[Watchtower study for the week of September 8, 2014 – w14 7/15 p. 12]
“Let everyone calling on the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.” – 2 Tim. 2:19
The study opens by focusing on the fact that few other religions emphasize Jehovah’s name as we do. It states in paragraph 2, “As his Witnesses, we are indeed renowned for calling on Jehovah’s name.” However, simply calling on God’s name is no guarantee of his approval.[1] So as the theme text points out, if we are to call on his name, we must renounce unrighteousness.
“Move Away” from Badness
Under this subtitle, a connection is drawn between Paul’s reference to “a solid foundation of God” and the events surrounding the rebellion of Korah. (See “The Greater Korah” for a deeper discussion of those events.) The key point is that to be saved, the congregation of Israel had to separate itself from the rebels. Note that the Israelites did not put Korah and his cronies away—disfellowshipping them if you will. No, they themselves moved away from the wrongdoers. Jehovah took care of the rest. Likewise today we await a call to “get out of her my people if you do not want to share with her in her sins.” (Re 18:4) Like the Israelites back then, there will come a time when our salvation will depend on our readiness to distance ourselves from the wrongdoers in the Christian congregation who are about to receive divine retribution. (2 Th 1:6-9; Mt 13:40-43)
“Reject Foolish and Ignorant Debates”
We now get to the heart of the study; what all this has been leading up to.
What is a foolish debate or argument?
According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, it would be a debate “lacking in good sense or judgement; like or befitting a fool”.
And what is an ignorant debate or argument?
“Ignorant” is defined as “lacking knowledge; not versed in a subject, unaware of a fact.”
Obviously, engaging in a debate with someone who is foolish and ignorant is a waste of time at best, so Paul’s advice is most sound. However, it is not a shotgun to be pointed at any and every discussion with someone who disagrees with us. That would be a misapplication of his counsel, which is precisely what we do in paragraphs 9 and 10. We use Paul’s words to condemn any form of communication with ones we label as apostates. And what is an apostate in our eyes? Any brother or sister who disagrees with any of our official teachings.
We are told to not “engage in debates with apostates, whether in person, by responding to their blogs, or by any other form of communication.” We are told that doing so “would be contrary to the Scriptural direction we just considered”.
Let’s engage our critical thinking for a moment. A foolish argument is by definition one lacking good sense. Does the current teaching of two overlapping generations uniting 1914 and our future into a signal 120-year-long generation make good sense? Would a worldly person consider it logical or foolish to say that Napolean and Churchill were part of the same generation? If not, then is this the type of argument Paul was counseling us to avoid?
An ignorant argument is by definition one “lacking knowledge; not versed in the subject; unaware of a fact.” If you were at the door to discuss the unscriptural teaching of hellfire and the householder said “I can’t talk to you because I don’t engage in foolish and ignorant debates”, would you not think the household himself was ignorant—that is, “lacking knowledge; not versed in the subject; unaware of the facts”? Of course. Who wouldn't? After all, he has not even given you the chance to present your argument before labelling and dismissing it. Only after hearing you could he properly determine whether your argument was foolish and ignorant or logical and factual. To make such a determination because someone has pre-judged you because you are a Jehovah’s Witnesses is the height of ignorance. Yet that is precisely what the Governing Body is directing us to do. If a brother comes to you to discuss a doctrine he feels is unscriptural, you must label his argument as ignorant and foolish and refuse to listen.
The Irony Most Will Miss
The irony to all this is found in the very same paragraph where we are told, “when exposed to unscriptural teachings, regardless of the source, we must decisively reject them.”
What if the source of the unscriptural teaching is the Governing Body?
We have discussed on this forum that 1914 is unscriptural and in doing so have uncovered numerous facts, both historical and Biblical, which the publications have missed or willingly ignored. So whose argument is lacking knowledge, showing it is not fully versed in the subject and revealing an ignorance of key facts?
