Sheep and Goats

Category: Book of Acts

  • Paul—“An Insolent Man”

    Early Christians were afraid of Paul. He’d been a violent enemy. When he turned around, they didn’t believe it. Barnabas (always good for that sort of thing) had to escort him around and ease the way.

    Some of those Christians probably always were afraid of him. The Watchtower study of last week (3/15/26) included the printed point: “Can you imagine how Paul must have felt when he visited a congregation and met those he had persecuted or the family members of those he had persecuted?” It may have been tougher on him personally when they forgave.

    Every so often he would run into one of those persons. If they didn’t remind him of what a hothead he had been, his own conscience would have—-he, the guy that, as Saul, would “ravage the congregation. He would invade one house after another, dragging out both men and women and turning them over to prison.” (Acts 8:3)

    So some were afraid to approach. Probably some of them always were. He’s okay if you agreed with him in every particular, but if you cross him in any way, they’d think, recalling strong statements he’d made in his letters, and every so often, he’d say to himself ‘Yeah, you know I really still am an insolent man’, (1 Timothy 1:13) I just switched sides.’ Anyone who wields authority benefits from this.

    We like to think we have made progress in our lives. What a downer to taste, even for a moment, that we have not. It’s like when someone recalls the harsh traits of their dad and says “I’m never going to be like him’ and they go for years thinking they are not, only to one day look at themselves in the mirror and say, ‘Huh, I’m exactly like him. Strip aside the superficialities, and I’m exactly like him.’

    Of course, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Paul’s violent past would lead him to the contemplative water of past sins, but he didn’t have to drown in it, nor drink it in. He had counterbalancing thought of how Christ’s death had repurchased him, forgiven him, and would cleanse him as though a new person. He accepted that forgiveness. He never took it for granted, spending the rest of his life building up the congregations, suffering no end of hardship in the process.

    It did equip him to spot the “superfine apostles” though, slicksters of tongue (2 Corinthians 11:5-6) who wanted his office but not his work. To them, he detailed his hardships: 

    “I have done more work, been imprisoned more often, suffered countless beatings, and experienced many near-deaths. Five times I received 40 strokes less one from the Jews, three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I experienced shipwreck, a night and a day I have spent in the open sea; in journeys often, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own people, in dangers from the nations, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers among false brothers, in labor and toil, in sleepless nights often, in hunger and thirst, frequently without food, in cold and lacking clothing.” (2 Corinthians 11: 23-27)

    Perhaps it faded in time, or maybe that past when he opposed haunted him even more with increasing years. That Watchtower Study corralled three statements of his to that effect:

    “For example, when he wrote his first letter to the Corinthians in about 55 C.E., he said: ‘I am not worthy of being called an apostle, because I persecuted the congregation of God.’ (1 Cor. 15:9) Some five years later, in his letter to the Ephesians, he described himself as being ‘less than the least of all holy ones.’ (Eph. 3:8) When writing to Timothy, Paul referred to himself as being formerly ‘a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insolent man.’ (1 Tim. 1:13)”

    It was another one of those studies—most of them are these days—in which healing and imitating the Christ is the theme. Are such meetings boring? These days they focus heavily on applying the Bible in one’s life, putting on the new personality and all. That’s not appealing to a lot of people, who are more into telling other people what to do.

    The Study made good use of Psalm 139: “You observe me when I travel and when I lie down; You are familiar with all my ways. There is not a word on my tongue, But look! O Jehovah, you already know it well. Behind and before me, you surround me; And you lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is beyond my comprehension. It is too high for me to reach. (verses 3-6)

    That being the case, that God knows us better than we do ourselves, the psalmist could ask: “Search through me, O God, and know my heart. Examine me, and know my anxious thoughts. See whether there is in me any harmful way, And lead me in the way of eternity. (23-24)

    “Anxious thoughts.” Sometimes we feel off and if asked why will respond that we don’t know. Just what is it? We don’t know. We may not want to know. Here, we are encouraged to go to Jehovah in prayer who searches us though.

