[From ws2/18 p. 3 – April 2 - April 8]
“Noah, Daniel and Job … would only be able to save themselves because of their righteousness.” Ezekiel 14:14
Once again we have a verse fragment out of the Scriptures in isolation. At least most of the article that follows attempts to be encouraging. However, the actual ‘meat’ is missing. What we are treated to is a short review of Noah, Daniel and Job and their faithfulness and encouraged to do the same. Quite how we should achieve that is missing, and while their life course is certainly one to be emulated, a direct comparison with life today is difficult. It comes over as yet another article of ‘do this and everything will be okay’, yet that is the opposite of what the theme text in its entirety is actually teaching us.
“‘Even if these three men—Noah, Daniel, and Job—were within it, they would be able to save only themselves because of their righteousness,’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah.” (Ezekiel 14:14)
Ezekiel is saying that Israel was so wicked at that time—just before the final exile to Babylon—that it could not be saved by even the likes of Noah, Daniel and Job.
Does this not indicate that we cannot be saved by being in the Organization. We are saved on an individual level by our faith, and if there are faithful men within the Organization, they cannot save the whole anymore than Noah, Daniel, and Job could have saved faithless Israel.
This week’s article is just littered with assumptions. As we review them, see whether they have any historical or scriptural support. We've already dealt with most, if not all, of them in our past articles, so we'll only leave a brief comment on each one.
| Point | Par. | Problem Type | Problem | Comment |
| 1. | 2 | Claim | Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BCE | History indicates the date was 587 BCE, and all Bible texts can be seen to fit with this date without any contorted interpretations despite any claims of the organization to the contrary. |
| 2. | 2 | Assumption | Based on (1) above, the date for Ezekiel's writing this is given as 612 BCE. | Based on the actual date of 587 BCE, this writing may have occurred in 592 BCE. |
| 3. | 3 | Assumption | “Likewise today, only those whom Jehovah considers blameless – people like Noah , Daniel and Job – will be marked for survival when the present system of things comes to an end. (Rev 7:9,14)” | Revelation 7 does not support the claim made. It does not talk about any marking for survival or destruction at Armageddon. |
| 4. | 6 | Misapplication | Noah “became a bold ‘preacher of righteousness’ publicly confessing his faith in Jehovah. (2 Peter 2:5)” | There is nothing to suggest that Noah was a door-to-door preacher. Thayer's Greek Lexicon says, “God’s ambassador, one who summoned to righteousness”. The Greek word for "herald, messenger" (translated as preacher in NWT) means vested with authority by a king [Jehovah God in Noah’s case] to give a public summons or demand." Not to speak to individuals. |
| 5 | 7 | Leading implication | Regarding the Ark “still, he obediently went ahead in faith”, implying we should obediently follow the organization's directions today. | Noah received a message (probably via angel) from God. The organization has not had any such direct contact from God or from angels (neither do they claim this). How they receive their claimed direction is shrouded in mystery and obscurity. The emphasis on obedience is also wrong. Noah had faith, therefore he was obedient to God’s directions. One can be obedient to someone with or without faith. But if one has faith then one will be obedient to the object of their faith. |
| 6 | 8 | Leading implication | Noah “centered his life, not on material concerns, but on God”. | True, he did, but that does not mean he did not have material concerns and just dismissed them (which is how most Witnesses would take this statement). There is also no record that Noah received divine provisions to enable him to afford the Ark building program and to provide for his family. He had to learn carpentry and other skills to both build the ark and provide for his family. |
| 7 | 9 | Misleading claim | “even now, our firm stand for God’s laws, such as those concerning marriage and sexual morality, has led to negative publicity in some lands” | I am unaware of negative publicity in some lands because of a firm stand on marriage and sexual morality. (Perhaps readers can enlighten us if they know of such). However, I am well aware of negative publicity because of a stubborn refusal to deal with claims of child sexual abuse in a manner that complies with legal requirements & best practice. I am also aware of negative publicity because of the policy of shunning of any members who may leave the organization for whatever reason. |
| 8 | 12 | Misleading speculation | Referring to Daniel when he “He was likely in his late 90’s …” (Daniel 10:11) | Put simply how many people in their late 90’s or early 100’s have the following said about them as Daniel 6:3, 28 says. This problem is a result of the errors and claims made in (1) and (2) above. Using 587 BCE for Jerusalem’s fall leads to a much more reasonable late 70’s. |
| 9 | 13 | Speculation | “Perhaps Jehovah maneuvered matters this way so that Daniel could be a blessing to his own people” | It is just as likely that he did not maneuverer matters, but instead used the situation Daniel was in. |
| 19 | 14 | Misapplication | “Hence we too stand out as different, even becoming targets for ridicule. Mark 13:13” | Are Jehovah’s Witnesses ridiculed “on account of my name (Christs)” as Mark 13 states? No, how can they be when the importance of our Lord Jesus Christ is minimized. What about ridiculed for other reasons? Is it not rather because of their many traditions that do not have a firm Scriptural basis? |
In paragraph 15, parents are given good advice:
“So parents, do not give up on your children, but teach them patiently (Ephesians 6:4)” Also, pray with them and for them. When you strive to impress Bible truth on their hearts, you invite Jehovah’s rich blessing. (Psalm 37:5)”.