The simple truth is, if we are to obey the command to ‘decisively reject unscriptural teachings’, we must first be allowed to discuss them. If we find that the discussion demonstrates a foolish or ignorant argument, then we should follow Paul’s counsel, but we cannot summarily dismiss all discussions that disagree with us, blithely labeling them as ignorant or foolish, and the arguers as apostate. Doing so shows we have something to hide; something to be afraid of. Doing so is the mark of ignorance.
That we have something to fear is indicated by the illustration on page 15 which is linked to paragraph 10, just discussed.
[caption id="attachment_2295" align="alignnone" width="529"]
Caption from WT: "Avoid engaging in debates with apostates"[/caption]It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are truthful words. We see here a group of rough, angry, disheveled people standing in stark contrast with the peaceful, dignified, well-dressed Witnesses who are just minding their own business. The protesters are loud and unkempt. Even their Bibles are shabby looking. They look like they’re raring for a fight. Would you want to engage in a discussion with them? I sure wouldn’t.
This is all carefully orchestrated and well thought out. At a single stroke, the Governing Body has smeared the character of anyone disagreeing with them. This is a tactic unworthy of a Christian. Yes, there are such ones who make a spectacle of themselves and protest the work of Jehovah's Witnesses, but by using this illustration and linking it to thoughts expressed in paragraph 10, we attempt to discredit the sincere brother or sister who simply questions whether some of our teachings are unscriptural. When the questioning of such ones cannot be answered using the Bible, other means—low means—have to be employed. In just one illustration, we have utilized four fallacious argument techniques: The Ad Hominem attack; the Abusive Fallacy; the Moral High Ground Fallacy; and finally, the fallacy of judgmental language—in this case, the language of graphics.[2]
It saddens me so much to see the people I have esteemed so highly for years reduced to employing the very same tactics which have been used against us by other churches.
Jehovah Blesses Our Decisiveness
There is a second irony in this article. We have just been advised to dismiss ignorant arguments. That is, an argument in which the one making the point shows that he is not versed in the subject, or lacks knowledge, or is unaware of the facts. Well, paragraph 17 states that the Israelites that obeyed and “immediately moved away” did so out of loyalty. To quote: “Loyal ones were not about to take any risks. Their obedience was not partial or halfhearted. They took a clear stand for Jehovah and against unrighteousness.”
One has to ask sincerely whether the writer actually read the account he is describing. He seems to lack knowledge and is ignorant of key facts. Numbers 16:41 continues:
“On the very next day, the whole assembly of the Israelites began to murmur against Moses and Aaron, saying: “You two have put Jehovah’s people to death.” (Nu 16:41)
The account then goes on to describe a scourge brought by God that killed 14,700. Loyalty doesn’t evaporate overnight. What is more likely is that the preceding day the Israelites had moved away out of fear. They knew the hammer was about to fall and they wanted to be far away when it came down. Perhaps the next day, they thought there was safety in numbers. Hard to believe they could be so short-sighted, but this was not the first time they exhibited an appalling degree of foolishness. Whatever the case, imputing righteous motives to them—motives we are called to imitate—is downright silly in this context. It is, by definition, a foolish and ignorant argument.
The Israelites obeyed Jehovah but for the wrong reason. Doing the right thing with a bad motive has no long term benefit, as was proven in their case. Had they truly been motivated by loyalty for God and a desire for righteousness, they would not have rebelled the very next day.
We should move way from apostates, to be sure. But let them be true apostates. True apostates stand away from Jehovah and Jesus and reject the wholesome teaching. The wholesome teaching is that which is found in the Bible not in the publications of any man, including yours truly. If you cannot prove what you are being taught by using the scriptures, then do no believe it. Yes, we should fear God, but never should we fear men. Moreover, the true and correct fear of God cannot be achieved unless there is love for God as well. Indeed, the correct fear of God is but an aspect of love.
Would you shun a brother because a group of brothers told you to? Would you do so out of fear of what might happen to you if you disobeyed them? Is fear of man the path to renouncing unrighteousness?
The Israelites of Korah's time did not have the proper fear of God. They feared his wrath only. But they feared man more. This is an age-old pattern. (John 9:22) Fear of man runs counter to "calling on the name of Jehovah".
