The Watchtower Attempts to Eliminate Discrepancies in Authority

by Emery 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Leolaia said:

    That was precisely the same point I was making too. The appointment occurs when the master goes away, not when he comes back.

    Leo, maybe you can add background on the difference between the words used for the TWO separate appointments (upon leaving and upon returning).

    Technically the master appoints the FWS as "ruler over his household" when he departs (verse 45), but then appoints him as "ruler over all his goods" when he returns (verse 47) after finding that the head slave faithfully performed the assigned management of the household (i.e. feeding other domestics with meat in due season, etc).

    What about the evil slave? How can the Society truly claim securely to be the faithful slave when the 'return of the master' (according to the parable one's identity as the faithful or wicked slave depends on one's conduct AT THE TIME THE MASTER RETURNS, i.e. in OUR FUTURE) doesn't happen until the Great Tribulation?

    Not to mention:

    Who ever heard of a prophecy that had TWO possible outcomes?

    The whole idea of GB turning the FDS parable into a two-tailed prophecy justifying their existence is a conversion that needs a sleight of hand to perform (like Jesus' turning water into wine).

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Leo, maybe you can add background on the difference between the words used for the TWO separate appointments (upon leaving and upon returning).

    Well the language that is used is borrowed directly from the story of Joseph in the OT-LXX (as well as in parallels in Josephus, the Testament of Joseph, and Joseph and Asenath). The plot is somewhat similar: Joseph was first appointed over Potipher's house, then over the nation. The feeding that Joseph does at the appointed time, however, occurs after his grander appointment as vizier and the statement about the servant being placed over all his belongings derives from the Potipher story, not from the later vizier story. So the parable uses OT language but develops it in its own distinctive way. The parable has first a temporary appointment over the household to manage affair's in the master's absence; the second appointment over all the master's belongings is a permanent and much broader promotion to manage all the master's properties beyond the household itself.

    Technically the master appoints the FWS as "ruler over his household" when he departs (verse 45), but then appoints him as "ruler over all his goods" when he returns (verse 47) after finding that the head slave faithfully performed the assigned management of the household (i.e. feeding other domestics with meat in due season, etc).

    Yeah.

    The new light abandons the whole departing-returning dynamic. Or obfuscates it.

    The whole idea of GB turning the FDS parable into a two-tailed prophecy justifying their existence is a conversion that needs a sleight of hand to perform (like Jesus' turning water into wine).

    That's a good analogy because they want people to look at the parable from their own very specific point of view, and not notice things that would utterly contradict the interpretation, which they are silent on.

    The old interpretation had Jesus appointing the F&DS in 33 C.E. because in a tangible sense Jesus left the earthly sphere (according to the JW view of Christian history). That was a major argument that Franz had made AGAINST the new understanding that the F&DS first arose after 1914. The new interpretation is proposed, but none of the old objections are mentioned (at least in the material we have). I still would love to see in what sense Jesus leaves in 1918, when they always claimed the opposite.

    I think the OP hit the nail on the head. The new interpretation is not motivated in the slightest by biblical exegesis, it is motivated by the desire to resolve certain problems in the application of the parable to the Society, or rather, GB.

  • JakeM2012
    JakeM2012

    45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

    So the lord departed in 33 c.e., however, with the new light, he did not appoint a "ruler over his household" then. But rather he waits nearly 2000 years to appoint a "ruler over his household" in 1919. So the ruler left in 33 C.E. and did not make an appointment of anyone, but the ruler came back in 1919 and appointed the "faithful and wise servant over all his goods?" so that he could leave again, but the parable indicates that the appointment by the master was done when he left in 33. Riiiiightttt. (So the master didn't really leave in 33 c.e, but rather he was with his household until his coming in 1919 for inspection. In 1919 he appointed a ruler over his household and then left.

    So we have a problem; to make it simple?, according to the new gb light, no one was appointed when the master left in 33. However, when the master returned he gave rulership over all his goods in 1919 to a group of men that were neither appointed nor were they providing meat in due season, or may I say, not meat that would not make one sick.

