The grammar of Matthew 24:45 – 46 (NWT) reads as follows: (a) “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave
(b) whom his master appointed over his domestics,
(c) to give them their food at the proper time?
(c’) Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so.
(b’) Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings
----------------- The following expressions indicate that the “faithful and discreet slave” is an individual person. “Who IS the FDS? ... that slave ... finds HIM ... appoint HIM”.
When and why did the WTS make the change from “A slave” to “a slave CLASS”?
Does the WTS still say that the FDS and the “domestics” are the same people?
If it is the role of the FDS to teach the “domestics”, where do the rank and file fit in?
Am I correct in thinking that the WTS says the FDS were appointed over themselves as Domestics before the “parousia” and that when the Master “arrived” (1918???) that’s when he appointed the FDS over the rank and file?
How does this align with the fact that it was not until 1943 that the WTS officially changed the date of the invisible parousia from 1874 to 1914?
When was the mantle of FDS first applied to a “Governing Body”?
Confused? I certainly am. Perhaps someone could give me a simple explanation of the article that appeared in The Watchtower magazine of 1 February 1952, pages 76 to 83
Doug
Are the GB/FDS and the "Domestics" still the same people?
by Doug Mason 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Doug Mason
-
TheOldHippie
I think it would have been easier for you if you had been at the WT study yesterday, as it dealt with the questions you pose. A 1952 article might be "somewhat" outdated, I am afraid.
-
moggy lover
The Watchtower teaching on this subject gets a bit fuzzy if one asks too many questions about the theological ramifications of this teaching.
Yes. The "FDS" and the "domestics" are the same group, but viewed differently. The Rev Climax! book says on page 201 the following: "The slave, as a body, is responsible for supplying the food, but the domestics, the individual members of that body are sustained by partaking of the spiritual provisions . They are the same group but described in different terms - collectively, and individually"
This may be all very well, but the pratical application of this piece of wisdom has a glaring difficiency. For instance:This means that Ted Jaracz as part of a group of some 8,500 people is the FDS, but as an individual, when he reads the material he has contributed to, becomes a "domestic". Thus: When he writes a Watchtower article, he is part of the Slave, but when he studies what he has written, he is a "domestic".
I mean and all. Come on. You mean, he doesn't know what he has written, but has to study it as well? Then, these men "study" the material they have contributed to collectively, never individually. They meet, supposedly, at regular Watchtower studies, and along with the rest of the gathered "anointed" they study this material. So there is no partical difference between the individuals and the group.
Hi, Ted, are you really a member of the FDS?
Ted: What's today? Wednesday? Nope. Today I am studying what I wrote on Monday. So toaday I'm a domestic.
See? Logical as quicksand.
The other "non anointed" sheep are the other sheep whether considered as a group or as individuals. So what is sauce for gander is not sauce for the goose. By the way, they are the part of Matt 24:47 where it says "all His belongings" so: The FDS= the anointed as a group, the domestics= the anointed as individuals, who evidently teach themselves individually, and the "belongings"= the other sheep.
The other parts of your question also become murky in the telling. As far as we can tell it was Mrs R who first broached the subject of the FDS=CTR. There is no record of CTR actually admitting that he was the FDS publically, but we do have anecdotal evidence from his associates who confirmed that he declared this several times privately.
It was Rutherford, who when he felt sufficiently strong to break free from the straitjacket of Russellite theology, invented the FDS "class" doctrine. In fact this was one of his favourite buzz words. He made up the "Mordecai" class, the "Esther" class, the "Naomi" class, the "Ruth" class, and his particular favourite: the "clergy" class. Oh, there were others that were part of his creative writing expertise, but none of them are now in regular use.
The GB was established in 1971, which would have been when they were identified as the FDS. Knorr made the proviso that to be a member of the GB, one had to be of the FDS.