An Odd Endorsement
Finally, in paragraphs 18 and 19 we seem to be praising those who have taken an extreme position to reject unrighteousness. One example is of a brother who will not even dance for fear of awakening improper desires. Of course that is a personal choice, but it is presented here as laudable. Yet, Paul wrote to the Corinthians about a similar attitude and while acknowledging that we should respect the individual’s decision, he recognized that it was indicative of a weak conscience, not a strong one. (1 Co 8:7-13)
To get God’s view on this topic, consider what Paul wrote to the Colossians:
“. . .If YOU died together with Christ toward the elementary things of the world, why do YOU, as if living in the world, further subject yourselves to the decrees: 21 “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,” 22 respecting things that are all destined to destruction by being used up, in accordance with the commands and teachings of men? 23 Those very things are, indeed, possessed of an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship and [mock] humility, a severe treatment of the body; but they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh.” (Col 2:20-23)
Given this counsel, we should be promoting moderation, not extremism. Love of God will make us known to him and will motivate us to reject unrighteousness. (2 Tim 2:19) A self-imposed form of worship and severe treatment of the body are of no value in fighting sinful tendencies.
The Watchtower is hinting at one way to renounce unrighteousness, but Jesus through Paul is telling us of a better way.
3 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 [a]Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4 NET Bible)
_______________________________________
[1] Ge 4:26; 2 Ki 17:29-33; 18:22; 2 Ch 33:17; Mt 7:21
[2] A true Beroean should be aware of these and other fallacies so as to recognize them and defend against them. For a comprehensive list, see here. We, on the other hand, should never resort to such fallacies, as the truth is all we need to make our point.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-09-07 08:54:19
Giving up on dancing all together seems extremist. How about giving up a type of dance or dance in a certain context with bad association? Yet if it makes him stumble, such extreme measure as completely avoiding dance can be a good thing.
How else can we apply Matthew 5:29 NIV
"If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
Likewise for an alcoholic there is no such thing as moderate drinking. One has to take extreme measures sometimes.
The real problem lies in the listen, obey and be blessed. For sure several brothers and sisters who incidentally love dancing will be shown this paragraph and then be asked if they listen and obey the slave class and will quit dancing. It becomes a commandment and an extreme move.
Yet we know they don't write primarily out of concern for the dancing brother here! Why is this mentioned in the context of rejecting apostates? What extreme measures does the governing body want their sheep to take to completely avoid anyone who even hints at disagreeing?
We are seeing the subtle introduction of a shunning policy within the congregation, which is steadily reinforced by a continuous stream of reminders. In this case, the dance is talking to those who disagrees with the GB.
Comment by kev c on 2014-09-07 09:56:36
Oh they are completely gone now they use these verses in 2 tim 2 v 19 to justify shunning a brother who opposes their interpretations .. Why oh why dont they read the context its not a difficult thing to do .the godless chatter that needed to be avoided was coming from the mouth of those who do not handle the word of truth aright .what was their teaching .It was the teaching that the ressurection had already taken place .verse 18 .so who are saying things like that today .As for refusing to reason with opposers what of verses 24 to 26 .the lords servant must not quarrel instead he must be kind to everyone able to teach not resentful THOSE WHO OPPOSE HIM HE MUST GENTLY INSTRUCT IN THE HOPE THAT GOD WILL GRANT THEM REPENTANCE ..Yes those verses in timothy ask us to watch our conduct to make wise choices in association .to avoid arguments and foolish reasoning .But how does the above qouted verse fit in with the policy of shunning someone because they have a different opinion .its in the context . Ill quote from the context now is that really handling the word of truth aright. . Wake up you brothers out there . Kev
Comment by kev c on 2014-09-07 11:58:21
Just read the article and another problem that i have with it .if 2 timothy 2 v19 let all those calling on the name of jehovah renounce unrighteouness is not a qoute from the hebrew scriptures then on what basis have they got for inserting the name jehovah in the text in the first place .should it not read calling on the name of the lord . As for the rest of the article when your described as a sanitary bowl perhaps i understand why the brothers are giving me such a wide birth . Ah well .Kev
Comment by umbertoecho on 2014-09-07 12:22:45
Question: Didn't the Israelite's dance with tambourine's and such?
