This is the summary of the rumored new light from the 2012 Annual Meeting, as posted by cedars.
- The Faithful and Discreet Slave was NOT appointed at Pentecost 33CE, meaning that there has not been a continuous line of members of the Slave Class on the earth down through the ages. The Slave Class was only appointed for the first time by Christ in 1919.
- The Faithful and Discreet Slave is a small group of anointed brothers during Jesus’ presence serving at Watchtower Headquarters who are directly involved in the preparing and dispensing of spiritual food. The individual members of the Governing Body are not the Faithful and Discreet Slave. They only act as the Faithful and Discreet Slave when they are working as a collective body in making decisions regarding the dispensing of spiritual food.
- The “domestics” of Matthew 24:45 are all those who are fed spiritually by the Governing Body, whether of the anointed or “other sheep”.
- The events described in Matthew 24:46,47 now refer to Jesus coming during the Great Tribulation and giving the Governing Body their reward in heaven along with the rest of the anointed.
- The “belongings” of Matthew 24:47 refer to all of Christ’s heavenly and earthly interests.
- Despite founding the Watch Tower Society, Charles Taze Russell was not part of the Slave Class because he was not alive and serving at Headquarters when Christ made his selection in 1919.
Note two new features here: there is a postponement of the appointment of the F&DS from the first century to 1919, and there is also a postponement of promotion of the F&DS over all Christ's belongings from 1919 to Armageddon. According to one report, "this is based on the fact that the greek word for 'arriving' is similar to those in verse 30 & 42 that mention Jesus' 'coming'. " This word is erkhomai which is the word that occurs in the references to the coming of the Son of Man in eschatological judgment. Of course, there is only one coming presumed in the text; parousia and erkhomai occur interchangeably. In v. 27, the parousia of the Son of Man is like lightning that "comes" (exerkhetai) from the east. In v. 30 the coming (erkhomenon) of the Son of Man is heralded by a sign (sèmeion) which obviously corresponds to the "sign of your parousia" (sèmeion tès sès parousias) in v. 3. In v. 37 and 39, the parousia of the Son of Man is like the Flood that comes (èlthen) and swept the people away. In v. 42 and 44, the disciples are admonished on the basis of these examples to stay awake because they do not know when the Son of Man is "coming" (erkhetai). The idea of two comings, first a parousia and then a coming in judgment, is one that is imposed on the text. But that is not what I really want to discuss. I rather want to focus on what this coming (erkhomai) implies.
Within the context of the parable, this coming signifies the return of the master to the household, with a rewarding of the faithful slave. The interpretation that prevailed for most of the twentieth century associated this with the coming of Jesus in kingly power in 1914, his coming to his temple in 1918, and the refining the anointed remnant and promotion of the slave over all his belongings in 1919. That is why the coming (erkhomai) was interpreted as the parousia that occurred in 1914 instead of some later coming at Armageddon. This interpretation, although conspiciously eisegetical, makes some sense out of the narrative structure of the parable. The Master, representing Jesus, goes away on a journey. This corresponds to Jesus' ascension to heaven in 33 C.E., leaving the earthly organization in the hands of the anointed slave class. Then for a duration, the Master is absent and the anointed feed the domestics, including the accurate truth that the Master was going to return in 1914. Then the judgment and winnowing of the remnant occurred, with the promotion of the slave over the whole household in 1919, which encompasses a new great multitude of other sheep coming into the organization.
I do not understand how the new interpretation is supposed to make any sense of the narrative structure of the parable. I'm curious of what explanation the Society will devise (provided, of course, that the rumored doctrinal changes are true). The Master in the parable is absent for a duration, and the slave is in charge of taking care of the domestics during that duration. The appointment of the slave occurs because the Master is leaving the household. So if that event corresponds not to 33 C.E. but to 1919, then in what possible sense does Jesus LEAVE in 1919? The Society has long claimed the opposite: Jesus arrives in Kingly power in 1914, and he comes into his temple in 1918. Furthermore, there seems to now be a denial that there was a slave prior to 1919. But the parable does not imply that there were no slaves in the household prior to the departure of the Master. No... they were already there. The only difference is the new responsibility that the Master gives them during the time he is away. I do understand that we are only hearing second-hand reports of the "new light", so the reports might not reflect the actual new teaching accurately, but so far the doctrinal change sounds incoherent to me.
What I find interesting is that the point I'm making was made some 40 years ago by Fred Franz against the kind of position the Society is now adopting. The arguments he makes should be ones that the Society might want to counter, lest puzzled R&F come across these points in the WT Library.
*** ka chap. 17 pp. 341-342 pars. 21-23 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
Although raising the question about the “faithful and discreet slave,” Jesus was in no doubt about who this “slave” was. Jesus doubtless had in mind that “servant” of Jehovah God, that “Israel of God.” There would be no mistake in fixing upon that composite “servant.” With the price of his own blood he had bought that Israel of God as his slave, and in the illustration given in his prophecy he could refer to it as a composite “slave,” one that would prove “faithful and discreet.” Since Jesus spoke of this “slave” in his prophecy concerning the “sign of [his] presence and of the conclusion of the system of things,” did that composite “faithful and discreet slave” first come into existence during his “presence” or parousia from 1914 onward?
No; for Jesus’ illustration portrays the lord of the “slave” as going away, as a “man traveling abroad that left his house and gave the authority to his slaves.” (Mark 13:34) So the “faithful and discreet slave” is one “whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time.” (Matthew 24:45) It was more than nineteen hundred years ago, at his ascension to heaven, that the “master” of the composite “slave” went away, leaving the “slave” with instructions to feed the “domestics.” (Matthew 28:16-20) The “domestics” were not the family of the master but were his “domestic servants” (H. A. W. Meyer) or his “household staff.” (New English Bible) They were slaves, just the same as the “faithful and discreet slave” charged with feeding them. Thus they were all a body of slaves, and were all subject to the same “master.” All were obligated to be “faithful and discreet.”
Jesus’ illustration began fulfillment at his departure in the year 33 C.E., and the composite “slave” has been existing since then, namely, “the Israel of God,” the spirit-begotten, anointed congregation of Christ the membership of which will finally reach 144,000. (Revelation 7:4-8; 14:1-3) The historical records show that at the beginning of the invisible parousia of the “master” at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914 there was still a remnant of this “slave” class on earth. Consequently, the composite “slave” has lived to see the “sign” of the Master’s parousia or “presence.”
Any thoughts?