JW Insider

Our 1924 Songbook, called "Kingdom Hymns" had the song without the "silver and gold" line, probably because this particular songbook was geared toward the youth in the congregation (see Preface, attached below). But in this one, the words were actually attributed directly to Frances Havergal, although the tune was just a little different based on some music from Mozart. (Actually, if you play the Mozart-based version on the piano, you can see that it was actually the basis for the version of the music that I remember singing until 1966, the year before I was baptized.)

Just noticed that the Kingdom Song book in 1944 was even closer to the original hymn from 1874:

This song has an interesting history. The tune has changed a few times, but many of the lyrics have remained true to the original words as they were written by Frances Havergal, as she wrote them in December 1874. (Not a Bible Student or a JW, of course). She actually gave up most of her own silver and gold as reported: She wrote, “[I shipped] off all my ornaments, including a jewel cabinet which is really fit for a countess, to the Church Missionary Society where they will be accepted and disposed of for me. I retain only a brooch for daily wear, which is a memorial of my dear parents. I had no idea I had such a jeweler's shop; nearly fifty articles are being packed off. I don't think I need tell you I never packed a box with such pleasure.” Here is the near equivalent as it is still sung in various religions of Christendom (https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/h/445): 1 Take my life, and let it be Consecrated, Lord, to Thee; Take my moments and my days, Let them flow in ceaseless praise, Let them flow in ceaseless praise. 2 Take my hands, and let them move At the impulse of Thy love; Take my feet and let them be Swift and beautiful for Thee, Swift and beautiful for Thee. 3 Take my voice, and let me sing Always, only, for my King; Take my lips, and let them be Filled with messages from Thee, Filled with messages from Thee. 4 Take my silver and my gold; Not a mite would I withhold; Take my intellect, and use Every power as Thou shalt choose, Every power as Thou shalt choose. 5 Take my will, and make it Thine; It shall be no longer mine. Take my heart; it is Thine own; It shall be Thy royal throne, It shall be Thy royal throne. 6 Take my love; my Lord, I pour At Thy feet its treasure-store. Take myself, and I will be Ever, only, all for Thee, Ever, only, all for Thee. The way I remember this song is the way we sang it in the Kingdom Hall up until 1966 as shown in the picture attached below. This was my grandmother's favorite Kingdom Song, and my mother still sings it every now and then while doing dishes or cooking: Note that the words: "Take my silver and my gold / Nothing Lord would I withhold" are now back to the exact equivalent of the pre-1966 version. (Prior to that it was called "Consecration" in the previous songbook before 1950, otherwise pretty much the same words. It actually goes back to Kingdom Song Books from 1925, 1928, 1944 and 1950.) The order of the verses was switched around, but most of the verses from the old Kingdom Song 74, below, are taken from Frances Havergal's hymn. The tune is very catchy, and many JWs were sorry to see it dropped when the pink songbook came out in 1966.

Amazing how science news is called "political" news when enough people are still in denial. There was a time when science news was called "religious" news when enough people were still in denial. Politics is the new all-encompassing basket of ideologies that blinds people just as much as religion has done in the past. Of course, that shouldn't be true of the true religion which according to the book of James, is (according to the NWT footnote): (James 1:26, 27) The religion that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.

Also, Brother [Ben] Homer, the person who wrote the very widely-known song, Sentimental Journey, also wrote the very beautiful Kingdom Song "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize." This was song #119 in the 1966 song book, which then became #222 from 1984 to 2009. It was dropped from the 2009 song book.

Found this on Barbara Anderson's site (ex-JW researcher for Bethel Writing Dept). Apparently it's from about 1953. Here is a sample portion of the list. The whole list is found at the link. Includes Mickey Spillane, etc. Several of these people had been more or less famous in the 1940's. Bonnie Boyd Heath was also somewhat famous (or infamous) in the Witness rumor mills, but that's another story. MovieStars-ActiveJWs-BonnieBoydHeath.pdf

@The Librarian I only included a portion of it in the pic. Mickey Spillane is on the list, too.

Found this on Barbara Anderson's site (ex-JW researcher for Bethel Writing Dept). Apparently it's from about 1953. Sample: MovieStars-ActiveJWs-BonnieBoydHeath.pdf

Not that curious at all. Every few years another celebrity is supposed to have become a JW. Brother Rutherford's "secretary" used to keep a running list of actual celebrities that had become JWs because she was into that sort of thing. The fact that several celebrities are or have been JWs makes new rumors more believable. This one evidently started over a picture on the back of one of his CD's.