And, is not our body designed to do many creative things, including dancing and running, swimming and jumping? I know this may sound ignorant of me in posing this question, but with or without the WT view in mind, I find it difficult to imagine God creating us with such wonderfully versatile bodies and then imposing restrictions as to how we should move them. I cannot find a scripture that says we should not dance or any other such creative thing. It really is inborn in humans to move to music.
The picture of so called apostates haranguing witnesses as they enter their place of worship is......... scandalously propagandist. It reminds me of some of the images I see in a book I am reading about the rise and fall of the third Reich and it's anti Jewry propaganda. No opportunity was missed in presenting them as lewd, filthy, irreverent, debauched,out of control and unreasonable, .........and the list goes on. Cartoons depicting disheveled and lurid faced Jews engaged in immoral practices were plastered throughout newspapers and pasted on walls. Eventually the average citizen in those countries who were pummeled with such constant imagery began to believe there must be truth to these visual statements and words. The effect upon the minds of those who took it in was ..........to end up condemning those at the receiving end of such vilification.Reply by Andrew on 2014-09-07 16:22:39
This propaganda is particularly ironic, since Witnesses often did the same thing in the 1930's and the 1940s. They would often set up their sound cars near a church, and play Judge Rutherford lectures at full volume before, during and after the church service. They were not tactful at all.
Give the role Witnesses have played making sure freedom of speech is available to all, you might think the Watchtower Study would commend those protesters for exercising their right of free speech.
One of the greatest ironies of the last 100 years is that although Bible Students and Witnesses fought many battles guaranteeing freedom of speech, it turns out that freedom of speech is not avaliable among Witnesses today.
If you don't believe that, try telling an elder or circuit overseer that you disagree with one or more teaching of the Governing Body. And then post the outcome here. I would be curious to know how much freedom of speech you really have in you congregation.
Andrew
Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-09-07 18:16:42
The picture is appalling, just like their name calling. The good thing is, I am sure, that many brothers and sisters and others will see through the WT's thoroughly bad behaviour for all to see. If this is how the Society wants to conduct themselves, then that is entirely up to them, and not for us to worry about.
Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-09-08 03:15:25
I noticed in the picture one "apostate" is holding a sign and all I can make out is the word "Deceived".
What if the "protesters" are trying to let Jehovah's Witnesses know that they are being deceived?
I have no doubt that the WT wants its followers to “Avoid engaging in debates with apostates”
If any JW did debate with "apostates", the JW may find themselves unable to defend the indefensible, such as the years 1914/1919, blood transfusions, WT covering up child abuse, etc.
Probably those "apostates" are shunned and so have no opportunity to talk with Jehovah's Witnesses. They may feel that is the only way they have to reach Jehovah's Witnesses to try and awaken them from the hold the GB has on them.
If they are being shunned, why don't they just accept their shunning quietly, give up and go back home?
I have to ask myself why those "apostates" would possibly want to give up their own time to gather at a Kingdom Hall and hold up signs? Why would they bring reproach and ridicule upon themselves like that?
What can they hope to accomplish by acting in this manner? Are they acting out of hate? Or, could it possibly be love and concern for the R&F?
Comment by on 2014-09-08 09:55:01
Even expressing doubts, Meleti, can land a brother or sister in hot water. Yet, Jude 22 says to, "continue showing mercy to some who have doubts". But, honestly, do we really believe a brother who has doubts about whether the FDS was appointed in 1919 is going to express that doubt to anyone and not receive the big "A" label? Is the body of Elders going to allow such a brother to continue to serve after revealing this doubt? Are the brothers going to be willing to attempt to prove from the scriptures, to the brother's satisfaction, that this organizational teaching has a "solid foundation"? l don't think so!
Comment by BeenMislead on 2014-09-08 10:54:04
Yes I was reading ahead to next week’s study and noticed the irony of the following sentence:
“Still, when exposed to unscriptural teachings, regardless of the source, we must decisively reject them.” – (w14, 7/15, Pg. 14, Par. 10, Jehovah’s People “Renounce Unrighteousness”)
And I immediately thought: You mean like the GB’s unscriptural teaching of an overlapping generation of Matt. 24:34? That we should decisively reject it?
