JW Insider

Yes. We ARE doing something right, and this results in Jehovah's blessing on the kind of work we do. But it's not, in my opinion, because the GB, from 1919 on, were prophesied in Mathew 24:45, but because these brothers are doing their best with a strong desire to do the right thing. Witness, I am trying to understand what you have said here. I have two major problems understanding it. One problem is spelled out in a little bit more detail from the "Pearl" blog that apparently coincides with several things you are saying here: Regarding Matt.24:14; If we go back to the grass roots Greek of the translation of "world" and "nations", we see that both these translated words, are assumptions. The Greek only and simply says, that the preaching will be done in the "home", and that all those who are *a group occupying together the same home (definition of "ethnos"...translated "nations"), will be the target of that message. Jesus made clear by his direct statement, who his brothers would be preaching to when he arrived (Matt.10:23). That literally reads "the circuit of Israel". That "circuit" was a first century mail route, and is exactly depicted by the seven congregations listed in Revelation. This ancient mail route went to those cities in that order. It was the "circuit of Israel". We know that this is symbolic, for the "Israel of God" (Rom.9:6; Gal.6:16; 3:29). God's last warning, is to the same group (1Pet.2:9-10; Rev.18:4; 1Cor.6:15; Rev.17:2; 2:22) People of all nations are included (Rev.5:9,10). Some of this reasoning contradicts not only Romans 10:18 which I quoted in my previous post to Allen, but also requires further redefinition to avoid contradictions with the "world" Satan dwells in. I'm not trying to get into all the reasons I disagree, but I'm sure you already understand that there are other ways to read this, and most persons find those other reasons more likely. It's not that I don't understand the appeal of the argument you are making, as it looks like a simpler solution to dichotomy of the references to both the first century judgment and the final judgment. But there are new problems with your solution, and of course, I admit that there are some problems remaining with the Watchtower's solution, too. As with the Watchtower, there is no consistent meaning attached to Jew and Gentile in a spiritual sense, and we sometimes use contexts from the Hebrew Scriptures to mean the spiritual solution when the first century context in the Greek Scriptures could have referred to a natural Jew and a natural Greek. These Jewish/Gentile problems even occur between Romans and Revelation, for example. I'd like to pick up on these questions under a different topic, but the main reason I quoted this section of the blog here is this: Do you agree completely with the reasoning in the portion of the blog I quoted above. Is that why you are making the same argument to Anna about the "circuit" of the cities of Israel (and/or Asia Minor if you include the 7 congregations of Revelation)? My other question is about this part of your quote to Anna: the "good news" which takes place under all the signs of the end that Jesus gave us, "preached in all the inhabited earth", is to the scattered remnant of God's Chosen ones - within the Watchtower congregations. Why do you believe that the preaching of the "good news" is specifically to the scattered remnant of God's Chosen ones - within the Watchtower congregations? What makes the Watchtower so special in your view? One more question while I think of it. Do you understand the meaning of "world" as God's "inhabited or occupied place/dwelling" to mean something like the opposite of the "wilderness" in Revelation 12?

Good point, Allen. The inclusion of "all nations" takes away any ambiguity of the Greek meaning. It's true that one could try to make a larger point out of the less likely and rarely used definition(s) based on the fact that many words that start out with "oik..." (or "ec..." in English transliteration) can refer to dwellings and households. But this is the least likely meaning in any context, and in this case we even have the context to clarify. The word "all" goes with it, and it's tied to "all nations." What "Witness" is depending on here is closer to the the definition of related words, such as the one used in Titus 2:5 oikourgos - worker at home. Or Matthew 10:36 oikiakos - household. Or oikos - house, dwelling. But the use of the same word is clarified perfectly in Romans 10:18 for a first century application prior to the judgment on the Jewish system in 70, and it works again in a larger sense for the judgment on the whole world. Note how Romans 10:18 echoes the poetic Hebrew parallelism in Greek to make "world" the equivalent of the "earth" here: Romans 10:18 ἀλλὰ λέγω μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν μενοῦνγε Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν [earth, planet] ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης [world, earth] τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν (Romans 10:18, NWT) But I ask, They did not fail to hear, did they? Why, in fact, “into all the earth their sound went out, and to the ends of the inhabited earth their message.” (Romans 10:18, KJV): But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

I figured it might be OK to just quote most of that article I referenced above. I'd use the info cautiously, but seems fairly accurate: Whether creatively imagined or passed on by oral tradition we do have references to preaching in a variety of literature apart from 2 Peter. The pre-Christian Jewish book of Jubilees 7.20-39 talks of Noah's preaching and teaching his sons after the flood lest the same fate befall them as did those who perished in the flood, but this is not preaching to the generation of the Flood itself. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian speaks of Noah preaching to the ungodly (Antiquities 1.3.1/74) and so certainly a tradition was known of or implied. Another source known as the Sibylline Oracles, possibly produced within Diaspora Hellenistic Judaism or even by later Christians, purports to be the writings of Etruscan prophetic priestesses as far back as the 6th century B.C. These books were partially burnt in a fire in 83 B.C. and later destroyed by the Roman General Flavius Stilicho in the 4th century A.D.. So whether the following passage dates from the original oracles or from a later edited and/or interpreted reconstruction we cannot be sure. Here is the text, however, judge for yourself, whether this was a source for Peter and Josephus: Another source of Jewish tradition is the Talmud and Midrashim, or commentaries on the biblical text. We find in the Babylonian Talmud the following reference: Similarly in the early Jewish Midrash on Genesis: Finally, in another midrashic commentary: Jewish tradition also saw the 120 years not as simply time for an enormous construction project but also as a period of mercy to allow time for the people to repent (e.g., Targums on Genesis 6:3; Mishnah, Pirqe Aboth 5:2; Philo, Quaest. Gen. 2.13; also cf. 1 Peter 3:20). The late first century early church writer, Clement also supports Peter's assertion: Further references that may add credence to the legend may be found in: Pirqe Rab Eliezer 22; Theophilus, Ad Autol. 3.19; Methodius, Conviv. 10.3; Apoc. Paul 50: Book of Adam and Eve 3:2,4, for those that want to do further research.

The Watchtower's view on this is very reasonable. If you work on a large project for several years, then people are going to ask, and you are probably going to try to answer them. At a very minimum we would expect Noah to given an answer that would have to include something about God's impending judgement, which makes him an announcer (preacher) of righteousness. Se we merely take a common sense approach, and then add just a little bit of conjecture about what he might have done or said specifically. But most scholars, I think, take a more direct approach that includes the idea that 2 Peter is referring to known sources that would have made this idea "common knowledge". Their approach includes the idea that 2 Peter and Jude were likely written later than most fundamentalist Christians acknowledge. (Jude is something like a paraphrase of a subset of 2 Peter.) Both Jude are 2 Peter seem more acquainted with a larger body of Jewish literature where ideas about the assumption of the body of Moses are known, the names Jannes and Jambres are known, Enoch is considered a prophet who wrote (or "inspired") the well-known book of Enoch, and Noah was a preacher. The sources for most of these ideas are fairly well known from surviving literature, including the references to Noah as a preacher. You will find plenty of info on this here: https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/difficult-sayings/index.cgi?a=517

When the price dropped for Amazon Dot (Black Friday), I bought one, only after reading that one of its skills would be "Allrecipes" that actually walks you through a recipe step by step, hands free, while you pull out the pots and the ingredients, etc. I couldn't get the Allrecipes skill to come up on the list of Alexa skills for several days, but it finally showed up and I like it. My wife liked it so much that we bought an Echo for the living room, which replaces the stereo, because Spotifiy plays through either it or the Sonos speakers in the living room. Got one for my parents, but when I called to tell them, they had just bought the Dot, so I gave the Echo to my daughter and son-in-law. But their neighbor also just gave them the Google Home, so who knows what they'll use the most. The Echo was easier for them to make their automatic shades go up and down through a voice command. I still like the Echo better than Google Home because, believe it or not, Alexa can edit my Google calendar and Google can't.

Looks like a very sensationalist newspaper that tries so hard to be both serious and sensational at the same time that it's a bit funny. I read a few other articles and a lot of their headlines. I always wonder why a newspaper would focus on the person's religion in the headline instead of saying: "Managing Director of Emsil is wanted for fraud." That headline would be more important to any readers who might have had dealings with Emsilv. But if it's just a headline going for the "sensational" then it's because it is a surprising thing, which is probably an inadvertent admission that fraud among Nigerian JWs is very rare. (And there are a lot of JWs in Nigeria.)