Good scripture, one of the best. (And it's our daily text for today: Sunday, 11/27.) But, I can't quite understand the connection to Rachel McAdams (as seen in Mean Girls, Dr. Strange, Sherlock Holmes, The Notebook, The Vow, etc). It seems like it's just another way of indicating that most of us, being human, require something physical to initially attract us to spiritual things. I wonder if this is the best way to express a message about spirituality, though. Example: http://www.glamour.com/story/see-this-is-why-rachel-mcadams See, THIS Is Why Rachel McAdams Continues To Be Our Beauty Idol https://www.etsy.com/listing/481820251/drawing-print-of-rachel-mcadams-doctor?ref=market

As Melinda indicated these are not genuine. The best evidence I saw was given directly by the Van Gogh Museum just a couple of days ago. They knew it was fake back it was first introduced to them in 2008, then again in 2012, and now again in 2016. See: https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/news-and-press/press-releases/found-sketchbook-with-drawings-is-not-by-van-gogh-according-to-van-gogh-museum

Per the info available, this list of the ten commandments does not include "You should not take Jehovah's name in vain." And it adds a new 10th commandment that one should raise up a temple on Mount Gerazim. The Hebrew is "Samaritan" style, which makes sense because Samaritans believed that true worship could only occur on Mount Gerazim (John 4:5-21) Jesus replied, "Believe me, dear woman, the time is coming when it will no longer matter whether you worship the Father on this mountain [Gerazim] or in Jerusalem. The original "Ten Commandments" were supposed to be from about 1500 B.C.E., or 3,500 years ago. This might be from nearly 2,000 years ago. Likely from a Samaritan synagogue destroyed between 400 C.E. and 1100 C.E.

This was really good. (Of the 152 page spreads, only the first 47 are about 1941, btw.) The page spread on 40-41 contains a picture with a caption devoted completely to an army barracks that got 50 new bicycles. I wonder if the correct portion was accidentally covered up under the picture of Rutherford on the other side. If so, whoever had the original set of clippings might want to retake this page spread and show what was covered up by the picture.

No problem at all. Some people might have looked at that date and wondered about it, since there was no such thing as a Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1869.

That's because the original had 1869 on it. The date is not relevant to the date of the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (1884) renamed unofficially in 1890 and then officially to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1896. The Society never printed this Bible, but began buying copies to re-distribute as early as 1880. Those copies did not have the Watch Tower name on it. In 1883 the Watch Tower was able to buy a special batch of the Tauchnitz edition Tischendorf translation in large quantities (see picture) to redistribute from Pittsburgh. Those also did not have the Watch Tower name on it. Then sometime around 1909 the Watch Tower paid the printers in London to print a larger quantity with the Watch Tower name on the title page, which the Watch Tower distributed from Brooklyn for a couple of decades.

New Light-Beards are OK! But what about New Dark-Beards?

"Cemetery witnessing" has not been recommended in the United States for many years, although our desire to "comfort those who mourn" might produce an informal situation even if it were not organized from the congregation's perspective. When I was much younger I knew people (including my mother and grandmother) who tried this on Decoration Day (now Memorial Day) back when it was recommended by the Society to do "cemetery witnessing." (probably 1957 to 1963) It was never recommended that it should become a high-profile activity, however.