-----------------------------------------------
I ran a crossed this Illustration the other day:
Suppose you are looking at cars, and you end up at a car dealership. You tell the salesman that you decided to check their dealership out.
The salesman gives you a brochure and tells you to only learn about the dealership through them, to only read the dealership brochures, only visit the dealership website, and only listen to the salesmen at the dealership. Only hear from satisfied customers. He warns you not to research their dealership by visiting other websites, by reading brochures produced by other dealerships. And especially not to listen to former customers who have negative reviews regarding them. He calls these customers’ lairs, angry, bitter, and mentally diseased. In fact he tells you not to speak to them at all, not to even say hello. He then tells you that the Better Business Bureau is out to get them and not to trust them either.
Would you buy a car from such a dealership?
Can you see the parallel from the above illustration and what the Watchtower Society tells you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
When examining any organization, religious or not you need to hear all sides. If you are told NOT to listen to all sides as in the car dealership illustration, then that should be a major red flag to you.
If the truth is the truth and there is nothing to hide, then it should be able to withstand and even invite scrutiny. The fact that the Watchtower Organization does not want you to even talk to those that disagree with something says a lot.Reply by on 2014-09-12 13:40:35
Hi BeenMislead :)
It seems that the Society agrees with you... well sort of :
"We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the Truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination.” (The Truth That Leads To Eternal Life , 1968, p.13)
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-09-12 13:42:54
"We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the Truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination.” (The Truth That Leads To Eternal Life , 1968, p.13)
Comment by menrov on 2014-09-08 18:02:22
WT par. 9 says "Also, it appears that others were introducing controversial ideas. Even if the latter were not directly unscriptural, they were divisive."
Unclear where this assumption is based on. But in fact it says that ANY idea that does not come from the GB is dangerous......
Nice.......
Comment by menrov on 2014-09-08 18:11:41
WT par 12: In the matter of entertainment, our organization does not review specific movies, video games, books, or songs in order to rule on what we should avoid
Did you notice the use of the word RULE....it is now admitted that the / our organisation makes use of RULES to lead the members.
Comment by Mailman on 2014-09-09 12:35:33
@BeenMislead, very fine points raised and what a brilliant illustration on card dealership!
Comment by Omion on 2014-09-11 01:40:23
“Still, when exposed to unscriptural teachings, regardless of the source, we must decisively reject them.” – (w14, 7/15, Pg. 14, Par. 10, Jehovah’s People “Renounce Unrighteousness”)
It should have been better if it was like Paul's admonition in Gal. 1:8,9.
There Paul was bold to say let an angel or us (Paul inclusive) be accursed if they were to preach another good news.
The WT statement should have been “Still, when exposed to unscriptural teachings, regardless of the source, EVEN FROM GB OR ITS PUBLICATIONS, we must decisively reject them.” – (w14, 7/15, Pg. 14, Par. 10, Jehovah’s People “Renounce Unrighteousness”)
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-09-15 01:22:26
What I find interesting is that our new translation has reworded 2 Timothy 2:19 “calling on the name of Jehovah" to the exclusive wording of Genesis 4:26, in which "calling on the name of Jehovah" is referenced (in w87 5/1 p. 4) this way: "according to the Targum of Palestine, this was done profanely as part of the idolatrous worship of that time."
Could it be that we are even more guilty of not renouncing our unrighteousness for profaning Jehovah's name with our prophetic failures over the last 100 years? By so doing,have we not made Jehovah's name synonymous with such failure?
swReply by menrov on 2014-09-15 03:25:08
Hi SMOLDERINGWICK1, not only wording changed n rNWT but many references to other verses have been removed compared to NWT.....one wonders why.....