    They even threw in the Potter molding the vessel, someone “try[ing] to imagine Jehovah molding us and trying to make us better people. This brings us closer to him.”​ It’s like when you hit a wall, as Paul apparently did at times, bad traits having caught up with you, or at least the memories of them, and you say, ‘I’m no good.’ Nah, you’re not no good. You’ve just hit a lump that continued molding will work out.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Save Us from Critical Thinking: Part 6

    For best results, start here.

    Of course we should think. Of course we should be reasonable. Of course we should (God help us) use “critical thinking” if that term does it for us. But don’t go thinking you’re getting to the bottom of anything that way. In the end, were stuck with what Solomon described at Ecclesiastes 8:17:

    “I considered all the work of the true God, and I realized that mankind cannot comprehend what happens under the sun. No matter how hard men try, they cannot comprehend it. Even if they claim that they are wise enough to know, they cannot really comprehend it.” 

    They can’t really comprehend it, no matter how hard they try. When people carry on that their thinking is so sharp as to put aside emotion, it just makes things worse. It “locks in human bias under a veneer of science.”

    Witness the “faith, hope, and love”—all emotions of 1 Corinthians 13:13, “but the greatest of these is love.” Contrast that with some of the baser emotions Paul mentions at 1 Timothy 6: 3-4: 

    “If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions, constant disputes about minor matters.

    The power is in the emotions; faith, hope, love on one end and “pride, envy, strife, wicked suspicions” at the other. One can discuss either using all their powers of critical thinking, but that does not change that the first are noble and the latter are base. So use your critical thinking, but don’t let it go to your head. in matters involving God, it is like showing up at the job with a toolbox stuffed with wrenches when what is required is a screwdriver. And, by all means, don’t think it a virtue or even within your power to divorce emotions from thought. Humans are not built that way. They can blind themselves to think they are but they are not.

    Most Witnesses describe their faith as the most rational of religions. They have a sense with the Bible of having put a jigsaw puzzle together. But that doesn’t mean it will satisfy the standards of “critical thinking,” which considers only that which is provable. The stuff wouldn’t be called faith if it was provable. Says Luke Johnson, “The historian cannot take up anything having to do with the transcendent or the supernatural. Therefore, the historian cannot talk about the miraculous birth of Jesus, his miracles, his walking on the water, his transfiguration, his resurrection from the dead and so forth. Well, fair enough, the historian can’t talk about those things, but that methodological restraint . . . very quickly becomes implicitly an epistemological denial, that is the historian can’t talk about these things, therefore they are not real.”

    Consistently, we read that those who embrace stick with faith do so on factors other than their critical thinking. Acts 13:48 simply calls it being “rightly disposed for everlasting life.” (“When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word ofJehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers.”) It is hard to envision that as a function of their critical thinking.

    Even passages that do call for analytical thinking ability—call it “critical thinking” if you must—make clear that such thinking is not the motivator. Rather, it is the tool that one employs with motivation, but would not do so otherwise. For example, a choice was thrust upon the Boreans when Paul and Silas paid a visit in the first century: 

    “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica [where the two had been run out of town], for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

    That they were rational is evident in that they carefully examined the Scriptures daily to see that what Paul and Silas were telling them was so. But from where does the eagerness come? That one will be emotion, not logic. That one will be heart, not head. That one will be people conscious of their spiritual need, and so determined to fill it. That one will be people who intuitively know they have a spiritual need and that it is analogous to their need for vitamins, without which one gets very ill and never quite knows why. Nobody hungers for vitamin C or vitamin D. Instead, they make themselves conscious of that need. That those of Borea put such a premium on spiritual matters explains that they are called noble-minded. It’s a nobility that has nothing to do with the intellect, the head. It has everything to do with emotion, with what a person is at heart.

    It is high time to wrap up this series. It has spanned six parts. It doubtless includes redundancies which need be edited out if I ever combine the six. The stuff called critical thinking is fine as a seasoning, but disastrous as a main course. You would think that would be evident as the ship goes under while co-captained by luminaries all claiming to excel in such thinking. But it is not.

