a guilty conscience, the only God ordained way to obtain forgiveness now is approaching the throne of undeserved kindness, where the only high priest in place right now sits, Christ. If we approach him, he is able to advocate or mediate for us with the Father. It's all in Hebrews somewhere.
Much love,
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-01-01 08:22:28
You have said all that needs to be said. I could see the article was going to raise a few heckles, as the rat positively stank when paragraph 7 said. The elders.. were to keep the congregation of Israel clean, an expression which appears lots of times in WT publications but no very clearly in the Bible.
Thanks to those who have brought out James 5 41-16. Can James be referring to spiritual sickness, surely not, otherwise he would not have needed to mention this at the end of verse 15.
Another article, sadly, to support the present arrangement. Shame there is no real reasoning on the scriptures used.
But I guess we here all realise this is the norm.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-01-01 08:32:26
And a happy new year ! (why not)
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-01-01 09:29:34
Why not, indeed!
Comment by Filius90 on 2018-01-01 08:54:54
In the article Daniel was constantly looking over his shoulder because Elders are conditioned to believe good shepherding is done by either taking a (GB manufactured privilege away) or administering some sort of other belittling discipline, publicly or not. They can’t just let a person move on otherwise there is no job security in it for them. Some Elders have let their past military backgrounds or rough upbringing infiltrate their “shepherding” to the point they are callous and cold, and see themselves as the muscle of the organization. In their schools and private meetings they are continually told and taught how to pretty much be wolves in a shepherd’s clothing. The articles we get are nothing more than disclaimers in the event their methods backfire and become public, than they can say, "see, look its right here, no its not hidden." No, not hidden just not in context either, Gary Breaux proved that. Perfect example is the recent video showing the young ex servant who lost his privilege of serving because "he allowed his zeal for the ministry to cool off." That right there is a cue for the Elders and a clue for the servants. Whatever THEY think your zeal should be is what it should be, one size fits all when its convenient for their use. They claim not to be the master over your faith but have no problem using the carrot on the string to keep getting production out of you. It's amazing what can be counted as a privilege when they want your service or to keep someone in service.
Their version of the “Good News” has become nothing but browbeating in the form of reminders, principles, and covert antitypes. Somehow legitimate teaching has turned into counsel that can’t or shouldn’t be questioned. “Even if you can’t use the counsel now just save it for when you need it later.”
They’ve literally created a tier system or levels within the congregation the way it’s done with “unbelievers”. Was at a circuit assembly and observed a recent exited District Overseer and his wife who are now serving in another insulated capacity stumbling around not knowing how to find a seat with the rest of us peons for the lunch session because they have been so out of touch.
With my own ears I heard a circuit overseer actually say, “From now on when the FDS says jump we say how high.” As a grown man I almost cried right there on the spot. If they truly believed Gods word was sharper than any two edge sword, they wouldn’t have had to create their own personal “Behavior Bible” Shepherd the Flock, to handle matters. Simply don’t go beyond what’s written. Maybe it should be the next book to study as a congregation so we can all get familiar with it and help one another not to take a false step!
If a person repeatedly commits willful acts to disrupt a congregation or any institution while cloaking themselves amongst the people of course action would have to be taken. I know of individuals suffering from depression and past trauma who have made bad decisions based off chemical imbalances who have been DF’d because these clowns have no other way of handling them. The whole thought process behind supposed Shepherding is really cattle driving. I was once speaking to a visiting CO about an up and coming music engagement being put on by some mature Christian adults, his first response was “there should be an Elder seated at every table.“ Talk about control.
Every time I hear them throw around the phrase “spiritual paradise” I want to barf. I’ve been through some rough things in my life and have managed to fight through it all while being able to keep my scruples in check. But the further I’ve been goaded into being more organizational the more I’ve developed a pattern of increased anxiety. I’ve stated this before that, by being on this site it’s given me a piece of mind knowing I’m not being critical and not the only one who has questions. Articles on here from 2013 have addressed issues I’ve had in my head. Things you can’t even mention to many without being judged.
