Misapplication of Matt. 25:40 in Watchtower Study on Sunday

by The Searcher 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  The analogy of a shepherd who would give his life for his sheep has always seemed a lunatic idea to me.

  Imagine your are living in Palestine in the first century trying feed your family by raising sheep for wool and meat

  and using their fat for candles.

  Your wife and children depend on you for their well-being. Except there is just one problem: you are a lunatic.

  If a predator comes along and threatens your flock you throw yourself headlong into a suicidal confrontation that leaves you dead

  and bleeding on the ground.

  With the shepherd dead the predator is free to pick off the sheep one by one.

  Now I ask you, what exactly did THAT accomplish??
• 

  FrankieGoesToHollywood

  Well, I personally think that the "arrival of the son of man" and the "end" or "conclusion of system of things" are two completely diffrent events.

  1 Corinthians 15:23-26

  Jesus deciples asked 3 specific questions in Matthew 24:3: the destruction of Jerusalem, the arrival of the son of man and the "end" of system of things wich would occur after the millenia reign!

  All those who give Jesus the "kiss of peace" at his arrival will have nothing to fear. Most people will, but not all, sadly enough.
• 

  Bobcat

  Frankie:

  Jesus deciples asked 3 specific questions in Matthew 24:3

  The NICNT-Matthew commentary (pp. 894-95) says this about the disciples question:

  The twofold focus of the question is indicated by the two interrogative markers, "When?" and "What sign?" as well as by the terms used, "these things" (which in context refers to the destruction of the temple just predicted) and "your parousia and the end of the age." 12 Note the difference from the wording of the question in Mark, which also has two parts ("When will these things be, and what what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished") but in which the same subject, "these things," makes the two parts parallel rather than distinct. In Mark the disciples ask only about the fulfillment of Jesus' prediction about the temple, not about the parousia and the end of the age. It appears therefore that Matthew has deliberately expanded the question (using some of the same terms but now in a new way) to make it clear that the discourse that follows is not concerned only with the destruction of the temple.

  Footnote 12 says:

  These two terms ("parousia" and "end of the age") are linked together as a single subject by the lack of a resumptive article before "end of the age."

  Another indicator that there is only two subjects addressed by Jesus (in Matthew) is the use of peri de ("But about" or "But concerning") in 24:36. Note that the NWT leaves the "but" untranslated.) Peri de is used to mark a change of subject or a change in the aspect of a subject already under consideration. Compare its use in Matthew 22:31; See Paul's use of it in 1 Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12 where he uses it to move from one issue to another. Its use in Mt 24:36 breaks Jesus' answer into two parts, 24:4-24:35 and 24:36-25:46.

  I think the NWT leaves the "but" (de) in 24:36 untranslated because the translators believed that the whole discourse (24:4-25:46) represents a single answer to both questions.
• 

  FrankieGoesToHollywood

  Thanks for info Bobcat!

  However, Matthew 24:36 is about the Christ´s arrival. Jesus didn´t link this event to any cataclysmic action. In Matthew 25:31, still answering the deciples´s questions, he is sitting on the "throne of glory" judging all the people of the nations. It could be an event occuring after the millenia reign, the very same as the parable of the sheep and goat´s.

  The sheep would inherit the heavenly kingdom but Revelation talks about an uproar after the millenia reign. How could they have been blessed by the Father if the parable of the sheep and goat´s would occur during the Christ´s arrival, before the millenium?
• 

  mP

  Frankie

  Jesus deciples asked 3 specific questions in Matthew 24:3: the destruction of Jerusalem, the arrival of the son of man and the "end" of system of things wich would occur after the millenia reign!

  All those who give Jesus the "kiss of peace" at his arrival will have nothing to fear. Most people will, but not all, sadly enough.

  MP:

  Wy cant you accept that the son of man arrived when jesus said it would about 70 ad with the fall of the temple ? What if titus was the son of a god, a god called vespasian. The wicked generation were the jews who refused to accept the roman rule and rebelled. What if xianity was an invention just like all other religions. Why dont you believe josephus when he says vespaisan was the messiah ?

  nearly all caesars were made gods by the roman senate. ig uess when your that powerful and can literally take life you are a god.