    Isn’t “critical thinking” the prime tool of those who “think they are wise?” The holy writings have no use for that type of person: “Have you seen a man who thinks he is wise? There is more hope for someone stupid than for him.” (Proverbs 26:12) Emphasis on critical thinking gives rise to the mantra that more understanding will solve all problems. How is that one working out? Humans don’t need more of the stuff. If anything, they need less. Moreover, they need it to stand aside so that higher qualities may shine through.

    ******  The bookstore

  • As Paul Drones on, Eutychus Falls Three Stories to his Death

    The mid-week meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses are roving through the Book of Acts and Eutychus recently came up. He’s the kid that fell asleep during Paul’s talk and plunged three stories to his death! (Acts 20:9) (Tom Irregardless would have had them all snoozing.) Says the Watchtower-published book, ‘Bearing Thorough Witness,’ “Paul could not rightly be blamed for the death of Eutychus. Still, he did not want the young man’s death to mar this important occasion or to stumble anyone spiritually.”

    No. Can’t have that. It is not hard to envision the joke that might have dogged Paul thereafter throughout his entire life—along the lines of ‘Buckle up when that bore comes to town!’ And—let’s face it—you cannot read the account without wondering what sort of speaker Paul was. Was he a bore? There is a verse that suggests it. Paul acknowledges it of himself: “For they say: ‘His letters are weighty and forceful, but his presence in person is weak and his speech contemptible.’” (2 Corinthians 10:10)

    Contemptible? At first glance one might think he admits to being a bore, but I think the answer lies elsewhere. I think it lies with the intellectuals hanging out in Athens, guys given to philosophy, who said of him: “What is it this chatterer would like to tell?” (Acts 17:18) The word literally means ‘seed-picker.’ It suggests a bird that picks up a seed here and poops it out there. I mean, where’s the respect? But that’s how that contemptuous lot was and it is from a similar lot as the “super-fine” apostles who so disparaged Paul at 2 Corinthians 11:5–guys envious of his position (but not his work), phonies, really.

    My guess is that they were contemptuous of Paul in that he did not follow their strict rules of philosophical logic. Today, it might be seen in the strict rules some have that everything be “evidence-based,” with their equally strict rules as to just what constitutes “evidence”—“anecdotal evidence” doesn’t count. I’ll bet Paul simply didn’t defer to equally manmade standards and they dissed him for it.

    It is another matter entirely with Tom Irregardless, from my first book, ‘Tom Irregardless and Me.’ Not only is he a horrifically bad speaker, but he says irregardless so often that Shem Sheepngoats has downloaded an app to keep track. When I bring my Bible student (Ted Putsch) to his first public talk—having carefully ascertained that the speaker will be a good one, that speaker calls in sick and Tom Irregardless is the substitute! I mutter under my breath why God hates my Bible student. But, as I slink into my seat, losing count after 17 irregardlesses, Ted weathers it well. After the meeting, he is seen chatting up several persons in the congregation, even exchanging a few words with Tom Irregardless.

    It is a gag drawn from long-ago memory. It would not happen today. The quality of public speakers has markedly improved through the decades and the worst you will ever do today is hear a speaker who is ‘adequate.’ Clunkers have long since been weeded out. One never hears a bad talk these days, and I am dating myself when I approach the elder I love to tease and tell him that I would be scared to deliver a really hard-hitting message but it might help if I had some practice—therefore, would he mind if I was the one to announce his public talks?

    To so improve speakers is a significant accomplishment, for it is peers ‘policing themselves,’ something that is very difficult to do because you don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings—and you also worry that they may turn around and say your talks suck, too. But it has been done. The accomplishment means little to one used to the church model in which a paid preacher is employed and no one else has any role beyond listening. But, in an organization in which all are encouraged to both preach and teach, it is significant. I even think the local speakers are as good, sometimes better, than those on the app, with more spontanaity. But this might be just a personal preference for non-televised talks.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • “If it Were Indeed Some Wrong or Some Wicked Act of Villainy . . .”