Comment by menrov on 2014-09-15 04:19:13
When reading some comments from JW's on FB regarding the WT study for this week, it becomes every time more clear that most of the JW's (I know not all, but I believe the majority) swallow WT study material like water. They don't "chew or actually taste" it anymore. And if for one reason or another there is something which is not understood, they just wait for the GB to provide clarity.....
Why did most Jews not accept Jesus: fear and being lead by scribes and pharisees. Only those that had a mind of their own and true faith accepted Jesus. Previously I often asked myself: would I have accepted Jesus or would I have followed the directions of the scribes and pharisees? I am afraid the the organisation has created a similar situation, where the average JW would decide to follow GB even if Jesus himself would be calling them. If the invite does not come from the GB or is endorsed by the GB, it will not be accepted by most JW's. Not because they have analysed the invitation, did their research etc, no, just because it did not come from the GB.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-09-15 09:54:23
I experienced this attitude from a close friend just recently.
Comment by on 2014-09-15 04:32:03
Apparently, we are to take an isolated part of the account in Numbers and apply it to ourselves, ie. immediately moving away when instructed. The contextual next day rebellion and subsequent destruction have no bearing on what this WT is designed to teach us.
1 Corinthians 10:11 takes on new meaning.
From now on when I tell the Tale of the Three Little Pigs, I must stress that the wolf knocked politely at the door and asked to be let in, and what a good example he is for children to have good manners. No mention of the benefit of strong building materials for protection, or pig dinners........Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-09-15 09:56:08
I love this illustration. Thanks!
Reply by MarthaMartha on 2014-09-15 14:13:39
:) I'm glad it made sense. Sorry I forgot to add my name. I clicked submit too fast.
I would like some feedback on the application of 2 Tim 2:20-22 if anyone has a comment, please?
The paragraph stated that Paul was comparing the congregation to a large house with vessels for honourable and dishonourable uses. I read that verse over and over and I can't see where Paul says it applies to the congregation.
My beloved and I searched bible hub for all renderings of that verse. Out of 20 parallel verses, 18 render verse 21 as purging oneself of undesirable qualities if you want to be used for honourable purposes. In the context, I took from Paul's words a gentle warning to younger Timothy not to get carried away with the desires or urges of youth..... Prominence? Over zealous desire to prove those argumentative brothers wrong? Impetuosity?
Either way, the context says "So, flee from youthful desires"' and, pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace......
And verse 23, "Further, reject debates"
So I got the impression that the utensils in the house were qualities that Timothy had, that he would need to use,or subdue, in order to be used in the assignment he had been given as an older man shepherding the congregation.
At no point do I get the application of these utensils to members of the congregation. To me it just gives licence for judging, and oh boy.... In our cong that licence was picked up and run with. Comments about various household items of unsanitary nature, and how some people in the congregation are like that and we just need to steer clear. Very Christian. Verse 24 and 25 contradicts that idea!
After all..... Items in a house whether clean or unclean are there for a purpose. Forgive my honesty here... But if you have a call of nature you're going to want to get close to a potty, and not your best wine glass.
So.... My beloved and I wondered if anyone else saw those verses that way... Or please feel free to put me right, because we have searched it in the online library and sure enough, every application of it is to members of the congregation.
Thanks!Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-09-15 14:26:52
Thank you, MarthaMartha, for sharing this insight with us. For me this is one of the great benefits of this site. It allows brothers and sisters to freely share thoughts which enrich our understanding of Scripture. It also serves to deprogram me from the bias I've been steeped in since childhood. I would never have even thought to take the time to dwell on whether this Scripture could apply to something else, but seeing it now without the blinkers on, I'm convinced that the context supports your take.
Reply by menrov on 2014-09-15 16:29:50
Hi Marthamartha, we could also discuss theae verses on the other discussion site. For now, looking at verse 19, it talks about a firm foundation. On this foundation Paul pictures a great house in verse 20. It is not uncommon to understand that the great houae is representing the Christian congregation . In the congregtion are various members, some considered honourble and others not but still all are members of the congregation serving our master Jesus. As verse 21 indicates one can become more honourable. The wooden utensils are not to be avoided or judged. All utensils are needed but not all will be used by the Master [Jesus] for the same purpose or objective. But one can become a honourable utensil. Hence it is about our own behavior. Not about avoiding others or judging others. Anyway, that is my view.