No reaction to that one in particular, but I did "read into" the non-reaction, perhaps unfairly, because after attempting to show him the next one, he made me feel like I was encroaching on his time, which always makes me nervous and makes me a bit flustered, wishing that I had put them in a different order or presented them all at once or something (I was only about 23). Then, I couldn't even get to the third one before he started talking about letters complaining about the book study, and how this never started happening until just two years ago. He told me, if I want, to send it (as if there was only one item) to Brother Dean Songer for him to decide if it was worth the trouble to change.

If this comes up in another thread I'll try to cover the answer to your question there. I was not a "spelling & grammar" proofreader. Several others, mostly sisters, handled that. They caught a lot of other little things, too, but they would rarely question a point of claimed fact. I was just another set of eyes focused on the "nerdier" issues. I often found places where the wrong font slipped in, or an em-dash matched with an en-dash, or where a short re-write changed a page number reference in an Index or TOC. I would also look up the original sources for the quotes and make sure the single/double and ellipses were correct, and whether reference footnotes were on the right page. There are still a couple of mistakes that remained because they were not considered serious enough to redo the plates for a 1980 printing. There are probably 5 errors of fact, but not all of them were actually questioned at the time. Here was one of the items I questioned: *** ka chap. 17 p. 346 par. 31 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” *** 31 From this it is clearly seen that the editor and publisher of Zion’s Watch Tower disavowed any claim to being individually, in his person, that “faithful and wise servant.” He never did claim to be such.* I knew that the biography of Charles Taze Russell that the WTS published had actually said that Russell really did claim in private to be "in his person, that 'faithful and wise servant.'" But that wasn't the problem, and I didn't really question that. What I questioned was the little asterisk (*) after it, because it pointed to the following at the bottom of the page: *** ka chap. 17 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” *** [Footnotes] See the book The Battle of Armageddon, published in 1897, page 613, under the heading “Dispensing of Food to the Household.—Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-46.” The problem with this particular footnote is that this was the first primary reference where Brother Russell changed his mind about the "faithful slave." Up until a few months before this book was printed in 1897, Russell taught that the "faithful slave" was the entire household of Christians, but this particular reference was the one where Russell first began to make the argument that it really must be a single individual, not a class, and that if "he" failed in his duty he would be replaced with another single individual. And of course, from that time on he published contributed articles and letters in the Watch Tower that addressed himself as "that Servant" and "the Faithful and Wise Servant" in addition to calling some of his writings, "Meat in Due Season." During his lifetime, after 1897 until his death, he also allowed himself to be referenced as "the faithful and wise servant" at Bible Student conventions. Of all the references to use in support of the claim in the paragraph on page 346 of ka, this was by far the worst choice outside of the Biography itself. The other 4 errors that I'm aware of are even less relevant to the topic.

We have no inherent right to approach Jehovah due to our sinful nature and his holiness. I think it's just as easy to read that this was the very purpose and meaning of Jesus' mediatorship -- the exact same purpose of the ransom. Only by imputing undeserved righteousness on all Christians, covering over our sins, does Jesus make it possible for all of us to approach Jehovah's throne of Majesty through prayer. This was the argument being made by some of the "murmurers" in 1979. This was the reason that F W Franz seemed about to yell at all of us at the breakfast table one morning in November 1979. It wasn't yelling so much as loud and deep sarcasm when he said that people who questioned it would just "merge everyone together and make Jesus Christ the mediator of every Tom, Dick and Harry!" From this and other things he said all through that week at breakfast, I believe he was concerned that the anointed were losing their "specialness." He seemed to take it very personally, and it must have been for this reason that a lot of people who knew him continued to act like this doctrine was his own private interpretation. The idea, as summarized to me in a gossipy way by someone who was very close to him, was that people used to trust his every word when he was Vice-President, and as soon as he was about to become President (1977, while I was at Bethel) he seemed to take it very personally that the very office of President was losing its meaning. He indicated in his September 1975 talk that the office of President was about to become the office of a mere "figurehead" or of a "do-nothing-President" as he called it. He said this during one of those times that he publicly fought against the idea of a "Governing Body" and simultaneously cast aspersions on those who wanted leadership by "committees" (in the same talk). Please excuse the excessive background info that follows, but I think it helps make a point about why some people thought FWF was so personally tied to this doctrine: Separately, I happened to learn that FWF reacted with similar consternation apparently from early 1978 right up through 1980 over some comments ("a few letters") questioning his latest book "Our Incoming World Government -- God's Kingdom" (1977). The book had claimed some prophetic date fulfillments around the 1920's that merely confused most of us, I think, but some evidently had a real problem with it. He sounded angry that anyone thought they had a right to question it. I thought his attitude was a little bit like saying "Who do they think they are?" but I think that what he actually said was more like "This is exactly what they [the publishers] need right now . . . it's a time to be studying these things, and not a time to be questioning these things!" The reason I had come to him was that I had brought him a couple of "footnote" questions while proofreading the "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" (ka) book and he somehow thought my question was tied to some of these letters he had gotten (or heard about) since the time of the "World Government" book study in 1978. This "interview" was around April 1980 and I figured from what he said that we might actually re-study the "World Government" book even though I was then under the impression that we were going to re-study the ka book again. There had been a scramble to replace the Congregation Book Study book because, although we had studied the "World Government" book in 1978, three or four of the last five books since then had been written by so-called "apostates" even though you wouldn't know it with titles like: "Life Does Have a Purpose" [January - June 1979] "Is This Life All There Is?" [July - December 1979] "Making Your Family Life Happy" [January - June 1980] "Choosing the Best Way of Life" [July - December 1980] "Commentary on the Letter of James" [scheduled book study use cancelled] The primary writers of the books listed above were mostly dismissed from Writing and from Bethel by mid-1980. As I know you know, we don't talk about the authors of the publications, but the last three books FWF had been widely associated with personally were "The Nations Shall Know" [Ezekiel, 1971] "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" ("ka") [WTS history, 1973] and the "Incoming World Government" [1977]. We rarely studied a book twice, but we did study the "Nations"/"Ezekiel" book twice (72 & 75), and of course the "ka" book ended up being studied twice, too, and it took all of 1981 to do it. (In 1983 we re-studied the "Man's Salvation" book from back around 1975, although I had never known whether FWF authored it.) Anyway, ka won out over the "apostate" James commentary which we never studied at the book study, although I do remember giving several "Instruction talks" from it. The "Choosing" book had been considered even more blatantly apostate, but slipped through. Although the decision to re-use the ka book in 1981 had already been made, and presses were already re-printing it for a couple months to gear up for the book study, the "World Government " book did come up again in the month before the ka book came back. Just notice what the primary point to highlight was supposed to be (in the quotes below). It was a theme that several people had been able to pick up on over and over again from FWF, from his talks and in personal conversation. There was a strong hint that Christ's "brothers" were not expected to be "sheeplike" as if there was a difference between "sheep" and "brothers." This sometimes comes across in other expressions that the Governing Body still use mostly in private conversations like: "the publishers need this" or with expressions that refer to the rest of us as "the rank and file." *** km 11/80 p. 2 Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples *** Ask all to bring book Our Incoming World Government—God’s Kingdom to meeting next week. Prepare from page 162, paragraph 6, through page 166, paragraph 16. *** km 11/80 p. 2 Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples *** Discussion by qualified teacher with congregation of highlights of material in Our Incoming World Government—God’s Kingdom, page 162, paragraph 6, through page 166, paragraph 16. Highlight difference in position, but unity of work done by King’s “brothers” and “sheep” class. ... Paragraphs 11-13: Read Matthew 25:37-40. Whom did Jesus refer to as “my brothers”? How do “sheep” show their support of the King’s “brothers”? What circumstances have the King’s “brothers” had to endure? Paragraphs 14, 15: How are the sheeplike Kingdom supporters rewarded? What must each one do to show he is a Kingdom supporter? See also page 173, paragraph 31. Paragraph 16: How do “sheep” “inherit the Kingdom”? How is hope of the King’s “brothers” different?

