“When anxieties overwhelmed me, you comforted and soothed me.”—Psalm 94:19
[From ws 2/20 p.20 April 27 – May 3]
What we learn from faithful Hannah (par.3-10)
These paragraphs deal with the example of Hannah, later the mother of the prophet Samuel.
Sadly it is yet another case of a missed opportunity to teach us how to be real Christians. Instead of analyzing the actions of Penninah the other wife of Hannah’s husband and how we should avoid being like Penninah, the article only deals with Hannah’s feelings. Now while that may be in line with the theme, it is typical of Watchtower Study articles on most subjects, containing no counsel against acting in ways that cause others to end up requiring soothing by Jehovah. Rather, as usual, the article effectively suggests we put up and shut up as the saying goes. This means that there is a regular requirement for this type of article, because only the symptoms or results are being treated, rather than reducing or eliminating the cause. Another point, not an insignificant point either is that there should be no Christian in this position today. Why? Because Christ made it clear that Christian husbands should only have one wife. This would immediately avoid most of the problems that Hannah faced.
What were Hannah’s problems? Firstly, she was childless according to 1 Samuel 1:2, which to Israelite women was tantamount to being cursed. It is still that way in many cultures today. Secondly, and perhaps the main cause of her problem was that to add to this attitude of her peers, her husband had taken another wife in addition to Hannah. Her fellow wife viewed her as a rival and according to 1 Samuel 1:6 “taunted her relentlessly in order to upset her”. The result was that Hannah “would weep and not eat” and became “extremely bitter” at heart. According to the account Elkanah, Hannah’s husband loved her, but it seems he did not do much to stop the taunting and thereby prove his love.
After several years of suffering in this way, on one annual visit to the tabernacle, Hannah poured out her feelings in prayer to Jehovah. It was because of what the high priest said to her on asking and finding out what her problem was, that she became happier. Around about 1 year later she gave birth to Samuel.
What points are raised by the Watchtower article for us to learn?
Paragraph 6 starts with “We can regain our peace if we persevere in prayer”. This is beneficial, for as Philippians 4:6-7 states that when we let our “petitions be made known to God” then “the peace of God that excels all thought will guard your hearts and mental powers by means of Christ Jesus”.
All well and good. Then Paragraph 7 slips in “despite her problems, Hannah regularly went with her husband to Jehovah’s place of worship in Shiloh” (1 Samuel 1:3). Now this is true, but how often was this? Only once a year, the equivalent to the annual regional assembly. Hardly regular in the sense the Organization intends you to read and apply, i.e. twice a week! It is just taking the opportunity to push a plug to be at every meeting, despite the Co-Vid 19 virus, and any other serious issues such as bereavements.
Then in paragraph 8 the Watchtower article continues “We can regain our peace if we continue attending congregation meetings”. Are meetings some panacea for being upset? Not when the likelihood is that it is someone at the congregation meetings who is upsetting you. According to the article by attending the “meetings even though we are under stress, we give Jehovah and our brothers and sisters the opportunity to encourage us and help us regain peace of mind and heart.” But how often do those brothers and sisters take the opportunity to do so and encourage you? It will depend on what congregation you are in, but in the author’s experience you have to do the encouraging all the time, if you need encouraging you will need to look elsewhere. Also, the only way Jehovah can encourage you is through you reading his word. You can do this anywhere.
Rather as paragraph 9 mentions “after leaving the matter in Jehovah’s hands, Hannah was no longer overwhelmed by worry”. The key was to turn to Jehovah in prayer.
Paragraphs 11-15 covers
“What we learn from the Apostle Paul.”
The application of points learned from the Apostle Paul is again Organization specific. The Watchtower study article only applies Paul’s anxiety of helping the congregation and trying to use Paul’s care and feelings for others, to bolster the Organization’s authority through the elders.
Paragraphs 16-19 covers
“What we learn from King David”
In this section, paragraph 17 is entitled “Pray for forgiveness” and claims “openly confess your sin to Jehovah in prayer. You will then begin to feel some relief from the anxiety caused by a guilty conscience.”
It continues “But if you want to restore your friendship with Jehovah, you need to do more than pray” according to the Organization. However, according to Acts 3:19 you only need to repent as it reads “Repent, therefore and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out, that seasons of refreshing may come from Jehovah.”
