“For it says: “When he ascended on high he carried away captives; he gave gifts in men.”” (Eph 4:8)
When one consults the Kingdom Interlinear (published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society and based on the Westcott and Hort Interlinear), it becomes evident that the "in" has been inserted to replace the preposition "to". Here is a screen capture from the BibleHub.com interlinear:
There are currently 28 versions available on BibleHub.com representing a wide variety of Christian denominations—all with a vested interest in supporting their own ecclesiastical authority structure—and yet not a single one of them mimics the NWT rendering. Without exception, they all use the preposition "to" or "unto" to render this verse. Why did the NWT translation committee choose this rendering? What motivated them to deviate (apparently) from the original text? Does replacing "to" with "in" really alter the meaning of the text in some significant way?
What Stephen Lett Believes
Let's first catalog all the conclusions Stephen Lett makes, and then we'll review them one by one to see whether or not going with the original text "to men" would alter the understanding at which he arrives. Perhaps by doing this we will be able to evaluate the motivation behind this word choice.
He starts by claiming that "the captives" Jesus carried away are the elders. He then claims that these captives are given to the congregation as gifts, essentially reading the verse as "he gave gifts in the form of men".
So Lett claims the elders are gifts from God. He uses the example of treating the gift of a silk scarf or tie with contempt by using it to polish one's shoes. Therefore, treating the provision of these gifts in men—the elders—without due appreciation for their divine providence would be tantamount to insulting Jehovah. Of course, the priests, pastors, ministers and elders in any other religion would not constitute "gifts in men" since they are not a provision from Jehovah, Lett would surely reason if asked.
The reason that JW elders are different must be therefore that they are from God, their appointment being made under holy spirit. He states: "All of us must make sure that we always show appreciation and respect for this divine provision."
Lett then uses verses 11 and 12 to speak of the qualities of these elder gifts.
“And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ,” (Eph 4:11, 12)
Next he asks us how we should feel about "these hardworking gifts in men"? To answer, he reads from 1 Thessalonians 5:12
“Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work. Be peaceable with one another.” (1 Th 5:12, 13)
Brother Lett feels that showing respect to these gifts in men means that we must obey them. He uses Hebrews 13:17 to make this point:
“Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.” (Heb 13:17)
To explain this verse, he says: "Notice, we're told to be obedient. Clearly, this means we're supposed to comply with or obey what they tell us. Of course, that would be with the proviso: Unless they tell us to do something which is unscriptural. And of course that would be extremely rare."
He then adds that we are also told to be submissive, which includes, in his view, the attitude with which we comply with the instructions from the elders.
An Exaggerated Illustration
To illustrate how, in his view, we are to show respect for the elders by submissively obeying them, he gives us "a somewhat exaggerated" illustration. In the illustration the elders decide the Kingdom hall has to be painted, but require all the publishers to use only a 2" wide brush. The point is that instead of questioning the decision, all should simply comply and do what they are told. He concludes that this unquestioning and willing compliance will gladden Jehovah's heart and sadden Satan's. He states that questioning the decision could result in stumbling some brothers to the point they would leave the congregation. He ends up by saying: "What is the point of this hyperbole illustration? Being submissive and obedient to those taking the lead is much more important, than how something is done. That is the attitude that Jehovah will richly bless."
On the surface, this all seems reasonable. After all, if there are elders who are truly working hard in serving the flock and who are giving us wise and accurate Bible counsel, why wouldn't we want to listen to them and cooperate with them?
Did the Apostle Paul Get It Wrong?
That being said, why didn't Paul speak of Christ giving "gifts in men" rather than "gifts to men"? Why didn't he word it the way the NWT does? Did Paul miss the mark? Has the NWT translation committee, under the guidance of holy spirit, corrected Paul's oversight? Stephen Lett says that we should show respect for the elders. Well, the Apostle Paul was an elder par excellence. Is it not disrespectful to twist his words into something he never intended to say?
Paul wrote under inspiration, so we can be sure of one thing: his words were carefully chosen to give us accurate knowledge of his meaning. Instead of cherry-picking verses and summarily giving them our own interpretation, let's look at the context. After all, just as a tiny off-course deviation at the start of a journey can result in missing our destination by a mile, if we start off on a false premise, we can lose our way and stray from truth into falsehood.