No, for the organization it’s not good enough to remove the wicked man from among you. They want the right to get as close to an execution as possible! If they truly believe Jehovah sees all and nothing will stay hidden and that he protects his people why must they go that far? If God reached out and handled humans the way we handle each other, none of us would have opened a Bible and the animals would be the only thing left. I appreciate the positive extractions of these articles. Thank you.Reply by Warp Speed on 2018-01-01 11:13:39
Hello Filius90,
Don't hold back, how do you REALLY feel? LOL
That has to be the best rant of 2017! Except you are now in 2018. Maybe it will hold up to to take that honor for 2018 as well!
In all seriousness, I whole-heartedly agree with everything you just wrote. The wolves in the shepherd's covering reminds me of Kevin McFree's YouTube channel. Specifically the episode entitled " The Public Reproof". If you haven't already seen it, check it out. Hilarious, but accurate. They make me laugh.
Thanks again Filius90,
WSReply by Filius90 on 2018-01-01 11:33:25
Ok. Will do. Thanks.
Reply by Filius90 on 2018-01-01 11:44:10
That was a hilarious video! But also scary and sad viewing it from that stand point.
Reply by Warp Speed on 2018-01-01 12:16:35
Like I said- very accurate?
Reply by wild olive on 2018-01-02 21:55:18
Well Filius90 said it all, studying the " behaviour bible" , that's pure gold. I remember when I received my "flock book" sort of like a badge of maturity, I felt quite confused that all it seemed to be was a lot of quotes from WT magazines, with a lot of side column for note taking, now with the passing of time I see why , which pretty well matches with your above statements.
Reply by Smoldering Wick on 2018-01-04 19:23:51
So true, WO and Filius90,
Going all the way back to our two week long elder school in 1975 and our first 'take home' flock book released on condition of our promise not to share or make copies, who can forget the massive leaks then? All I can recall was the increasing demand for more rules to be made as our well balanced instructor banged his head on the table saying again and again, "If you all knew your Bibles better, we wouldn't need more rules!"
One of the elders even sketched that into a gag cartoon of which many still have copies.Reply by wild olive on 2018-01-05 02:41:23
Nice experience Wick , of course the instructor never thought to ask himself why it is that the elders he was teaching didn't have good bible knowledge? I mean aren't these men the cream of the org? It wouldn't have occurred to him they were mistaught to start with?
Reply by Smoldering Wick on 2018-01-05 14:49:54
Well we have to remember it was 1975, a life-changing year for all of us then. Only the year before did we introduce the disfellowshipping edict on tobacco and already some elders were on the hunt to corral even those JWs who no longer attended meetings to have them df'd as well (sorta like the hellfire cartoon of two demons discussing the outcome of Catholics sent to hell before the church changed its 'meat on Friday' edict).
Ask me how well I remember so well at least one CO shaking his head over our new no-tobacco doctrine. Or why the silent majority of our religion are now in a quandary over the massive remake of JW theology and the ignorance imposed upon all through JW.ORG!
Sorry for the rant.
Your brother in Christ,
swReply by wild olive on 2018-01-05 17:58:49
That's amazing Wick, a circuit overseer not understanding the " new light" on tobacco. Good Ol 1975 , have to say I was a fun loving teenager back then , but I saw what it did to others, you may remember the walk in pantry in one of my other posts , what amazes me now is I thought all that bizarre behaviour was quite justified.
And by the way your not ranting , that's what crazy people do, your just expressing old frustrations.
Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-01-03 06:09:52
As regards the Shepherding book, if the Jewish leaders needed the Talmud, the elders need the Shepherding book to get some consistency on the bits of the Bible they find hard to explain because they have a wrong fixed idea on a vaguely related text.
Unfortunately they do probably need the Shepherding book because it is so hard to know how to deal with some situations which are only explained in letters to the bodies of elders or other manuals.