    Sometimes a guy prefers the older translation to the newer one. Like with this passage from Acts 18:14, when the Jewish bigwigs hauled Paul before the proconsul because he was teaching new things: “Contrary to the law this person leads men to another persuasion in worshiping God,” they charged, as though it was a crime. (vs 13)

    It was a crime, according to their rules but the Roman proconsul Gallio could not have cared less. These people with their religious disputes were such a pain to him that he kept clear. He answers them, just before Paul is going to defend himself, and thereby making defense unnecessary, “If it were, indeed, some wrong or a wicked act of villainy, O Jews, I would with reason put up patiently with you.  But if it is controversies over speech and names and the law among you, you yourselves must see to it. I do not wish to be a judge of these things.” (14-15)

    You can read the contempt. It oozes from the guy’s mouth. If he had to (it wouldn’t be easy and he wouldn’t like the task), he would “put up patiently” with these characters. If this fellow Paul had actually done something “wrong” or—is it sarcasm here?—done some “wicked act of villainy,” he’d hear them out. But he hasn’t. So—‘Sheesh! won’t you leave me in peace already?’ you can almost hear his dismissal.

    The new version misses that entirely. Here, Gallio is just the earnest county official: He says, “If, indeed, it were some wrong or a serious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to hear you out patiently.” Yes, that rendering gets the job done. It conveys that he’s not going to get involved. But, it’s not as good. It doesn’t convey how he feels about his subjects. Sometimes we are so determined to paint people as mild that we paint them as bland.

    So, when the Jews are ignored, they take to beating the snot out of the synagogue head honcho—surely that will get Gallio’s attention. ‘Nope—I’m done,’ is his response, and you can almost see him rustling his newspaper to shoo them away. We read, “But Gallio would not concern himself at all with these things.” (17)

    That response is slightly modified, for the worse, I think, in the newer 2013 NWT version which reads that he would not “get involved,” implying he may have been “concerned” but his hands were tied by it not being his affair—so what could he do? Nah, I think he didn’t give a hoot. The older (originally from 1961) is better.

    Sigh—the wording from the new serves as the basis for Bearing Thorough Witness about God’s Kingdom, the current JW commentary on Acts of the Apostles. As to Gallio’s indifference, it suggests, “Perhaps Gallio thought that Sosthenes was the leader of the mob action against Paul and was therefore getting what he deserved.” I don’t think so; that implies he cared. I don’t think he did. He just wanted to get back to his paper and cup of coffee.

    No, I do not like the new. It is going in the direction of the newer mushier translations, like the New International Version (1978), which reads: “Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, ‘If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you.’” (14)

    It’s not as bad as the word-salad Message paraphrase (1993), which reads: “Just as Paul was about to defend himself, Gallio interrupted and said to the Jews, “If this was a matter of criminal conduct, I would gladly hear you out. But it sounds to me like one more Jewish squabble, another of your endless hairsplitting quarrels over religion. Take care of it on your own time. I can’t be bothered with this nonsense,”

    “Gladly!” He would “gladly” hear them out! NO! They are a pain in the neck! He would, “with reason, put up patiently” with them. The older versions render it better*. Like the Revised Standard Version of 1952: “But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, I should have reason to bear with you, O Jews.” It’s not quite as strong as the older NWT, but it does convey he wouldn’t relish the task.

    Forget that verse about the codger who mutters, “Why were the old days better than the present ones?” (Ecclesiastes 7:10) I’ll tell you why he grumbles over that. Because, they were!!

    *In fairness to the Message, it does convey that Gallio considered the Jews’ concerns “nonsense.”

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Psalm 93: Symbolic Rivers

    Rivers in the Bible are sometimes symbolic. Maybe, also the ones of Psalm 93.

    The rivers have surged, O Jehovah, The rivers have surged and roared; The rivers keep surging and pounding. (93:3)

    They have surged. Repeat and add: they have surged and roared. Repeat as continuious action, and escalate to pounding: The rivers keep surging and pounding. 