By way of pure coincidence, I suppose, more scholars put the death of Jesus at about 30 C.E., because Herod was still alive and most scholars put Herod's death in 4 B.C.E. Therefore if Jesus' prophecy was in 30 C.E. about an event coming upon Jerusalem in 70 C.E., then this would also have been a generation of 40 years, which makes the parallel all the more striking. (Psalm 95:10) For 40 years I felt a loathing toward that generation. . . (Hebrews 3:9, 10) . . .for forty years. 10 For this reason I became disgusted with this generation. . . (Matthew 23:36, 37) 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem,. . . Also, I don't know if you followed the discussion about how, if the idea of an overlap was somehow important to "this generation," then the only important part of that overlap would be for those who were already older and potentially dying off before they would see the promised sign. If there is a "Group #1" then it was the older persons already alive, prior to new persons being born in their lifetimes ("Group#2). In Jesus case, he tells these living persons that they will not all pass away before all these things occur. In the "wilderness generation" or "generation of Moses" the promise was just the opposite. That those of that older generation would generally die off, and only Group #2 would survive to see the promise. (Numbers 14:33) 33 Now your sons will become shepherds in the wilderness 40 years, and they will have to answer for your acts of unfaithfulness until the last one of your corpses falls in the wilderness. In the wilderness, Group#1 died and Group#2 (their sons) survived. In the modern day application to 1914, something akin to "Group #1" was already dying off before they could really "discern" anything about a composite "sign" in 1914, and only the very young at the time (Group#2) could have discerned the "sign" in 1914 in order to stretch the timeline to somewhere between 1992 (FWF) and 2010 (Barr). So in the 1914 application, it is really a "Group #3" that survives to see the promise. Both Group#1 and Group#2 completely die out. The 40 year generation in the wilderness is not invoked now, but it created some excitement back in the early 50's of course. For some reason my parents now remember the 1953, 1954 "Armageddon-urgency talks" and have nearly forgotten about 1975: *** w54 10/15 p. 612 A Message of Encouragement and Value *** “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” What a consoling fact that is! All these things would happen in one generation! The sudden worsening of world conditions since World War I, which broke out forty years ago, was here foretold to end within one generation, within the lifetime of people who are now at least 40 years old! *** w54 8/1 p. 478 par. 18 The Purpose of Your Witnessing *** 18 There is no time to lose. This is a most urgent message. Time is fast running out for Satan and his system of things, for they refuse to recognize that the “Gentile times” ended in 1914 and Christ Jesus was then enthroned as earth’s rightful Ruler. We are now forty years within “this generation,” the generation that witnessed the eventful year 1914, the generation doomed to experience Armageddon. (Matt. 23:36; 24:34) Make no mistake about it, that final war is a fixed date on the divine calendar, just as sure to occur on time as all the other purposes of Jehovah have. *** w54 3/1 pp. 150-151 pars. 5-9 Restoration of True Religion Today *** Such a work was prosecuted in a particular way from 1878 to 1918, though similar work still continues with greater intensity, and is known as the “Elisha” work, and this goes on until Armageddon, . . . The end of this old system of things has been manifest since 1914, . . .During the forty years preceding 1914, and the nearly forty years since, every effort has been made to cause false religionists to repent and turn to Jehovah. . . .The time is close at hand for Jehovah to punish these Name-destroyers. *** w50 8/1 p. 229 par. 9 Serving with the Servant *** The 40-year period of time (from 1878 to 1918) was foretold in Scripture prophecy, and generally has been referred to as the “Elijah” or “John the Baptist” work, and so named because it constitutes a large-scale, modern-day fulfillment of their prophetic works. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Even as it it written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger . . . " 40 year periods were emphasized. I included the last one, because the idea of Group#1 and the overlapping Group#2 had already been used many times in such a way that Group#1 according to Rutherford was the Group#1(Elijah) that worked up until 1918, and of course, Rutherford & Knorr & Franz admitted that no discernment of the sign could have been possible prior to the "lightning flashes in the holy Temple" that began when Jesus supposedly arrived at the Temple in 1918. Group#2(Elisha) started in about 1918 and would be expected to work at least 40 years more. By 1961, this idea was updated: The Russellite-era mantle of Elijah that was passed on to "Rutherford-era" Elisha was changed to become the literal time of Rutherford's (updated to be seen as the Elijah work) and passing the work onto the Knorr-era Elisha work in 1942. So, in 1961, we started leaving Russell out of the "Groups," and of course, Russell was finally dropped even from inclusion in the definition of "faithful and discreet slave" as of 2012.