    So let me get this straight, the master appoints a presumptuous "servant"? in 1919 (not when he left, but when he returned) that took it upon themselves to claim that they were serving "meat in due season" that was clearly rotten meat or later abandoned "truths".

    This is so twisted that I am having a hard time comprehending it. So the invisible coming of Christ in 1919 was really shortly followed by the departure of Christ after he appointed the governing body in 1919. He appoints them and leaves. ???

    So that's the reason that we see the effects of Christ's invisible presence for nearly a 100 years, because he really is not present but gone. Hummmmmm.

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    I think you are right, but as I have also theorised previously, I think they may be subtly laying the groundwork for a future re-interpretation of 1914 to mean a mere spiritual presence of Jesus to appoint the faithful and discreet slave and start cleansing the temple, per Malachi 3:1, rather than as being installed as King of God's Kingdom in that year, all without undermining their authority.

    I believe they want to reduce the emphasis on 1914 and make it something akin to the 7th Day Adventists belief about 1843. The idea that Jesus has been ruling as King of God's kingdom since 1914 is full of glaring contradictions and is increasingly becoming 'the emperors clothes' with the 100th anniversary of Jesus' invisible presence ruling over nothing fast approaching. They can consolidate their authority as much as they want but the longer they delay fixing up this absurd teaching, the elephant in their boardroom, the more they will lose crediblity in the eyes of the increasingly questioning sheep.

    By undermining C T Russell with this new light they can eventually safely say that while Russell got the date 1914 right, he got the significance of it wrong. Likewise that even Rutherford's ideas were not properly 'cleansed'.

    They don't even need to abandon their 670BCE + 2520 years chronology. All they need to do is say that the tree of Daniel 4 only symbolises God's heavenly Kingdom with Jesus enthroned as King when the rootstock that was unbanded in 1914 has fully regrown into a great tree that again reaches into the heavens in the future (credit to Leolaia for this little gem of an idea). The tree has been regrowing since 1919 by the growth of the organisation, representing Christ's earthly interests, and it does not reach the heavens again until all the anointed are resurrected and the marriage of the lamb occurs, which is when Jesus is enthroned and God Kingdom begins to rule. The gentile times thus would end at the great tribulation, not in 1914.

    The 'parousia' of Matt 24:3 can be refined to mean Jesus has only been spiritually present with his anointed followers since 1919, not as ruling King of God's Kingdom. A clear parallel can be drawn from Jesus saying he would be spiritually 'with' or present with his disciples following his resurrection per Matt 28:20 until the conclusion of the (Jewish) system of things, in 70AD.

    Along with this simply slide all of Rev 12, the resurrection of the dead anointed, and the riders of the apocalypse into the future great tribulation. The 'last days' can continue to count from 1914 since Jesus said that all the wars, famines, pestilences, etc would indicate he is 'near at the door' in the same way spring leaves indicate summer is near.

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Personally, I think their new imaginings are so cocked-up as to be unworthy of a temperate response, much less of the thoroughly impressive refutations and intellectual capital lavished on it by contributors such as Leolaia and others-----

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    As mentioned, one of the main problems with this new explanation is, 'how did the Master leave in 1918/19.'

    One possibility for how the Society will handle that is related to the fact that in both parables (Lu 12 & Mt 24) the 'leaving' is assumed, not specifically mentioned. You only know that the Master left because it says that he eventually arrives or returns and conducts an audit of sorts.

    So I could see the Society saying something like, 'Jesus not specifically mentioning the master's leaving means it was not an important detail.'

    If you equate the master with Jesus, which would be natural since he is the speaker and leader of the ones he is giving it to, the leaving most naturally fits with his departure from the earthly scene. In fact, throughout the NT letters, the writers mention Jesus return/arrival/coming numerous times. So they clearly viewed Jesus as having left already, with an expected future return.