    Jehovah is above them all, triumphant, as though the rivers here are a disruptive thing:

    Above the sound of many waters, Mightier than the breaking waves of the sea, Jehovah is majestic in the heights. (93:4) The opening two verses set up that scenario, too. 

    The Research Guide doesn’t touch it. The Insight Book does. Sometimes invading armies are “rivers.” Makes sense.

    “Therefore look! Jehovah will bring against them The mighty and vast waters of the River, The king of As·syrʹi·a and all his glory. He will come up over all his streambeds And overflow all his banks.”  Isa 8:7

    Isn’t that how Babylon fell, when the river literally concealed invading armies?

    The comparison I like best is the Devil disgorging rivers of water and the earth swallows it up to save the woman:

    “And the serpent spewed out water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the river. 16 But the earth came to the woman’s help, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon spewed out from its mouth.”

    So I told Duncan about it, but he didn’t call on me during the gems review. He knew I would just be blowing smoke. Besides, he thought of the river, clear as crystal, that flows from the throne 

    Turn the page and rivers are clapping their hands. I’m not sure how rivers can do that:

    Let the rivers clap their hands; Let the mountains shout joyfully together. (98:8)

    At Isaiah 42:10, the rivers are like unmentionables:

    ”Sing to Jehovah a new song, His praise from the ends of the earth, You who go down to the sea and all that fills it, You islands and their inhabitants.” We all know what it is that fills the sea.
    Much talk about a “new song” about this point in the Psalms, as though a new twist in God’s purpose unfolding. From 91 on, and especially 95, the people trusting in God emerge victorious, an outcome many earlier psalms appear in doubt over.
    Meanwhile, and having nothing to do with anything except that the congregation is now in the book commenting on Acts:

    It can’t have been easy for Paul, to be followed around for days by a crazy person hollering: “‘These men are slaves of the Most High God and are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.’” To illustrate that it would not be, I told a certain someone at the Hall that I would heretofore do it to him.

    Did the demon driving her think he had Paul over a barrel? What’s he going to do—cast it out, upon which the servant would be valueless to her masters and the cops would beat Paul up? But Paul cast it out, the servant became valueless to her masters, and the cops beat him up:

    “Now it happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a servant girl with a spirit, a demon of divination,l met us. She supplied her masters with much profit by fortune-telling. This girl kept following Paul and us and crying out with the words: “These men are slaves of the Most High God and are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.” She kept doing this for many days. Finally Paul got tired of it and turned and said to the spirit: “I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.

    “Well, when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the rulers. Leading them up to the civil magistrates, they said: “These men are disturbing our city very much. They are Jews, and they are proclaiming customs that it is not lawful for us to adopt or practice, seeing that we are Romans.” And the crowd rose up together against them, and the civil magistrates, after tearing the garments off them, gave the command to beat them with rods. After they had inflicted many blows on them, they threw them into prisonu and ordered the jailer to guard them securely.” (Acts 16:16-24)

     

     

     

     

     

  • My Meeting Notes: Week of May 9, 2024

    Think of a deep intimate, heartfelt connection—how can good not emerge? The phrase itself all but guarantees it.

    Sigh….not with this lout:  “Transgression speaks to the wicked one deep within his heart. Ps 36:1

    “There is no fear of God before his eyes.” (vs 1b) That’s half of the problem.

    “For in his own eyes he flatters himself too much to detect and hate his error.” (vs 2) That’s the other half.

    1b and 2: Therein lies the remedy. If he learns to fear God and gains a realistic view of himself, even this character can turn around.

     

    Peter entering Cornelius’ home after three times having the vision of unclean foods descending from heaven. (Acts 10:9-16)

    This is like Ananias being directed to bring Saul in. ‘No way, Lord—the guy’s an animal!’

    “Be on your way” (9:15) says the Lord. The man is a chosen vessel to me.