I'm not surprised. You might be surprised at the methods of research used by the Watchtower's writers. Before the Internet (and even long after) these types of Bible commentaries, translations, and Bible dictionaries had been the central components of the Bethel Library, and they were used daily by the writers (and at least one researcher). They were often used as the primary support (and sometimes the only support) needed to reject the WTS teachings and develop new WTS teachings. It's also obvious that these were heavily used in the updated 2013 translation. In 2012 a brother at Patterson showed me an online version of a Hebrew Interlinear that they were using with the ability to edit a translation under it. I asked if it would ever be published for the rest of us in the way that the "Kingdom Interlinear" was published. He said he didn't think so but that it was for another project in the works. If you remember, in the US at least, many of us were already running out of Bibles in our congregations, so it was obvious what that new project was, but the brother could only give a "wink and a nod" about the actual project. If you look closely, you will also see a glimpse of the online Hebrew Interlinear in the video given at Patterson usually shown near the end of a tour. It's only about two seconds out of 10 minutes, but it's very clear if you watch for it. The brother who showed it to me says that several of the persons who worked on that project have dozens of commentaries available on their computers for reference. I personally don't use them as a basis for rejecting the WTS teachings. If something seems not to make complete sense from a Biblical perspective, or if one of our teachings produces potential contradictions with the Bible itself, then I see no problem with looking at the same resources that brothers in the Writing Department at Bethel are doing. The same thing holds true for defending the WTS when I'm sure they are right, but there are commentaries that give even more evidence to support the WTS teaching. A commentary should never be the sole basis for either accepting or rejecting a teaching. Exactly!!! I agree. Good point about the meaning of "this race." The idea was also mentioned in a couple of the commentaries you quoted. The WTS came close to using that idea at one point, but rejected it in favor of the idea that "some of you standing here will not see death before all these things occur." This was approximately the same meaning given for "these contemporaries." It's the idea of "contemporaries" that allows for the current use that takes advantage of the "overlap" idea. So I think this is the meaning that all of us are considering in this thread. Perhaps you are thinking of a more specific application that combines the idea of "this race" and "these contemporaries." If so, you might want to be more specific. If any of us are still around in this system after the currently defined "Group #2" are considered gone, then I think you have probably already anticipated the "new light." I can also give you thousands of good examples of the GB handling the word of God aright, and providing excellent and life-giving counsel and guidance. What we are discussing, however, is an instance where the Bible apparently contradicts the teaching. If we become aware of such a thing, we have a Christian obligation to speak up. All our questions should be cleared up, if possible. It should be a central part of our "hunger" as Christians! (Matthew 5:3) 3 “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, . . .[“those who are beggars for the spirit.”, NWT fn.] (Matthew 5:6) . . .“Happy are those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, . . . (Acts 17:11) . . .for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Your opinion and my opinion and Eoin's and Anna's opinion all have value to me, but none have more value than that subscribed by God, who wants all of us to question, and make sure, and keep testing -- even if what we are testing is the equivalent of an "inspired utterance" or a "deeply entrenched thing" or is in the form of "a letter as though from [the apostles]" -- (2 Thessalonians 2:2) . . . not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired statement or through a spoken message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. I don't think it's a coincidence that this is exactly the same subject under discussion. Jehovah wants us to question anyone who says that, in effect, the day of Jehovah is here. Are you saying we should NOT question it, just because the Governing Body who has given us statements, spoken messages and letters are as though they came from the apostles themselves? According to the Bible we are under obligation to question in order to make sure of the more important things, to "see whether these things were so." And you shouldn't be concerned about such questioning. If something is on a strong foundation, it will obviously stand up to such questioning. If it's built on a weak foundation, then why get overly concerned about the fact that someone is questioning it? I vaguely recall about four instances where Brother Russell had praised and welcomed questions that ultimately resulted in a significant change of doctrine. The only one I can remember right now was about the 1904 change that moved the time of trouble to just after 1914 rather than the few years prior to 1914. He wrote in the July 1, 1904 issue, p. 197: "The matter seems so plain and simple now that we wonder that we or our many critical readers did not notice it long ago." This is another interesting and potentially important point about why Jesus would invoke that particular expression (heaven and earth) and commentaries you already quoted even tied that to the idea to what Jesus had said earlier: (Matthew 5:18) 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place. (Matthew 24:35) 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away. You might be tying this back to the idea of the "race" (another meaning of "generation") of Jesus' audience. I don't doubt at all that there are some wider, important implications here. But I can't help but think your examples are a little bit TOO appropriate. They don't help at all. You mentioned: "like the example of the Hebrews having to wait until 'this generation' needed to pass before they could enter the promised land." (Numbers 32:13) 13 So Jehovah’s anger blazed against Israel and he made them wander about in the wilderness for 40 years, until all the generation that was doing evil in the eyes of Jehovah came to its end. It should be pretty obvious, then, why Brother Splane didn't think of this particular verse when he asked the question about what verse first comes to mind when we think about the meaning of "generation." I can't think of any more appropriate verse than the one you alluded to, yet brother Splane went with Exodus 1:6 about the generation of Joseph's brothers. Thanks for pointing it out!