All parents would readily concur with this advice, although being imperfect it may at times be difficult to put in practice fully; nevertheless, that is what we would strive to do. So with this in mind, who is the greatest parent from whom we have inherited these fine principles, such that almost without exception any Christian parent would agree with the sentiments expressed? If you were thinking of our Father, Jehovah God, you would be right. Firstly, he inspired the fine counsel found in his word the Holy Bible. Further, as Genesis 1:26, 27 reminds us, God made man in his own image. As Galatians 3:26 tells us, “You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus”.
So how do you, as a loving parent, treat a child who has done something wrong? Is the best way to treat them to refuse to speak to the child until the child says ‘Sorry, I won’t do it again’? Or do you “not give up on your children, but teach them patiently” so that they realise their behaviour is unacceptable, while they are still loved? Does this not motivates them to correct their behaviour? Perhaps you might withhold certain treats, but not your interaction with them, otherwise how would they ever learn? We would also not want them to potentially get overly sad about being ignored by their parents, which could lead to self-destructive behaviour, making matters worse.
If we as parents realise that is not the way to act, then our caring heavenly Father in whose image we were made would not want us to act in that way. A loving parent knows it is counter-productive and cruel to shun their child; God is a loving parent. A truly loving Christian group would also know it is counter-productive and cruel to effectively blackmail others by withholding human interaction. That is a tactic of terrorists, not true Christians. It is imperfect, unloving reasoning to think otherwise.
- So, would our Father Jehovah give instructions that Christians who we think have erred are to be treated any differently?
- Would an organization being used by God give any different instructions?
That being the case, any organization that by written articles and/or by video gives their members instructions to totally shun their brothers or sisters for mistakes made or for failing to attend meetings must be seriously examined to see if it is a false organization and is actually not being used by God. Indeed 1 John 4:8 reminds us, “He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.”
If such thinking does not come from God, then there is only one other place where it comes from. (John 8:41-47) If for any reason, you still hold doubts that this type of treatment is not cruel and that it can be justified in certain circumstances please read this summary of the results of experiments by Donald O Hebb in 1951. It makes for shocking reading.
We also need to draw attention to the official JW.org website, the material accessed by the following link shows that the Official policy of Jehovah’s Witnesses is as follows:
“Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest”. (Paragraph 1)
“What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.” (Paragraph 3)
Therefore any shunning particularly against family members is against the organization’s official publicly presented policy. Sadly, Organization practice and oral law take precedent and are at odds with its written (public face) policies. Rather, most Witnesses are unaware of such statements, preferring instead to follow the example shown in a video at the Regional Assembly in the summer of 2016 where even inactive ones are shunned. So we ask the Governing Body, what is your true policy? The officially published one on the JW.Org website or the 2016 Regional Assembly video? The rank-and-file witnesses are putting the 2016 video into practice which makes the website statement a bold-faced lie from those that claim to be God’s representatives on earth. If the implementation of the video is wrong and was never intended then they urgently need to correct this damaging practice. Will they do so? On past performance it is unlikely. It seems that the video is how they want witnesses to act, but they dare not put it in writing.
