[From ws3/18 p. 28 – May 27 – June 3]
“My sons, … listen to discipline and become wise.” Proverbs 8:32-33
This week the WT study article continues the theme of discipline from last week. It starts off well. We are gently reminded that “Jehovah has our best interests at heart” (par. 2) and then we are asked to read Hebrews 12:5-11, the passage of scripture missing from last week's article. But notice how no opportunity is taken to show why Jehovah would bother to discipline us. The entire passage of Hebrews 12:5-11 as well as the theme text of Proverbs 8:32-33 addresses us as "sons" or "children of God". This element which conflicts with the "friends of God" theology of Witnesses is glossed over.[i] Rather the focus is on how being disciplined is good for us.
The four areas to be discussed in the article are then highlighted which are “(1) self-discipline, (2) parental discipline, (3) discipline within the Christian congregation, and (4) something that is worse than the temporary pain of discipline.” (par. 2)
Self-Discipline
This is covered in paragraphs 3-7 and all is fine until paragraph 7 where it starts by saying “Self-discipline helps us to reach spiritual goals. Consider the example of a family man who felt that his zeal was waning somewhat.”
Nothing wrong here you may say. The previous paragraph was discussing using self discipline to study God’s word more, so the reader might think in context the brother’s zeal had waned for studying God’s word. But no. His zeal had waned for the organization’s view of “spiritual goals”. The suggested cure; Was it to make a more determined effort to study God’s word and find hid treasures? (Proverbs 2:1-6). No, “he set the goal of becoming a regular pioneer and read articles on that topic in our magazines”. (par. 7) So the cure for his lack of zeal is an artificial goal set by the Organization, and using artificial spiritual food (the magazines) to strengthen himself to do it. Prayer comes in as an afterthought. Romans 10:2-4 comes to mind, “For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge; for, because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness.”
Parental Discipline
This is covered in paragraphs 8-13. This section also starts off well until we get to paragraphs 12 and 13. This is where it discusses disfellowshipped family members. It says “Consider the example of a mother whose disfellowshipped daughter left home. The mother admits: “I looked for loopholes in our publications so that I could spend time with my daughter and my granddaughter.” There are a number of issues to discuss here, setting aside the important issue of whether the disfellowshipping arrangement as practiced by the Organization is scripturally accurate.
- Who was disfellowshipped? The daughter, so why were any loopholes required to spend time with the granddaughter? The granddaughter was not the one disfellowshipped, so why should she suffer? To treat the granddaughter as disfellowshipped would be going against the principle in Deuteronomy 24:16 where it states that fathers should not be punished because of the sins of their children and children should not be put to death because of the sins of their father.
- If she wanted a loophole, the mother should have checked the Official JW.org website under “About us/Frequently Asked Questions/Do Jehovah’s Witnesses shun former members of their religion?” There it says “What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.”
- However, this clashes with what the God’s Love book (lv p 207-208 para 3) says regarding a disfellowshipped family member living at home: “Since his being disfellowshipped does not sever the family ties, normal day to day family activities and dealings may continue....So loyal family members can no longer have spiritual fellowship with him.” But with regard to those family members living away it is much harsher: “Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any contact should be kept to a minimum.” Yet no scriptural backup for this harsher treatment is provided. It also shows how selective the Organization is in how much ‘truth’ it puts directly in front of the public. Hardly an honest approach.
- The very fact that the mother looked for loopholes in the publications raises red flags.
- Why did she not check for herself what the Scriptures say as to how to treat her daughter and granddaughter?
- The fact that she viewed the publications as the ultimate authority rather than God’s word is very worrying, but this view is very common among Witnesses. 'Check the publications' is the ever-present mantra; 'Check the Bible', not so much.
- The fact that potentially any 'loophole' in the publications could go contrary to God’s word also doesn’t seem to have been considered. Are we serving God and following his word or following a man-made Organization and its publications?
- Finally the sad fact is that what the publications teach in both books and videos is contrary to what God’s word teaches on this matter. (See discussions of this policy in CLAM review Dec 25 2017, and Sep 18 2017 and Theocratic Warfare or just plain lying.)