If you look at the original version that Queen Esther posted here you can see that the words were translated from " CUÍDENSE HERMANOS ." This just means "Take Care, Brothers" Also, if you run the whole thing through Bing translator, it can clear up a couple of the issues that remained from Google translator. (It also translated "died" instead of "killed.") Neither translator is perfect, of course. It helps more to have family members that speak fluent Spanish.

Allen, I was pleased to note that out of the 500-plus lines of copy-and-paste text in your post, that you wrote about 9 lines of this post yourself, which I have quoted here. While I would agree that the WTS is proclaiming the "Good News of God's Kingdom since the end of the Gentile Times" this does not absolve us from the need to proclaim it more accurately. (Philippians 1:9-10) 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, . . . I think you would even agree that greater accuracy is usually the reason that teachings are adjusted by the Governing Body. With very few exceptions, the changes made in the last couple decades have included evidence that indicates a better and more accurate understanding of the Bible. I think that a close study of Jehovah's word, sometimes gives us evidence that there are exceptions, and the two-lifespan overlapping generation is apparently one of the those exceptions. You yourself just supplied several resources of Bible commentary that indicates some reasons why we might want to reconsider the Watchower's current teaching on this subject. I think we all agree with the first part of that from the words "It's important" right up to the words "and deep prayer." But you surely can't mean the second part. The Governing Body has provided half-a-dozen different views of the meaning of "this Generation" since 1931. If you held precisely to any of the meanings taught since 1931 up to about 2009 you might be in danger of disfellowshipping. I happen to agree with one of those prior definitions, but I don't insist that it is the responsibility of others to stay true to the particular view the Governing Body once promoted that I think stayed truest to the Biblical principles. I believe what you should have said was that we should appreciate the work of the Governing Body in presenting an understanding of the Bible that they have diligently worked at in order to convey an appreciation for the overall consistent message, and so that we can be guided to learn and study further. We should appreciate the Bibles, publications and study aids, and the organizational structure provided that encourages continual Bible talks, Bible readings, and continual discussions of various Bible-related topics. We should also respect their traditional, inherited views as long as they can be reasonably supported Biblically even after we handle our own responsibility of "making sure of the more important things." But you can't reasonably support the 6 or 7 different views since 1931, since all of those separate views contradict each other. You haven't said, but you probably accept the view that has been promoted only for the last 7 years out of the last 85 years. I believe your point, and partially the opposite of your point, is well documented in that there have been 6 or more different definitions of "this generation" and this underscores the fallacies of personal understanding. They obviously were not all in harmony with scripture, or there should have been no reason to drop even one of these definitions as obsolete. The Watchtower no longer considers the views it held about "this generation" for 130 years, from 1879 to 2009, to have been scriptural, does it? The Governing Body rejected 90 years of its teachings on the subject as no longer scriptural, since 1919. This surely highlights the need for each of us to to prayerfully consider the teaching, and "make sure of the more important things."