Is Paul Speaking about Elders?
As you read Ephesians chapter four, do you find evidence that Paul is speaking to the elders only? When he says in verse 6, "...one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all..." is the "all" he refers to restricted to the elders? And when, in the next verse he says, "Now undeserved kindness was given to each one of us according to how the Christ measured out the free gift", is the "free gift" given only to the elders?
There is nothing in these verses that restricts his words to the elders only. He is speaking to all the holy ones. So, when in the next verse, he speaks of Jesus carrying away captives, does it not follow that the captives would be all his disciples, not just a tiny subset of them restricted to males, and an even smaller subset restricted to elders?
(Incidentally, Lett cannot seem to bring himself to give Jesus the credit for this. Whenever he speaks of Jesus, it is "Jehovah and Jesus". Yet Jehovah did not descend to the lower regions (vs. 9) nor did he ascent again (vs 8). Jehovah did not carry away captives, but Jesus did (vs 8). And it is Jesus who gave gifts to men. Everything Jesus did and does glorifies the Father, but it is only through him that we can approach the Father and only through him that we can know the Father. This tendency to minimize Jesus' divinely endowed role is a hallmark of JW teaching.)
The rendering "gifts in men" actually conflicts with the context. Consider how much better things fit when we accept what the text actually says by "he gave gifts to men".
(In those days—as is the case often today—saying "men" includes women as well. Woman actually means 'man with a womb'. The angels appearing to the shepherds were not excluding women from the peace of God by their word choice. [See Luke 2:14])
“And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers,” (Eph 4:11)
"Some as apostles": Apostle means "one sent forth", or missionary. It appears there were women apostles or missionaries in the early congregation as there are today. Romans 16:7 refers to a Christian couple. [i]
"Some as prophets": The prophet Joel foretold that there would be women prophets in the Christian congregation (Acts 2:16, 17) and there were. (Acts 21:9)
"Some as evangelizers...and teachers": We know that women are very effective evangelizers and to be a good evangelizer, one must be able to teach. (Ps 68:11; Titus 2:3)
Lett Creates a Problem
The problem that Lett introduces is the creation of a class of men who are to be viewed as a special gift from God. His interpretation that Ephesians 4:8 applies only the elders in the congregation, diminishes the role of all other Christians, male and female, and exalts the elders to a privileged status. Using this special status, he instructs us not to question these men, but to comply with their commands submissively.
Since when has unquestioning obedience to men ever resulted in praise to God's name?
With good reason the Bible instructs us not to put our trust in men.
“Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.” (Ps 146:3)
This is not to suggest that we shouldn't show respect to the older men (and women) in the Christian congregation, but Lett is demanding much more.
Let us begin by acknowledging that all the counsel is directed to those under the authority of the elders, but no instruction is being given to the elders themselves. What responsibility do the elders have? Are elders to expect that anyone who questions their decision is a rebel, a divisive person, one fomenting discord?
For example, in the "painting illustration" Lett gives, what should the elders have done in issuing the demand. Let us look at Hebrews 13:17 again, but we'll turn it on its ear and in doing so reveal yet more translation bias, albeit one shared with most other translation teams who also have a vested interest in supporting the authority of their own church ecclesiastical heirarchy.
The Greek word, peithó, rendered "Be obedient" in Hebrews 13:17 actually means "to be persuaded". It doesn't mean "obey without question". The Greeks had another word for that kind of obedience and it is found at Acts 5:29. Peitharcheó carries the English meaning for the word "to obey" and essentially means "to obey one in authority". One would obey a Lord this way, or a king. But Jesus did not set up some in the congregation as lords or kings or governors. He said we were all brothers. He said we were not to lord it over one another. He said that only he is our leader. (Mt 23:3-12)
Should We Peithó or Peitharcheó Men?
So giving unquestioning obedience to men goes against the instructions of our one true lord. We can cooperate, yes, but only after we have been treated with respect. Elders treat the congregation with respect when they openly explain their reasons for some decision and when they willingly accept counsel and advice from others. (Pr 11:14)
So why doesn't the NWT use the more accurate rendering? It could have translated Hebrews 13:17 as "Be persuaded by those taking the lead among you..." or "Allow yourselves to be convinced by those taking the lead among you..." or some such rendering that imposes the responsibility on the elders to be reasonable and convincing rather that authoritarian and dictatorial.
