Sheep and Goats

Category: Meetings

  • 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

  • Gifts in Men or Gift to Men: Ephesians 4:8

    Q: Why does the New World Translation say at Ephesians 4:8 “gifts in men,” whereas most translations say, “gifts to men?”

    Hmm. Do they? I checked some resources and they do—by a long shot. This becomes relevant because Ephesians 4:8 was the theme scripture for a recent Watchtower Study: “Show Appreciation for “Gifts in Men”—from the October 2024 issue.

    I thought at first that the NWT was up to its old tricks, choosing a unique rendering of the preposition, which they would have to justify. I didn’t doubt they would be able to, but I thought they would have to do it. 

    At second glance, it appeared that NWT is the only translation that had it correct! I asked ChatGBT, “At Ephesians 4:8, why do some translations say gifts IN men?” The answer was long and technical. You don’t want Brother Chat in your Kingdom Hall because his windy answers will surely not abide by any 30-second goal. The phrase I zeroed in on was: “The Greek word Paul uses, "ἐν" (en), is typically translated as "in" but can also mean "among" or "through," depending on the context. This flexibility creates the variation in translation.”

    Ha! The word they render as “in” is “typically translated” that way, only in this case, everyone else declines to do it! Corroborating this is Appendix 7C at the back of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. It is a diagram illustrating basic meanings of Greek prepositions. The word at Ephesians 4:8 is “en.” It means, first of all, “in.” (At the JW website, enter “prepositions” in the Search box.)

    The “gifts in men” allows one to view the men themselves as gifts. The gifts to men (or unto) better furthers the view that holy spirit is the gift, but also allows for the view that the recipients do little with it beyond basking in their own smug ‘righteousness.’ None of that on the Witnesses’ watch. Witnesses are into applying scripture, not just thinking themselves holy by virtue of it.

    The difference is subtle because the “gifts to men” results in the same product as the “gifts in men.” That is, it results in men who use their given talents for the benefit of the entire “body of Christ,” with the end result that “we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (vs 13-14)

    At any rate, the friends at our Watchtower Study that Sunday had nothing but praise for the gifts in men they have experienced. None of the grumbling you may hear online from ones who have run afoul of discipline or who prefer kicking against the goads. Just unsolicited  accolade after accolade, many of which also threatened the 30-second target or even trounced it entirely. It was not of just servants, not just elders, not just circuit overseers, though all of these drew praise.

    Someone extended the point to showing appreciation to anyone, be it servant, elder, CO, brother, sister, or anyone met in the ministry or workplace. Dishing out genuine praise benefits the giver more than the recipient. It trains one’s way of thinking, not to take people for granted, and look to their best side. Someone else said the CO’s day off is frequently anything but that, since everyone knows what it is and they slam him with phone calls that day. 

    We have in our congregation an LDC brother (Local Design Committee) who said it takes about 500 brothers or sisters to build a Kingdom Hall, plus other hundreds in support roles. The ones in overseer roles, though they have a project to complete and must keep on reasonable schedule, primarily view themselves and are trained as shepherds. They have a way of breaking down any task into manageable steps and parcelling them out to volunteers according to their ability.

    He summed up the review questions with the observation that the young men and women have power—it is what defines them. And, if they turn it towards career, they can do nicely for themselves—certainly not nothing. But, when they turn their gifts to the of building up the body of Christ, they end up writing a “bestseller.” He may have been thinking of the book of remembrance that Malachi 3:17 speaks of, about those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.

     

    Notwithstanding how that Watchtower Study made use of the  New World Translation’s “gifts in men,” that is not to say that “gifts to men” is wrong. In fact, since AI is no more than a compilation of human scholarship, it may not be surprising that it sides with the majority “gifts to men.” Greek prepositions are tricky. There is not a strict one-on-one correspondence to the prepositions of other languages (which also may be tricky). Other factors can influence how they are rendered. Complicating matters further is the fact that Ephesians 4:8 itself is an application of Psalm 68:18: “You ascended on high; You carried away captives; You took gifts in the form of men.”

    Says wordy Brother Chat: “The phrase “gifts in men” could arise from an attempt to closely mirror the original Psalm's emphasis on "receiving gifts among men." Some older translations or more literal renderings may choose this phrasing to preserve the link to the Psalm's wording.” 

    If there is one thing we know about the NWT, it is that if favors “literal renderings.” Its translators shy away from more interpretive renderings, lest they too get hoodwinked by the “every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men” of vs 14!

    “On the other hand,” says Chat, "gifts to men" reflects Paul's interpretation and application of the [Psalm 68:18] verse in Ephesians, where the focus is on the giving of spiritual gifts. Most modern translations adopt this phrasing to align with Paul’s theological point.”

    Then it summarizes:

    • "Gifts in men": This might suggest that God bestows gifts within people, placing spiritual gifts in individuals to be exercised.
    • "Gifts to men": This emphasizes the act of giving, highlighting that Christ distributes spiritual gifts to individuals for the benefit of the church.

    Point is, the NWT goes for literalism, which is what they generally do in translating. The others are more modified by context. At first glance, I prefer the majority “to men” interpretation. But since both effectively return the same result, qualified men who turn their gifts toward the betterment of the body of Christ, the more literal one also works.

    Just to make sure Chat wasn’t pulling a fast one on me, I arm-twisted it: 

    Q: How is that Greek preposition in Ephesians 4:8 usually translated in other settings?

    A: (long and windy, as usual) . . . then: “The preposition in question in Ephesians 4:8 is "ἐν" (Greek: en). This preposition is highly versatile in Greek and is most commonly translated as "in" or "within", depending on the context.”

    Then some hi-falutin stuff about how, “its meaning can shift based on its grammatical and contextual usage. . . . When analyzing translations, the choice of "in men" versus "to men" hinges on interpretive considerations rather than rigid adherence to the preposition's usual usage. Most translators view the theological emphasis of Paul's argument—Christ giving gifts—as justifying the rendering "to men" over a more literal "in men" or "among men." This also aligns with the broader narrative of Ephesians 4 about equipping the saints.“

    So, either is correct. Not allowed is looking down one’s nose at the other for using the “wrong” translation. There are a few instances where translations are wrong, but this is not one of them.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Just Two Scriptures: Source Material for that 5-Minute Talk for Husbands.

    Just two scriptures listed for the 5 minute student talk last night regarding husbands. Not like the old days, when there might be a few paragraphs for source material. Just two scriptures.

    Colossians 3:19 was the first: “You husbands, keep on loving your wives and do not be bitterly angry with them.”

    This appears to be a guy thing. There is no reciprocal counsel for wives not to be bitterly angry with husbands. There are other bits of counsel, but not this one. It means that, either women don’t get angry, or guys are so used to people being angry at them that it rolls off them like water off a duck. At any rate, it seems ‘bitter anger’ from a husband wounds more deeply than from a wife, perhaps on account of the sense of betrayal—he being the last person she expects to scream at her.

    Not too long before, in the ministry, I had spoken with a divorced woman. She spoke of her ex as not a bad guy overall, but she hadn’t been able to deal with his “anger issues.” Almost as though she knew about the verse—but she didn’t, or at any rate it never came up. Unknowingly, she corroborated it.

    Then there was the fact that it is not ‘anger’ that Colossians speaks of, but ‘bitter anger.’ It suggests a darker, more enduring quality, something that may have become default mode. A guy takes his frustrations out on his wife, for example. She is not the source of them—his daily trials are, even his own shortcomings—but he takes them out on her. Don’t think of that dust-up between Paul and Barnabas. They got over it. Think of something more lasting.

    Many translations render the Greek word, not as ‘bitterly angry,’ but as ‘harsh.’ In that case, think of Rehoboam, the lout who said his little finger would be thinker than his dad’s hips. Bitter anger or harshness: pick your poison, because both are.