Relevant portions of this commentary are available on Google books, here. We have another view that the parousia does not start until after the events of the tribulation and cosmic chaos. This makes sense, in context, but it is quite different from the Watchtower's view that the parousia begins well before the great tribulation, more than 102 years before it. The "generation" in the view of the commentary is not a part of the parousia; it is the generation to whom Jesus spoke in the first century, in the lifetime of his audience. So here we have another application where only a small piece of this, or technically none of it, can be understood to support the Watchtower view. The generation is only in the first century and includes the fall of Jerusalem in 70 and the accompanying tribulation of that time, but the parousia event happens after the "stars fall from heaven" and the "powers of the heaven will be shaken." Because his view evidently does not agree with your view, Allen, it appears to be just another random comment from a commentary. Was there a reason you included it? Interesting again that you have found another commentary that gives more reasons to reject the Watchtower's view of the "generation." (This is actually pretty much the same information as the previous commentary you had just quoted above this one.) The idea is that it refers to the first-century contemporaries of Jesus who would live to see its fulfillment. That would agree with information included in a post responding to Anna, that contemporaries of Jesus could include those born, for example, 80 years prior to Jesus' words in 33 CE, and 80 years after. (80 was not meant to be a definitive number of years, just an example of a lifespan based on a Bible reference. (Psalm 90:10) . . .The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong.. . . Just as the previous commentary, this disagrees with the Watchtower view, because it limits "these things" to the first century, and limits "this generation" to the first century. Just outside of the content that you quoted, there is a statement that says that the types of events mentioned in the earlier part of Mathew -- that part that the Watchtower accepts as a "composite sign" -- that these will characterize the entire period between the comings of Jesus. That would include all centuries from the first until the present - a view that Russell held for a while. The quotes you gave from this reference agree with everything that all of us already agree on: you, me, Watchtower, etc. One of his themes "Matthew - All Authority in Heaven and on Earth" highlights what we said earlier about the "authority" with which Jesus spoke. You didn't say why you included this particular reference, I'll assume it was just another commentary that mentioned Matthew 24:34. He doesn't have much to say about it except to say that Jesus was right. Here is another commentary that supports things that have been said in this thread although it does not provide any specific support to the unique teachings about "generation" proposed by the Watchtower's teaching. He agrees that "certainly not" is an alternative for the emphatic negative where the NWT uses "by no means." Good to see further agreement on that. He notes that "this generation" is used in Matthew and elsewhere especially of Jesus' contemporaries with reference to "judgment." I hadn't seen this before, but it confirms something we said earlier about how references to "this generation" are most often associated with the "wicked" or "unfaithful" and impending judgment, but that even the disciples could be addressed similarly when Jesus referred to "this [faithless] generation." Good to see agreement on that, too. This commentary very directly agrees with the comments made here associating the generation with the lifetime of some of those contemporaries who were alive at the time this prophecy was made. That part bears repeating, I think: This verse refers to the same time-scale as 16:28 (which was also concerned with the fulfillment of Dan 7:13-14): “some of those standing here will certainly not taste death before . . .” (cf. also 10:23, with the same Daniel reference: “you will not go through all the towns of Israel before . . .”) This is, of course, quite different from the Watchtower explanation after 2009, which now requires two consecutive lifetimes, with at least a minimal overlap. The idea here is that a view like the Watchtower's is to "ignore both the clearly temporal nature of the disciples’ question and the clear temporal limitations expressed in other words in the parallel passages noted above." I'm assuming you included this, not because it agrees with or helps to defend the Watchtower view, but only because it was another available commentary that happened to mention Matthew 24:34.

The overlapping generation was first presented by John Barr just months before he died. He was born in 1913 and, technically he qualified to be in Group #1, which would have implicitly allowed Group #1 to end in 2010. If there were any 20-year-old anointed contemporaries who were also alive while Barr was alive in 2010, then they could potentially live for another 100 years, and this might imply the possibility that the system could go on until 2110. Brother Barr was effectively dismissed from Group #1 when Brother Splane gave the famous presentation based on a chart that used F.W.Franz as a good example of Group #1. It raised the bar (as it were) by stating that the person should have already been anointed in 1914, not merely someone now known to be anointed who was "on hand" in 1914. Note the difference: *** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report *** Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.” *** w14 1/15 p. 31 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? *** Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year. The first version in 2009 (Wt, 6/15/2010) could have implied the second, but only the second version made it explicit. Then again, one could still argue that Brother Barr was already "anointed" in 1913 in the sense that Ephesians states: (Ephesians 1:4, 5) 4 as he chose us to be in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and unblemished before him in love. 5 For he foreordained us to be adopted as his own sons through Jesus Christ, according to his good pleasure and will, The choice of young Brother Sanderson who was assigned to the Governing Body in 2012 was supposed to have been directly related to this new teaching. Very few "anointed" in the second group were young, and still had a respectable "high profile" in the organization.