However paragraph 18 entitled “Accept discipline” claims “If we have committed a serious sin, we need to talk to those whom Jehovah has appointed to shepherd us. (James 5:14, 15)”.
Several points require discussion here.
- “Serious sin” – We might ask what constitutes serious sin? Is it the Organization’s definition, which most Witnesses would equate with God’s definition, but can often diverge sometimes markedly, or the Bible’s definition? For example, think of the term “apostate(s)” used frequently at present by the Organization. Even in the NWT Reference Edition this word only appears in the Hebrew scriptures a total of 13 times, and it is completely absent from the Christian Greek Scriptures. Given that the origin of this word is Greek, then there is a clear basis for arguing that it should not even be used in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Even “apostasy” only appears twice in the New Testament in the NWT (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and Acts 21:21). Therefore, on what basis can the Organization brand those who disagree with its unscriptural teachings as “apostates” and “mentally diseased”?
- “those whom Jehovah has appointed to shepherd us” – What evidence is there that Jehovah appoints anyone as shepherds, either in the first century or especially today? Paul and Barnabas are mentioned as appointing “older men for them in each congregation” (Acts 14:23). It was therefore Paul and Barnabas, other men, appointing older men in the early Christian congregations, it was not Jehovah.
- Acts 20:28 is the only possible basis for this viewpoint of the Organization , and there these older men are to shepherd the flock, I.e. care for it, not acts as judges over the flock. Since when do sheep go and confess their stupid actions to the shepherd? Rather if the shepherd sees a sheep in trouble he goes and kindly and carefully helps it out of trouble. He does not punish the sheep.
- “James 5:14-15” misinterpretation is highlighted by the experience that follows in paragraph 20 about confessing one’s sin to the elders. James 5:14-15 and its context says “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. 15And 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”.
Note: the calling of the older men of the congregation is not about spiritual sickness. It is about physical sickness. Applying and rubbing in oil was a common first-century treatment for many illnesses. “also, if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” is added as a subsidiary point, a by-product of the older men praying for the sick one.
- Who should we confess our sins openly too? Certainly, the Bible does not suggest we do confess in secret to a secret 3-man committee. Rather James 5:16 tells us to do so to our fellow Christians, and why? That they may pray for us as we pray for them, and also on a practical basis. Take for example that someone has a problem with drinking alcohol to excess and getting drunk as a result. By confessing to others, they can get help. Firstly, by their fellow Christians being mindful not to be encouraging them to drink alcohol nor to finish their drink if they have already had enough. Also, they can remind the fellow Christian that he has consumed sufficient alcohol as he may not realize how much he has consumed.
Conclusion
At least we can agree with the final paragraph and emphasize it rather than what preceded it.
“When you have anxious thoughts, do not delay in seeking Jehovah’s help. Study the Bible diligently.”
“Let him [your heavenly Father] carry your burdens, especially those over which you have little or no control”. Then we can be like the psalmist who sang “When anxieties overwhelmed me, you comforted and soothed me.” (Psalm 94:19).
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-04-28 08:23:16
Nice review, Tadua. Thank you!
Comment by Chet on 2020-04-26 12:03:45
As is pretty much always the case, this article starts off plausibly enough, but quickly becomes a vehicle for the Organization to promote itself as God’s conduit and to remind the reader that resistance is useless.
The situation of Hannah is exploited as an example, but inadvertently, they revealed a great deal about how things work among Jehovah’s Witnesses. From more than one situation that I personally experienced, the pattern seems to be that someone in the congregation expresses a complaint to the elders, instead of following Jesus’ instruction to start off by speaking directly to any individual with whom one has a problem. The elders “have to” act upon this complaint and confront the person on the receiving end of the complaint. In a lifetime of bible study, I have yet to find a scripture which obligates elders to act upon a complaint, but maybe the elders get a Bible with some extra books in it which are available to the general public. :)
What happens next is a perversion of justice which the Watchtower inadvertently exposed with their illustration. The defendant in this matter will explain their side to the elders and they may even see that this complaint is simply a trivial vendetta on the part of the plaintiff. However, the defendant in the matter will be strongly admonished not to breathe a word of this under threat of congregation discipline, because airing the matter in any way, or even asking the elders to counsel the plaintiff would be considered “causing divisions” within the congregation.