Lett says we should not obey the elders if they ask us to do something that goes against the Bible. In that he is correct. But here's the rub: How are we to evaluate whether or not that is the case if we are not allowed to question them? How can we get the facts so as to make a responsible adult decision if the facts are kept from us for reasons of "confidentiality"? If we cannot even suggest that maybe the idea of painting the hall with a 2" brush is wrong headed without being labelled as divisive, how are we going to question them on bigger matters?
Stephen Lett is quite happy to admonish us using 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13, but he ignores what Paul says just a few verses farther on:
“. . .Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. Abstain from every form of wickedness.” (1Th 5:21, 22)
How are we to "make sure of all things", if we can't even question the choice of a paint brush? When the elders tell us to shun someone with whom they have met secretly, how are we to know that they are not acting wickedly by shunning the innocent one? There are documented cases of victims of child sexual abuse who have been shunned but who have not committed any sin. (See here.) Lett would have us unquestioningly comply with the command of the elders to disassociate ourselves from any they have flagged as undesirable, but would that make Jehovah's heart glad? Lett suggests that questioning the decision to paint the hall with a 2" brush might cause some to stumble, but how many "little ones" have been stumbled when their loved ones have turned their backs on them because they have loyally and unquestioningly obeyed the commands of men. (Mt 15:9)
True, disagreeing with the elders may result in some discord and division within the congregation, but will someone be stumbled because we stand up for that is good and true? However, if we comply for the sake of "unity" but in so doing compromise our integrity before God, will that bring Jehovah's approval? Will that protect the "little one"? Matthew 18:15-17 reveals that it is the congregation that decides who remains and who is cast out, not a threesome of elders meeting in secret whose decision must be accepted without question.
Our Shared Guilt
By their flawed translation of Ephesians 4:8 and Hebrews 13:17, the NWT translation committee has laid the foundation for a teaching that requires Jehovah's Witnesses to unquestioningly obey the Governing Body and its lieutenants, the elders, but we have seen from personal experience the pain and suffering that has caused.
If we choose to comply with this teaching as espoused by Stephen Lett, we can make ourselves guilty before our Judge, Jesus Christ. You see, the elders have no power, other than the power we grant them.
When they do well, then yes, we should support them, and pray for them, and commend them, but we should also hold them accountable when they do wrong; and we should never surrender our will to them. The argument, "I was only following orders", will not hold up well when standing before the Judge of all Mankind.
_____________________________________________________
[i] “In Romans 16, Paul sends greetings to all those in the Roman Christian congregation known to him personally. In verse 7, he greets Andronicus and Junia. All early Christian commentators thought that these two people were a couple, and for good reason: “Junia” is a woman’s name. …the translators of the NIV, NASB, NW [our translation], TEV, AB, and LB (and the NRSV translators in a footnote) all have changed the name to an apparently masculine form, “Junius.” The problem is that there is no name “Junius” in the Greco-Roman world in which Paul was writing. The woman’s name, “Junia”, on the other hand, is well-known and common in that culture. So “Junius” is a made-up name, at best a conjecture.”
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by James on 2018-08-09 15:04:17
Thanks for the context analysis. Gifts to men is in harmony with the context, and as apostle Peter says to all Christian-1 Peter 4:10 "To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways."
The agenda of unquestionably obedience is always their priority, imagine the hyperbolic illustration of not questioning 2" brush.
I once had a discussion with an elder last year on this issue, he said even if GB are wrong on a scriptural issue I should obey, and added that "I should let the GB carry my sin",
I told him the scriptures teach individual accountability not GB accounting for us.
Local elders like this teaching, and many jw have fallen for it.
Obedience is good if no scripture is violated, and in unscriptural subjects if others are persuaded.Reply by John of ARC on 2018-08-10 03:56:12
Would you know if “letting the GB carry your sins” has been made “written JW” law, or is it something that has filtered down in e.g. COs’ elder meetings?