This reference contained nothing in the portion you quoted that contradicts any view expressed here so far by any of us, or by the WTS. I think it perfectly supports the view of Eoin, Anna, me, and probably you, too. It isn't likely that the writer agrees with the idea that there is a specific "generation" related to the length of a lifetime in our day as there was in the first century. But the reference, as quoted, agrees with all of us. I have never seen this commentary before. I appreciate the perspective and agree that we can sometimes find an added depth of meaning by learning more about the wide range of commentaries and literary sources within Judaism. I am finding this author (H. W. Basser) to be a bit "disjointed" and undisciplined, but he certainly has a knack for drawing connections among a wide variety of resources. But he is not much use in supporting the Watchtower's teachings on his subject. You didn't mention whether you agreed with any of his points, however. And I don't see that he has here added anything specific to the discussion one way or another, anyway. But I am very glad to have learned of this resource. (A good portion of the book is available on Google books, here.) Yes. Finally! Here we get to a commentary that takes a stand that is relevant to the Watchtower's teaching on this subject. Some of it agrees well with the Watchtower's view, and some does not. The relevant portions are available on Google books, here. Note especially page 63, but the entire commentary on Matthew 24 is useful. The commentary and MacArthur's corresponding writings and speeches available on the gty.org site provide a wealth of information relevant to a good understanding of synteleia, for example, as the "final end" rather than a loose long-drawn-out conclusion. He does not make use of the special "royal visitation" meaning of parousia, at least in the terms that it is used by the disciples, but elsewhere he shows how Jesus (and Paul, et al) imbue the word with the more far-reaching technical meaning. These points are excellent for a separate discussion However, the portion you quoted gave some good evidence that highlights the problems of the Watchtower's teaching within the context of the meaning of "this generation." You didn't say why you chose this particular portion but this is worth considering. First, he works with the "generation" in the context of Jesus' statement that "even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that he is near, right at the door." MacArthur applies "all these things" to include all that has been mentioned in verses 4 to 14 (wars, earthquakes, persecution, preaching) just as the Watchtower does. All the things seen, all the "signs" right up until the "sign of the Son of man" would be seen in the generation living during the end time. He says: "The signs of Matthew 24-25 will be experienced within one generation, the generation living when Christ returns." MacArthur goes as far as dismissing the effect of Jesus' own words on the first-century generation. He spends some time on what looks like a very minor point, however, and it is probably more devastating to the WTS theory than most of us realize at first. Notice how it's not necessary to translate v. 33 as "he is near, right at the door." The same word literally means "it is near, right at the door." This doesn't seem to make much of a difference, but it makes us think about how Luke either quotes or paraphrases the same idea as if it the actual better rendering was "it is near at the door" because Luke spells it out as "the kingdom of God is near" (Luke 21:31). Remember that the Watch Tower publications do not really accept the words of Luke, here. That's because we have created a problem with the word "parousia" so that both Jesus and the Kingdom are already "here" not "near." Now it's easy to say that Jesus is here and present, but that he will actually be "near" at the same time, because he basically arrives twice in the Watchtower's view: once in 1914 and once again on "Judgment Day." So, it's therefore easier to focus on the beginning of the Kingdom as having arrived in 1914, and then the focus is on the arrival of Jesus on "Judgment Day." But here, we see more explicitly and clearly, that the "Kingdom of God" has not really arrived, at least in the sense of a "parousia." Even if the word had carried only the idea of a mere "presence" in the mind of the disciples who asked, the question was about when Jesus would establish a permanent presence as King of the Kingdom. Earlier this same book had said: "They were not thinking of Jesus' returning, because they had no idea of His leaving, but were thinking rather of His perfected Messianic presence, which they expected Him to manifest presently." (p.11) The WTS prefers to say that the parousia of the Kingdom was NOT proved to be near by "all these things," but was already here. The Watchtower's explanation is literally on the opposite side of the door, from Jesus' explanation. This is of course the same problem we have in explaining how the birth pangs continue to go on for a generation after the birth of the Kingdom in 1914. Other than that, you quoted a large portion of the commentary that is intended to indicate that the generation cannot be the generation of wicked mankind in general (which the Watchtower agreed with, in part, for a time). He also makes a case that it cannot be the generation of Israel, or even of anointed Christians: "This generation could not, in this view, include any of the redeemed alive now." That is (oddly) the position that MacArthur ends up agreeing with. [To be continued...]