    Then there was consideration of how married men in the congregation may diligently apply all the Bible counsel on smooth interacting with others—summarized and refined into that new brochure, ‘Love People—Make Disciples’—to everyone one they encounter except their wives! They feel with the latter that can “be themselves.” No need to apply any artificial traits. What they miss is that the traits should not be artificial, not for one endeavoring to put on the Christlike personality. The effort should be that they be deep-seated and genuine. The first person upon whom to express them should be their wives, not the last.

    This was a good lead into the second scripture, Ephesians 5:33. “Nevertheless, each one of you must love his wife as he does himself;”

    Even men who are hard themselves will not break a leg and keep walking on it. In the final analysis, men accommodate their needs and learn to be kind to themselves. From God’s point of view, your wife is yourself. He is the one who calls husband and wife “one flesh.” So, brothers have to shape up where they have to. We have assignments. We work hard at assignments and hope to get more. Our wives are our first “assignment.” Flub that one up and nothing else really matters.

    After the meeting, someone pointed out the latest Watchtower (January, 2025) with an article directed at Christian husbands but nothing following for wives. In the past, if one was discussed, the other one would not be far behind. I thought maybe it was like that talk from the new GB member, either he or the other one, and now both have been rendered veterans by two newer ones still. He related the experience of a sister dressed provocatively at the Kingdom Hall, at least in someone’s opinion, and the suggestion that brothers counsel her. “I think that’s husband territory,” one of them said. So maybe if there is not a follow up article directed at sisters, it is for that reason. Christ (in this case the undershepherds that represent him) has direct headship over the man. Not so with the sisters, however. There is a layer in between. 

    Not that I would think they’d let it go over the provocative sister. If she was provocative enough, they might lean into the husband. But what if (gulp) the husband was a non-believer, or if she was single? Then they might put a bug in the ear of an older mature sister, ideally one who does not dress as a sack of potatoes herself and can empathize with wanting to present one’s best appearance.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • My Meeting Notes: Week of March 25, 2024 – Psalm 22

    Just a single psalm for the Bible reading this week: 22. There are verses in this psalm that NT writers later apply to Christ. Read 1 and 8, for example. They sound awfully familiar. 

    My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (1)

    ”And at the ninth hour, Jesus called out with a loud voice: “Eʹli, Eʹli, laʹma sa·bach·thaʹni?” which means, when translated: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

    The April 2021 Study Watchtower suggests 7 possible ways that cry might be understood. (Questions from Readers) Click on the Research Guide for Psalm 22:1

    ****

    All those seeing me mock me; They sneer and shake their heads in derision: “He entrusted himself to Jehovah. Let Him rescue him! Let Him save him, for he is so dear to Him! (7-8)

    ”In the same way also, the chief priests with the scribes and the elders began mocking him, saying: “Others he saved; himself he cannot save! He is King of Israel; let him now come down off the torture stake, and we will believe in him. He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” (Matthew 27:41-43)

    One verse not cited by any NT writer is Pslam 22:16. Almost alone, the New World Translation renders that verse (the last phrase): “Like a lion they are at my hands and feet.” Almost all other translations pick up a corruption of the Septuagint and render that phrase: “they pierced my hands and my feet.” The NWT sticks with the earlier Masoretic version. Frankly, they’d love for it to say ‘pierces my hands and feet’ too—it fits better with the program—but it doesn’t say that originally. It says ‘like a lion they are at my hands and feet.’ This was not brought out at the meeting, but I knew it anyway from when the Lutheran evangelical tried to convert the rabbi.

    It was our circuit overseer this week. In showing a video, he was all excited that when Jade says ‘Oh, I get it!’ in the coffee shop setting, at that same moment the cash register bell goes off. ‘Ka-Ching’ and he is convinced it is deliberate. Ha! It probably is. I can see it being slipped in as a cute little joke, as though to see how long it would take for anyone to pick up on it. Who would have thought it? Maybe, Governing Body members themselves don’t know about it.

    Next day, I told him that, for his talk, I and some others had brought little bells that we would ring every time he made a point that we understood.

    Then, there was Transgender Visibiltiy Day, proclaimed by the President for that Sunday—Easter Sunday. Now, Witnesses don’t do Easter, and there was no mention of either Easter or the Visibility Day, but you should have heard the uproar on social media! Carrying on about the desecration of a sacred holiday and all.

    Ah, well. Doesn’t it proves that it is not possible to dress up a pig?

    As any Witness knows, Easter is an example of slapping a Christian label on a pre-existing sordid holiday, in this the celebration of the goddess Ashtarte—always coinciding with the rebirth of the earth every springtime, once again the explosion of life, and so carried out with orgies and fertility rites. Hence, the bunnies and eggs which clearly have nothing to do with Jesus. Then along come the church fathers much later, hoping to hijack and redirect an already-wildly popular holiday by pasting a Christian label on it!

    Witnesses seem to never tire of revealing the unsavory roots of holidays such a Christmas, Halloween, and Easter. My response is to say, ‘Give it a rest already. Nobody cares. If people haven’t given them up by now, they’re not going to.’ It’s like what my brother, who is vaccinated against Covid-19 but drew the line at the frequent boosters, said about the State’s incessant vaccine ads; ‘Sheesh! You’d think they’d realize that if people haven’t gotten it by now, they’re not going to.’

    But, in this case, those Witnesses are right on the money and I am wrong. Transgender Visibility Day (as though they were invisible before) is no more than the holiday reverting closer to its origin. I mean, there have been people misgendered at birth. Occasionally, sexual organs are not distinct. Yet, we all know that when small children are queried at school or the pediatricians office as to whether they are really a boy or a girl (as happened with a young mother in our congregation)—question that perhaps they were ‘assigned’ the wrong sex—something is seriously out of whack.

    As to the rededication of the day to celebrate Christ’s resurrection, good as it is, Jesus never said to celebrate it. Same with his birth. It’s a good thing, plainly, but Jesus never said to celebrate it. Churches celebrate both. The one event Christ did say to celebrate, the commemoration of his death, they do not do—at least not in the way we typical celebrate great events, as an annual occurrence. Instead, they attach a level of mystery to it and do it routinely so that nobody knows just what it is they are doing. I mean, the Lord’s evening meal, the first memorial of his death, was held on Passover night, Jesus giving it new significance. You would think that fact would dictate how often the Memorial was to be celebrated. “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” Paul says. (1 Corinthians 5:7)

     

    *******  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 3/10/24–Psalm 18

    Just one psalm for the weekly Bible reading this week. 18. It is longer than most. Following are a few aspects commented on: 

    First, the visual: “flash floods of worthless men” (Psalm 18:4) Imagine getting caught up in one of them! David, the psalmist, was, and it “terrified” him. It would me, too.

    He was also worried about “the faultfinding of the people.” (vs 43) He had to be rescued from it.   They are bad news, always with ‘You didn’t do this right! You didn’t do that right! Why isn’t this such-and-such? What about . .  Sheesh.

    Then there is that long visual of Jehovah “bending the heavens” to descend and save the day, with “thick gloom was beneath his feet.” (vs 9) You science brothers can be forgiven for thinking of Einstein, who also bends heavens.

    Those “flash floods of worthless men” have been encircling the loyal ones with whom God himself will act loyally (vs 25), to deliver from “ropes of death, (vs 4) “ropes of the Grave,” and “snares of death.” They call to Jehovah and he heeds them.

    It’s all but target practice then. Thick gloom is beneath his feet as he descends, but he lights it up with “his lightning” to throw “them into confusion.” (vs 14) Things covered are uncovered: “The streambeds became visible; The foundations of the land were exposed by your rebuke. (vs 15) Things (like the psalmist) in danger of being covered over are uncovered: “He reached down from on high; He took hold of me and pulled me from deep waters,” like pulling a Floridian from Hurricane Ian. (the storm that destroyed Ft Myers Beach, where my relatives had a time share and we used to visit from time to time.)

    Upon which, the psalmist is thankful. Would you not be too? “[Jehovah] rescues me from my angry enemies; You lift me high above those who attack me; You save me from the man of violence. That is why I will glorify you among the nations, O Jehovah, And to your name I will sing praises.” (48-49)

    Only a minority of translations render Psalm 18:4 as “flash floods of worthless men.” Most don’t add any human element at all—a common rendering is “torrents of destruction.” But the fact that some do suggests to me that the ones that don’t are chickening out. Maybe they succumb to the modern trend that it’s okay to judge actions but not people, like the psalmist seems to do—so they soften it. “Rivers of wickedness” is a common choice, as though rivers themselves can be wicked.

    Floods “of ungodliness” or of “ungodly men” is the better choice of some. It’s like the Watchtower’s explanation that “the knowledge of Jehovah” being widespread throughout the earth is something that does not affect zebras and bears. Rather, it is a reference of humans who once lived as animals. While the Isaiah 11 prophesy of “the lion shall lay down with the lamb” may well find fulfillment in animals getting along, the real fulfillment lies in how persons who once ripped and devoured each other like wild beasts will no longer do so.

    Similarly, waves don’t get ungodly all by themselves, but waves “of the worthless” (YLT) do.

    ***five of the Biblegateway translations had significantly different readings. NABRE is an example, which renders 18:4 as: ”Praised be the Lord, I exclaim! I have been delivered from my enemies.” There’s a note somewhere that it is a Masoritic correction. I have to research it further. It does have in common with the others that the trouble is with humans—enemies—and not just with some vague ‘forces of destruction,’ or ‘perdition’ as some translations say. 

    ***

    Then there was the Watchtower Study article, “Conquer fear by trusting in Jehovah.” (January 2024 issue) At first glance, it doesn’t look like much. It’s like a recipe, that doesn’t look like much just to see it in print. But when you cook it, that is a different thing. The study itself at the Kingdom Hall amounts to “cooking it.” Most study articles are not designed to stand alone—they must be “cooked” with audience participation. 

    Reference was made (paragraph 14) to a 2014 regional convention  which “depicted how we might meditate on our hope. A father discussed with his family how 2 Timothy 3:1-5 might be worded differently if those verses foretold what it would be like in Paradise: “In the new world the happiest of times will be here. For men will be lovers of others, lovers of spiritual treasures, modest, humble, praisers of God, obedient to parents, thankful, loyal, having great affection for their families, open to agreement, always speaking well of others, self-controlled, mild, lovers of goodness, trustworthy, yielding, lowly in mind, lovers of God rather than lovers of pleasures, motivated by genuine godly devotion; and to these people stick closely.” 

    Reversing the 19 negative attributes of 2 Timothy 3:1-5. I had not thought of that. But I raised my hand to comment that, for the most part, that reversal characterized the brotherhood today. It’s not flawless, people fall short, are imperfect, but in the main it is that way. That’s why they call it a “spiritual paradise.”

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • A Watchtower Study to Settle the Faith-Works Debate: Part 2

    Q: I dunno, can it really be that the faith/works debate that has raged for centuries can be cleared up in a single Watchtower Study? (See Part 1 ) It must be more complicated than that. You mean all who ‘disagree with our interpretation are either not intelligent enough to understand what is plain in Scripture, or so depraved as to deny the truth they see plainly?’

     

    A: I think there is another explanation.

    Key to me is Jesus words at Matthew 11:25

    At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. 

    What other topic is like that, in which young children get the sense of it but the wise and intellectual ones do not? I think it means that a person ought park his/her intellectualism at the door, because it doesn’t help. Per Jesus’ words, it may even hinder.

    In any academic topic I can think of, the wise and intellectual always have a leg up over the young children. Here, they lose out. Translation: Worship of God is not an academic subject and the biggest mistake one can make is to treat it as though it is.

     

    Q: Maybe the doctrine of justification (by faith or works) does not lend itself to a simple, clear, certain, understanding, and grasp upon first reading the Bible. 

    A. I think it does, though not necessarily on first reading. That is why Phillip asked the eunuch if he understood what he was reading and the eunuch replied he could not unless someone guided him.  Upon receiving that guidance, he got the sense of it almost instantly. For whatever reason, the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has been that source of guidance.

    They’re not particularly brilliant. They don’t stand out as intellectuals. How is it they have discerned things that their academic superiors have not—things like no-trinity, kingdom over earth, no immortal soul, and so forth?

    Obedience is surely one factor. God gives holy spirit to those obeying him as ruler, says Acts 5:32. I think that means if you don’t obey him, he may be stingy with the holy spirit that aids understanding. Humility would be another. Here, intellectualism actually gets in the way, for the more of it one has, the greater the assault on humility. Then, there is brotherly love and the resulting determination to remove any obstacle that gets in its way, whether it be the king stirring up emotions of national superiority, or prevailing societal  attitudes of racial, class, or educational superiority.

    So, at least three factors exist that trump intellectualism: obedience, humility, and love. For the most part, those who frame discussion of faith as an intellectual endeavor make no mention whatsoever of these qualities. As often as not, they use their intellectualism as a ploy to justify doing whatever it is they want to do.

    Not that there’s any virtue in being dumb. Not that if you have intellectual gifts you can’t bring them to the altar. Paul had such gifts and he was thus equipped to write 1/3 of the New Testament. But he’s not known primarily for his thinking ability, rather for his zeal,love, and humility. I like the way he takes direction from men inferior to him intellectually.

     

    The sort relationship of faith and works does indeed lend itself to a simple, clear, certain, understanding. Granted, all the nuances will not be covered in a simple Watchtower Study article, but overall, I think it does. Some people don’t like simple and clear, for it undermines their love of debate and pontification. Some people like mystery. That way, you can put your relationship with God in that category and do whatever you want. You can forget all about ‘obedience’ and acquiesce to the contemporary view that obedience makes you a chump. You can speak of being ‘intellectually humble,’ as though it were possible to separate that quality from overall humility. 

    One sister, who has derived benefit from her college degree, says, ‘I would never say that higher education is valueless, but it does have a way of taking things that are simple and making them complicated.’

     

    These people who think they can muscle through on brainpower alone are a plague. “By their fruits you will know them,” holds no sway with them. You would think people would assess critical thinking by the world it has collectively produced. It has been the chief export of universities for some time now, and few world leaders are not university-equipped. 

    Witnesses, on the other hand, though not without the minor mishaps stemming from being ‘earthen vessels,’ have achieved a peacefulness, unity, cohesiveness, that the world can only dream of. Pew Research says their membership (in the U.S.) is almost exactly 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic, with about 5% Asian thrown in. Translation: They have solved racism, the issue that is ripping this world apart, despite its educational advantage.

    Brotherly love is a concept that works, but it does not stand well up to ‘reason,’ especially reason with evolution at its root. It is not a concept that lends itself well to ‘proof.’ The truths that are declared ‘self-evident,’ that ‘all men are created equal,’ are not at all self-evident to those evolution-based. What is self-evident to them is the 2001 SpaceOdyssey humanoid discovering he can beat the snot out of his competitor with a leg bone, whereupon he throws it into the air and out comes this spacecraft to Jupiter. 

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • A Watchtower Study to Settle the Faith-Works ‘Debate.’

    Reference was made at yesterday’s Watchtower Study about how “For centuries, the relationship between faith and works has been hotly debated in Christendom.” Some insist it is saved by faith, and some insist by works. So the Study explored that topic, and it is a big ‘Duh.’ A child can understand it. Barely any ‘education’ at all is required. It is different ‘works’ in different contexts that Paul and James refer to.

    [‘Faith and Works can Lead to Righteousness’—December 2023 issue]

    So you begin to wonder why the learned one haven’t been able to settle it “for centuries.” Is it that “debate” is their method of choice, as though the way to settle anything is through triumph of the intellect? One brother pointed to a faulty silver lining in that approach; it enables professional debaters to say that it’s okay never to reach resolution because the Bible writers themselves couldn’t agree! However, said that Watchtower (paragraph 9): “Jehovah inspired both Paul and James to write what they did. (2 Tim. 3:16) So there must be a simple way to harmonize their statements. There is​—by considering their writings in context”—and, without fuss, they did it.

