I see it as you do Phizzy. The dictionary says the evil slave is hypothetical, if and when the good slave turns bad. But I'm sure the Watchtower will insist that the bad slave is Christendom. This is their interpretation of the five sleepy virgins and the talents parable of Matt. 25.
Annual meeting. Greek scholars please help!
by DATA-DOG 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Phizzy
I am sure the WT will interpret it wrongly, but in their favour !
They never really take things in context do they, ? the previous parable shows jesus is on a roll about being alert to his "Coming", but I suppose the WT ,if pressed will find a "Householder Class" and a "Thief Class" , and even so will miss the import of the whole sermon, not to proclaim the day of the Lord before it arrives, but to be ever ready for it.
-
TheOldHippie
1. There are quite a few amateurs here, partly stating themselves that they have only a very vague insight into the NT Greek - but that does not seem to stop them from having very clear opinions as to why the statement of Loesch simply HAS to be wrong.
2. Perhaps - just perhaps - it would be better to wait until we can see the whole argument as part of a WT article within a couple of months, and not just as an incomplete sentence within very short and scanty minutes?
-
DATA-DOG
Good point OldHippie. Patience.... I can see why they don't want the rank-and-file to study Hebrew and Greek, there goes being united in one line of thought/conformity. We will see what is written in the near future.
-
raymond frantz
They have abused this part of the Bible so many times ,I wouldn't expect them to do better now .I will have to agree with Phizzy ,these verses describe two eventualities and not groups of people .This is a parable not a prophesy
-
DATA-DOG
Leolaia,
OK.. So as in the case of the sower, not being a sower if he did not sow seeed ( although that is not the actual point of THAT parable) the steward or servant would not be the " faithful and discreet slave if they were neither. Saying that ho is a collective is eisegetic. They are trying to interpret the verses to support their pre-concieved doctrine. It is all silly anyway because it is a parable and not a prophecy, right?
-
hamsterbait
Vidquin -
The parable of the sleepy virgins was changed in the late 80s. The whole thing was put into post 1914 events, omitting Christendom altogether.
The foolish virgins now represent those in the Witchtower organisation, who did not want to reorganise themselves for preaching in 1919, and ended up being left out by the returning master when he inspected the organisation.
A similar thing happened with their interpretation of of the parable of the talents.
HB
-
Leolaia
Definitely, its "prudent" (or discreet? ;)) to wait until there is an official statement.
Saying that ho is a collective is eisegetic. They are trying to interpret the verses to support their pre-concieved doctrine.
Well, the whole interpretation is eisegetical through-and-through. It makes little sense of the narrative structure of the parable.
And yeah it's a parable.
-
Vidqun
Thanks HB, I have lost track of their interpretations. The fact that they want to fall back to 1914 is most certainly wrong. The same goes for their generation-teaching. Matt. 24:21 mentions the "great tribulation," and then comes the generation that will not pass away (v. 34). So this generation has to do with the great tribulation, not 1914.
They also admit that the judgment of the sheep and the goats will only occur right at the end when Jesus comes to judge humanity. The parables of the virgins and the talents should be viewed within this context. Nothing to do with 1914.
-
Leolaia
They also admit that the judgment of the sheep and the goats will only occur right at the end when Jesus comes to judge humanity. The parables of the virgins and the talents should be viewed within this context. Nothing to do with 1914.
Yeah. All the parables are parallel: the faithful & wise servant, virgins, talents, and the sheep & goats. Actually the latter isn't really a parable but an apocalyptic scenario, but it describes the same judgment that occurs in the other parables (such as between the faithful vs. evil slave, with blessing or punishment accorded to each). So the theme in the three parables of the servants, virgins, and talents concerns prudence in behavior during the time waiting for the parousia. The faithful servant prudently saved food for the time of lean to be rationed out, the wise virgins were prepared with enough oil to last to midnight, the servants managed the money wisely in the time when the master was absent. All parallel with the same moral.
The problem is that Barbour and Russell borrowed the notion of a two-stage parousia, the first phase being an invisible presence, which saved 1874 from failure as a prophetic date (the prophecy was fulfilled but invisibly). This artificially divided the references to Jesus' return in the Olivet discourse into two discrete comings. Rutherford then moved the fulfillment up from 1874 to the period following 1914 (which became the date of Jesus' parousia). And so the classic old reading of the parables regarded the 'fulfillment' of these parables as lying in the past, not future. The Lord had already promoted the faithful slave over all his belongings in 1918-1919, same goes for the arrival of the Bridegroom and the wise virgins, with respect to the talents the Master settled accounts in 1918-1919, and also the separation of the sheep and goats began in 1918-1919 and was ongoing. Then the Society started moving away from this and began to understand (more correctly) that the reference is to the coming of the Son of Man in eschatological judgment, not some earlier invisible "presence". And so the separation of the sheep and goats was moved into the future in 1995. The new understanding of the faithful and discreet slave similarly puts the promotion of the servant over the Master's belongings into the future (to be fulfilled at the Great Tribulation). There is not yet any word about the parable of the talents. But the Society is not willing to let go of 1914, and so the new understanding is an incomprehensible chimera that tries to both have and eat its own cake....it still maintains 1914/1918/1919 as important dates and construes the faithful slave as appointed back then without realizing that the whole point of the parable is that the identity of the faithful and evil slaves is not established until after the Master comes back and judges them. So now there is some double fulfillment read into the parable, like Jesus cleansing the Temple twice, or an ongoing cleansing, not noticing that the cleansing is not done until the Master comes back in judgment. The whole reading of the parable is now muddled. But its the only way the GB can claim to act as if they are the F&DS even though, if the thought of the parable is to be respected, the identity of the GB as the F&DS is wholly contingent on things that they haven't even done yet. And as I pointed out earlier, the new interpretation has the appointment of the F&DS occurring at the time the Master is going away, even though the supposed fulfillment has it occur at a time when Jesus is coming back (his invisible parousia in 1914, his coming into his Temple in 1918). I doubt they would even attempt to explain how Jesus "departed" "went away" "left" in 1918/1919. Even Freddy Franz pointed out this problem, way back in the 1970s.