The small problem with this statement is easy to detect, and I'm sure you saw it, too. It appears to claim that if "some" direction was given that was not in harmony with God's word, then "all of Jehovah's Witnesses" would notice. This has never, ever been true! Every time "some" change is made to a doctrine (and there have been literally hundreds of such changes) then the GB made this change because it was important to be in more complete harmony with God's word. In other words, if the change was made for the new teaching to be in harmony with God's word, then the previous teaching was not in complete harmony with God's word. Yet, there has never been a case where more than a very few Jehovah's Witnesses spoke up, often none at all, as far as anyone knew. Back in the days when we were more attuned to anxiously await the latest "new light" from the yearly convention, the comments were always about how pleasantly surprised everyone was. No Witnesses are ever asked by the Governing Body what they think of a new doctrine and almost no Witnesses would dare say anything except that they agree completely, and that it was surely "food at the proper time." This is true, even though many of those items of "new truth" that we learned at all the assemblies in my formative years have been nearly scrapped, from "Your Will Be Done on Earth" [King of North/South, antimatter, fear of Sputnik] "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [type-antitype Elijah as "Rutherford" and Elisha as "Knorr"] to "Babylon the Great Has Fallen" [Revelation "commentary" where almost half the paragraphs are already out of date]. I remember some of the adjustments, and wrong ideas over the years have been explained as "the right thing at the wrong time" or even once as "the wrong thing at the right time." [e.g., "superior authorities" of Romans 13]. Yet, it is always "food at the proper time" as far as perhaps 99% of us are concerned. But that's not the biggest problem with the claim. If it were true that even "some" wrong direction were easily detected by "all" then there is no need for a special "slave class" to present doctrines. If Brother Jackson is right, then it would be better to start from scratch and vote on each doctrine democratically. This is not a complaint about the spiritual food we receive, and it's true that the specific menu of doctrines we enjoy is fulfilling and satisfies our spiritual needs. Over the years, however, much of it has proven to have been served at the wrong time, or it was the wrong thing. Some has even been toxic and resulted in spiritual death and loss of spiritual health for many. And we now have evidence that some of it has been kept toxic on purpose for many years because the servers didn't want to admit that it was bad food, even though the GB knew it was. (For example: The directions given on handing pedophilia cases for many years, corporal punishment of children, how a sister should respond to a physically abusive husband, chronological end-times speculation.) I think most of these things have been corrected, or are in the process of further correction. But I don't blame the bad food on the "faithful and discreet slave" because I don't believe that this parable was a prophecy in the first place. For the most part the "spiritual food" served is wonderful. Where it is wrong it is usually corrected with something that is obviously better. But where someone digs in their heels and holds to false doctrine because of a tradition or inability to admit that it might have been wrong, this is not about an appointed "slave" proving themselves to be an "evil" slave, it's just the common human tendency of people who are looked up to as leaders to become like the Pharisees, and see themselves as more important or righteous. Teachers receive heavier judgment. That's really the reason for the parable, anyway, as far as I can tell. It's so that a person who takes on the leadership position of Brother Jackson, for example, doesn't forget that he should be in subjection to you, Anna, and that he should be willing to give a literal drink of water to you or visit you when you are physically sick, or give you some actual physical food to eat if you are hungry. And the parable was also meant to remind you, Anna, not to forget that you should be in subjection to Brother Jackson, and not be quick to judge him harshly even if you see that he has taken a false step. We should try to build each other up with patience and discretion and faithfulness, picking each other up as best we can, and trying to understand each others' mental, emotional, physical and spiritual needs so that we can be an encouragement to each other. As the "day" continues to draw near, we want to show love toward one another, so that all of us continue awaiting Jesus "parousia" without unnecessary distraction from the world and its desires. The point of the parable is that if the Master is away it's easy to lose faith, but by building our congregations up into a family of brothers and sisters who look out for each other with love, we will not be tempted to lose faith in the promise, which can result in disobendience to the Master, and being overly concerned about who is right and who isn't, or finding opportunities to "lord it over" our fellow servants.

There have been several references like this, but the one that created the most "noise" at Bethel was in 1979. It created some internal discussions, which F W Franz considered the same as murmuring, and probably was the single biggest catalyst to the "apostasy" inquests. None of those who were known to "murmur" the loudest were affected by the questionings, however, but it did reveal a related problem. Anyway, here is the original one: *** w79 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** ● Is Jesus the “mediator” only for anointed Christians? The term “mediator” occurs just six times in the Christian Greek Scriptures and Scripturally is always used regarding a formal covenant. Moses was the “mediator” of the Law covenant made between God and the nation of Israel. (Gal. 3:19, 20) Christ, though, is the “mediator of a new covenant” between Jehovah and spiritual Israel, the “Israel of God” that will serve as kings and priests in heaven with Jesus. (Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; Gal. 6:16) At a time when God was selecting those to be taken into that new covenant, the apostle Paul wrote that Christ was the “one mediator between God and men.” (1 Tim. 2:5) Reasonably Paul was here using the word “mediator” in the same way he did the other five times, which occurred before the writing of 1 Timothy 2:5, referring to those then being taken into the new covenant for which Christ is “mediator.” So in this strict Biblical sense Jesus is the “mediator” only for anointed Christians. The new covenant will terminate with the glorification of the remnant who are today in that covenant mediated by Christ. The “great crowd” of “other sheep” that is forming today is not in that new covenant. However, by their associating with the “little flock” of those yet in that covenant they come under benefits that flow from that new covenant. During the millennium Jesus Christ will be their king, high priest and judge. For more detailed information, see Aid to Bible Understanding, pages 1129 and 1130 under “Mediator”; also God’s “Eternal Purpose” Now Triumphing for Man’s Good, page 160, paragraph 10; also The Watchtower issues of February 15, 1966, pages 105 through 123; November 15, 1972, pages 685 and 686, under the subheading “Leading the Way to a New Covenant”; and April 1, 1973, pages 198 and 199, under the subheading “The New Covenant.” Then when F W Franz fell sick for a bit, his life story was printed in the Watchtower, and I'm told that a few people began saying that this doctrine would change as soon as he died. Within 2 years of Franz' life story, however, a new article was prepared that said the same thing as in 1979. It was printed about 3 years before Brother Franz died. Only a portion of it is quoted here: *** w89 8/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers *** □ Is Jesus the Mediator only for spirit-anointed Christians or for all mankind, since 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 speaks of him as the “mediator” who “gave himself a corresponding ransom for all”? The Bible contains both basic teachings and deep truths, which are solid food for study. One such study involves Jesus Christ’s role as Mediator. . . . Does this mean that there is a specific legal sense involved in Jesus’ role as Mediator? Yes. . . . Clearly, then, the new covenant is not a loose arrangement open to all mankind. It is a carefully arranged legal provision involving God and anointed Christians. . . . The people of all nations who have the hope of everlasting life on earth benefit even now from Jesus’ services. Though he is not their legal Mediator, for they are not in the new covenant, he is their means of approaching Jehovah. Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) All who will gain life on earth must direct their prayers to Jehovah through Jesus. (John 14:13, 23, 24) Jesus also serves as a compassionate High Priest who is able to apply in their behalf the benefits of his sacrifice, allowing them to gain forgiveness and eventual salvation.—Acts 4:12; Hebrews 4:15. The most recent article that repeated these thoughts more succinctly was here: *** w08 12/15 pp. 13-14 pars. 12-14 Appreciate Jesus’ Unique Role in God’s Purpose *** 12 The original-language word translated “mediator” is a legal term. It refers to Jesus as a legal Mediator (or, in a sense, an attorney) of the new covenant that made possible the birth of a new nation, “the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:16) This nation is composed of spirit-anointed Christians, who form a heavenly “royal priesthood.” (1 Pet. 2:9; Ex. 19:6) The Law covenant, with Moses as mediator, was not able to produce a nation like that. 13 What does Jesus’ role as Mediator involve? Well, Jehovah applies the value of Jesus’ blood to those being brought into the new covenant. In this way, Jehovah legally credits them with righteousness. (Rom. 3:24; Heb. 9:15) God can then take them into the new covenant with the prospect of their becoming heavenly king-priests! As their Mediator, Jesus assists them in maintaining a clean standing before God.—Heb. 2:16. 14 What about those who are not in the new covenant, those who hope to live forever on earth, not in heaven? While not participants in the new covenant, these are beneficiaries of it. They receive forgiveness of their sins and are declared righteous as God’s friends. (Jas. 2:23; 1 John 2:1, 2) Whether we have a heavenly hope or an earthly hope, each one of us has good reason to appreciate Jesus’ role as the Mediator of the new covenant. Also, a lot of less direct references, including the following partial list: *** w15 1/15 p. 16 par. 14 Why We Observe the Lord’s Evening Meal *** Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant, and loyal anointed ones taken into it receive a heavenly inheritance. *** w03 2/15 p. 22 par. 19 What Does the Lord’s Evening Meal Mean to You? *** The parties to the new covenant are God and anointed ones. (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 12:22-24) Jesus is the mediator. *** w00 11/15 p. 11 par. 8 Christians Find Happiness in Serving *** Jesus mediated a new covenant, which made possible the birth of a new nation, “the Israel of God,” composed of spirit-anointed Christians from many nations. *** w93 1/1 p. 5 New Creations Brought Forth! *** Thus, the man Christ Jesus was the first of a new creation, anointed to do God’s will. Later, on the basis of his sacrificial death, Jesus became the Mediator of a new covenant between God and a select group of men. Each of these has become “a new creation,” begotten by God’s spirit to a heavenly hope, with the prospect of ruling with Jesus in his heavenly Kingdom. [WT could have used a bit of editing or proofreading on this last one, because the wording appears to emphasize the idea that they are all male.] *** w87 4/1 p. 17 par. 6 Worldwide Security Under the “Prince of Peace” *** His counsel is always wise, perfect, and infallible. As the Mediator between Jehovah God and those who have been taken into the new covenant, he has been serving indeed as a wonderful counselor for these past 19 centuries. Now, since 1935, “a great crowd” of his “other sheep” has been taking in his wonderful counsel and is getting the finest instruction and guidance. *** w84 2/15 p. 20 par. 18 The Recent Pen for “Other Sheep” *** 18 When, in God’s due time, the remnant of the spiritual Israelites finish their earthly course and pass off the scene to enter their heavenly reward, the new covenant that was based on the blood of the Mediator, the Fine Shepherd, Jesus Christ, will cease to apply, it having successfully served its purpose. With this the observing of the Lord’s Evening Meal on Passover Day of each year will stop. Then, too, “this fold” for the flock of spiritual Israelites will cease to exist. *** it-2 p. 858 Sanctification *** However, Moses as God’s appointed mediator could draw nearer. In this, Moses prophetically foreshadowed Jesus Christ, the great Mediator for anointed Christians, as they approach heavenly Mount Zion.—Heb 12:22-24.