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-09-15 17:34:30
Perhaps taking a glimpse at the 7 congregations of Revelation would be helpful, MarthaMartha. For a certainty Jesus didn't pull punches with them. As the study progressed the words of Ecclesiastes 1:15 kept running through my head: "That which is made crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is wanting cannot possibly be counted." (Interestingly our RNWT has changed its rendering of Luke 3:5 in contradiction of Solomon's words)
In reference to the call to nature, our public speaker used that famous question "Is there and elephant in the room" in context of the elephant's daily 300 lbs of waste management (just in case we missed seeing it.) ;)
Comment by menrov on 2014-09-15 16:38:48
In summary for me, par. 15 and 16 provide an incorrect explanation with the danger that some will start avoiding members because they are viewed aa "bad utensils " but that is not what Paul intended.
Comment by MarthaMartha on 2014-09-15 17:33:28
Thank you Meleti and Menrov. :)
Menrov, we accept you make valid points there in your comment. Thanks. We agree about par.15 and 16.
If you want to take this discussion over to DTT that's fine with me.
It's so good to exercise my spiritual grey matter with you all.
Comment by Andy on 2014-09-22 18:31:08
Meleti thank you for pointing to this article. I found additional, quite disturbing points :
- Paragraph 3,4 : Paul's reference to the event related to Korah is a pure assumption. There is no explicit reference made by Paul himself. Besides, the verses used for establishing this link are totally invalid (pls see below).
- 2. Tim 2:19 doesn't mention "in the name of Jehovah" as stated in the NWT. The translation is wrong, IMHO. The original text is "Hristou", Christ and not Jehovah. Considering the fact that the introduction of the article uses the "Jehovah's name" argument as in "Jehovah's Witnesses", this verse seems to be totally unfitting to this intro.
- On the other hand the original word used in Numbers 16:5 is indeed Jehovah (YHWH anyway).
Therefore, these two references don't refer to Jehovah, one refers to Christ and the other to Jehovah. So Paul couldn't possibly make a reference to the Korah incident and besides, as I mentioned above, relating these two points just because of the use of similar words is quite a superflous assumption.
- I personally find the paragraphs 9 and 10 quite dangerous. This might indeed create divisions among people, although not the same kind described by the publication. This may also lead to possible "witch hunts" for anyone who would even ask a candid honest question. This would definitely kill any kind of spiritual progress through research and discussions and lock everyone blindly to the organization. Maybe too blindly for the fear of raising the head a little too much and being labeled an apostate with the consequences that come with it.
It may also lead to a "spy/report your neighbour" type of environment, which is extremely unhealthy and quite typical for different kinds of "governances", of which we don't want to remember the names.
- Paragraph 16, leads to a danger of "divisions" again in the congregation, pushing shunning one step further.
So I wanted to say, I was quite disturbed by reading this article. I think my biggest concern is the deviated translation of the verse on 2. Tim 2:19 on which the whole article's skeleton is built ... The link to Korah (which is invalid due to the above reasons) seem to create a fear factor. And the suggestions applied, would turn congregations into places similar to Eastern Germany before the fall of the iron curtain. There seems to be a lot of mind control on this article.
I wish I could paste images too, but I would be happy to send any way possible the samples of these included verses in interlinear versions and a sample King James version too. There is a big difference between "Jehovah" and "Christ", really hard to miss when translating a verse, I guess and this translation of 2. Tim 2:19 is more than a vocabulary issue.
One last thing. I'm not a JW. However, I have already been thrown out from blogs only for having raised some "critical" questions about another jw.org article and labeled as "apostate".
So the article here, seems to have made its effect. The only issue is, if someone never embraced a faith, how could he ever "turn away" from it ?
:-)
Thank you.
PS : I also came across an article on JW.ORG regarding the pollution and environment, which seems to be, unfortunately, quite some misinformation. I know the site, which I wasn't too familiar with, is very much advertized, but the offering so far doesn't seem very impressive.