From the article: ”But my husband kindly helped me to see that our child was now out of our hands and that we must not interfere.”[ii]
We should never give up on our children if they have taken a scripturally wrong course and persist in it. This conclusion is unloving and contrary to human nature, and we should remember in whose image we were created. Jehovah has never given up on us sinful mankind. The source of the teaching the husband followed had to be the organization, which means Jehovah is not their father as He does not act that way. So when the article says next to “Remember, Jehovah’s discipline reflects his matchless wisdom and love. Never forget that he gave his Son for all, including your child. God wants no one to be destroyed. (Read 2 Peter 3:9.)” (par. 13) it is again giving contradictory messages. How will your child come to realise they are disobeying God and desire to change if you as parents refuse to have anything to do with them as well as your innocent grandchildren?
In the Congregation
“He has placed the congregation under the care of his Son, who appointed a “faithful steward” to provide timely spiritual food. (Luke 12:42)” (par. 14)
The Scriptures clearly show that Jesus is the head of the Christian congregation, but there is no evidence that he appointed the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses as his slave, faithful or otherwise. All we have is a self-appointment. Evidence of this comes from examining the so-called "food at the proper time" which the Governing Body dispenses. Can you remember the last time a Watchtower article dealt purely with manifesting a fruit of the spirit without any attempt to use it for their own purposes? There are only a very few verses in the Bible that deal with dress and grooming, yet this is a constant theme. There are no Scriptures that condemn post-secondary education, yet this drum is beaten seemingly on a monthly basis. There are no Scriptures that speak of being loyal to a governing body of men nor to an organization, yet one can hardly pick up a Watchtower without being reminded of the need for such loyalty.
“One way is to imitate the faith of the elders as well as their fine example. Another way is to heed their Scriptural counsel. (Read Hebrews 13:7,17)” (par. 15)
It is always good to benefit from fine examples and put these fine qualities into practice. However, Hebrews 13:7 says “Remember those who are taking the lead among you”...why? Because “as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith”. If the leader(s) of an expedition were leading you and your group across a crocodile infested river, would you blindly follow them, because they are the leaders and should know best? Or would you watch and then seeing which ones have acted wisely, follow the course those wise ones took? That is just common sense, but now we have it reinforced from Scripture.
What about Hebrews 13:17? The NWT says “Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive”. However the word translated “Be obedient” carries the meaning of “to be persuaded of what is trustworthy”. Also, the word translated “submissive” carries the meaning of “yielding” which is ‘to give way’. So this verse is re-emphasizing verse 7 and could be read as “be persuaded of what is trustworthy by those taking the lead among you and be yielding rather than resisting”. Do you see the authority to give discipline and chastisement in these verses? Of course not. The Hebrew Christians were being treated as adults with a reasoning mind of their own, and being implored to benefit from the fine example of those leading (from the front). They were not being told to submit to the will and whim nor the discipline and chastisement from fellow imperfect Christians.
“For instance, if they notice that we are missing meetings or that our zeal is cooling off, they will no doubt quickly come to our aid. They will listen to us and then try to build us up with warm encouragement and appropriate Scriptural counsel.” (par. 15)
What planet is this writer on? (Sorry for the quip, but sometimes it is just called for.) How many visiting this site have experienced this as stated? Likely very few. From experiences we've received and read, most are ignored, even shunned, by elders and publishers alike, often while still attending meetings with some frequency. As to elders listening to us and trying to build us up with warm encouragement, it is more likely two or three elders want to see you in the backroom for some strong counsel and if you raise any objections, then the threat of disfellowshipping looms large.
What Is Worse than any Pain of Discipline?
Two examples are given, both from the Hebrew scriptures. Cain, who rejected God’s counsel, and wicked King Zedekiah who rejected the warnings by Jehovah’s prophet, Jeremiah. Yes, both suffered as a result of rejecting God’s counsel, but today we do not have prophets among us, nor do we get counselled directly by Jehovah, nor through one of his angels. The final verse (and sentence) given is Proverbs 4:13 where the NWT says “hold on to discipline, do not let it go.” Here a Hebrew Interlinear says “Take fast hold, of instruction, do not let her [the instruction] go, keep [following] her [the instruction] for she [the instruction] is your life.” (It would appear that our translation is suffering a bit of biased rendering here.)
Yes, indeed, we should safeguard God’s instruction contained in his word, but we have no obligation to listen to those who have wrongly presumed that they have the authority to hand out chastisement and discipline unsupported by Scripture. As Galatians 6:4-5 says “But let each one prove what his own work is, and then he will have cause for exultation in regard to himself alone and not in comparison with the other person. For each one will carry his own load.”