Now wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute here! The plaintiff in the matter has sought to cause divisions, failed to use Jesus’ instructions for settling dispute and the defendant may be guilty of nothing more than wearing a style of shoes that a few petty “children” in the congregation see fit to gossip about, and now the defendant is threatened with excommunication and shunning if they speak to defend themselves in any way. Then you go to meetings and see the plaintiff in the matter who has come away without any consequences whatsoever for sowing divisions and here is where the Watchtower’s counsel kicks in; dummy up or we’ll separate you from friends and family.
Yep, go to meetings, keep your mouth shut, smile pleasantly and we’ll allow to remain within the congregation. The problem is this; humans aren’t wired that way. Injustice offends something deep within us, an inner sense of justice that can be ignored, but never fully suppressed. Speaking from personal experience, this can have physical consequences, in my case hypertension and digestive problems. It can have psychological consequences, such as reacting in anger over minor irritations, because of the frustration caused by accepting injustice. Amazingly, and in direct contravention of the Watchtower’s advice, these problems started to go away when I quit going to meetings. On the handful of occasions where I attended a meeting, usually because of pressure from a friend or family member, I would find myself unable to sit still and usually end up wandering outside for part of the meeting. I’ve probably been inside a Kingdom Hall 20 times or less in the last 15 years and every time I did, I couldn’t wait to get out.
The last meeting I “attended” was when visiting a terminally ill friend and they wanted me to listen in to the meeting with them. I lasted through the Public Talk, but could stomach no more. Even through a phone-in connection, it was beyond my ability to tolerate the hubris of people so bound up in congratulating themselves for being the truly “chosen” few. When I heard the arrogance expressed in comments at the Watchtower Study, I had to leave the room. Watching an infomercial on TV was vastly preferable to tolerating the self righteousness I heard expressed in these comments. By the way, during the last meetings I attended in person, it was the same thing which always made me leave. The Watchtower Study would start and almost invariably, someone would comment the the effect that “in the World ...” and end by contrasting the unassailable righteousness of the Witnesses with the spiritual darkness of “the World”. It was enough to make my skin crawl.
If you follow the scriptural advice to “openly confess sins to one another” within a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, chances are that it will not go well for you. Such an action would touch off a round of gossip and meddling which would be all but impossible to extinguish. This is not to suggest that the Bible is incorrect, but that the culture of Jehovah’s Witnesses in this time would not be conducive to this practice.
Most Watchtower publications have a common thread, and this has been true for as long as I can remember. They start with a plausible and reasonable discussion, usually based upon some scriptural point, whether taken in context or completely out of context, and then the discussion takes a predictable course. No matter where the article starts, it will usually point to the Organization in some way or another. Meeting attendance will be stressed in many cases and there’s usually a plug for obeying the elders, even if the elders are dead wrong. Obedience to Jehovah is equated with obeying men, in the form of the Organization, and the reader is meant to come away with a profound sense that being told what to do by this manmade organization is about as high of a privilege as one can ever enjoy.
I’d really love to have seen the old-school satirists of Mad Magazine turned loose on some of the Watchtower materials. They could have had a field day.Reply by Aaron on 2020-04-26 16:36:28
It is quite soothing to find common experience. Sometimes one may feel they are alone in there experience and perhaps mad in someway.However a couple of things you have said really resonate with me. I was described by the Elders as a Christian that is “not exemplary“ because I had a beard. The elder said that he knew of at least four people I stumbled. I asked for their names so that I might talk with them and find out their feelings and try and resolve the situation. The Elder said, no, I’m not telling you their names. There was two elders there, so then, we have two Elders not following Bible guidance? injustice indeed does offend something deeply inside. This is how I was a woken. Time and again I saw very strange things in the congregation. We had one talk from the stage that said if you have a goatee you like to have sex with both women and men?? I could write a book about all the things I saw, however I am just glad to be awoken and will leave it at that. I am free of the tyranny of men.
Reply by Chet on 2020-04-27 03:11:11
It’s amazing how petty it can be. Beards are treated as if they are some aberrance and a sign of Satanic influence. That’s utter nonsense. Who put that beard on you face? It was our Creator, so it must please him. Now, I do understand that during the late sixties and into the seventies, a beard could seem rebellious, but that is yesterday’s news and totally irrelevant in our day. Even in the sixties, there was nothing wrong about a beard.