    “Be on your way”—Andy Laguna the CO’s said long ago at the Pioneer School—Andy loved this scripture that typified his own life. He didn’t say it, but he may as well have: ‘Don’t give me any bunk! Be on your way!’

    I remember working with him in service one 10 degree day on an endless street. Didn’t take a break. Only a handful answered. When they did, they may as well not have because I was too cold to speak coherently.

     

    They’re all rather trivial things—all these updates of late. Still, they are changes to long-standing policy, so many make a big fuss over them. A bro at our hall, commenting on fast-moving changes we all must adjust to, mentioned “sisters wearing pants,” (did he also mention no ties?) as though aghast that someone had run the chariot into a ditch.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • My Meeting Notes: Week of March 17, 2024. Psalm 19 and the Origin of Simony

    Psalm 19 was the one to focus on this week. 20 and 21 were also included in the week’s assigned material. They’re fine, but 19 is where its at.

    You can almost divide the psalm into two parts: 1-6 is of Jehovah’s created works: “The heavens are declaring the glory of God.” 7-14 is how He turns his attention toward humans, putting those works at his disposal. It is almost like a ‘What is mortal man that you keep him in mind?’ (Psalm 8, also of David) scenario.

    For example, (vs 6) “It [the sun] emerges from one end of the heavens, And it circles to their other end; And nothing is concealed from its heat.” A pinhead sized piece of it—you’d still have to stand 90 miles away so as not to fry, the speaker said. And then, He uses that power, that nothing can be concealed from, to examine humans—don’t think you can keep any secrets from him. But his purpose is not to grill anyone—give them the third degree. It is to benefit with laws and reminders far beyond what they might come up with on their own—as though providing an owner’s manual for the product that is us:

    “The commandment of Jehovah is clean, making the eyes shine. The fear of Jehovah is pure, lasting forever. The judgments of Jehovah are true, altogether righteous. They are more desirable than gold, Than much fine gold, And sweeter than honey, the honey that drips from the combs. By them your servant has been warned; In keeping them, there is a large reward.” (8-11)

    Back up to 3-4 about the heavens which “night after night declare knowledge:’ “There is no speech, and there are no words; Their voice is not heard. But into all the earth their sound has gone out,” How can one not like the imagery of Psalm 19? “The skies above proclaim the work of his hands.”

    Speaking of imagery, get a load of this one, depicting the power of the rising sun: “It is like a bridegroom emerging from the bridal chamber.” Anyone recall how that guy feels?

    Then, there was the study from the Book of Acts. This week the focus was on Simon, the sorcerer who tried to buy the miraculous gifts that turned out to be free to people of right heart: 

    “Now when Simon saw that the spirit was given through the laying on of the hands of the apostles, he offered them money, saying: “Give me this authority also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive holy spirit.” But Peter said to him: “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire the free gift of God with money. You have neither part nor share in this matter, for your heart is not straight in the sight of God. So repent of this badness of yours, and supplicate Jehovah that, if possible, the wicked intention of your heart may be forgiven you; for I see you are a bitter poison and a slave of unrighteousness.” In answer Simon said to them: “Make supplication for me to Jehovah that none of the things you have said may come upon me.” (Acts 8: 18-24)

    The conductor, a man of kindness and empathy, spoke of how sometimes you have to give counsel, “even when it is difficult.” I dunno—it doesn’t look like Peter found it all that difficult. He roasted the fellow!

    There was a paragraph that pointed out how Simon has become a word, simony, stemming from this account—trying to buy ecclesiastical things with money. My remark was that the account reminded me of the saying, ‘Don’t ever say a person is worthless. They can always be used as a bad example.’ Not that Simon was a worthless—he turned out okay, but there was a moment . . . I mean, his recovery wasn’t a slam dunk. Supplicate Jehovah that, if possible, this sin may be forgiven you, Peter said. 

    In a way, he got what he wanted. Had he succeeded in buying miraculous gifts, he would have been one one many and nobody would recall him today. But because he flirted with being ‘worthless,’ he got a word named after him and thus lives on forever!