Was it here? *** 2015 nwt[study] Glossary of Bible Terms *** Mediator. One who intercedes between two parties in order to reconcile them. In the Scriptures, Moses and Jesus are the mediators of the Law covenant and the new covenant respectively.—Ga 3:19; 1Ti 2:5. Just kidding. A mediator is the same thing as an intercessor, and the new 2015 glossary, just quoted, accidentally points that out. In the NWT the words, intercede, intercedes, intercessor, interceding are never used in the Greek Scriptures of the NWT. But you can see some of what was done in the NWT with a good NT-Greek dictionary, or even by looking at the footnotes in the NWT. I'll give both the NWT reading and the NWT footnote reading for the following verses. (Hebrews 7:25) Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them. (NWT) (Hebrews 7:25) Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to be interceding for them. (NWT footnote) (Hebrews 6:17) In this manner God, when he purposed to demonstrate more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his counsel, stepped in with an oath, (Hebrews 6:17) In this manner God, when he purposed to demonstrate more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his counsel, he mediated [mesiteuo] with an oath . . . [mesiteuo is merely the verb form of mediator] In other words, the term mediator [mesites] is not strictly used with a legal application to Jesus between the heirs and Jehovah. Here, Jehovah himself is the mediator. In fact, I think the very context of 1 Timothy 2:4,5 makes this clear: (1 Timothy 2:1-6) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all* men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. 3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all* people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all**. . . [NWT with two words left out of v.1 and v.4] If we follow the Watchtower's claim that there is on "mediator between God and "some" men" rather than all, then we lose the logic indicated by the word "For" (or "because") that ties verse 4 and verse 5 together. We also lose the logic of the context where it included the fact that we should pray for Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un, Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin, etc. These are included in "all men" (or "all people"). Of course, I put an asterisk after the word "all" in verse 1 and 4 because the NWT changes the phrase "all people/men" by changing it to "all sorts of people/men." The original Greek is very consistent here in using the term " πάντων ἀνθρώπων" or "panton anthropon" (all men) each time in verses 1 and 4. In verse 6, the NWT footnote indicates that even the "all" in verse 6 could be translated "all sorts of people." Translating it this way in the actual text of the translation, rather than just in the footnote, might have hinted at an equivalence between the "all" who have a mediator, and the "all" for whom the ransom was given.

I can't see it any other way. Jesus said that a master would appoint a steward to keep his household running smoothly even when the master is away. In context, we naturally assume that Jesus is referring to the fact that Christians are given a responsibility in an assignment and should remain obedient and watchful in their assignment. As JW's most of us also assume that the Christians who are given this responsibility are only a small group of people who fulfill this responsibility by serving spiritual food to the entire group of Christians earthwide. That's a possibility. But we take it a bit further and say that it was a prophecy that begins in 1919. That's where the problem of avoiding the potential for suspicion comes in. Jesus is supposed to be prophesying that the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1919 would begin serving up "food at the proper time" to the entire household of faith. (In the past decade or two, this Governing Body is no longer directly associated, legally, with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, but with the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.") But was Jesus predicting only that this slave would remain faithful? The Watchtower indicates that this is so by claiming in the Watchtower, as quoted in the original post: "Notice that Jesus introduces the warning with the words “if ever.” One scholar says that in the Greek text, this passage “for all practical purposes is a hypothetical condition.” It's a footnote on page 71 of "New English Translation - Novum Testamentum Graece" which is the best source of the Nestle-Aland Greek text with interlinear text and notes edited by Michael H. Burer, W. Hall Harris III and Daniel B. Wallace. The note says: "In the Greek text this is a third class condition that for all practical purposes is a hypothetical condition (note the translation of the following verb "should say"). Cf. CEV, NCV "But suppose." In actuality, even though it is hypothetical, it has nothing to do with whether it will happen or not. The term "if" doesn't even need to be translated this way. The same word is used in the Greek Scriptures when it has nothing to do with whether the option or event will happen. In fact, on page 91 of the same translation, Mark 1:40,41 says: "Now a leper came to him and fell to his knees, asking for help. 'If you are willing, you can make me clean," he said. Moved with compassion Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him saying, "I am willing. Be clean!" The term if is also noted to be in the third class condition according to the similar footnote on this verse. Then again, the same term "if" is not always considered important to translate in dozens of its appearances in the Greek Scriptures. And the idea of "if" can also be added even where it doesn't appear specifically in Greek. Note that the NWT adds it in Luke 12 to the positive case where it's the "faithful slave" being referred to. (Luke 12:43) Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! In fact, the "if" idea is obvious in the conclusion of other illustrations that Jesus gave, where it is clear that Jesus expects more people to be without faith, than people with faith: (Luke 18:8) . . .Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?” So if there is a prophecy here about an appointed slave being faithful, and Jesus gives several outcomes in the event that the slave is not faithful, then why would we not consider it true that Jesus had just prophesied about several outcomes for this appointed steward? Why would Jesus have gone to the trouble of describing various ways in which the servant could prove unfaithful? We would therefore be expecting that some of the people who either claimed to be a part of this group, or who we have determined to be a part of this group would prove unfaithful. And because of Jesus' words, we might even expect that more would be unfaithful than would be faithful. Therefore, we would want to be watching closely to make sure that we were not found guilty ourselves by our lack of watchfulness in this regard. I think I probably already made clear that, for me, the illustration is not about a special group who identify themselves as different from all other Christians, and therefore set themselves up as "governors" or "lords" over other Christians, but it must refer to the humble, discreet, and faithful and watchful and patient attitude of all Christians as we each are in subjection to each other. (Ephesians 5:21-25) 21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. . . . just as the Christ is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, . . . just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it, (Ephesians 6:5-7) 5 Slaves, be obedient to your human masters, with fear and trembling in the sincerity of your hearts, as to the Christ, 6 not only when being watched, just to please men, but as Christ’s slaves doing the will of God whole-souled. 7 Slave with a good attitude, as to Jehovah and not to men, When Paul says that he has a "stewardship" in the "household" of God, he uses the term "diakonos" (Colossians 1:25) 25 I became a minister of this congregation in accord with the stewardship from God that was given to me in your behalf to preach the word of God fully, But this is the same term that refers to all of us. Note Matthew 20:26, similar to the verse already quoted by Witness, and John 12. Obviously there are dozens more verses, too, that use the same term for "minister" and "servant." (Matthew 20:25-27) 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister [steward], diakonos], 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave. (John 12:26) 26 If anyone would minister to me, let him follow me, and where I am, there my minister [steward, diakonos] will be also. If anyone would minister to me, the Father will honor him. So the pillar and support of the truth for the congregation is not found in a separate "slave class" or a body of teachings, but is the entire household serving each other. (1 Timothy 3:14, 15) 14 I am writing you these things, though I am hoping to come to you shortly, 15 but in case I am delayed, so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in God’s household, which is the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth. This must be why, in Paul's longer dissertation against the idea of a "Governing Body" in Jerusalem, found in the first two chapters of Galations, he could say that James, Peter and John "seemed to be pillars" (2:9): (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.

