Farkel wrote an excellent piece (as always) on Matthew 25 and the WTS version of what Jesus meant as if Jesus meant something he didn’t say. This is a similar subject and takes a piece from the Greatest Man book which for some reason I found myself flicking through again. (I previously posted a short piece on the Prodigal Son) It is sad in a way, I kept this book thinking it may have some value as a commentary on the life of Jesus but on rereading sections of it I feel inclined to toss it away.
So many times the book interjects its interpretation of what Jesus meant and in chapter 63 there is a contradiction in the line of reasoning. In this chapter it covers the portion of the gospels (Luke 9:49,50 and Mark 9 38-50) where the disciples complain to Jesus that a certain man is expelling demons in Jesus’ name even though he is not one of the accompanying disciples. In response Jesus tells them to leave the man alone with the words “he that is not against us is for us.”
This sentiment recorded twice in the gospels goes against the WTS idea that “he that is not for us is against us and God.” To explain this the Greatest Man book says:
It was not necessary for this man to follow Jesus to be on his side. The Christian congregation had not been set up, so his not being part of the their group did not mean that he was of a separate congregation.
Jesus doesn’t exactly say that. He simply said “he that is not against is for us.” He made no mention of congregations nor added caveats on when this man should stop what he was doing and join this “congregation”. But to leave Jesus words at face value might cause problems to the WTS belief system of having to take sides, of which, only their side of full obedience to the WTS is the right side.
The second portion in this same chapter where the WTS puts its own slant on things is our beloved Matthew 18; you know, that bit about handling problems. If after failing to resolve the issue in person or with one or two witnesses, Jesus says “speak to the congregation.” The Greatest Man book says:
Jesus says, take the matter to “the congregation,” that is, to the responsible overseers of the congregation who can render a judicial decision.
Here lies the contradiction, if previously Jesus was talking about a man who wasn’t a member of the congregation of Christians because it didn’t exist why does he frame this answer about a congregation? Is it or is it not the Christian congregation? And where do the overseers come in? They did not exist at the time Jesus spoke these words. No one is going to argue over the precise meaning of the Greek word translated as “congregation” surely? Jesus meant what he said.
The WTS can’t accept Jesus simple instructions. Jesus didn’t say take it to the overseers, who will form a committee of three and judge the person and then enforce public humiliation. Even if the matter is unresolved Jesus said, “let him be to you just as a man of the nations.” He didn’t say, “let him be to the congregation just as a man of the nations.”
I suppose, if you create a religion full of rules and regulations and an idea that everyone is against you, then you have to twist the Bible to make it fit your doctrines. If you believe that you are appointed to dish out the “meat in due season” you can flavor it anyway you like. Besides, if you believe the Greek scriptures were written for, and about, just your own elite group you can add to it anyway you like.
I haven’t thrown the book out, yet. I've put it on the very top shelf out of sight. I can’t be reading that anymore. It seems to have no redeeming value and is just part of the collection (very small) of books saved as a shaming reminder of my former belief system.
Thirdson
'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'
Edited for missing slashes