The thinking seems unbiblical:
Exodus 23:2,7
Mathew 15:8,9
If anything, it’s only Jesus who are able to “carry our sins”, through his sacrifice.Reply by Bernardbooks on 2018-08-10 08:23:16
I do not believe it is written law as far as I have seen.
From my own experience though it does seem to be a common feeling of thought among those still believing the org is “the truth”.
A sister expressed to me a couple of months ago that she felt all accountability is on the governing body and all she had to worry about was to listen and follow them.
Comment by John of ARC on 2018-08-09 17:27:26
I have always liked the articles you, Tadua and other contributors have published at this site. The recent ones even more so. Thanks.
It seems increasingly likely to me that the GB makes them self culpable of the sins of the Man of Lawlessness, 2 Thes 2. I have inserted a quote from “..Christian Freedom”, Franz, p. 17, which I find relevant wrt the obedience the GB require for them selfs and its “lieutenants”:
“Those under the authority are thus robbed of the freedom to decide for themselves whether the information is factual or false, beneficial or detrimental. And the same is true of all persons who submit to any human religious authority as their supreme arbiter of right and wrong. If they choose to allow that authority to decide for them, speak for them, think for them, then any alternative argument or evidence advanced has no hope of a fair hearing, for “against authority there is no defence.” The authority has no need to respond, no need to refute, or even to consider the evidence presented; it simply con- demns. This is, I believe, the basic issue, and unless it is first un- derstood, little else can be understood. At least that has proved to be the case in my own experience.”
Comment by Yehorakam on 2018-08-09 21:47:48
Nice focus and advice Eric. I would have to say that if for some impossible reason I were in a congregation, I would have to respect and cooperate with the elders just as much as I would respect and cooperate with "an ordinary publisher." Otherwise favoritism will exist. Certainly Christlike love and respect should be given in the same amount to a publisher as an elder. And as you say, our obedience belongs to Christ. Jesus did not give priority to those who had privileges of authority given by men, over those who were lowly. If that is what attracts us to him, then shouldn't we treat all with the same concern as he did?
This becomes even more important if you understand that Christ is the only one handing out privileges and appointments, and the only ones being made are the adoption by spirit and whatever gift that should accompany it. EVERY other appointment that exists in the organization (or any other church for that matter) is extended to you by another imperfect man.
At some point, every person should ask themselves WHO they would prefer to receive a gift from: Christ or men. Sadly, the majority today delight in the rewards and accolades of their peers. Being on the receiving end of people who "admire personalities" might feel good on the short term but does not lead to life.
Lastly, it would be good to ask: Why does Psalms 68 says he "TOOK gifts in the form of men" and Paul says in Eph. 4 that he "GAVE gifts?" As well, it would be good to understand that when Christ ascended, he took no one with him. So what did the psalmist mean? I desired to understand those things for 4 full years and only 2 weeks ago did the spirit reveal the understanding to me. May we all be "beggars for the spirit" and patiently wait for the spirit to "guide us into all the truth!"
Much love,
Comment by Kim on 2018-08-09 23:27:05
Thank you for discussing this lecture by Stephen Lett so quickly.
"Notice, we’re told to be obedient. Clearly, this means we’re supposed to comply with or obey what they tell us. Of course, that would be with the proviso: Unless they tell us to do something which is unscriptural. And of course that would be extremely rare.”"
Is that the only proviso for when a Christian should not obey the Elders - when they tell us to do something that is unscriptural? It is very scary that a JW must obey the Elders to such an extent.
Let's use another example that isn't "somewhat exaggerated". We've already seen and read how the GB told the Elders to send all the excess funds held by the congregation to them. Are we going to see them ask for publishers personal/family funds in excess of a certain amount?
Comment by Bernardbooks on 2018-08-10 09:35:45
Very nice article. Thank you.
I remember a circuit overseer giving a talk around two years ago about being obedient to the governing body and he read from Acts 21:20-26 but he mostly emphasized the words in vs. 23 where the elders in Jerusalem told Paul, “SO DO WHAT WE TELL YOU:”. The c/o then went on to tell everyone in the Kingdom Hall that since he’s a direct representative of the governing body he could include himself when saying to the congregation, ‘SO DO WHAT WE TELL YOU’.