Biblically, there can be no such thing as a "Governing Body" of the Christian congregation itself.The term "Governing Body" is a traditional, secular term that derives from legal corporations, just like the terms "board of directors," "proxy voting," "officers," "shareholders." The position corresponding to that kind of "head" of the congregation is already defined in the Bible as Jesus Christ himself, shared with no one else. Joseph Rutherford, a lawyer, was very fond of replacing religious terms with secular terms, and he called each congregation a "company" and called Jesus the "Chief Executive Officer." These are only two of at least a dozen such terms he used. (Galatians 3:23-25) 23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed. 24 So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian. Paul used the first two chapters of Galatians to show the dangers of looking to a group of well-respected men as a "governing body" and he explains clearly why he rejected the concept. Paul was also consistent elsewhere, of course, on this topic. I think Paul's longest dissertation (outside Galatians) against a human "governing body" was in 1 Corinthians. I think it is also the perfect backdrop for how we should understand the verses in Hebrews that are often made use of to defend the idea of a governing body: (Hebrews 13:7) "Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith." The passage is long, so I'll just highlight a few of the verses here that seem relevant: (1 Corinthians 2:15-4:17) 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ. . . . 3 for you are still fleshly. . . . 4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” but another says, “I to A·polʹlos,” are you not acting like mere men? 5 What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow, 7 so that neither is the one who plants anything nor is the one who waters, but God who makes it grow. . . . You are God’s field under cultivation, God’s building. , , , But let each one keep watching how he is building on it. 11 For no one can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ. . . . 16 Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that the spirit of God dwells in you? . . . 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men; for all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or A·polʹlos or Ceʹphas or the world or life or death or things now here or things to come, all things belong to you; 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God. 4 A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. In fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am not conscious of anything against myself. But by this I am not proved righteous; the one who examines me is Jehovah. 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God. 6 Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and A·polʹlos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. 7 For who makes you different from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not receive it? 8 Are you already satisfied? Are you already rich? Have you begun ruling as kings without us? I really wish that you had begun ruling as kings, so that we also might rule with you as kings. 9 For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men. . . . 14 I am writing these things, not to put you to shame, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians [tutors] in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods [ways] in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation. There is always going to be a strong temptation to accept well-known leaders as if they held the position of apostles. The so-called "superfine apostles" that the Corinthians looked to as leaders may have included the Jerusalem apostles, but also men like Apollos who might have been better speakers in person, whereas Paul may have been a better writer, for example. (See 2 Corinthians.) But the foundation of apostles has also already been completed: (1 Corinthians 12:28-31) 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. "Guardians of the doctrine" is most definitely intended as a reference to the work of the apostles, "The Twelve," based on the time that Jesus asked them to stay in Jerusalem so that they, all together, would receive the benefit of the outpouring of "holy spirit." Brother Jackson even referenced a portion of Acts that was part of this narrative: (Acts 1:4) 4 While he was meeting with them, he ordered them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised,. . . (Acts 6:2-4) 2 So the Twelve called the multitude of the disciples together and said: “It is not right for us to leave the word of God to distribute food to tables. 3 So, brothers, select for yourselves seven reputable men from among you, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary matter; 4 but we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” I do not consider the Governing Body to be governors of our faith. According to Paul, all of us need to take on the responsibility as guardians of doctrine (teachings). (The reference to 10,000 guardians in 1 Corinthinans is interesting) I do respect our Governing Body as experienced leaders in practical matters related to running the needs of an organization. But following the leaders in our congregation(s) is not primarily about a set of doctrines, which are already set from the time of the apostles themselves. Their leadership is about activities in which they lead. Congregational leadership is more about shepherding. Although it must often include corrections to doctrinal deviation, and explaining basic teachings for those who are not mature enough to understand, shepherding is mostly about the love and care and personal help and guidance provided to all of us as needed. But we are no longer under a separate human guardian or guardians with respect to rules, doctrines and teachings. The Jewish religious leaders held that "office" for many years: (Romans 3:1-4) What, then, is the advantage of the Jew, . . . First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God. . . . But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar,. . . For Christians, the "apostles" guarded those teachings. At this point we have no such guardian of our teaching except the words themselves approved from the era of the apostles. At this point, we do not go beyond the things written. This is summed up well in what 2 Peter says about Paul's writings: (2 Peter 3:15-18) 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard so that you may not be led astray with them by the error of the lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.. . . The portion of 1 Corinthians was already quoted that relates human leadership of this sort to "going beyond the things written." (1 Corinthians 4:6) 6 Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and A·polʹlos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. . . A good example to show the need for taking personal responsibility with respect to following and guarding the teaching of the apostles already given is what was said to a young man named Timothy. (1 Timothy 4:16) 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . . (2 Timothy 1:12-14) . . .. 13 Keep holding to the standard of wholesome words that you heard from me with the faith and love that result from union with Christ Jesus. 14 Guard this fine trust by means of the holy spirit, which is dwelling in us. Also Paul warned that we even would have needed to be watchful about putting too much trust in humans, even if they are angels from heaven or even the living apostles themselves! This is what Paul said to the Galatians who put too much trust in the apostles as guardians of doctrines, before the full results of their conduct had been proven: (Galatians 6:4-6) 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching. (Galatians 1:8) 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 2:6-12) 6 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. 7 On the contrary,. . . when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. 10 They asked only that we keep the poor in mind, and this I have also earnestly endeavored to do. 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. That is certainly a good reminder about the limitations in following those who take the lead. If we had lived at the time of the apostles we would have been personally responsible not to follow their lead in all things. We are responsible to make sure of all things, to make sure we have contemplated how their conduct turns out first: (Hebrews 13:7) "Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith."

