Worship pub. changes, FDS doctrine affected?

by Oroborus21 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • Oroborus21
    Oroborus21

    Howdy folks,

    Last night I was reviewing the new publication: "Worship the Only True God" ("Worship") which is an update of the "United in Worship of the Only True God" ("United").

    While I only spent a short time doing this there are evidently many changes. Some are just grammatical or stylistic changes and others I am wondering if they may be more significant in terms of doctrinal shifts.

    Examples:

    Chapter 14, paragraph 6 (pg. 130) of the new Worship book corresponding to old United book pg.118.

    The United book says:

    "Such theocratic direction was very much in evidence when the first members of the congregation were stirred to action by holy spirit at Pentecost of 33 C.E."

    replaced with:

    "Such direction was very evident at Pentecost"

    Also in paragraph 7 of the new Worship book it has totally ommitted the sentence from the United book which read: "Their appointment was confirmed by holy spirit at Pentecost of 33 C.E." (para 6 in United book)

    (Seems like a deemphasis of the action of the holy spirit?)

    United reads: "Not only do Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge his [Jesus] headship, but it is evident that it would be impossible for them to continue to proclaim the Kingdom message in the face of intense hostility without his help.

    Worship changes this to: "Today, Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge Jesus' direction. Without that, proclaiming the Kingdom message in the face of intense hostility would be impossible."

    (Is it significant that the reference to "headship" has been changed?)

    Now what may be a significant change to the text:

    The United book says about the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" (para. 6, pg. 119):

    "That "slave," according to Jesus' description, would be on hand when the Lord departed for heaven and would still be alive at the time of Christ's return. Such a description...." (emphasis added).

    The Worship book changes this to:

    "That "slave" would be on hand when the Lord departed for heaven and would still be working hard at Christ's invisible return in Kingdom power. Such a description...." (emphasis added)

    In a paper I have written I discuss thouroughly the Faithful and Discreet Slave doctring. One of the things I say is that the "master's returning" as contained in the FDS illustrations refers to Jesus' actual return, i.e. when he stands up and the start of Amageddon. (Date TBD ) but this revision in the new Worship book clearly emphasizes, under current JW belief, the date 1914.

    This change is hammered home by reviewing the changes to the next paragraph. The United book reads at paragraph 7:

    "At the Master's return, if the "slave" was faithfully doing his work, he would be entrusted with enlarged responsibilities. The years that followed would be a time for a global witness....." (emphasis added)

    But now compare the Worship book's revision:

    "Since the slave class was loyally doing the Master's work at his invisible return in 1914, there is evidence that it was entrusted with enlarged responsibilities in 1919. The years since then have been a time for a global witness...."

    Now one could just be tempted to say that the Society is only updating and making things more concrete to comply with what is believed by JWs. But the thing is that under the previous version in the United book and under and independent study of the illustration, one could argue for the future fullment of the FDS illustration to occur at the time of Christ's actual return, i.e. Armageddon and not the "presence" viewpoint held by the Society. Recall that the FDS illustration includes the punishment of the "evil" slave cotemporaneously with the rewarding of the faithful slave and other scriptures indicated that the time for the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is at Armageddon.

    This revision however squashes that possible understanding of the timing and application of the FDS illustration and definitely attaches the 1914 and now (shockingly) the 1919 dates!

    Yet again JWs are left to ignore the scriptures pertaining to the "evil" or unfaithful slave. Now with such firm dates asserted for the rewarding and enlarging of responsibilities, does this mean the Society is going to perhaps make attempts to firmly identify the "evil slave" whose punishment is to be thrown outside to weep and gnash the teeth? Or will the Society continue to ignore the second part of the FDS illustration?

    Further Worship book changes:

    "The United read: "These, too, would need spiritual food, and it wouild be served to them by the composite "slave," Christ's spirit-anointed servants."

    Changed to: "These too need spiritual food, and it is served to them by the slave class."

    (Is this just economy of language or is the dropping of the reference to the anointed significant? Maybe it is meant to encompass the enlarged role of the other sheep in distributing the "food"? Or perhaps it is an admission that the vast majority of the anointed have nothing to do with providing the "food"?)

    Finally along the line of "other sheep" responsibility the United book says at paragraph 10: "They look to the Governing Body to provide for appointment of elders and ministerial servants to care for the smooth functioning of the congregation."

    Changed in the Worship book:

    "Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide look to the Governing Body to select qualified brothers who, in turn, are authorized to appoint elders and ministerial servants...."

    (Nice change, at least it more closely reflects reality! Although one could argue the prior statement was not totally inaccurate.)

    Other interesting changes in the Worship book:

    The whole discussion of head-covering and the possibility of a woman teaching that was in the United book paragraph 11 has been excised.

    New question at end of this chapter with the popular phrase: "..through slave class and its Governing Body...."

    Concluding paragraph of this chapter in United said:

    "By cultivating wholesome respect for Jehovah's organization and wholeheartedly doing the work that he directs, we give evidence that Jehovah truly is our God and that we are united in this worship."

    (Notice how this nicely said that we should "respect" the organization--leaves open the possibilty to disagree with it doesn't it?)

    Now the Worship book says instead: "By being loyal to Jehovah's organization, we show that Jehovah is our God and that we are united in worship of him." (emphasis added).

    (Any room left to disagree now?)

    Now for some more HUGE changes, I hadn't even noticed until last night.

    The old United book had Chapters 19, "What the Mosaic Law Means to You" and perhaps more importantly Chapter 20 "Life and Blood--Do you treat them as Sacred?"

    These chapters have been deleted from the new Worship book!!!

    In fact a quick review of the new Worship book does not indicate ANY discussion on the Blood issue at all! For those of you not struck by this, keep in mind that this new publication is meant to be one of the principal publications to use with new Bible Studies.

    Naturally, the new Worship book in Chapter 20, "Keep Close in Mind Jehovah's Day" deletes the prior references contained in the United book to the GENERATION doctrine.

    (Was this the last presence of this old and important doctrine, which many of us learned, in the "active body of literature" being used with new bible studies? Will new ones ever learn--outside of the Net of course!--that this Generation doctrine was even taught and only discarded recently?)

    Out of nostalgia consider what the United book used to say at paragraph two of this chapter:

    "The Scriptures clearly show that the "generation" that saw the beginning of Christ's presence would also see the "great day of Jehovah" in which he executes judgment against all who practice unrighteousness....That "generation" is now well along in years....."

    (Everybody sigh)

    Now please note something VERY curious at page 179 of the Worship book, paragraph 10, the highlighted sentence has been added!

    "...they were brought into organizational unity. The completion of the sealing of these anointed ones draws near.--Revelation 7:3, 4"

    Wait one moment! Is this a stepping away from the belief and prior assertions that the sealing up of the anointed number occurred in 1935?

    Is this maybe the beginning of the discarding of the belief that the anointed class is sealed up already and that may allow for new additions?

    If so perhaps the Society is realizing that it has been placing a "biological limitation" for the end-time arrival by combining the beliefs that 1) Armageddon will come while some of the annointed are yet left on the earth and 2) the belief that the Annointed class was sealed in 1935.

    I have been saying for some time that these two beliefs are the new "Generation doctrine fiasco" and are logically pitted against each other. One or the other has to give and perhaps with the added statement in the Worship book the Society is now starting to say that the sealing of the number is not yet completed? At least that's how it reads to me.

    Continuing on..

    The Worship book of course omits the whole "Sheep and Goats" allusion.

    In the United worship book, the Society speculated that persons in traditionally religious lands were forsaking their religions. (Page 183). This has been omitted in the Worship book.

    Well these are just some observations, I haven't gone through the whole book.

    Any comments?

    --Eduardo

  • frogit
    frogit

    Notice how 1935 was explained:

    *** uw 112 14 'I Make a Covenant With You for a Kingdom' *** When we consider what has actually occurred, it seems evident that the heavenly calling in general was completed by about the year 1935 C.E., when the earthly hope of the great crowd was clearly discerned.

    *** w82 2/1 28 "Born Again"-Man's Part and God's Part *** Under its direction the heavenly hope was held out, highlighted and stressed until about the year 1935. Then as light flashed up to reveal clearly the identity of the great crowd of Revelation 7:9, the emphasis began to be placed on the earthly hope. (Psalm 97:11) It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that by that time the full number of 144,000 would have been nearly completed.

    Notice that the words seems and reasonable are used. So 67 years on now, we are told the completion of the Sealing of these anointed ones draws near.

    Has anybody notice the picture of Jesus on the stake in the new book Draw Close To Jehovah note how thin the stake is, it looks to me that it would barely hold the weight of a man, The old pictures showed a much thicker stake, the strongest man in the world would not be able to carry such weight. Any thoughts?