If the Jews had difficulty because some parts of the law were not very clear, we might expect the same today. But Jesus teachings were not hard to understand. Some of Paul's writings are tougher to get to grips with, but then WT try to add the old Mosaic law to them to understand them, and in doing so make it more complicated.
Oh the web we weave.Reply by Filius90 on 2018-01-03 13:39:00
That is similar to the comment I was making, just not put as eloquent as yours. My issue is that it seems the shepherds are given tools/answers for all types of discipline to cover, way beyond imagination but suddenly have no answer to questions or articles discussed on this site. Early apology if outside commenting guidelines.
You must agree we’ve been conditioned to have an answer for everything or try to come up with one when dealing with “unbelievers”. Now flip the script and bring up a not so mainstream topic amongst your brethren and you’ll hear nothing but crickets, unless it’s to stifle you, correct you or discipline you.
Imperfect men cannot take the place of the Almighty and his son. These are people’s lives not just a scenario in a book. I honestly now feel like the organization has capitalized on every form of shortcoming they could by assigning themselves as “guardians of doctrine/law”. The tangible things we know they can’t do like raise the dead, end wickedness – the true spiritual things they left to God and somewhat Jesus, currently that is also jeopardy. Whatever they can claim as their duty, control, direction and discipline they’ve strong-armed it. We’re supposed to serve God because we love him not to validate someone else’s spiritual career or be a pin cushion for some men who think by beating their fellow slaves it will get them their ultimate reward. I’m sorry they can’t give me life nor can they have it.
Reply by wild olive on 2018-01-03 20:47:56
You make a good point Leonardo, just as following the old law may have at times been uncertain, and prompted the writing of the Talmud , the same mind set pervades in JWorg . It's not that the elders who do so are nessesarily wrong or even bad , they are just stuck in a religious government , and they have no choice but to comply. Of course with the coming Jesus he cleared up all that, and that is the stumbling block for JWorg , they just don't believe a person can be led by spirit without interference of someone with " authority " , which gets back to the denial of spiritual rebirth with all that's promised and acceptance of being Jehovah's children, this is the key that's missing in the relationship that has been sold by JWorg , without the born again experience, no mediator , no covenant , no standing before the son of man , so they are stuck with rules and having to establish their own righteousness Rom 10:2-4.
Comment by Filius90 on 2018-01-01 09:22:02
Further, if an organization can successfully guilt or scare most of its male adherents out of growing facial hair, what else can it do?
Reply by AndereStimme on 2018-01-01 13:13:45
Well....it can get them to refuse to talk to their own children, or even let them die, go to jail instead of accepting alternative service, donate all kinds of goods and services and even wear a tie on a hot summer day!
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-01-01 17:14:53
Mad dogs and Witnesses go out in the noonday sun. (Except the dogs are smart enough to avoid the ties.)
Comment by Karen on 2018-01-01 19:16:34
Hello Yehorakam, while admitting weaknesses and sharing past mistakes with 'trusted' friends who are also brothers and sisters eases our burden and displays humility, it is also a one way ticket to the 'back room' before a panel of judges in the form of 'elders' who will hold you accountably for those humble mistakes....
A burdensome man made religion that I am glad to free of, however it's hold is so great, I continue to have pangs of guilt or doubt...
Possibly having family still 'inside' heightens the guilt by their less than humble attitude towards so called 'apostates'.... Even that word still cause a feeling of loathing inside and yet that is what most of us here are now branded as....
Comment by Joseph Anton on 2018-01-02 10:19:39
I asked my cousin why she never got baptized. She said that when she was 14 her and another young sister her age were house-sitting, the girl (who is no longer a Witness - nor has been one since a few years after this incident) asked my cousin if she was going to remain a Jehovah's Witness when she got older. Her answer: "I don't know." The other girl told her parents, who told the elder body, who immediately dispatched two elders to question her over what she meant by "I don't know." There was later a marking talk given about associating with her. She was unbaptized and 14 years old and this was the solution the older men concocted to help her out with her uncertainty. She moved out early, and never returned to the Kingdom Hall.