  Frankie

  he is sitting on the "throne of glory" judging all the people of the nation

  mP:

  sounds just like caesar.
• 

  mP

  frankie

  How could they have been blessed by the Father if the parable of the sheep and goat´s would occur during the Christ´s arrival, before the millenium?

  mP:

  The peaceful jews Were blessed when the romans who killed off all the rebellious jewish factions who were terrorizing the peaceful jews who were cooperating with the romans.
• 

  The Searcher

  @ BOBCAT

  "Here is the really fascinating part. Both sheep and goats profess to not knowing that when they did good deeds to "the least of these my brothers" (a phrase which seems to be all inclusive of the disciple community - from greatest to least, as it were), that they were doing these things (or failing to) to Jesus. Both sheep and goats act as if there is no ongoing relationship between themselves and Jesus. The wording does, in fact, seem to differentiate Jesus' disciples from these sheep and goats from among "all the nations."

  You've really done it now!! :)

  What you have articulated above is a fleeting thought which I almost as quickly dismissed a while back. I reasoned that only those who accepted Christ (2 Thess. 1:6-9) would merit God's approval. However, Jesus himself said, " for he that is not against us is for us. For whoever gives YOU a cup of water to drink on the ground that YOU belong to Christ, I truly tell YOU, he will by no means lose his reward." (Mark 9:40,41)

  This harmonises with your reasoning that neither group in the judgement comprehended that they had helped/hindered Christ's brothers!!

  Just as Paul had no idea he was persecuting Christ by attacking the Christians.

  Thanks for sharing this facet of the gem! Time for readjusting of thinking!!
• 

  mP

  @searcher:

  Perhaps Pauls persecution story is bullshit, after all theres no proof of it at all. Rome wouldnt allow one religious nut to kill other nutters. Its bad for business to kill tax payers and slaves.
• 

  Bobcat

  Searcher:

  I was tossing around the idea in my head that this view of the parable might make sense of Revelation 3:10 (NWT):

  Because you [Jesus' disciples] kept the word about my endurance, I will also keep you from the hour of test, which is to come upon the whole inhabited earth, to put a test upon those dwelling on the earth.

  It seems to present the idea of some sort of test of the rest of humanity after disciples have "kept the word of [Jesus'] endurance.

  In the sheep/goats parable, if Jesus' 'arrival' is placed at/near the beginning of the GT, the sending off into reward/punishment would be at the final part of the GT. The time from the beginning of the GT up to the battle of Armageddon would represent the time during which "all the nations" are divided based on their demeanor towards "the least of these my brothers." With religion under severe stress at that time, it would represent a "test." The parable itself does not hint at how many would choose either way. (Similar to the ten virgin parable in 25:1-12. 5 wise and 5 foolish leaves the amount who would end up either way a mystery.)

  The sheep of Matthew 25:37 being called "righteous ones" would be on the basis of Matthew 10:40-42.

  By the way, that was an interesting comparison with Paul professing not to know Jesus when Jesus confronted him. It is very much like how the goats respond. Only, in their case, they simply did nothing. Unfortunately, for the goats (in the parable), they were being divided off based on what they did or did not do. (Ebed-Melech would be a similar example of the sheep. Promised survival for helping Jeremiah. His help was counted as an evidence of trust in Jehovah. Compare Jer 38:7-13; 39:15-18)

  Another side note is the phrase "the hour of test." (See link for various renderings.) "Hour," as John uses it in his letters and Revelation has a meaning similar to our "time." It is not a reference to length of time. Robertson's Word Pictures points out that John's use of "hour" in Rev 14:6 (as an example) is idiomatic:

  "(he hora elthen [literally, "the hour has come"]). Second aorist (prophetic use) active indicative of erchomai. Common idiom in John's Gospel (Joh 2:4; Joh 4:21, Joh 4:23; Joh 5:25, Joh 5:28; Joh 7:30, etc.)."

  In other words, "the hour of test" is the same as our English expression, "the time of test." It has no reference to how long (or "brief") the period in question will be. Only that there is a "time " for it. "One hour," on the other hand, would refer to "a brief period." (Rev 17:12; 18:10, 17, 19)

  Thanks for your thoughts, Searcher.

  Take Care
• 

  never a jw

  Terry,

  Thank you. I was trying to figure out what the heck everyone was talking about until you offered the timely rescue. Thank you. Why waste time on something a mortal who believed himself to be the Messiah, said 2,000 years ago. He never kept his promise anyway, to come before his generation ended.