In Summary
From the article: “Let us always keep Jehovah” and his son Christ Jesus “at the center of our lives, trusting“ them “fully”. “Job’s experience also highlights our need to show compassion to fellow Christians who may be enduring hardships” such as bereavements, and also to non-Christians in the same predicaments. Then others will know who the true followers of Christ are. As James 2:14-17 says in part “faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself”, yes, indeed faith without matching works (fruits) of the spirit is truly dead. We implore any currently practicing witnesses not yet awakened to seriously consider these important scriptures. It is not works of preaching and attending meetings that prove one’s faith; it is, as Ephesians 4:22-32 shows, the changing of our old personality “into the new personality … according to God’s will” that matters most.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Robert-6512 on 2018-04-02 12:43:47
I feel that WT has far overstated the verse about Noah being a preacher of righteousness. The design of the ark would have been complicated, and it had to be extremely sound in construction or everyone would die. It is not something that would be amenable to constant size adjustments if the so-call preacher of righteousness made "converts" and had to make the ark bigger. We must assume that God either (a) knew no one would listen to Noah and saw no need to make the ark bigger, or (b) never intended anyone to go into the ark except the 8 that did.
If so, in what way was Noah a preacher of righteousness? Not in the sense commonly portrayed by WT. Rather, Noah's life, his faith and obedience were a 'testimony' to the world that Noah was a righteous man and that the world of that time deserved what it got. The 'preaching' or 'proclaiming' of this fact was *implied*. He did NOT go knocking on doors or anything comparable to it in his time. And speaking of time, just when exactly would Noah have found time to do JW-style preaching if he had to take care of his family and build this gigantic vessel?
Maybe Noah got divine permission to display a literature cart while he was busy ship-building?
As with other WT doctrines, this portrayal of Noah simply lacks credibility.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-04-02 11:50:36
Fine review, Tadua. If all the points you raised were not part of JW teachings, or if the WBTS did not so rigidly feel they have to stick to them, they might not find their credibility was so far stretched, and we here would have less to complain about.
Add to your list of quotes that of David Gnam at the Canada Supreme Court. Someone must have authorised the misleading statements about how we treat disfellowshippd people. Yes and the things you have shown which are on the JW.org site, just another example of misleading statements. I wonder what our King thinks of those statements.
Comment by Yehorakam on 2018-04-01 13:08:38
Hi Tadua. I notice in your chart it says: Revelation 7 does not support the claim made. It does not talk about any marking for survival or destruction at Armageddon. I'm not sure what you mean to say by that statement?
Rev 7:1-3; 9:1-4; 14:1 are quite clear that those that will be saved have been given a mark. Of course, the group the Witnesses feel will be saved is different from what the Bible teaches. And being "saved" as they believe, does not mean avoiding a physical death. So, they are wrong about who is saved and how they are saved, but the scriptures do in fact show that the true group to be saved receive a mark.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-04-01 22:43:25
If I could speak for Tadua, I believe he is not referring to the salvation of the children of God which occurs prior to Armageddon, but rather the idea that JWs have that people are saved for eternal life, or condemned to eternal death apart from the children of God at Armageddon.
Reply by Yehorakam on 2018-04-02 10:21:20
Thanks for the clarification Eric!
Reply by Tadua on 2018-04-07 06:19:43
Hi Yehorakam
Both yourself and Meleti are right. (Thanks)
The point i was also trying to make was that the actual citation did not support their argument. You are quite right, the other scriptures you cite do support being marked. However we all know that most brothers will only read the cited scripture in the paragraph if they read any scripture at all (as most of us once did, due to lack of time amongst other reasons) and hence miss out on understanding the actual scriptural teaching.
Thank you both for adding the additional clarification.
Comment by Warp Speed on 2018-04-01 16:41:27
Another excellent review Tadua. I like how you emphasized how the Org has a day and night policy regarding shunning. In writing and in practice.
Putting oral laws above Bible teaching? Who does that remind us of?
Publicly presenting a "soft" image on the website and taking a hardline in practice.