I wear one myself at this point and only because I like how it looks. It’s hardly a moral issue and merely a choice in grooming. Some years ago, a Witness fellow I knew grew a beard, because he had some skin problems and the dermatologist instructed him not to shave. The local elders actually made him produce a letter from his doctor, proving that he was growing a beard for medical reasons. Why worry about whether or not someone wears a beard?
More troubling, however, is the way such matters are handled. They cite four people who were stumbled and then refuse to tell you who those people were? That’s ridiculous! More than that, it’s meaningless. I’ve been through similar things; had elders tell me that something was said concerning me, but refusing to reveal their sources. This is not the way an upright organization would operate. Imagine a court case where you are not allowed to cross examine a witness against you.
The goatee is another matter. How would they conclude that a goatee signifies bisexuality? It sounds like something someone pulled out of thin air. Actually, many men grow goatees much more readily than full beards. My current beard is five months old and only now are the sideburns beginning to catch up with my chin whiskers.
Believe me, you are not alone. The bizarre stories coming from run ins with rogue elders seem to only get worse with time.Reply by Chet on 2020-04-28 19:06:57
The Watchtower calling it a mark of rebellion might have been somewhat valid if you go back to the late sixties, but certainly not by today's standards. Actually, beards are fairly mainstream at this point. I wear one and I'm not in any sense of the word a hippie-type. At least one of the VPs where I work wears one as well and, once again, he's anything but a social rebel.
The beard was created by God. Tell me how that could be wrong, Watchtower. Sounds like the pharisees, to me.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-04-28 08:34:12
It always irritated me when the you-might-stumble-someone card was played. When Paul talked about stumbling someone, he meant that our actions might cause someone to violate their conscience and return to false religious practices. How does growing a beard involve stumbling someone back into false religion? What they really mean is you are not conforming to the established dress code. You're not wearing the uniform.
Wait a minute. Someone wants me to go clean shaven? Go please, oh, exalted elder, and call them into the back room and tell them they are stumbling me by walking around clean shaven and expecting me to do the same. Yes, indeed! I'm deeply offended. Stumbled, even!Reply by Chet on 2020-04-28 09:41:01
If you look at the logic of the way “stumbling” is handle within, it reduces to the lowest common denominator. If there are 120 people in a congregation and only one of them takes exception to a matter, that one person could effectively have veto power over the opinions of everyone else. It’s very much the ethic of a grade-school playground.
Of course the political, financial or social clout of the person might weigh in on this as well. There are a handful of famous Witnesses and it seems that they are treated somewhat deferentially these days. My guess is that truly famous people lend a degree of cachet in the minds of many Witnesses and are not likely to be as scrutinized as a relatively anonymous publisher.
Reply by Chet on 2020-04-28 18:33:46
I suppose from the standpoint of the late 19th century it could be taken that way, but it is used in a much different sense these days. If I wanted to be cautioned about every word coming out of my mouth and how it could be taken negatively, I'd just go back to the Kingdom Hall.
No slur intended or implied.
Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2020-04-29 03:43:06
joke withdrawn
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2020-04-27 04:24:30
A number of years ago, when I resigned from the body of elders, another elder, at an elder's meeting, stated that I had said something that had disturbed one of the brothers or sisters. While I might have been able to guess what it might have been , I have no idea to this day, because he would not reveal what I had said nor to whom I had said it, and, of course, whoever it was had not come to speak to me about it.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2020-05-02 10:59:34
Hi Eric, you have approached this subject in a way that allows us to have our own views, but we listen to yours and compare it with ours, in the end acknowledging the lack of certainty around the subject This is exactly how it should be as in that way we are allowing holy spirit (via God's word) to mould us.
If you approached the subject dogmatically, you would be telling us what to believe and condemn those who disagree with you. You would be saying you know more than the rest of us, and therefore putting yourself in some dominating place. And we all know what Jeremiah 10;23 says on that. In fact you would be well on your way to creating your own religion, which thankfully you are not.
Hang on, isn't that what most, if not all religious, and other, organisations have done ? Well meaning starts, maybe, but followed by "Man dominating man to his injury".