    The conductor ended up saying how he wasn’t a bad man; his thinking just got screwy and had to be corrected. It happens today. There will be brothers who aren’t bad people, but their thinking gets askew over this point or that and must be readjusted.  The conductor is a good guy.

    Then, there was that 3-minute part assigned to me on inviting someone to the Memorial. This I already wrote about here.

     

    ****  The bookstore

  • My Meeting Notes: Week of March 4, 2024

    When the Scriptural Gems portion came, five separate people commented on this verse, for the most part not repeating each other. The scripture was a hit

    “Rescue me with your hand, O Jehovah, From men of this world, whose share is in this life.” (Ps: 17:14)

    Imagine. You have to be rescued from them. Whatever they have rubs off, that determination to have it all, whereas any Christian knows the meaning of delayed gratification. You don’t want to overdose on people “whose share is in this life.” Alas, when one gives up on God completely, it is all that remains.

    The contrast is in the very next verse (15): “I am satisfied to awaken in your presence.”

    Then there was the student talk in which was quoted Mark 7:9: “Further, he said to them: ‘You skillfully disregard the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.’”

     

    ‘Skillfully disregard.’ They have to work at it.

     

    And from the commentary on Acts (7:54-8:3):

    “What can we learn from Stephen’s speech? . . .  We can also learn about graciousness and tact from Stephen. His audience could hardly have been more hostile! Yet, for as long as possible, he maintained common ground . . . he also addressed them with respect, calling the older men “fathers.” (Acts 7:2) We too need to present the truths of God’s Word with “a mild temper and deep respect.”​

    How respectful can you be when you go on to call those religious high court members “obstinate men?” It recalls to me the quip that if you begin your remarks with, “With all due respect,” you can say any horrific thing you want.

     

    “Which one of the prophets did your forefathers not persecute?” Stephen charges. (vs 52)

    Now, the scribes and Pharisees were sensitive to that charge. They’d worked up a defense against it. Earlier, Jesus had said, (Matthew 23: 29-30) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you . . . say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have shared with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’”

    Oh, hogwash, he says. You’re fully in that tradition. Keep on keeping on:

    “Therefore, you are testifying against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Well, then, fill up the measure of your forefathers.” (31-32)

     

    Someone commented on Stephen’s forgiveness: “Finally, Stephen prayed directly to God in a loud voice: “Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them.” After saying this, he fell asleep in death.​“—Acts 7:59, 60. Not his role to judge, apparently. Besides, maybe they were just being used.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • My Meeting Notes, Week of 2/18/24–Psalms 8-10, Acts 6

    “When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers, The moon and the stars that you have prepared, What is mortal man that you keep him in mind, And a son of man that you take care of him? You made him a little lower than godlike ones, And you crowned him with glory and splendor. You gave him dominion over the works of your hands; You have put everything under his feet:” (Psalm 8:3-6)

    It is a good, appreciative, attitude for life, much better than ‘We pulled ourselves up from our own bootstraps!’ evolution.

    Metaphorically, you can probably use it even if you do believe in evolution. After all, it is only ‘origin of life’ [happenstance or created?] at which one must absolutely draw the line. Should developing life incorporate elements of evolution, we can all live with that. Let scientists be scientists and Bible students be Bible students.

    The psalmist’s attitude is harder to pull off if you are undergoing Job-like trials. Then again, such an attitude might better enable one to endure them while they last.

     

    ***When the nations get too big for their pants, which they are wont to do, the psalmist says,

    “Rise up, O Jehovah! Do not let mortal man prevail. May the nations be judged in your presence. Strike them with fear, O Jehovah, Let the nations know that they are only mortal men.” (9:19-

     

    ***His eyes are watching for an unfortunate victim. He waits in his hiding place like a lion in its lair. He waits to seize the helpless one. . . . The victim is crushed and brought down.” (Psalm 10:8-10)

    I don’t know anyone like this. Even of the mechanic who billed me for a new carburetor on my Tesla I didn’t go that far.