Comment by Smoldering Wick on 2018-01-03 22:23:04
O Pharisee, dear Pharisee,
How shall you ever flee
From all the conflicts of your heart,
And bargains that you plea?
Though you were taught nobility,
And what the law should be,
You added, changed and tore apart
Its truth and liberty;
Why can't you see, O Pharisee,
Your wicked, evil tree
Implanted there just to impart
Your fruit, 'duplicity'?
That sows seeds of hypocrisy,
That senseless we should be,
Distilled to fill a vacant heart,
So blind it cannot see
While only one can set us free
From all our treachery,
Who from the start, had done his part,
And died for you and me.
Comment by tyhik on 2018-01-06 17:07:35
Thinking here little bit more about Jas 5:16
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power to prevail."
As we see, only the prayer of a righteous has great power and we can conclude that the prayer of the one who has not confessed their sins doesn't. When a sick calls elders for them to pray to get healed, but the elders haven't confessed their sins, their prayer may well be powerless. Seems indeed also elders should confess their sins to the sick for their prayers to have power.Reply by wild olive on 2018-01-06 18:44:53
You make a valid point Tyhik, trouble is most elders don't think they have any sin to repent of. That's because the men leading (the magnificent 7) also don't show themselves repentant, even though they have a growing pile of things to repent of.
That's one of the things that struck me when I was and elder, non of the others , either in the cong or at schools , ever really talked about what THEIR spiritual state was, its assumed that all is well and all were some how " sinless" , I don't ever remember parts encouraging elders to counsel each other and keep a check on each other, again a mirror of the leadership, who counsels them or points out their failings and sins ? Only the pesky apostates ?
Comment by Tadua on 2018-01-07 09:24:58
Did you notice WT article contradicting themselves and the scriptures?
End of Para 4 "The unintentional manslayer had to remain in the city of refuge until the high priest's death".
Para 6 "A fugitive first had to present his case in the hearing of the elders at the gate of the city of refuge...
Some time later he was sent back to the elders of the city where the killing had occurred and those elders judged the case????????
Only after they had declared the killing accidental would the fugitive be returned to the city of refuge."
Para 13 "Jehovah did not require the manslayer to be judged again for the same case. ... While in the city (of refuge) he was safe".
So did he have to remain in the city of refuge or was he sent back to his home city? Which?
As he was judged on arrival at the city of refuge and if judged innocent allowed entry then how could he be judged again by being sent back to his home city for judgement?
There is no mention of provision of armed guards to protect him from the avenger. The scriptures make it clear, if he left the city of refuge before the death of the high priest he could be killed by the avenger.
The WT contortion is against principles of justice and the scriptural record.The elders of the city of refuge would be impartial, would the elders of the manslayers village be so impartial? I think not.
Their contortion is based on the wording of Numbers 35:24,25 where it says "The assembly should save the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood and return him to his city of refuge to which he had fled".
Reading an interlinear bible all is made clearer, "And shall deliver the congregation (not the elders) , the slayer from the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him unto the city of refuge where he was fled".
Joshua 20:4 cited in paragraph 4 illuminates the correct understanding. "He must flee to one of these cities and stand at the entrance of the city gate, and present his case in the hearing of the elders of that city. Then they must receive him into the city and give him a place and he will live with them"
The word "unto" hebrew 'el' conveys the meaning of motion to or unto a person or place, where the limit or place is actually entered. The unintentional manslayer would be judged at the gate (entrance), and allowed (restored) entrance unto (into) the city of refuge, (through the gate, the city limit) once judged innocent. One judgement, guilty or innocent. If innocent, entrance and safety. If guilty, no entrance (and hence caught by the avenger).