    But since this new Society explanation seems to be for the purpose of solving Society issues rather than for the purpose of understanding the narrative, I could see them using the above reasoning.

    Take Care

  • 00DAD
    00DAD

    Emery: Upon critical examination of both the doctrine and the WT’s history, we find that they contradict each other.

    Yeah, what a surprise. A WT teaching that contradicts another WT teaching and reality too. Whoda' thunk it?

    I was reading with great interest through Leolaia's and King Solomon's very thoughtful analyses and dissection of the WT's latest clusterfuck of biblical interpretaton when I came up this insightful comment:

    Room 215: Personally, I think their new imaginings are so cocked-up as to be unworthy of a temperate response, much less of the thoroughly impressive refutations and intellectual capital lavished on it by contributors such as Leolaia and others-----

    Duh, 'nuf said!

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Bobcat....That's why I am really curious to know how they are going to interpret the closely parallel Parable of the Talents, where the departure is stated explicitly, as well as the parable in the Markan Olivet discourse, which occurs in the same location in the text.

    Mark 13:26-27: "At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door.Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’ "

    Matthew 24:30-51: "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so WHEN HE RETURNS. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant WILL COME on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Matthew 25:14-30: "For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the MASTER OF THOSE SERVANTS CAME and settled accounts with them.The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.’His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, ‘Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’ For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".

    Notice also the Parable of the Talents: The Master goes away, and the slaves are judged as either faithful or wicked when the Master returns based on their conduct when he was away. Similarly the faithful and wise servant would not be declared as such until the Master returns (which the Society now interprets as the Great Tribulation). The Society might try to claim that because the going-away is not explicit in the other parable, it may be safely ignored. But the fact is, it is implicit. The Master is described as returning to the house to make an accounting of the servants, he is thus absent when the slave is dispensing food, or when the wicked slave is eating and drinking and mistreating the household (the same theme as "when the cat is away the mice shall play"). The Master however had to have been present in the household when the slaves were given those responsibilities. So although not explicit, there is an implicit departure of the Master that is explicit in the other two parables.

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    It's such a simple and eloquent parable that has been soiled by greedy men.

    -Sab

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Leo said:

    Notice also the Parable of the Talents: The Master goes away, and the slaves are judged as either faithful or wicked when the Master returns based on their conduct when he was away.

    Not to mention the logical inconsistency of the master leaving (which in ancient times, essentially meant being incommunicado, a fundamental assumption underlying the parable) while claiming the GB as the sole channel of communication with God in order to receive "new light". You'd think that Jesus could observe the condition of his domestics from wherever he is, or at least ask a question or two about the status of the domestics (or at least say 'hi' when God sends a telegram from Heaven). God is SUPPOSED to be able to read thoughts, right? We've established the grounds for two-way communication here...

    So they're also blowing the omnipresence trait of the master, since the master is described as being SURPRISED upon returning and DISCOVERING whether the head servant has been GOOD or BAD. Omniscient and/or omnipresent beings cannot experience "surprise emotions".

    What WHACKY interpretation, given even a moment's thought....

    Sab said:

    It's such a simple and eloquent parable that has been soiled by greedy men.

    "Eloquent"? You're romanticizing again, as it's a quite basic concept being expressed.

    It's just the same message made repeatedly throughout the Bible: do what your superiors want you to do, and you will do well; don't, and you'll be killed. Nothing elegant or eloquent about a death threat. It could be taken from a pamphlet called, "How to succeed as a slave!". Lesson: Abuse your owner's physical assets and delegated authority, and you will be cut into pieces by your owner.

    It's an inelegant expansion and rewording of an existing aphorism, 'don't bite the hand that feeds you'. That saying was NOT new or novel in 20CE: "don't bite the hand that feeds you" pre-dates Jesus by 600 years, as it is found in Aesop's fables.

    For modern readers, it could be condensed as the business principle, "don't piss off your boss" (and is also expressed in many different sayings, eg 'know who butters your bread').

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit