Who really is the faithful and discreet slave? (A perspective)

StoneWall

“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics,
to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so.
Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings" -Matt. 24:45-47 [NWT]

Much has been said and written about the foregoing scriptures as far as relating to the anointed (GB) of the JW's (WTBTS).
Even some have brought up how C.T.Russell was referred to by some as "that slave".
All of these claims to be the faithful slave deal with conjecture or presumption.
There have been numerous threads dealing with or dedicated to those aspects so I'll not be redundant on discussing them.

Instead I'd like to focus on the actual wording according to the New World Translation.
The word "appointed" is used. This wording in and of itself is meaning past tense. If you appointed something, it means you've
already done it.
If it is a future event it would have made more sense to have worded it "whom his master will appoint".
Next word I'd like to focus on is "slave". In the context it is apparent that it is in singular form not plural such as "slaves"
We have heard about a composite "slave class" from publications but not from the bible. So I'm much more interested in
what does the bible really teach.

When I was reading over the whole chapter of Matthew 24 it became very clear that in all other instances Jesus was referring
to himself. And yet for some reason we are told that he changes gears and pulls out of the blue a reference to a future event
that is dealing with a slave that he doesn't name. (and let the mental gymnastics begin with the slave not being one slave and
appointed meaning a future event.)

Then when I compared Matthew chapter 24 with Matthew chapter 28 it made more sense that Jesus was asking a rhetorical question.
Such as compare Matt.24:47 "Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings" with Matt. 28:18"And Jesus approached
and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
So is Jesus the faithful and discreet slave? It sure would appear to me to make more sense than other explanations.

And for you that say isn't Jesus the master in that illustration? Think of when Jesus said this at Matt.6:24 “No one can slave
for two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will stick to the one and despise the other.
YOU cannot slave for God and for Riches" He was referring to the Father as master here not himself.

What are your thoughts,opinions,feelings on this?

AllTimeJeff

Great summary. Funny things happen when you read the chapters in context. I always felt that the scripture pertained to Jesus. I tried to defend it a grand total of one time in detail to a Catholic priest. Got my ass handed to me that day....

Here are the notes on Mt 24 from my "Gilead" bible, which clearly demonstrates the GB ability to make shit up out of thin air. (I keep my bible for posterity, also, one day, there may be a world wide toilet paper shortage... also, it cost $100 to leather bound it)

MT 24:4-14; = Applies in 33-70 CE in 1st Cen fullfillment/ 1914- Great Trib and destruction of Babylon the Great in modern fullfillment

MT 24:15-22; = Applies to 66-70- CE in 1st Century fullfillment/GB as of 2005 didn't know the modern day fullfillment of this passage.

MT 24:23-28; = Applies from 70 CE to the presence of Jesus.

MT 24:29-21; = Applies at the end of the worldwide system.

If I wrote all of the above down on the test as my answer, I would get an "A". I got an "A".

bluecanary

What an interesting take on that scripture. Thanks for sharing this, StoneWall.

Alwayshere

I had always thought it was John because of what Rev. 1:1 and 19 says but now I think it could be Jesus.

JWoods

Strange that the Jesus words were "slave" while the JW interpretation is "boss-man".

The people under the "slave" are really the true slaves. For Christ's sakes - they cannot even play the damn piano or other instruments for themselves at the CA anymore.

Roboticx. Azsaiic Aisomov would be proud.

PSacramento

It was a parable and as such, it can have more than one meaning, it COULD be in reference to a people, a person, a group, Jesus left that open probably because it was irrelevant.

If we are to assume/interpret it as meaning a particular person, as the parable tends to suggest, Jesus doesn't use slaves or plurals, he uses singular, we can interpret it as meaning that there the indivdual that does his masters will while his master is away, will reap the rewards.

Of course just because Jesus used the singualr doesn't mean it applies to a person, it could be a group or a people too.

Sometimes with parables it is good to go with what is NOT there, as opposed to what is.

As for the master part, Jesus was called and accepted the title of Master so the parable can be seen as eluding to when he returns, which is the way it typically is, or it can be viewed as the Master being God and the "slave" Jesus, but sense Jesus is called Master, that is probably not the way to go.

Fact is, we can only assume, but most take it to mean that ALL Christians serving the Lord are his FDS.

quietlyleaving

let me see if I can have a go at this

stonewall

Instead I'd like to focus on the actual wording according to the New World Translation.
The word "appointed" is used. This wording in and of itself is meaning past tense. If you appointed something, it means you've
already done it.
If it is a future event it would have made more sense to have worded it "whom his master will appoint".

the king James bible makes the verses clearer to me because the verb translated appointed is actually in the past aorist tense in contrast to verse 46 which is future

45 “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. 47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.

According to this understanding Jesus isn't speaking specifically about himself and his followers but is describing an aspect of the type of slave who has proven himself faithful. This is why the verb translated appointed is in the past tense -

Another perspective is that the verses could be translated something like

"Who then is a proven faithful and wise servant that his master can make an appoinment of to rule over his household ...this is the type of slave he will appoint over all his goods"

JimmyPage

Threads like this are just another reason I keep coming back to this board.

I never thought of Jesus as possibly being the slave (of course, I wasn't allowed to).

This goes right along with Doug Mason's recent thread about another possible meaning of the signs of the times.

Looking at the scriptures in context pushes me farther and farther away from the craziness of the JW governing body and their twisting the Bible to fit their own agenda.

passwordprotected

While I appreciate the time and research put into this, I don't think Jesus is the slave. He's the Master, consistently throughout the Gospels. He's also Lord of Lords and King of Kings. His days of ministering to men are over and we now have the Holy Spirit as our counsellor and comforter (paraklete).

The faithful and discreet slave is a slave of Christ (Christian) who is faithfully and wisely administering to the spiritual needs of fellow Christians. Luke's parallel description of the faithful and wise servant has Jesus go on to elaborate that he's looking for a servant who'd be girded and ready to open when he knocks on the door. Therefore Jesus can't be the faithful and wise/discreet slave/servant.

isaacaustin

I concur with my buddy passwordprotected.

Who really is the faithful and discreet slave? (A perspective)

Share this