Just as a side note the issue going on in the congregation at that time was a couple of brothers who grew beards and weren’t listening to the counsel to remove them.
I could almost hear the sound of the pages wrinkle with the scriptures being twisted like that.Reply by John of ARC on 2018-08-10 16:30:53
My brother in-law (elder for many years) used the same scriptures and reasoning with me. Because Paul submitted to the Jerusalem elders (on this account, without this compromising his conscience and bearing in mind that Paul was willing to be “anything” for all sorts of people), we should submit as well. No questions asked. Guess he has not analyzed those scriptures up against Galatians ch 1 and 2.
Reply by Bernardbooks on 2018-08-10 17:14:52
That’s very true. The letter to the Galatians has been a very special book over the last couple years in helping me to understand things that were hidden to me while in the org mindset.
I think if anyone today said anything about the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses close to what the apostle Paul said in Galatians 2:6 regarding the elders in Jerusalem, they would probably be disfellowshipped or at least stripped of all so called privileges or high regard in the org.
“ But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.”
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-08-10 10:06:18
Pointed and accurate article, as always. Reminds me of Universal Soldier by Buffy Sainte Marie. "He's the Universal soldier and he really is to blame". might seem a bit unfair, but everyone is encouraged to read God's word for themselves. If we simply accept what we are told, it is because we have trusted men, just as soldiers have at war time. Listen to the song again, if you are not familiar with it.
Comment by corrado on 2018-08-10 18:32:33
Hi Meleti, thanks for your efforts. I would like to add some considerations.
In relation with your analysis of Hebrew 13:17 I would like to add these thoughts. The WTS is making a complete eisegesis using the rendering of the translation of the word peithesthe to "obey" exploiting the wide semantics or range of meaning applying to its english translation. I also noticed that the word hypeikete (submit yourselves) is wrongly applied in english as complete submissiveness.
Analysing carefully the grammar and the context of its use, I found that hypeikete appears only in this verse in all the NT. I compared with Roman 13:1, where we found the word hypotassesthō (let be subject). This word appears in 38 occurrences throughout the NT. The difference between hypeikete and hypotassesthō? Huge. Hypotassesthō is always used with the meaning of total and complete submission to secular authorities, Law, parents, God, each other with no distinction, etc (Luke 2:51. 10:17, Romans 8:7, 20; 10:3: 13:1; 1 cor. 15:27).
So what's the real meaning of hypeikete? This word convey the idea to yield, give way, to retire. So to speak the concept expressed by Paul in Hebrew 13:17 carry an "horizontal" semantic 'be persuaded by whom are taking the lead and give them way, yield,etc'. In a nutshell: 'Please put up with them". This meaning make complete sense when we compare the use of peithesthe in conjunction with hypeikete. Completely opposite to the meaning of the word hypotassesthō that contains a "vertical" concept, to be under, submissive because this authority basically came from Jehovah (parents, Cesar, Law, Love each other etc).
Obviously Lett suit the tune of the pyramidal WTS structure, using the Scriptures to strengthen human domination and control over fellow believers. A question for Lett: could he explain the use of hypotassesthō in Ephesian 5:21 compared with the use of hypeikete in Hebrew 13:17?
Ad MaioraReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-08-11 08:52:30
Thanks Corrado, for adding this excellent research!
Reply by tyhik on 2018-08-22 16:06:49
Thanks Eric for the interesting analysis and thanks Corrado for you interesting comment.
Corrado, after spending quite some quality time with the Strong's Concordance and other sources I agree with your conclusions about the meanings of hypeiko and hypotasso and the meaning of He 13:17, and of Lett's misuse of this verse. However, while the word hypotasso seems to indeed carry mostly the meaning of "vertical" submission (people to authorities, people to God, all things to Christ, wives to their husbands, slaves to their masters etc.), there are two use cases of hypotasso which seem to be exceptions.
Eph 5:21 "submit yourselves to one another ..." i.e. Christian to Christian, and
1Pe 5:5 "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. ..."
1Pe 5:5 seems to indeed advocate "vertical" submission of younger to "presbyters".Reply by corrado on 2018-09-20 15:23:56
Thank you tyhik for your comments.
I believe that even those verses you referred to demonstrate the same thesis.
Unfortunately, our vision and understanding of the Christian congregation is strongly coloured by our years within the WTS. The structure of the elders as understood in the WTS congregations is very far from that of the first century christian congregation. Let us remember that the Christian congregation had a very short life. From the death of Christ, about 30 years after the corruption of the congregation was already at work.
Let us remember that the Christian society of the first century, or rather of the 30 years in which it lasted, was absolutely moulded after the example of Christ and his law: the law of love. In this society the individual prevailed, not the group, nor the organisation that did not exist. So Eph 5:21 is perfectly logical and sound. Christian society was interlaced as a fabric. Better to say like a mat where none was "above" the other. There was no hierarchy or pyramidal structure as in WTS. So 'submitting to one another' was a requirement precisely defined by the use of the word "hypotasso". This word and Paul's expression, contained the obligation of the law of love or the law of Christ (Galatians 6: 2). If everyone submit each other (hypotasso) the structure of society would have been perfectly balanced and resistant, just like a wicker mat is intertwined, with threads that undergo each other. As for 1Pe 5: 5, it is sufficient to read the context of the first verses where the elders too were subjected to this law of love and were an integral part of the fabric of this Christian society. It must be said that it can not be excluded that the young - elderly comparison can also be referred to a fact of age.
Ad maiora
Comment by Alithia on 2018-08-10 22:48:56
Good work Meleti, the information you have presented from the scriptures and with the use of various translations of the Greek scriptural text and Lexicons has thoroughly and completely refuted the Orgs interpretation of the scriptures on the matter.
It reminds me of the account of Elijah when he had issue with the priests of Baal and Jah sent down fire that completely ate up the sacrificed bull, the rocks/altar the water and left nothing!
Stephen Lett thinks he has gotten in with the "first punch" by himself setting the scope and framework for understanding of the scriptures, the issue of obedience to elders and how this might translate in practice in the Christian congregation with imperfect humans by mentioning that elders may, make serious mistakes but this would only be a rare occurrence!
For a long time many due to not having the information available to them have been conned into thinking this. However the unstoppable tide of anecdotal and factually verifiable information of the great quantity and levels of harm both physically, emotionally and spiritually this exercise of coercive and unquestioning authority demanded by the Org is causing is becoming incontrovertible even for the Org that is prepared to brazenly and unashamedly tell lies about the whole thing!
I must relate one experience to demonstrate this.
My very good friend was married to a sister that had developed a serious mental illness and would have prolonged and intense bipolar episodes where she would "see" things like Vampires trying to attack her etc. She became completely dysfunctional, not only as a mother of a very young child but also as a wife and an ordinary person. As part of the therapy which included high dosages of medications that severely affected her ability to think clearly, causing her to spend most of the time in bed, she would also attend therapy sessions with other similarly affected people, to help reduce the stresses and isolation brought on by the malady, and to discuss with trained doctors and counselors coping strategies.
In this weakened and mentally unstable condition at these meetings she developed a "relationship" with another similarly affected person resulting in the elders disfellowshipping her!
The husband pleaded with them on her behalf, that this was not an ordinary circumstance and that they should not treat this as a usual case, and that they were not qualified either psychologically or medically to properly assess her in a situation where it was abundantly clear this sister who was a pioneer for years was not operating in a healthy mental way and that was clearly not her usual self. He asked them to ponder and reply to him how they felt qualified to adjudicate on this matter as experts on what was clearly only a matter of serious mental, psychological and emotional health issues!
He begged for time and for them to seriously consider the points he raised and to have an official response from the body of elders handling the matter ASAP. Time passed (about 2 weeks) and there was an announcement of D/F for this ill sister from the platform but still no official response to the husband.
Some time later the husband approached the elder, (at the time the elder was around 30 years of age and a special pioneer) and asked about the questions he wanted answers to? The elder had no answer except to say the elders had been appointed by holy spirit to their position and as such had the authority and the wisdom to judge such matters, and come to the correct conclusion even if it was outside their personal scope of experience and knowledge.
This is the kind of harm that can compound the already terrible circumstances of a person or in this case a family in terrible distress.
Exaggerated example used by Stephen let of a 2 inch brush to make a point??? I say not!! The above experience is a very typical and all to common example of the bad results from people who are given to believe they have this God given, unquestionable authority and the wisdom to make decisions for the benefit of the Christian congregation which is false.Reply by John of ARC on 2018-08-11 05:31:00
I was shocked when I first heard that people with mental diasabilities or sickness would be DF’ed regardless from their condition. I was first told by the presiding overseer in my cong, and since then read e.g. from the Shepherd’s book how people threatening with suicide will only delay a DF, as the JC need to confer with the branch office.
What was even more disturbing was that my father in law, who has also been an elder for many years, told my wife that a JC would absolutely consider the mental health of the “transgressor“ (i.e. reduce likelihood of DF). It sees that alternative realities considering this issue is coexisting, or that someone (my in law in a liberal congregation) subconsciously alters their understanding
I believe that your story, Alitha, reflects the underlying JW policy. I know of other mentally ill people who have been DF’ed for things they did when in psychosis or in a deeply depressed state.
experiences/testimonies from elders on this forum who have been in JCs where this issue has been relevant is welcome.Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-08-12 18:05:28
I recall presiding on a JDC dealing with a person with serious mental issues. He had been heavily influenced in his actions by a former witness. We gave him time to do what he could to cut off contact with that person, and met him again at a later time. He needed time and direction to demonstrate some degree of repentance. Looking back, I believe we got it right. I took some flack for handling it that way, though, but, fortunately no one could do anything about it.
Comment by Menrov on 2018-08-12 03:57:17
So, if the 8 men say "do not listen to the man called Jesus", all JW's should listen because like the Pharisees, they were appointed by God?....well they have not said yet Not to Listen but they demand that you see Jesus as they want you to see him, despite what Jesus himself said about himself.
The WT is becoming more and more a cult type of organization. Nowadays people in most countries are encouraged to do personal research regarding your medical treatment, to ask questions, or a second opinion. Same with type of school, type of food you eat etc. But in contrast to this, the WT wants its members to ONLY read their publications and website....like their BREAKING NEWS section....
I find it more and more scary for those that are still very actively in and have not the capabilities to distinguish or assess what is being said in the WT publications.
For example: I assume most on this site or other similar sites and those who have done their own research, would conclude that in certain parts the NWT translation is absolutely wrong as also shown, like in the example discussed in this topic, in the fact that the NWT is the only translation that has GIFTS IN MEN. However, many JW's would say that for that particular reason, the NWT is superior as it does not follow main stream Christian translation and that the translators of the NWT are therefore guided by holy spirit.
You simply cannot "win".Reply by corrado on 2018-08-12 08:07:32
dear Menrov, I you goal is winning an argument, there is no way with JW organisation. They have to preserve this Monstre, this Golem. This Organisation eats and devour all, included sound reasoning and Truth.
There is only one way to help sincere people to escape fron this Monster, ask questions. Questions are like seeds, sooner or later when condition are favourable they wake up and start putting out roots, eroding the environment. Ask why the Translators translate in this way tois anthrōpois. Ask why the translation is "in men" and not "to men" since you learned at school tois anthrōpois is a dative masculine plural. Ask if we should we rewrite all the koine greek grammar, start from manuals, schools etc.Reply by Alithia on 2018-08-13 03:52:39
Corrado you make a very good point, and it is a very helpful reminder to ask questions when trying to overcome very strong entrenched beliefs of our brothers and sisters who are still indoctrinated by falsehoods. Jesus did the same thing on many occasions allowing the listeners to come to the correct conclusion on their own!
Also this puts the onus on the JW to make a defence for their faith and the things they believe in without getting defensive. And thank you for you well researched addition around hypeikete and hypotassesthō. This was very helpful.
Of course this discussion is not complete without defining what it means or the role to have authority as an elder or as an overseer in the Christian congregation.
These titles are not positions/office of authority rather they are the privileges of service to the brethren according to the various gifts to men that Jesus has given the congregation to be shared and enjoyed by all.
Of course this has been covered in other material and I am sure it will come up again in future articles.