Something very interesting about the parable is the reference to the term "everyone," here. It's obvious that Jesus often used illustrations (parables, allegories, and analogies) in which a single person or small group of persons actually represented a larger group, sometimes everyone, or at least all Christians. But what was usually important in the illustrations was not the actual specific activity that the person or persons engaged in, but their attitude and response toward a particular situation. Usually Jesus was pointing out an attitude that should be true of all Christians, such as patience, loyalty, humility, persistence in prayer, watchfulness, mercy, faithfulness,forgiveness, etc. For example, Jesus gave a parable of a tax collector and Pharisee in Luke 9:10-14. He wasn't making a prophecy that there would someday exist a "tax collector class" of Christians that would begin existing in 1919, for example. He wasn't saying that Christians should follow the example of tax collectors either. The importance of the illustration is that the tax collector was blessed for being humble and recognizing how unworthy he was, as opposed to the Pharisee who claimed to be different and more worthy than the tax collector. Another example was when Jesus gave a parable comparing the response of three different men to a robbery victim who was injured and left on the side of the road. Jesus was not prophesying that there would be a Samaritan class, and a Levite class, or an innkeeper class, or that the road had a certain meaning. (The WTS taught this for many years, but has changed that teaching.) The important thing was how a proper and generous response to someone in need showed who had really made himself "a neighbor" of the victim. Obviously, even though Jesus gave this "moral of the story" to one particular person, the meaning is true for all, and especially for Christians: (Luke 10:36, 37) 36 Who of these three seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man who fell victim to the robbers?” 37 He said: “The one who acted mercifully toward him.” Jesus then said to him: “Go and do the same yourself. ”Note, too, that the illustration was given to answer the question: (Luke 10:29) “Who really is my neighbor?” which reminds us of "Who really is a faithful and discreet slave? and "Who is an unfaithful servant?" Other illustrations were used in order to answer similar questions, such as: “Who really is greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens?” and the answer was that it was "whoever" became like a small child in terms of their humility. "Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens." (Matthew 18:1-6) Another example is the parable about a slave who defrauded his master when he knew he was about to be fired. (Luke 16:1-13) The illustration was given because it gave Jesus' followers an interesting insight into their own attitude toward money and "unrighteous riches," and Jesus therefore created an analogy about how Christians should put a different kind of value on riches than what the world does. Jesus was not prophesying that there should be a "defrauding" class of Christians that would appear sometime around 1919, and Jesus, again, was surely not promoting that Christians should defraud their work masters. Note that this was another illustration about a "discreet slave:" (Luke 16:8) "And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted discreetly." [New World Translation, footnote]; Many more possible examples exist, but one of the most famous is the parable about the difference between the way two sons manage their father's inheritance. One son is loyal and continues to work in the father's fields. The other son wastes the money away in a life of debauchery and shame. (Luke 15:11-32) When the debauched and destitute son returns to the father, he is celebrated, much to the consternation of the loyal and stable son. Again, this is not a prophecy about two different classes of Christians that would make their first appearances between 1919 and 1935. (The Watchtower taught for many years that this was the case, but has recently changed that teaching.) Jesus is not teaching us that it is better to return from a life a debauchery than to remain loyal and stable in the master's service. These were merely situations appropriate, not because of the specific activities described, but because of the attitudes and responses to those situations. So this could makes us think again about the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slaves in Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is no specific Bible basis for saying that this was a prophecy about a person or a group or groups of people who would make their first appearance around 1919. Jesus was not saying that all Christians would serve food to his body of attendants. Nor is there anything in the parable that tells us that the food here refers to spiritual food. Just like the parable of the Samaritan, there is no Bible basis for saying that the money the Samaritan gave to the innkeeper had some spiritual meaning. The important point is the appropriate attitude. We are "stewards" of Christ and Christianity and the important thing in a steward is to be found faithful. (1 Corinthians 4:2) 2 Besides, in this case, what is looked for in stewards is for a man to be found faithful. (1 Peter 4:10) 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. In past discussions, the idea has been brought up that there is nothing wrong with identifying persons who will use their particular gifts or ministries to take the lead and to teach, and this is still appropriate in congregations of any size, including the "world-wide congregation" as long as that lead is not intended as a way of creating a kind of tribunal or to create governors of our faith. For practical reasons, to keep peace in a congregation, there is always a need for some to take the lead and some to serve as shepherds. In a teaching ministry such as we strive for among Jehovah's Witnesses, we would expect some to focus on making sure that we can speak in agreement by looking closely at our teaching. That doesn't change the fact that Jesus was giving illustrations in Matthew 24 for all Christians to be on the watch, and for all Christians to watch their attitude as servants who have been given a serious responsibility. All of us should ask the same question that Peter asked: (Luke 12:41-48) 41 Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? . . . Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.

Usually when we refer to the "faithful and discreet slave" parable, we are really referring to the parable of 'the faithful and the unfaithful slave' found in Matthew 24:45-51. In fact, the parable of the "faithful and discreet slave" is also found in Luke, where the expression is changed a bit to "the faithful steward, the discreet one . . . that slave." (Luke 12:42-48) 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 44 I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him. "That slave" is given the assignment to feed the master's "body of attendants." If he obeys, he gets a promotion, and if he disobeys he is punished. This is the exact same idea as in Matthew 24, except that there are only about 15 words referring to what happens if this slave obeys and 150 words in the section about what happens if the slave disobeys. That's about 10 times as much space given to the idea of disobedience versus obedience. In Matthew it's only about 3 times as much space given to the idea of disobedience. That might explain why the verses in Matthew are referenced so much more often in Watch Tower publications and talks. The Watchtower has, of course, minimized the idea of any potential disobedience: *** w13 7/15 p. 24 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” *** Was Jesus foretelling that there would be an evil slave class in the last days? No. Granted, some individuals have manifested a spirit similar to that of the evil slave described by Jesus. We would call them apostates, whether they were of the anointed or of the “great crowd.” (Rev. 7:9) But such ones do not make up an evil slave class. Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave. His words here are actually a warning directed to the faithful and discreet slave. Notice that Jesus introduces the warning with the words “if ever.” One scholar says that in the Greek text, this passage “for all practical purposes is a hypothetical condition.” This is an adjustment to the doctrine held just up until the change in 2013. Prior to the quote above (originally presented at the Annual Meeting in 2012) the idea about the evil slave was just the opposite: that the "evil slave" came directly from the ranks of the "faithful slave." *** w04 3/1 p. 13 pars. 2-4 ‘The Faithful Slave’ Passes the Test! *** The expression “that evil slave” draws our attention to Jesus’ preceding words about the faithful and discreet slave. Yes, the “evil slave” came from the ranks of the faithful slave. How? 3 Before 1914, many members of the faithful slave class had high hopes of meeting with the Bridegroom in heaven that year, but their hopes were not fulfilled. As a result of this and other developments, many were disappointed and a few became embittered. Some of these turned to ‘beating’ their former brothers verbally and consorting with “confirmed drunkards,” religious groups of Christendom.—Isaiah 28:1-3; 32:6. 4 These former Christians came to be identified as the “evil slave,” and Jesus punished them with “the greatest severity.” How? He rejected them, and they lost out on their heavenly hope. They were not, however, immediately destroyed. They first had to endure a period of weeping and gnashing of teeth in “the darkness outside” the Christian congregation. (Matthew 8:12) Since those early days, a few other anointed individuals have shown a similar bad spirit, identifying themselves with the “evil slave.” Some of the “other sheep” have imitated their unfaithfulness. (John 10:16) Now, of course, the "faithful slave" is made to be the equivalent of the Governing Body since 1919. (The Governing Body has only existed in its current form since the early to mid-1970s.) For this reason, evidently, it would no longer be appropriate to consider or expect that the evil slave might come from the ranks of the Governing Body. Continuing this teaching would likely create a measure of suspicion and questioning of the Governing Body itself.

I don't remember any statement like that. Where did you see it (or hear it)? BTW, here it is again from a Seventh Day Adventist University in Nigeria. Very similar to Bethel's version.