    The whole psalm is about how the wicked one shakes you like a dog with a rat. This may be why Rosie said when she first read the psalms as a young girl, “Man, this guy sure whines a lot!” 

    Could you apply it to machinations of humans, be they political parties, governments, or powers transcending governments who push schemes, sometimes will full knowledge they are making you trouble, doing so for their idea of the ‘greater good.’ That scenario fits the tone of the psalm. It’s not for nothing that the Bible likens governments to ‘the heavens.’ They drench you one moment, scorch you the next, freeze you after that, and there’s not a thing you can do about it.

    Verses like #4 suggest it’s the atheists up to no good: “In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.’” But other verses are to the effect that they acknowledge God but count him as a non-factor: “He says in his heart: “God has forgotten. He has turned away his face. He never notices.” (vs 11)

    Besides, here’s a commentator (in connection with ‘the senseless one who says in his heart ‘there is no Jehovah’) who says there were no atheists back then, at least not enough to single out as a class: “It never occurred to any writer of the OT [Hebrew Scriptures] to prove or argue the existence of God. . . .It is not according to the spirit of the ancient world in general to deny the existence of God, or to use arguments to prove it. The belief was one natural to the human mind and common to all men.” Dr. James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible.

    It matters little to say there is a God. What matters is what attributes you assign him. We diss the ancient peoples who worshipped different gods, but when people hold to radically different views of God, is it not in effect different gods they speak of? Just like you mention Oscar Oxgoad and I say ‘I know that guy!’ But further discussion reveals the attributes and physical qualities don’t line up, so you say, ‘Oh, I guess I don’t know him after all. It’s two people who share the same name.’

    Who are these characters that assign him whatever attributes they find convenient? I’ll take the overall lesson of the psalm. They’re cocky as all get-out, but God will set matters straight—an underlying theme of the Bible. Humans insist upon self-rule, the underlying Genesis message of knowing ‘good’ and ‘bad’ God says, ‘Don’t try it—you’ll mess it all up.’ They do so anyway. God says, ‘Alright, I allot you such-and-such an amount of time to make good on your claim. When the time is up, we’ll see what kind of a world you’ve made.’

    “[The wicked one] says in his heart: ‘I will never be shaken; For generation after generation I will never see calamity.’” (vs 6)

    What says the psalmist of God? “Rise up, O Jehovah. O God, lift up your hand. . . . you do see trouble and distress. You look on and take matters in hand. To you the unfortunate victim turns. . . . Break the arm of the wicked and evil man, So that when you search for his wickedness, You will find it no more.” (vs 12-15)

     

    ***This is from the previous week, but the idea had to gel and be prompted by a question on Quora:

    Q (from Quora): Its odd that 1 out of 9 men in the governing body is a person of color. How does that reflect their constituents?

    A: 100% of the American presidency was a person of color for 8 years running. Did that result in a country where blacks and whites get along seamlessly, as with JWs? Pew Research reports that [in the United States] the makeup of Jehovah’s Witnesses is almost exactly 1/3 white, 1/3 black, 1/3 Hispanic, with about 5% Asian, mirroring the national population quite well. It is the biblical values taught that count, not the people who serve as placeholders. One should go for substance, rather than symbolism. As the stats show, Witnesses have all but solved racism.

    It is pretty much as in Acts 6, when “the Greek-speaking Jews began complaining against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution,” necessary because an annual pilgrimage for the Pentecost celebration unexpectedly turned into an extended stay with the formation of the Christian congregation. The apostles jumped on the problem right away, selecting “seven reputable men . . . full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary matter.”

    Five of the seven are Greek, judging by their names. (vs 5). Good. The Greek names would build confidence among the Greek persons who were agrieved, no doubt. But the apostles saw no need to change their own makeup, incorporating some Greeks among themselves. It’s the same with the Governing Body themselves. With Branches, the governing arrangements start out heavily foreign but as locals advance spiritually a greater load shifts to them, very much like the appointment of the Greek speaking disciples.

     

    ******  The bookstore