    Or is it that God blesses those who put obedience first? As in, ‘obedient ones are blessed with understanding, but the ‘great thinkers’ never figure it out?’ As in, “Look! To obey is better than a sacrifice,” (1 Samuel 15:22) in this case, the ‘sacrifice’ of brainpower. As in, ‘You don’t have to know everything, but act upon what you do know.’

    I suspect that’s why the scholars will never be running the show at JW Central. It’s too easy for scholars to take refuge in their scholarship and be unconcerned that no practical application is ever made of it. Said Jesus to the learned of his day: “How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?” (John 5:44) The first activity interferes with the second—it is a trap scholars can easily fall into. Run with what you have, instead. If you don’t have everything, as you never will, figure it out on the fly.

    Or is it some other factor? Is it that the faith people are such because they don’t want to do any works? Or the works people are such because they don’t have much faith, but do like to shine before others? At any rate, it is very strange that the relationship between faith and works can be cleared up in a single Study at the Kingdom Hall (it was just a refresher study anyway, not anything new) whereas the theologians have debated it “for centuries.”

    Some of these points came up in field service the day before. ‘Here you are going door-to-door,’ one evangelical man said to us, ‘but don’t you know that salvation is by faith and not by works?’ ‘Yeah, everyone knows that,’ I replied. None of Jehovah’s Witnesses think they’re ‘earning’ anything. It’s just a matter of showing appreciation for a priceless gift. If you receive such a gift and it makes no change whatsoever in your life afterwards, one might justifiably wonder just how much you really do appreciate it.

    This fellow also went on and on about the pastor of his church. The pastor will quote this or that from the Bible and then you should not just take his word for it, he would say, but you should check it. ‘Yeah, we’re trying to make all our people pastors,’ is what I would have said had I thought of it in time—our best lines always occur to us too late. Of course, not all our people are pastors—we too have plenty of weak or immature Christians—but the Witness organization doesn’t cater to them by appointing just a single person to serve as the ‘pastor.’ There’s no reason everyone can’t attain to the role. Besides, a pastor is always at risk that his special qualifications and background doesn’t go to his head. Sometimes it does.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • You Can Remain Confident During Uncertain Times

    Now that Jehovah’s Witnesses are no longer the ‘counting time’ religion or the ‘no beard’ religion, it is almost as though a rebranding is taking place.

    Any time the Watchtower trots out Haggai and Zechariah, as was done in the 1/28/24 study article, ‘You Can Remain Confident During Uncertain Times,’ you know it’s a reinvigorating work going on.

    From para 7: ‘Jehovah wants us to focus on the lifesaving work of making disciples. As mentioned in paragraph 7, Haggai urged Jehovah’s people to make a fresh start in their sacred service, as if they were laying the temple’s foundation again.’ [bolding mine]

    Clear out some trash, just like the ‘messenger preparing the way did’ long ago, and you can tackle the building work once more. Doesn’t negate what’s been done before, but it is still time for a ‘fresh start.’

    Brother Splane asked in the latest Update, ‘Did you ever work a street and nobody is home, then pass by Sunday afternoon and notice a car in every drive?’ Yeah, I did notice that. It used to drive me nuts. Why are we visiting when people aren’t home?

    Other publishers in that Update expressed happiness that, ‘Now, all I have to focus on is starting conversations.’ It suggests the question, ‘Well, what did they have to focus on before that they no longer do, a focus that interfered with starting conversations?’ ‘Counting time’ comes to mind. The friends used to have to do it, now they don’t. One reason Sunday after the meeting has long been unpopular for field service is that you can’t count much time that way. Better to go out on a weekday morning where you can generally count much more time. If few people are home—well, at least we got to count more time. 

    That’s done. Finished. ‘Now all we have to do is think about starting conversations.’ Maybe an even greater ‘heresy’ will happen later with regard to evening worship, where a half hour of activity can produce more conversations than 2 hours of when people aren’t home. Plus, you reach a different sort of people, often more relaxed because the day is done.