Whatever you do, don't mention the years 1919 or 1943 to a dyed-in-the-wool Watchtower follower. Throughout his years at the helm of the Watchtower Empire, JFR did not have the creative ability to unfold a concrete theology that explained Christ's "invisible" presence as occurring in 1914. He did make allusions to this date in some obscure passages of his literature, but whether these were ghostwritten for him by others is uncertain. Certainly he died believing that Jesus actually did come in 1874.
It was his evil genius of a disciple, Freddy Franz, who, in 1943 first outlined a detailed theology that explained 1914 as the date for Christ's "invisible" presence. When this detailed theology was unfurled, no attribution to the former date of 1874 was made, and those newly converted who had no inkling of CTR's 1874 date swallowed it whole. Which suited friend Freddy very nicely indeed.
-
moggy lover
OOPS.
Some spelling errors. "Partical" in the last sentence of paragraph 4 should read: "practical" and "toaday" in the last sentence of paragarph 6 is of course, "today"
My ie-spell has been disabled.
Sorrrry...
-
AnnOMaly
When and why did the WTS make the change from "A slave" to "a slave CLASS"?
1927 - details of Rutherford's 'reasoning' can be found in the Feb. 15 WT from p.51.
Does the WTS still say that the FDS and the "domestics" are the same people?
Yes. Last Sunday's lesson made the comparison with the Isaiah Scripture where Israel is Jehovah's servant (singular) but also His witnesses (plural). But they also pointed out that only a select few had positions of authority or teaching responsibilities. See http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/180266/1/The-Faithful-Steward-and-its-Governing-Body
-
donuthole
During the life of CT Russell he sometimes attributed the FDS as being "the Society"; whereas others, such as his wife Maria promoted the idea that CT Russell was the FDS. CT Russell conceded that it was possible that he could be the slave, though publically didn't seem to promote it.
After the death of CTR, Rutherford eulogized him saying that Russell privately admitted to being the FDS.
As we move into the later years Rutherford started moving away from Russell on many levels. I'm curious if anyone knows how the doctrine of the FDS shifted over these times. Did Rutherford ever print anything directly challenging his early statement that CTR was the slave? When did the anointed class become indentified as the FDS?
-
Narkissos
It's really funny how the WT has to dance around what is possibly its main "prooftext" (for internal use at least) when it could use it in a way more straightforward manner (were it not for its own interpretive tradition).
The text is about church authority/leadership after all. Only it is a parable, not a prophecy, opposing two ideal types of leaders (the faithful and discreet slave / the evil slave) rather than two actual classes of people or organisations. Warning any and all church leaders/teachers that they may end up being judged positively OR negatively depending on how they perform. Which of course implies that the moment of judgement (the arrival of the Master/Lord) is yet to come.
If they used that text a little more contextually, they could apply it (although non-exclusively) to their Governing Body (FDS) in its relationship to the rank & file (domestics, whether "anointed" or not): this would correspond to the average JW belief which practically equates the GB with the FDS in its role of providing "food" for everybody. But of course the other side of the parable would equally apply. The GB might potentially be judged as "the evil slave". Instead of warranting their authority unconditionally, the text would question how they use it (which is precisely its point).
Shifting to a more correct understanding of the relationship between the slave and the domestics while maintaining the concept of a past and final positive judgement on the slave (hence a class / fulfilled prophecy approach, against the perspective of the text) might be a possible compromise, but that would require defining the identity of "the (modern-day) slave" in a way that can apply both then and now, and I can't see how that can be done other than identifying it as the WT society itself. But the distinction between the GB and the WT as developed in the 70s runs against it. Maybe Fred Franz had sensed the problem...
-
AnnOMaly
I'm curious if anyone knows how the doctrine of the FDS shifted over these times. Did Rutherford ever print anything directly challenging his early statement that CTR was the slave? When did the anointed class become indentified as the FDS?
It shifted how doctrine usually shifted - with a stroke of the pen - one minute one thing, another minute something different.
Contrast statements made in 1922 Watch Towers ...