Once again the organization distorts Gods justice for its own ends, probably to support its policies of all issues being dealt with by the local body of elders (often biased) rather than an impartial independent body of elders, or requests for reinstatement by the disfellowshipping congregation rather than another congregation.Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-01-07 13:07:05
Not sure whether it is a contradiction. There are two options
(a) Manslayer arrives and is returned under armed guard (elders) to the city he came from to be judged there, and if innocent of murder is taken back to the City of Refuge.
(b) Manslayer arrives and is taken into protection and the elders and witnesses go to the city of refuge and he is tried there.
I originally thought the answer was (a) because Numbers 35:25 says he is returned to the city of refuge to which he had fled.
Judges 20:4 might indicate (b), except that he has to present his case otherwise he will not be allowed in. He would therefore live with them. However there is little else to indicate (b) is correct, so I thought it must be (a). This seems also in line with the translations on Bible Gateway. The on line Hebrew interlinear seems to agree with this translation, too.
The Watchtower would have been better if it had read "Once back in the city", but it is probably still correct that while the man slayer was in the city he was safe.
I note your points, but which body of elders was in the best position to judge ? The city he came from would contain all the witnesses, and woe betide them if they attempted to distort justice, as the "eye for an eye" principle (Deu 19:15-21) would apply. Also, how could the elders/assembly in the city of refuge determine his guilt/innocence without evidence from those that knew him ?
Of course, the whole thing is a stretch, as there were plenty of provisions for handling other sins. Two witnesses were required. But in the case of unintentional manslaying, there could be witnesses to the accident, but this was not enough to determine the motive.
this article and next week's are just there to support the present arrangement, completely ignoring the fact that trials were then held in the open at the city gates, along with various other practices which bolster the power given to appointed men.
Meanwhile, did you notice James 5. While the study and reference Bibles say "is there anyone sick", the 2013 grey Bible says "Is there anyone suffering hardship ?" Where on earth did that come from ? Not that either expression suggests sin, that is only as an extra in verse 15.Reply by Tadua on 2018-01-08 08:02:23
On further re-reading I have come to an amended view, although I still find it strange that no security arrangements for the trial are mentioned which would be needed if the trial were to be back in the fugitive's hometown. It also seems the consensus among scholars is also that the judging took place in some form at the manslayers home.
More importantly however I wholeheartedly agree with your last three paragraphs. As you say the main issue is really that the organization is just trying to support the existing judicial arrangement whereas Joshua and Numbers clearly talk about the assembly making the judgment, the Israelite elders merely seemed to vet the fugitive, and arrange the judgment.
Comment by tyhik on 2018-01-07 09:53:14
Par 7 was about the need to involve elders:
Why were the elders involved? They were to keep the congregation of Israel clean and to help the unintentional manslayer to benefit from Jehovah’s mercy. One Bible scholar wrote that if the fugitive neglected to approach the elders, “it was at his peril.” He added: “His blood was on his own head, because he did not make use of the security God had provided for him.”
Little google search reveals this scholar was Matthew Henry (see https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/numbers/35.html). I capitalized the quotes:
"That, if a man killed another, in these cities he was safe, and under the protection of the law, till he had his trial before the congregation, that is, before the judges in open court. If he neglected thus to surrender himself, IT WAS AT HIS PERIL; if the avenger of blood met him elsewhere, or overtook him loitering in his way to the city of refuge, and slew him, HIS BLOOD WAS UPON HIS OWN HEAD, BECAUSE HE DID NOT MAKE USE OF THE SECURITY WHICH GOD HAD PROVIDED FOR HIM."
English is not my first language. What do you native English speakers think, what did Henry mean by "surrender"? Surrender to the law, to the protection provided by God/law, to the elders of the cities of refuge or to something/somebody else? Seems to me the Org has conveniently bent what Henry meant.
Comment by preyMANCHIS on 2018-01-07 11:43:04
''John is talking about being healed and being forgiven""
pls i think it was James rather if may correct that.
nice write up.
always enjoying ur discussion live in Accra, Ghana.
keep it up