    Frogit

  • Oroborus21
    Oroborus21

    Hey!

    Are you trying to hijack my thread with the old Cross vs. Stake debate. How dare you!

    Cross or big pole, who really cares really? Even JWs don't care anymore other than we don't want to wear any or have any which is fitting because whether it WAS a CROSS or whether it WAS a single upright POLE, it would still be idolatry to worship using whichever one it is!!!

    Besides Simon carried the pole for a while, I am sure he was pretty strong after all he's always telling people what to do!

    -Eduardo

  • metatron
    metatron

    I've commented on this change regarding the anointed
    in the book.

    They may be reinterpreting the slave as being from either
    group.

    metatron

  • JeffT
    JeffT

    The foundation upon which they've built their tower is crumbling. It seems to me that you were right when you said they are trying to distance themselves from some of the old doctrines when making new converts. This isn't the only time they've done this. When we started our independent study I was very surprised when I discovered the real truth about some of the early teachings.

    In a few years they will be telling themselves that the whole controversy about "this generation" was something cooked up by apostates.

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Veyr good work Eduardo. I enjoyed these comparisons very much. I think economy of language is part of the changes as you noted, and in other areas it appears they are changing emphasis for some purpose ... I find it very important that they deleted the chapter on blood, as I believe they are eventually planning to change this doctrine soon ... to what I don't know, but I think they will move it into a conscience area, like they did with organ transplants ...

    The anointed thing is interesting, and I am not sure what to make of that one yet. Thanks again for your post.

  • sunshineToo
    sunshineToo

    It's interesting to see that the new book mentions, "the slave class and its Governing Body". I was taught that the Governing Body itself was the slave class. I guess the corporation is really taking off now. ;-)

    Of course the old United book was printed before they changed their doctrine on "the generation". ( sigh...) I guess we just have to wait and see.

    Thank you, Ed. Nice post!

  • MacHislopp
    MacHislopp

    Hello everyone,

    Edoardo: great piece of research and comparison. Imho,

    the great change is the chapter (12 paragraphs )

    about the blood. Astonishing! Most probably as mentioned

    by Amazing...changes are on the way.

    Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

    P.S. Sunshine: a very good point indeed!

  • NewWay
    NewWay

    In Luke 12:42-46 we have the "faithful and discreet slave" parable also, but with a few differences words and sentence structure that help to establish that the "slave" is really only one slave. In the original Greek there is mention of only one "steward" (Greek = "oikonomos"), but is henceforth refered to as "slave" (Greek = "doulos"). The key expression to identify the "steward" is "that slave" (Greek = "ho doulos ekeinos") and it is used both with regard a good outcome and a bad one. There is only one slave, but dependant upon his attitude and actions, he either identifies himself as "faithful" or "evil".

  • MacHislopp
    MacHislopp

    Hello Edoardo and the others, please take a look at chapter 20

    which was completely left out in the 2002 edition of the Worship book.

    From the 1983 edition:

    *** uw 154-60 20 Life and Blood-Do You Treat Them as Sacred? *** Chapter 20

    Life and BloodDo You Treat Them as Sacred?

    IT SHOULD NOT surprise us that Gods viewpoint toward life is very different from that of the world. To God, human life is sacred. Do you view it in that way? We are completely dependent on God, who gives to all persons life and breath and all things. (Acts 17:25-28; Ps. 36:9) If we share Gods view, we will safeguard our life. But we will not violate divine law in an attempt to save our present life. We treasure Gods promise of everlasting life for those who truly exercise faith in his Son.Matt. 16:25, 26; John 6:40; Jude 21.

    2 In contrast, Jesus said that Satan the Devil, the ruler of this world, was a manslayer when he began. (John 8:44; 12:31) From the very start of his course of rebellion he brought death to mankind. The worlds violent history reflects his spirit. But Satan can also present a seemingly different appearance. Thus men who are influenced by his thinking argue that, while it may be all right to be religious, when life is at stake you would be benefited by heeding their expert advice instead of quoting the Bible. (Compare 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15.) When faced with an apparent life-or-death situation, which way will your heart incline? Of course, our desire should be to please Jehovah.

    3 Gods Word reveals an intimate relationship between life and blood, saying: The soul [or life] of the flesh is in the blood. Just as life is sacred, so, too, God has made blood sacred. It is something that belongs to him, to be used only in the manner he approves. (Lev. 17:3, 4, 11; Deut. 12:23) So we do well to consider carefully what he requires of us with regard to blood.