You have made some good points. I won't try to respond to all of them, but I will try to give simple answers to some of the questions and points. I believe that the Holy Spirit already led Christians into ALL truth during the first century. We are only trying to find a way to map the principles and activities and descriptions of the first-century congregations to our own century in an appropriate manner. Therefore, it all really boils down to trying to understand the Holy Scriptures. Of course we try to understand how best to apply the scriptures as the primary source of the Holy Spirit, but we also rely on experienced elders who have set a good example and who have years of studying and teaching experience. But again we are trusting these men to help us make decisions about how best to understand and apply the principles of scripture. We also rely on prayer for proper guidance, but prayer itself is still about guidance for how to best understand and apply the principles of scripture. It always circles back to how and whether we are understanding and applying the Bible correctly. So Holy Spirit reveals these truths today through a proper understanding of the Bible. It's the same for all the doctrines. The most important doctrines are not difficult, but many doctrines (Bible teachings) are more ambiguous. Some have caused difficulties for many religious denominations through history. One of the most important things is the way that the Bible is now read with more understanding of context. Up through the 1970's and well into the 1980's only a very few JWs were expected to be able to understand anything from a Bible passage that hadn't already been explained in a prior Watch Tower publication. (Due in large part to emphasis on types and antitypes, everywhere!) If a verse had never been commented upon, it could only be understood by someone at the Society. It was not generally expected that an average JW could read the Bible and get much out of a passage without a constant referral to publications. The majority of JWs had never discovered the joy of Bible reading on their own, because very few tried to understand context. Most of us were encouraged to read the Bible only to find and highlight doctrinal proof texts that often had almost nothing to do with the context. Bible reading, even up through the 66th (and 67th) Class of Gilead, for example, was so stilted that students I studied with felt they understood much less, rather than more, when reading straight through the Bible. About the same time, there was a backlash against comments that Bethelites were claiming to find a personal joy at a new type of Bible reading at Bethel where people were encouraged to read a few verses and then discuss what they thought it meant. This type of contextual reading and discovery of meaning through context seemed to be validated by the style of the Aid Book which often relied on context as evidence. The backlash within Bethel at the time was brutal, but as of a couple years ago, the biggest impediment to contextual understanding was removed. "Types and antitypes" had formed a set of about 300 teachings. Most JWs didn't know them all, but Gilead students were tested on them. Now these are gone and 'new things' are uncovered constantly for many JWs every time they read the Bible. True, the apostles did not recognize any particular earthly structure or organization except for the manner in which appointments were made for the congregations based on letters to Timothy and Titus, for example. The power of men comes into play in the Watchtower's organization, that's true, but I don't accept that it is the "men" or the "organization" really deciding anyone's spiritual fate. Jehovah can override all mistakes made. Men are not the real judges. Men are just trying to do what they believe the Bible tells them they should do. There are plenty of excellent quotations in the publications that support the Bible's view on our need to pay attention to our own teaching and to make sure of all things we are taught. It is correct that we are all responsible. And if we lead someone to the door of a Kingdom Hall, we are responsible to let them know that they MUST sift through the WT teachings. If we think of ourselves as teachers and students choose not to associate with JWs, we should let them know that they are going to be responsible to sift through the teachings of any teachers they find. It's easy to go places where we can get our ears tickled, but Christianity is our own serious responsibility. Each must carry his own load. If my experience with JWs is that I have experienced serious mistakes and corrections and other changes, then it's my responsibility to tell others about my experience and let them know that such things are to be expected in any human organization. Again, remember, that we need to realize that the Watchtower organization is NOT Jehovah's organization. It is not Zion. The Watchtower does not teach that they are the same. One is human, and one is heavenly. The best we can hope for is that men who take the lead try to be led by the heavenly organization as best they can. We can hope that Jehovah blesses the humans who take the lead, along with those who accept their lead, and thus the entire endeavor will be blessed. This might sound odd, and even sound "independent" and perhaps "apostate" to some other JWs, but if you listen closely to the history of the Watch Tower organization given to the 59th Gilead Class (in the same talk by F W Franz partly quoted in the video links you provided) you will see that this is actually the way that Franz himself understood the way we should view the Watch Tower. Per portions of that same speech, the only evidence we really have is evidence as to whether Jehovah has appeared to be blessing the endeavor.

Sounds like a form of MLM or Network Marketing which is not the same as the Nigerian MMM(s). Anyway, it also sounds like you have the right attitude toward work/life/spirituality balance. When I left Bethel, I had already quit school when I was almost 16, and graduated with a High School equivalence after I turned 16. But I thought that a degree in Computer Science would let me get a job that would pay more as a part-time worker so that I could full-time pioneer. I spoke with some elders about it and they thought that if I kept to my goal, there should be no problem with going to college, but that I should at least auxiliary pioneer while going to college so that I would not be inadvertently setting an example that encouraged college. This was actually difficult, because I was also working at least 30 hours a week, and going to school at night, but I'm glad I did it. (Some of the classes I needed to graduate were only available in the daytime. 4 years of Hebrew, and several of the math, physics, and computer science courses.) Then, I was only able to FT pioneer for a year after graduation because most all the good-paying job offers were full time. But I enjoyed the high level of activity, and learned a lot about scheduling time. After my first of three children, I couldn't keep up pioneering at any level with a full-time job. A brother wanted me to start working with a vitamin company that was making him enough money to pioneer, but I looked into how the company worked and got a bad feeling about it. Several of the brothers worked very hard at it and could barely make it work. I went to one of the assemblies for this company and was surprised at how the format so closely matched our own assemblies, and even service meetings with practice offers, goals to be reached, experiences, overcoming objections, and a lot of positive hype about the good they were doing for the world. I knew that Amway had been nearly the same for a lot of brothers and sisters in a previous congregation prior to Bethel. Anyway, hope all continues to work out well for you.

I listened to the Introduction and the first two videos completely and I found that every statement made in these 3 videos was absolutely true. I haven't listened to the fourth one yet (Part 3), although I can make some assumptions from the title as to what it will say. Naturally, I reject the idea that Jehovah will destroy those who do not accept false doctrines and false prophetic explanations. I agree that it was arrogant of the Governing Body to indicate that this is what God will do if you don't accept doctrines that turn out to be false. Then again, I still believe Jesus was correct when he said that there would be no literal walls or fences between the true wheat and the counterfeit wheat. Various church denominations would be a perfect analogy to fences in a field where true wheat grew in one section of a field and false wheat grew in other sections. Therefore, I don't believe that the denominational distinction that sets us apart is the actual criteria that makes us Christian and the rest of the world false. I believe that Christians are Christian because of what is in their heart. I see the Watchtower organization as an entity to support a certain chosen type of ministry. Let's say that a church decides that it will focus on the ministry of healing the sick, and another one focuses on a ministry of providing shelter to the poor. That first church might build hospitals and may therefore form a governing body to direct the work of finding places where hospitals can be supported, where doctors, nurses, builders, etc, can be recruited, and how much they could afford to pay these doctors and other personnel. Something like that might happen with a church that wants to focus on providing shelter for the poor, or soup kitchens, or distribution of clothing, etc. But the Watchtower organization is an entity that chose to focus on the ministry of teaching (and worldwide distribution of teachings). Perhaps in some sense the "ministry of teaching" can be expanded to include: (1 Corinthians 14:6) ". . .either with a revelation or with knowledge or with a prophecy or with a teaching?" By this, I mean, interpretation of existing prophecy, not the gift of prediction or newly revealed knowledge. Similarly, for purposes of setting priorities in the times we believe we are living, certain teachings would be seen as being more important than others, and more worthy of publication and distribution. Therefore, this ministry needs a governing body to set priorities, just like a supposedly less religious ministry that focuses on building houses for the poor, or bringing aid to persons suffering from natural or man-made disasters. Those who would really focus in earnest on a teaching ministry would likely come up with a set of teachings that might seem unique to other denominations. This might attract persons of other denominations, and it might create resentment and rejection, too. Also, a governing body of such a ministerial undertaking might easily begin to see themselves in the role of the original Twelve Apostles, which can be very dangerous and create an unbalanced haughtiness. The more they focus on correct teaching, however, the more they should see these very dangers and learn to avoid them. But I see this particular type of ministry as an important one. It is a true Christian service to other Christians and would-be Christians. I think that Jehovah's Witnesses in particular have found evidence for teachings that make it easier for people to understand God and Christ: Trinity, for example, is a very confusing way to think of God, and makes God less approachable. I can see it as a service, therefore, to Christians and would-be Christians to present the view of God and Christ that the Witnesses have done. The same goes for Hellfire. This is (and should be) a confusing doctrine to Christians because it puts something in the mind of a loving God that makes no sense if we are created in God's image. A focus on an earthly hope attracts many who understand our unworthiness to stand before the person of God, including many who have a humble, down-to-earth attitude in our relationship with God. Neutrality and non-participation in divisive, nationalistic warfare is another point that JW's promote as a teaching that flies in the face of the usual teachings that churches succumb to during wartime. We may not have a full understanding yet of these particular doctrines and many others, yet it is still a ministerial service. (I doubt that every person who spoke up with a prophecy or to speak in a tongue or translate in the first century was always correct.) So as long as we are not too haughty about them, these teachings provide a service to other Christians -- a ministry. They can shake us out of long-standing traditions that might be blinding us to the ability to change our views when a better understanding is found. I could go on and on about various doctrines that might start out as kind of a mess (dates and pyramids and false prophecies about 1925, and 'millions now living' etc). But they continue to uncover things out of the storehouse of the Bible, things both old and new. In the past people (individual scholars) like Albert Barnes and Matthew Henry have accepted a teaching ministry. (Not to mention Gesenius, Strong, Westcott, Hort, Liddell, Thayer, etc.) JWs are very indebted to these scholars that came before them. In our case, we also try to make a teacher out of every person identifying themselves as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This creates a unique ministry which becomes more valuable to Christians and would-be Christians as we continue to get better at it. So just because we have a "Governing Body" it does not mean that the Bible said that the one true religion would need a Governing Body. It's just that the particular ministry we wish to focus on happens to work more effectively and efficiently with a Governing Body. If we take such a ministry seriously we will want to try to match the organizational structure of the first-century congregation, and most Witnesses think this is an attempt to match the idea of the apostles who focused on teaching while others focused on distribution. The Watchtower itself is just a kind of "business" arm to help "market" the publications more efficiently, and up until very recently the Governing Body was associated with the board of directors of this supportive business arm. More recently, near the turn of this century, this was seen as something that should be changed and several of the changes since then are massive improvements over the prior teachings. The attempt to re-interpret the history and mis-represent that history is a common human failing, and we are going through this right now. But I do not associate with Jehovah's Witnesses because the current "Governing Body" claims to represent human or spiritual authority. (Galatians 1 & 2 show why this is condemned.) I associate with JWs because I've enjoyed my association, find people who are sincere about wanting to participate in a legitimate and important ministry, and I get constant reminders to watch myself and my teaching. (1 Timothy 4:16) 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you (Colossians 3:15, 16) 15 Also, let the peace of the Christ rule in your hearts, for you were called to that peace in one body. And show yourselves thankful. 16 Let the word of the Christ reside in you richly in all wisdom. Keep on teaching and encouraging one another with psalms, praises to God, spiritual songs sung with gratitude, . . . (Galatians 6:2-6) 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.