Comment by James on 2018-08-12 07:53:31
Of late, a letter from the Nigerian branch to HLC directs that all witness medical staffs should stop administration of blood transfusion even if ordered by their superior.
Some overzealous HLC elders read the letter to the congregation albeit the letter was not addressed to congregation but HLC with a directive to discuss with jw medical staffs.
The letter is a policy change,previously they were allowed to administer if asked by a superior.
They were asked to prepare for eventual job loss.
So when I got wind of it because it was not read in ours,I made efforts to confirm from various elders of this new policy, of course elders who are not in HLC are/were not aware of it but concurred that if it is, so it is so.
I served as an elder previously, then I asked a friend who is an elder and a HLC member, he allowed me to see a copy and I read it.
I was dumbfounded not by the policy change but on the lack of explanation for policy change. It was just a page letter unlike the previous policy that was about 5 pages with explanations and scriptures why administring blood if ordered by a superior was allowed.
I took it upon myself to ask some jw medical staffs of their opinions, so far all I have asked says they will follow the previous policy that allow administration if ordered by a superior as they are not ready to lose scarce jobs in the country, on the new policy scriptural basis, none understand the reason for the change.
Sometimes 2015, before the general election they asked all jw who worked with the electorial body to resign within 6 months of notice, an elder who did is still without job to this day.Whereas, on the issue of their invovment with UN they agree its not wrong for a jw to work with UN.
The GB is heading somewhere, time will tellReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-08-13 09:14:19
Quite right, James. They are definitely heading somewhere. They like to apply Proverbs 4:18 to themselves. They've got the chapter right, but missed the applicable verse by one. The verse that applies is:
“The way of the wicked is like the darkness; They do not know what makes them stumble.” (Pr 4:19)
Thanks for telling us about this policy. What's odd is that I haven't heard about it elsewhere. Is the Nigerian branch going rogue?
Comment by JackSprat on 2018-08-14 05:48:34
We are missing the obvious. 16 minutes of the monthly broadcast can be summed up in two sentences.
1 The troops are acting rebelliously.
2 We need repetition for emphasis to resolve this worldwide problem.
Comment by Fabian on 2018-08-14 20:44:51
Awesome Article, but should this surprise us of the Wickedness of the so called organization, let's read Ephesians 4:7 - 16. Does any verse in there speak of Elders, I will wait. Still waiting. Ah No. Now let's get the Best Bible Translation in Mankind well according to the Yearbook of 2014 page 4 and let's get the 1984 NWT reference Bible and let's look at Ephesians 4:8. What do we find out, well we find that good old In is in Brackets oh how i love those Brackets. Even in there footnotes on the bottt it is literal To the men. So not in men, Well I guess the God Jehovah did not give his direction to Jesus to give to the guardians of doctrine on how to translate.
Interesting the Lett fellow did not read verse 14 which he was guilty of yes I said that guilty of. Trickery of me tossed around with every kind of teaching with cunning deceit. And then verse 15 speaking truth , oh Yeah truth.
Now let's get to 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, again is the world Elders in those verses heck is it in the whole chapter 5. Now was Paul writing for the jw organization of today when he wrote this nearly 2000 years ago, are the brother's back then doing the working hard and leading or more literally standing before you. I think not. Of course good call Meleti on verse 21 which the NWT vastly tone down what Paul is truly saying. In the 1984 NWT it says literal be you proving, the Work for make sure of all things is really is proving or Which most translations But Testing or test which is the exact Greek work used in the Infamous 1 John 4:1 Test the Inspired Expessions yeah NWT striking out again.
I don't even want to tackle the famous Hebrews chapter 13 verse which most cults or aka religions love twisting. One thing does that verse use elders.... no.
I always love to ask the Jws about 2 John verse 9 which of course they love to abuse the verse to use it for there organization, but it says everyone or anyone who
Berean Literal Bible
Anyone going on ahead, and not abiding in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. The one abiding in the teaching, this one has both the Father and the Son.
Of course that work in Greek of going ahead or going before or forward is exactly 145 percent what the Jws do they don't do the Teaching of the Messiah, Sadly they go so far ahead it is sad. May our Lord of Lord's and our heavenly father give is strength.
Love to all Fabian.