__________________________________________
[i] See WT review for May 21-26 for more on Hebrews 12:5-11
[ii] Based on w91 4/15 p21 para 8 Imitate God’s Mercy Today : says “Former friends and relatives might hope that a disfellowshipped one would return; yet out of respect for the command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, they do not associate with an expelled person. They leave it to the appointed shepherds to take the initiative to see if such a one is interested in returning.” Again this requirement to leave it to the shepherds/elders is not supported by scripture.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by MarthaMartha on 2018-05-29 03:45:05
Bravo Tadua!
An excellent example of giving counsel. Commend the good bits and acknowledge the value of what is valuable. Then knock them for a six with your decimation of the errors!
I sensed your righteous indignation and applaud it. I’m reminded of Jesus giving the Pharisees a good talking to. If the GB or their helpers do read this web page, I hope they accept the discipline. ?
Agreed also about the dodgy translation of Proverbs 4:13
One of my biggest beefs is the deliberate changing of words in translation to suit the orgs interests. The latest change of hoseotes meaning holy, to loyal is an example. When that came out it was a big wake up call. Biased rendering indeed.
Great stuff Tadua, thanks for your hard work.Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-05-29 12:14:52
Micah 6:8 was a wake up call for me. I even wrote in about that one, and the excuse was pathetic, referring to the footnote as being correct. The change of Proverbs 4:13 is certainly misleading. It’s the difference between instruction and correction. Connected, but not the same.
Where is the holy to loyal verse, please ?Reply by MarthaMartha on 2018-05-29 17:25:52
It’s 1 Tim 2:8 Leonardo.
It was used in a talk recently and also as a counselling scripture for my husband.
If you look at bible hub you’ll see it’s hosious meaning holy. Loyal is a completely different word and a different meaning. It fits the current agenda though. ?
Hubby says there are more switches elsewhere but he’ll find them for me another time. It’s late here and we’ve had a busy day. Time for sleeping.
All the best to you Leonardo!Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-05-29 17:33:15
Naughty Naughty NWT translation committee. Thank you MM. It will go on my list. Sleep well.
Having now got my research hat on, I found other NT scriptures show “loyal” where the original Greek word (hosios) means holy. This word, according to Vines, frequently represents the Hebrew ”chasid”, which, I believe, is the root word behind “loving kindness” , now translated as “loyal love” in the 2013 NWT.
So work your way through the spiritual gymnastics and that is probably how NWT would justify using “loyal” at
1 Tim 2:8, Revelation 15:4, 1 Thessalonians 2:10, Titus 1:8, Hebrews 7:26.
The fact is that there is nothing to support the translation as “loyal”.
Funny, on two occasions (1 John 1:9, and Acts 16:15) where Byingtons chose to translate a different word as “loyal”, NWT did not.
So, thanks again MM for helping me to learn something today. Always good.
PS I have not worked my way through the OT, and there may be other scriptures in the NT which I have missed.
Reply by Bernardbooks on 2018-05-29 22:18:39
Also in Ephesians 4:23,24.
(NWT)And you should continue to be made new in your dominant mental attitude, and should put on the new personality that was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.
(NASB)and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-05-29 10:26:38
Thank you Tadua for a fine dissection. You have stirred up my brain again on my pet subject (apart from 607 BCE) . I would like to ask for some help from any on this site to find an original reference in connection with disfellowshipping.
I begin with a quote from W 7/15 1985 (question from readers) :-
Khaiʹro meant to rejoice. (Luke 10:20; Philippians 3:1; 4:4) It was also used as a greeting, spoken or written. (Matthew 28:9; Acts 15:23; 23:26) A•spaʹzo•mai meant “to enfold in the arms, thus to greet, to welcome.” (Luke 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37; 21:7, 19) Either could be a salutation, but a•spaʹzo•mai may have implied more than a polite “hello” or “good-day.” Jesus told the 70 disciples not to a•spaʹse•sthe anyone. He thus showed that their urgent work allowed no time for the Eastern way of greeting with kisses, embraces, and long conversation. (Luke 10:4) Peter and Paul urged: ‘Greet [a•spaʹsa•sthe] one another with a kiss of love, or a holy kiss.’—1 Peter 5:14; 2 Corinthians 13:12, 13; 1 Thessalonians 5:26.
by the way, you will note that Luke 10:4 reads differently in the 2013 NWT, indicating that someone up there knows this was originally not correctly translated.
R Lenski (as per 1985 Watchtower 7/15 page 31)
It was the common greeting on meeting or on parting. . . . Here the sense is: Do not even give the proselyter this greeting! Already this makes you a participant in the wicked works for which he has come. John [refers] . . . to a greeting of any nature.”
The problem is that the definition of the two Greek words, when it comes to the crunch, seems to be the wrong way round, although the article started off alright. It is khairo which meant more than a common greeting. Just compare any commentary on the subject.
And this article is the whole basis for JWs "not saying a greeting" to disfellowshipped ones.
So what help am I seeking ? There are ellipses in the quote from R Lenski. What is the full text of what he said ? Did he really get the meanings of the Greek words wrong, or is it me that is getting it wrong ? I could not trace a PDF of Lenski's writings on 2 John, and have not yet sent off for a printed copy.
Anyone out there able to help ?.
PS to MarthaMartha. Good to see you back on line again.Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-05-30 11:52:45
Hi Brain, I am trying to dig out what Lenski actually wrote about 2 John, as this who JWs quote as authority for their ridiculous position.
Reply by Eleasar on 2018-05-30 19:17:53
Leonardo, I have included verses 7-11 for context.
Here (Lenski's Commentary on the New Testament)
7) Because many went out into the world, those not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist. Ὅτι introduces an independent sentence just as we, too, use "because." It states the reason that John is writing all this. In 1 John 4:1 he says: "Many pseudo-prophets have gone out into the world"; here he calls them "deceivers" and uses the simple aorist. Not content to be deceived themselves, these men cannot rest until they have deceived others, as many as possible. They do not bother pagans; their prey are true Christians. "Into the world" means far and wide in the world, wherever they find Christians. They "went out" means from their leader Cerinthus, from his headquarters; some take it that they went out from the devil, the arch-deceiver.
"Deceivers" is made definite: "those not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in flesh." Compare 1 John 4:1, 2. John summarizes the deception of Cerinthus. He denied the deity and the incarnation of Jesus Christ. We have sketched this earliest form of Gnosticism in the introduction to First John. Not to confess = to deny (1 John 2:23), and to deny is to lie. In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, "as having come in flesh" (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, "as coming in flesh," although the participle is present in form it is really timeless. Cerinthus did not deny that Jesus was a man; he regarded Jesus as the physical son of Joseph and of Mary. He denied the coming in flesh, the fact that in Jesus Christ we have the eternal Son of God, born of the Virgin, whose blood (1 John 1:7) is the expiation for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2; 4:9, 10), and that "this One is the real God and life eternal" (1 John 5:20).
After saying "many deceivers" John adds: "This is the deceiver and the Antichrist." This is scarcely a distributive singular; it makes all these deceivers one awful deceiver who as "the deceiver" is also "the Antichrist," the great opponent and enemy of Christ. By this singular John does not refer to the devil although a connection with the devil is involved (1 John 3:10). We read this in the light of 1 John 2:18, 19: "the Antichrist" is already present in these many deceivers, these many forerunners of the great Antichrist (2 Thess. 2).
The greatness of the danger is thus made plain. Diotrephes is flirting with the great foe of Christ as he roamed about in the world at that time. This is the way in which he loves the brethren, this is what his hostile actions toward John and toward the gospel missionaries mean. John does not say this outright, he will do so when he comes in person in order to confront Diotrephes.
8) Look to yourselves lest you destroy what you have wrought but that you may receive full reward. The danger calls for a warning, the more so since Diotrephes has been giving hospitality to some of these deceivers. The two subjunctive aorists are effective: "may not actually destroy but may actually receive." We prefer the reading "what you have wrought." We use the perfect in English; the Greek is satisfied with its aorist (R. 842, etc.). John refers to the heavenly reward or pay, the word matches the idea of having worked. It is the reward of grace which is mentioned in Luke 19:17, 19. It will certainly be "full" to overflowing.
Diotrephes is destroying and tearing down what he and the congregation have accomplished by their spiritual upbuilding and by their missionary success. It is plain what the end of that would be. The eternal reward is at stake and no less.
9) John states the matter in a simple and a general form. Everyone going ahead and not remaining in the doctrine of Christ has not God; the one remaining in the doctrine, this one has both the Father and the Son. There is no exception either way. A few texts that did not understand προάγων substitute παραβαίνων, which the A. V. version adopts: "whosoever transgresseth." Some of the interpretations show that προάγων is still not understood. It is not ironical and does not refer to an advance to higher knowledge as the Gnostics claimed to have advanced. One article is used with the two participles. "To go ahead" means "not to remain"; when one remains he stays right where he is. Leaping forward (πρό) from a safe place to one that is wholly unsafe is folly. See how John rings the changes on "remain" in 1 John 2:24-28.
Διδαχή = "doctrine" (A. V. is correct); "teaching" (R. V.) would be διδασκαλία. "Of Christ" is the subjective genitive: the doctrine Christ taught and still teaches through his apostles. John 1:18. This word does not occur in First John, but its equivalents, "the light, the truth, the Word," are found. "The doctrine," like "the Word," means that the truth is put into words which we hear (verse 6), and so the truth comes to be taught, realized and apprehended (γινώσκειν, verse 1), which means "believed," trusted.
Much is being said about "doctrine." People say that they do not want doctrine, and preachers try to accommodate them. Do we not want the truth, the great facts and realities about God, about Christ, and about ourselves, to be put into the proper words so that we may hear, realize, and believe them? Do we want sophisticated myths (fables), 2 Pet. 1:16?
No matter in what direction one goes forward and does not remain in the doctrine of Christ, "he has not God" although he may shout ever so loudly, "I know him!" (1 John 2:4). This is the great delusion. 1 John 2:23. God, the real God (1 John 5:20), is found only in Christ (John 14:9, 11; 10:30), hence only in the doctrine of Christ (John 1:18). John does not need to add "and has not Christ" because he who forsakes Christ's doctrine certainly also forsakes Christ.
The one remaining in the doctrine, this one (οὗτος), this one alone, "has both the Father and the Son." By having the one he has the other; a separation of the two is impossible. To have them is to have salvation. Not for nought does John say "has not God" and now "has both the Father and the Son." These Gnostics imagined that they had "God," but in their estimation he was not "the Father" of "the Son"; to true believers in Christ and in his doctrine God is "the Father" of "his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3).
10) In the light of v. 7-9 John writes: If one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house and do not say to him: Greetings! For the one saying to him: Greetings! fellowships his works, the wicked ones.
John uses the condition of reality. These conditions use οὑ as the negative. Hence no special force is to be sought in the use of this negative. All conditions exist only in the mind of the writer, who may conceive them as really taking place or as likely to take place (expectancy) or as not having taken place (past unreality) or as not taking place now (present, unreality). In view of 3 John 10 we feel entitled to say that Diotrephes had been doing what John here forbids, had been vilifying John, showing John's missionaries the door, welcoming the itinerant proselyters of Cerinthus, lodging them himself or getting them lodgings among the members. Speaking to the whole congregation, John forbids this very thing.
When one of these proselyters comes, one who is a proselyter because he does not bring "this doctrine" of Christ but a different doctrine, no matter what it may be, brings it in order to spread it among the congregation and thus shows that he is a proselyter: do you not take him into the house in order to supply him with a base for his operations, do not even greet him with χαίρειν: "Happiness to thee!" or: "Joy to thee!" wishing him well in his work. The present imperatives forbid this course of action.
11) John states why this is never to be done. The person who even as much as offers this greeting fellowships this proselyter's works. John adds the adjective with a second article: "the wicked ones," which is like an apposition and a climax (R. 776). Reason enough!
Χαίρειν was the common greeting on meeting or on parting. We have it in three letters, Acts 15:23; 23:26; James 1:1. Here the sense is: Do not even give the proselyter this greeting! Already this makes you a participant in the wicked works for which he has come. John does not refer only to the farewell greeting, when the proselyter leaves his host's house, but to a greeting of any nature.
Smith calls John's prohibition "unchristian counsel, contrary to the spirit and teaching of our Lord," and appeals to Mark 9:38, 39; Luke 9:51-56; Matt. 13:28, 29 as though these passages permit us to furnish proselyters a home base for their operations in our midst and to wish them joy in what John calls their wicked works with the emphasis on wicked. Others speak of what was necessary in John's time, of the modern change of manners, of the greater tolerance of the present, and the like.
The feature that is overlooked is the fact that John is speaking of proselyters who seek entrance among Christians in order to do their proselyting among them. Where does the spirit of Christ bid or allow us to furnish them a home while they work at this wicked business and to wish them well when they come in order to do this work? Where does Christian ethics countenance anything of this kind? The doors of the homes of a Christian congregation cannot be barred too tightly against such spiritual poisoners; they cannot be met at the door with too stern a rebuff. Those who speak about the tolerance noted above would in a given case themselves bar out such nefarious proselyters just as John here tells his readers to do.
To what extent do John's words affect men who are not proselyters? To none. As occasion offers, we do any man a kindness. We do not even ask what he believes or whether he has a religious belief at all. I may take a Jew, a Mohammedan, a heathen, a tramp, a beggar under my roof; I may bid the time of day to any and to all men. But a notorious proselyting errorist? Do you as a true believer want even the least fellowship with his works? If he, because of your even kindly wishing him well, succeeds in snaring even one humble Christian, can you answer to God for your kindly wish? John's admonition: "Look to yourselves!" should make us wary. The state locks up murderers, thieves, criminals as a matter of protection. Is the church to aid and abet spiritual murderers and thieves? Not for one moment, all maudlin sentiment in the state and in the church to the contrary notwithstanding.Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-05-31 17:40:37
Hi Eleasar. Thanks so much. Where on earth did you manage to find that ?
Against his discussion of verse 11 Lenski does state that Khairo was the common greeting on meeting or on parting. The ellipses show three scriptures are used to support his view. In each case these were not (in my opinion) simple common greetings.. The sense was much more enthusiastic than that. Unfortunately it is Lenski’s interpretation which lies behind JW’s “Not saying a greeting”, or at least behind their explanation of it.
Of course an examination of events ,in the USA leading up to the 1981 Watchtowers on disfellowshipping, are probbaly the real reasons behind the interpretion.
Please do correct me if I am wrong.
Meanwhile thanks so very much again, Eleasar.
Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-05-31 17:57:33
Further to my first reply, Eleasar, it is clear that R Lenski felt very strongly about the proselyters mentioned in 2 John. He would have taken a hard line against them saying "they cannot be met on the door with too stern a rebuff", and seems to feel that there is no compromise between speaking to such a one with a rebuff and wishing them well. I wonder how many others see John's admonition in verse 10 that way ?
Yet, on the basis of such reasoning we class all disfellowshipped persons, even those of our own family who are not living at home, as to be treated as those dreadful proselyters, to be given a "stern rebuff".
Comment by Psalmbee on 2018-05-29 18:55:47
Very good job Tadua, and thank you. I really like the way you articulate the quotes from the NWT making sure not to say this is what the Bible says. I feel that it is most important to remind folks that the NWT is not an actual Bible, and if anyone thinks of it as such then perhaps you still have a little too much JW left in you.
Comment by wild olive on 2018-06-03 19:33:40
In just this week gone an event in my family has highlighted the strange and conflicting application of discipline that is discussed in this article.
One of my relatives mother died, there are 4 children in the family, one which has been disfellowshipped, since they don't want to be known as a JW. There is now a sizeable estate to be divided up between the siblings, legal advice was sought to protect the husband of the dead woman , " in case the disfellowshipped one wanted to contest the will or attempt to seize any assets ". The irony is that none of the family have had any contact with the DFd child for 18 yrs, they have been exemplary in discharging the JW stand on shunning, now that they need to contact the disfellowshipped child, they don't understand why this person now doesn't want to talk to the rest of the family, blaming the disfellowshipped one for behaving in an unacceptable way, not realising that's what the rest of them have been doing for nearly 2 decades. When I heard this I felt an immediate rush of relief that I don't need to hang on to such a conflicting state of mind, and it amazed me that the rest of the family could be so self righteous in thinking that their past behaviour wouldn't bear negative fruit, it doesn't surprise me anymore why there are so many depressed JWs.
Comment by Encourage One Another “All the more so” | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2018-06-24 12:14:07
[…] [iii] See the article How can we prove when Jesus became King? [iv] See the article Listen to Discipline and become Wise and Discipline Evidence of Gods Love [v] See http://biblehub.com/greek/1985.htm [vi] Only Peter […]