I think that Matthew 24, in context, does indicate that you are on the right track. Jesus said 'this generation will not die off before all these things happen.' He said it to give them confidence that these significant events would surely occur even though they would not occur immediately. Some of them might die before these significant events happened: (Matthew 24:9) Then people will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name. Others might be born before the end: (Matthew 24:19) Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! Of the disciples who asked the question about the timing of this "parousia" event upon Jerusalem's Temple buildings, some of them could die from persecution, or perhaps even old age and health reasons prior to that event. At least one of the disciples had a wife, and therefore, probably children, too. Jesus did not know the day and the hour, and therefore he might not have known if any of these particular disciples (apostles) he was addressing would actually survive until the judgment day upon Jerusalem. So Jesus could not necessarily say, as he said earlier: (Matthew 16:28) . . .Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.” In Matthew 16, Jesus would give three of them (Peter, James and John) a glimpse of the parousia through a vision right after saying it. But in Matthew 24 he is speaking of an event that would come 37 years later. So he would not promise that all of them would personally survive, but he could say that the "generation" would survive to see the event. Notice, too, that it was the same group of disciples (plus Andrew) who asked Jesus the question about the Temple buildings: (Mark 13:3, 4) .As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?” By referencing the whole generation instead of just the 4 disciples, this allowed Jesus to say the same thing to a living generation of people that could match what he had said to just the disciples earlier. These disciples would undoubtedly take it to mean: "Truly I say to you that there are some of those currently alive in this generation who will not taste death at all until they see the sign of the Son of man's Kingdom as evidenced by this judgment upon Jerusalem." No matter what Jesus meant, at the time he said it, there were older people in this generation, some of whom might die within the next days, and more for the next 37 years, and there would be new persons born in this time period. Imagine Jesus saying what he said, and then imagine that the generation had gone on for another 70 years. Most if not all of them would have died off by then. The remnants of an older generation were already beginning to die out from the moment Jesus stated the prophecy, and he was already speaking about living contemporaries who would not completely die out before the fulfillment. Therefore, any argument about overlapping groups in this generation would necessarily include a group of older persons who were already a living component of "this generation." This isn't just theoretical. An 80-year-old who was part of 'that generation' that Jesus referenced in 33 C.E. would have been born in about 48 B.C.E., just before Antipater the Idumaean appointed two of his sons, respectively, as governor of Jerusalem and governor of Galilee in 47 B.C.E. They could remember a time even before these brothers were named tetrarchs by Rome, and before Herod was named "King of the Jews" by Rome around 40 B.C.E. An 80-year-old would also have remembered when Herod built this temple as a long-lasting project on a magnificent scale starting around 20 B.C.E., and not considered complete until about 20 years after his death under King Agrippa II: (John 2:20) 20 The Jews then said: “This temple was built in 46 years, and will you raise it up in three days?” Therefore if we were to think of a generation as living contemporaries made up of overlapping groups, then the most likely groups who were the significant components of that generation included the older persons who were already dying, and the 'millions then living who would never die' until they saw the Temple event that Jesus warned them about. It's not necessary to think of it this way, but if we could think of an important single point in a two-team relay race over a course of time, then the only two appropriate groups would be the older group already dying out who were already overlapping with a group that Jesus promised would not die out. Therefore the time of "transition" between the two relay groups was at that point of time in 33 C.E. If Jesus had referred to another group (a third group!) that would arise after the second group died out, then Jesus would obviously have been considered a charlatan and a false prophet. Yet, this is the argument of the Watchtower in making a modern-day application of Matthew 24. The entire prophecy of Matthew 24 works without having to tie it "literally" to a second fulfillment at the beginning of a specific generation prior to the final Day of Judgment. If there were such a legitimate date, however, then the only two overlapping groups of any reasonable importance to the definition of "this generation" would have started (group 1) less than 80 years prior to the start of that date and ended (group 2) up to 80 years after that date. If 1914 were legitimate, the span of the two groups would overlap from about 1834 to 1994. Therefore, it was predictable that, by 1995, the Watchtower would change it to a group of contemporaries no longer bound by a specific lifespan. (Even the book by Ray Franz predicted these types of changes.) The Watchtower chose to quote Robert Wohl, a "worldly" professor of history who had written a book with a most intriguing title: *** w95 11/1 p. 18 par. 7 A Time to Keep Awake *** In line with the above, professor of history Robert Wohl wrote in his book The Generation of 1914: “A historical generation is not defined by its chronological limits . . . It is not a zone of dates.” In one sense they had done the right thing. As one might expect from a "faithful and wise servant," it was wisdom, and it had come at the proper time. This is even how it was presented at the time: *** w95 11/1 p. 17 par. 6 A Time to Keep Awake *** Eager to see the end of this evil system, Jehovah’s people have at times speculated about the time when the “great tribulation” would break out, even tying this to calculations of what is the lifetime of a generation since 1914. However, we “bring a heart of wisdom in,” not by speculating about how many years or days make up a generation, but by thinking about how we “count our days” in bringing joyful praise to Jehovah. (Psalm 90:12) Rather than provide a rule for measuring time, the term “generation” as used by Jesus refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period, with their identifying characteristics. That was a statement that I thought came much closer to the spirit of Jesus' words.