March 1, 'Who Is Wise?' p.73-4
The indisputable facts, therefore, show that the "time of the end" began in 1799; that the Lord's second presence began in 1874; that the harvest followed thereafter and greater light has come upon the Word of God. In this connection, then, let us note the words of Jesus: "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season ? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Matthew 24: 45, 46) It must be conceded, then, that at the end ot the world, at the "time of the end", during the presence of the Lord, during the harvest, he would have in the earth a servant who would be faithful and wise. The physical facts show that Brother Russell met every one of these requirements. This prophetic utterance, then, has been fulfilled. Therefore fulfilled prophecy, or physical facts, and the circumstantial evidence are conclusive proofs that Brother Russell filled the office of that faithful and wise servant. He applied his heart unto wisdom.
May 1, 'The Gentile Times p.132
Jesus clearly indicated that during his second presence he would have amongst the church a faithful and wise servant, through whom he would give to the household of faith meat in due season. The evidence is overwhelming concerning the Lord's second presence, the time of the harvest, and that the office of "that servant" has been filled by Brother Russell.
... with these in 1927 ...
February 15, 'Servant - Good and Evil,' p. 54-6
The important question now under consideration is, Who is the faithful and wise servant here mentioned? ...
... It does not seem reasonable to apply these verses to the time of the presence of the Lord in 1874. So far as the facts show there was no one at that time who was specially examined and found approved and made ruler over all of the Lord's goods. There was no one in 1874 feeding the household of faith meat in due season. It was after that time that the work of the harvest appeared, and particularly the work of restoration of the truths concerning the ransom, restitution and the second presence of the Lord. Since the words of the Master show that he refers to the time when he arrives to take account with his Servant, the irresistible conclusion is that the scripture applies in 1918; that is, after the Lord came to his temple and began taking account with those to whom he had committed kingdom interests.
The scriptures heretofore cited prove beyond a question of a doubt that God's chosen Servant whom he approves and in whom he delights is The Christ; that The Christ consists of Jesus and the faithful members of his body ; and that the Scriptures often speak of the body members as the Lord, because they are a part of the Lord. (Acts 9: 4, 5) The inference must now drawn that when the Lord comes to his temple he finds a faithful and wise Servant class. ...
... Since Jesus speaks of his body members as himself, and since the Scriptures definitely locate The Servant as The Christ, then the irresistible conclusion is that "the faithful and wise servant" mentioned by the Lord is a class, made up of those whom he finds faithful at the time he comes to his temple. ...
... There seems to be no ground, within the meaning of the Scriptures, for concluding that "the faithful and wise servant" refers to any individual person ...
... What is here said is no reflection on anything that has heretofore been written. Some have claimed that the scripture, "The faithful and wise servant," specifically applies to Brother Russell. He never made that claim himself. That Brother Russell was greatly used of the Lord no one can doubt who knew him. That the Lord used him more wonderfully than any one on earth since St. Paul's day there can be no doubt. But that does not at all affect the explanation of this scripture. It is clearly manifest from the scriptures hereinbefore cited that the elect Servant of God is Christ, Jesus the Head and his body members; and that Christ Jesus speaks of these faithful members as a part of himself.
To say that "that faithful and wise servant" specifically applies to one individual and to none other would imply that a large proportion of the body members of Christ could not be classed either as faithful or wise. That would be doing violence to the scripture.
[emphasis mine]
-
Doug Mason
Thank you everyone for your insights, and for the efforts you put into this for me.
Doug
-
AnnOMaly
I think Rutherford was waving a red herring or using a little sleight of hand when he said no one was feeding the household of faith in1874. That was true, but this wouldn't have been what Bible Students thought anyway - that Russell had been appointed in 1874. It was a couple of years later that Russell began to publish his scriptural 'discoveries.' Rutherford's 1922 statements said the role of 'that Servant' would be filled "during the presence of the Lord, during the harvest" not (as in 1927) "the time of the presence of the Lord in 1874."
And then there's that oft-used phrase, when an official WT teaching is overturning the previous official WT teaching, "Some have claimed ... [enter the 'now obselete doctrine' here]." Tsk, tsk.