    Maybe the end of suggested presentations also factors in. It’s long been stated their use is optional (I kicked them to the curb long ago), but many friends seemed to feel it was all but mandatory to use them, lest you appear to be saying ‘contemptible bread’ of the produced food. 

    No more. You can’t focus on those suggested presentations even if you want to. They’re not there.

    Tom Whitepebble may be on to something when he suggests the Governing Body must sometimes be aghast at what they have unleashed as regards following men. It’s hard to find just the right emphasis—one person says, ‘Thanks for the new rule!’ while his neighbor says, ‘Huh? Did you say something?’ So, they strive for the right emphasis, but do they always find it?

    ‘Look, we said facial hair is not an issue,’ they said back in 2017. ‘Nobody listened to us! So now we’ll devote an entire Update, complete with video and chariot, to show we’re serious about it—we don’t care about beards!’

    Will we see parallel developments in other areas?

     

    None of the above was the overall focus of the article, though. In the first paragraph was the statement:

    “You may be concerned about your family’s safety because of unstable political conditions, persecution, or opposition to the preaching work. Are you facing any of these issues? If so, you will benefit from considering how Jehovah helped the ancient Israelites when they were confronted with similar problems.” The discussion that followed was the challenged of those released from Babylon to rebuild worship in their former home. They got off to a quick start, but then languished, cowed by that day’s counterpart of the above trio.

    “Unstable political conditions” is among that trio of woes that cause Christians problems today. In country after country, the political right and left are at each others’ throats to the point that civil war is floated as a possibility.

    The world is run by crazy people. Lunatics of whatever side are no longer marginalized but rise to the top. Any time something whacky happens, ‘conspiracy’ is always a possible reason. If sane people ran the world, it would not be so: one of those things would be just ‘one of those things,’ but not with crazy people running the show. I’ve heard people say that, given the lunacy of those in charge, any conspiracy theory will be accepted on sight until proven wrong, an 180 degree reversal from how things have always been.

    Whenever you undertake a challenging work, you want to make sure you have good footing. The above trio might suggest our footing is not very solid at all. So I liked the article’s encouragement to stay focused on what truly is good footing, really the mainstays of Christian faith: gathering together, prayer, scripture reading and meditation, and speaking to others of God’s purposes.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • The Man Who Memorized the Bible—and Still Wanted to Become a Jesuit.

    It’s a bit of a cheap shot—but on account of that Babylon the Great scripture we Witnesses are known to take such shots*—John Barr, the GB member until he died, related an amazing feat: a candidate who was rejected as a Jesuit for being too short. Whereupon, he memorized the entire Bible to prove his worthiness.

    The truly amazing thing, John Barr related, was that after having done so, he still wanted to be a Jesuit.

    As I recall it, the account was included in Barr’s talk at a District Convention. Such GB talks would often find their way into the Watchtower magazine within the year. When his did, the magazine dropped the line about still wanting to become a Jesuit. Instead, it skipped right over to the more milquetoast, “Surely, however, it is far more important to understand God’s Word than it is to memorize it.” It declined to take the ‘cheap shot’ that Barr could not resist.

    The Watchtower paragraph, from the February 1, 1994 issue (pages 8-9):

    “In the 17th century C.E., a Catholic man named Cornelius van der Steen sought to become a Jesuit but was rejected because he was too short. Says Manfred Barthel in his book The Jesuits​—History & Legend of the Society of Jesus: “The committee informed van der Steen that they were prepared to waive the height requirement, but only with the proviso that he would learn to recite the entire Bible by heart. The story would hardly be worth telling if van der Steen had not complied with this rather presumptuous request.” What effort it took to memorize the whole Bible! Surely, however, it is far more important to understand God’s Word than it is to memorize it.”

    ___ *As for ‘cheap shots,’ nothing is a more cardinal sin in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ eyes than obscuring Bible teachings. Examples are the teaching of trinity, which makes God incomprehensible, someone impossible to know. Another is the hellfire teaching, which makes him cruel, someone you would not want to know. The Jesuits were firmly in that category, never mind whatever good things they did.

    IMG_1031

     

    ******  The bookstore