For a long time I have avoided the term "cult." This however, qualifies as cult-like behavior.Reply by Robert-6512 on 2018-04-02 15:03:08
WT has been a cult for a long time. They bristle at the word and defensively argue against it, but actions speak louder than words. How do we know it's a cult? Easy, just look at the evidence: Members believe they alone are 'right' or have the 'answers' that 'outsiders' do not. Suspicion, mistrust, avoidance and name-calling applied to non-members. Belief that the leaders have knowledge and insights not available to the rest of the world. Demands for loyalty to the leaders. Demands for, and willingness to offer, complete obedience to the leaders. Shunning ex-members, suppression of dissent, silencing of open inquiry.
As far as the obedience issue goes, if any readers here are still in contact with active JWs, here is a test: Ask them if there is anything, ANYTHING that the GB might ask them to do that they would NOT do. The most likely reply: "The GB is God's channel, they are humble, hard-working and dedicated to providing us with spiritual food to help God's organization survive Armageddon. Why would we ever disagree with them or not do what they say?"
Try it. Ask a JW that question. See what they say.
In every way, WT shows itself to be a cult. Sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it.
But WT's true nature is even worse than simply being a cult. Lots of people have started or joined a cult, but they have not sunk as low as WT. How so?
By its leaders demanding and receiving absolute obedience, and framing such obedience as necessary for life (and importantly, necessary to avoid death at God's hands) the GB is making itself the arbiter of life and death as presumptive agents and representatives of God himself. When they do that, they are making themselves gods. Members who obey these gods allow themselves to become idolaters. And the entire organization becomes guilty of blasphemy as a result.
---
"Never mind the propaganda. Focus on what they do." - Commander Jeffrey Sinclair, "Babylon 5".Reply by John of ARC on 2018-04-02 17:23:45
On making the GB as god(s), I have meditated along the same lines, and this scripture comes to mind: Deuteronomy 18:10. “There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering..” witness parents are expected to spiritually stone their children, although they are not even attending the judicial hearing, and know little about the about the process. And the “legal” fundament from the shunning could change from one day to the next, without automatic reinstatement. I have tried not applying the cult name, but it’s becoming harder and harder not to: “Quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...”
Reply by Robert-6512 on 2018-04-02 19:32:55
You touched on an important point, and I hope other readers with knowledge about it might add their words too. For instance, WT used to say that getting a organ transplant was cannibalism, which surely meant a DF offense. Suppose you got a transplant anyway, got DF'd then WT changed their rules. Do you get reinstated because it's no longer a sin, or do you have to beg and plead? Same with blood. They allow so many fractions that if you put them all together you would basically have blood, but blood is a DF issue and fractions are not.
Once an action is no longer a DF issue, seems like they should offer amnesty, but they don't.
Reply by Joseph Anton on 2018-04-03 07:49:40
I used this same reasoning with my wife concerning the blood issue JOA. Pointing out that by allowing our children to die by refusing blood we are usurping Jehovah's authority by sacrificing our children for his sake when it is clearly the other way around. Almighty God is obviously the only one allowed to offer up his child to save mankind. It is his right as our father, and his exclusive right as Jesus' father. He demanded Abraham slay Isaac only to foreshadow the sacrifice of his own firstborn son - he didn't actually make him go through with it. What would separate Jehovah from the Baals of old if he too required innocent lives from his worshippers to sustain the hold of his laws and headship?
It is the same reasoning with disfellowshipped children. That video at the 2016 convention is totally at odds with the story of the prodigal son. If Christ had told that tale in 2018 you can bet it would have involved a cellphone call.
Comment by Psalmbee on 2018-04-03 17:27:05
Simple word games they play, all their publications are littered with it.
They are some of the best in the business, in fact they think their so good at it they have retranslated the Bible at least 5 times that I'm aware of.
Comment by Astoriaboy on 2018-04-08 18:05:38
Noah engaging in a preaching work, such as is carried out by the organization, just doesn't make scriptural sense, (2 Peter 2:5). I think the ark itself was a silent "preacher" to that pre-flood civilization in the very same way that Joseph's coffin was to the Hebrews, (Genesis 50:24-26). Joseph had given a command that the Israelites take his bones with them when they departed Egypt. The Bible doesn't say whether the coffin was placed in the home of Manasseh or Ephraim, but everytime they looked at it they were reminded of the salvation promised. It "spoke" to them, in a sense, and served as a silent "preacher". So too with the Ark. It was a silent witness that testified, not only to the salvation of Noah and his family, but also to the condemnation and destruction of that ancient world.