John, I just read up on MMM in Nigeria and the related replacements of the original MMM. I also just spent some time geting my questions answered from an online chat consultant at one of the major MMM sites. They will answer all your questions if your first question asks if there is a limit to how much you would be able to put in from another country. This is my opinion, but I also should add that it is somewhat informed by the fact that I worked for an international financial services company based in New York and Paris for 20 years, and prior to that I did financial work for a man named Donald Trump (Trump Management) through ADL consulting. I've seen almost a dozen varying types of Ponzi schemes, and these types of schemes can range from: small promised expectations from, for example, a vitamin sales company, up to complex shenanigans from the brokers behind fraudulent stock-trading schemes (including non-stock investments, too) all the way up to very respected levels of government including loans-for-infrastructure schemes driven through the IMF and the World Bank that can steal from the economies of entire countries. From what I can tell by reading up on it from pro-MMM sources, and discussing it with a consultant who promotes it, MMM is the simplest, most transparent and direct form of a Ponzi scheme that I have ever seen. It can even include pyramid schemes within the Ponzi scheme. It is pure fraud. It could only have lasted as long as it has through corruption. I looked at several promotions of MMM and all of them were variations on the same fraudulent foundation.

@Nicole @John Houston BTW, it is very common for Jehovah's Witnesses and many other religious people to get involved in MLM (multi-level marketing) which can be the same as "pyramid marketing" and many types of "network marketing." One reason it is attractive is that people in churches (and Kingdom Halls) and extended families have access to a quick "layer" of family, friends and acquaintances who can be expected to "share the wealth" while "enriching" the primary drivers of MLM even more. Personally, I believe (maybe wrongly) that MLM is a kind of a religion. There will be some who make enough money to be the "examples" of leaders that others will want to follow. It is almost always less sustainable than it appears, because optimism is preached as a necessary ingredient for success. Therefore, adherents to the religion of MLM are constantly dismissing the failures of some as merely a temporary anomaly, due to their temporary inability to give as much to the MLM effort that should be required. If you fail, you probably just need to allow yourself to invest more into it, or you need to feel guilty that you gave too much emphasis on a 'get rich quick' mentality because you expected too much, too quickly, without putting enough real practical effort behind it. In other words, your own guilt can drive you further into losing money, although you still have the examples that are always given all the attention and fanfare at MLM meetings. It is apostasy to look into the MLM doctrines too deeply where you will notice that the math/evidence does not support sustainability at all the levels of marketing that you will be trying to convert people to join. The religious beliefs in MLM make it continue to work for more years than the math can actually support, and those extra years provide more time to find just enough working, positive examples because money blinds the minds of the believers. Hope no one is offended by my views on it. They could be wrong, but I have seen people lose so much money over these "schemes." And because it's based on a positive, optimistic "religion" that everyone wants to believe in, those who fail at one type of pyramid scheme are almost always happy to join a new one that is marketed as something very different than the last one that failed for them. And they are bound to repeat their sins.

I think MMM in this case refers specifically to Mavrodi Mondial Moneybox (MMM), right? (aka, Mondial Mavrodial Movement and variations)

Witness, I have no problem with this illustration. Notice that the citylike walls of Jehovah's organization are not literal because this is a spiritual entity they are "building up." They also share in a literal building work caring for the needs of Jehovah's expanding organization. The spiritual activities building up true Christian congregations, and that is the important part. And there is also physical evidence of this expansion that anyone can see. The growth is also evidenced by the need for physical buildings. Personally, I agree that there is no absolute need for physical buildings. But joining in building and contributing to such things can still be an act of love. The most practical way to see this is to go back to a rather extreme example that I remember from when I first began pioneering, after quitting school at age 15 and 10/12ths. When I was pioneering several of us spent one day a week in rural territory about 50 miles from the nearest Kingdom Hall where we tried to handle about 15 Bible studies that had been scheduled for Fridays, and about 10 persons already baptized in the area. (Bible studies averaged about 6 months to 1 year before students were either baptized or "given up" on during this time.) There was enough interest to start a new congregation because a couple of responsible brothers also lived only about 30 miles away were willing to travel there. We began to rent (almost free) a small storefront that had not been fully rebuilt after a fire and had a tarp for a roof. Also there was a toilet behind a curtain literally about 3 feet from the nearest chair where an audience member could sit. There was no sound system, and a long cord brought electricity to a couple of lamps from an adjacent building. The interested ones were happy to have someone travel in every weekend to give a talk and have the Watchtower study. There was one week when we had to bring the metal folding chairs outside the building after a big rain. This particular congregation grew rapidly and there were some very lovely people who appreciated the opportunity to meet with others of like faith. Now, you might think that their "faith" was all wrong, or built on lies, and therefore you might not appreciate that I am speaking primarily of the joy of these meetings in encouraging one another and building one another up spiritually, not about whether all the doctrines were correct. And remember that these same people were studying because they believed the incorrectness about many of the doctrines of other available religions and would have been most uncomfortable attending any other places of worship. They felt a kinship and brotherhood among people of like faith. During this time, several of our teachings that were emphasized in 1973 through 1976 were admittedly wrong, and I think now that a couple other items of emphasis were also wrong even though I didn't know it at the time. But I can never deny that there was a lot of mutual support of one another, a lot of material sacrifice, and, of course, they soon found a better place to rent, because they wanted to make it more comfortable for all the others, too, not just themselves. Those with more means were happy to provide a more permanent place, with volunteers to paint, build, put down a carpet, dig a septic tank, contribute materials (chairs, an old piano, etc). Christians in the first century met in houses, and in synagogues, and in available rooms, but soon built their own places of worship, too. This was a natural outgrowth of the growth of spiritual interests; it did not mean they had lost track of spiritual things. Yet it is also possible to put too much emphasis on such things, and I appreciate your comments as they provide a reminder of the more important things.

I understand why you might include the Catholic Church, Jewish Rabbis and Islamic Clerics in your list, but not Hindus. Hindus do not believe in the same God, nor his angels, as far as I know. At least Muslims believe Allah is the same God of Abraham that Jews and Catholics believe. (The Jewish/Christian Bible even refers to Jehovah as "Allah*" in the sense that the Aramaic portions of Scripture refer to God as "ilah/elah" such as in Daniel and even in Matthew where Jesus calls out to his father calling him "Eli" or "my God.") אֱלָהּ ʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god. *The AL in front of an Arabic word is the word "THE" which is added to the usual Arabic word for God and gods in general which is "ilah." Therefore "Al-ilah" contracted as "Al'lah" becomes "Allah" [and "Elahh" used 90+ times in Ezra 4-7 and Daniel 2-3 can be translated "THE God" when referring to Jehovah. (Similar relationship between names of God like the Greek Zeus, being pronounced zdeus and therefore related to a word for God in many European/Romance languages: Deus/Dios.) But Hindu religion doesn't seem related to the idea of the God of Abraham, the God of Daniel, or the God of Jesus.