    Read Genesis 9:3-6

    What practices in your area require you to be alert so as not to consume animal blood?

    In view of what is said in Ge 9 verse 4 regarding animal blood, how would you react to the drinking of human blood (which was done at Roman gladiatorial events)?

    As shown in Ge 9 verses 5 and 6, to whom primarily must one answer for shedding human blood?

    Read Acts 15:28, 29

    Does this state that the requirements would apply for only a limited time? Do they apply to us?

    Is human blood excluded by the language used here?

    Does the text indicate that exceptions might be made in cases of emergency?

    4 As regards human blood, we cannot assume that simply refraining from murder keeps us guiltless. The Scriptures show that if we are part of any organization that is bloodguilty before God, we must sever our ties with it if we do not want to share in its sins. (Rev. 18:4, 24; Mic. 4:3) Such action deserves urgent attention.

    5 In the case of Gods servants whom he has commissioned to warn of coming destruction in the great tribulation, their remaining free from bloodguilt requires that they faithfully proclaim that message. (Compare Ezekiel 3:17-21.) The apostle Paul viewed himself as a debtor to people of all sorts because of the ministry assigned to him. He felt free of responsibility for their blood only after he had borne thorough witness to them about Gods provision for salvation. (Rom. 1:14, 15; Acts 18:5, 6; 20:26, 27) Does your diligence in the field ministry reflect a similar awareness of the responsibility that rests on all of Jehovahs Witnesses?

    6 Fatal accidents should also be of serious concern to us. Under the Mosaic Law persons who accidentally caused the death of a fellow human were not viewed as guiltless. Penalties were imposed. (Ex. 21:29, 30; Deut. 22:8; Num. 35:22-25) If we take to heart the principle involved, we will be careful to avoid contributing to any fatal accident by the way we drive a vehicle, by our taking some foolish chance or by allowing unsafe conditions to exist in our home or at our place of business. Does your attitude regarding these things reflect full appreciation for the sacredness of life?

    What About Medical Use of Blood?

    7 Although the practice is not new, particularly in the 20th century blood has been widely used for transfusions, with the intention of sustaining life. Both whole blood and primary components of blood are used in this manner. Of course, such medical procedures do not guarantee that the patient will not die. Sometimes, in fact, death follows as a direct result of such use of blood. But of even greater concernDoes the Bible requirement that we abstain from blood apply to this medical practice? Yes! Taking blood into ones body from any other creature, human or animal, violates the divine law. It shows disregard for the sacredness of blood. (Acts 15:19, 20) There is no basis for restricting the command to abstain from blood to practices that were current in the first century and thus excluding modern medical techniques. Reason on the matter: Who would claim that the Bibles command against murder did not include illegally taking human life by means of a gun, since gunpowder was not invented until the 10th century? And would it be reasonable to argue that the prohibition of drunkenness applied only in connection with beverages known in the first century and not to modern-day hard liquors? For persons who truly want to please God, the message conveyed by the command to abstain from blood is clear.

    8 Nevertheless, the complexity of some medical procedures may give rise to questions. How can these be resolved? First, ask your doctor for a clear explanation of the proposed procedure. Then analyze it prayerfully in the light of Bible principles. The doctor may suggest that you have some of your own blood withdrawn and stored for use, if necessary, during a later operation. Would you agree? Remember that, according to Gods Law given through Moses, blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground. (Deut. 12:24) We today are not under the Law code, but the underlying message is that blood is sacred and, when removed from a creatures body, is to be returned to God by pouring it out on his footstool, the earth. (Compare Matthew 5:34, 35.) So how could it be proper to store your blood (even for a relatively brief time) and then put it back into your body? But what if the doctor says that, during surgery or in the course of other treatment, your blood would be channeled through equipment outside your body, and then, right back in? Would you consent? Some have felt that, with a clear conscience, they could permit this, provided that the equipment was primed with a nonblood fluid. They have viewed the external equipment as an extension of their circulatory system. Of course, situations vary, and it is you that must decide. But your decision should leave you with a clean conscience before God.1 Pet. 3:16; 1 Tim. 1:19.

    9 To assure that your doctor will respect your decision to abstain from blood, talk to him before any medical emergency arises. If it is necessary to check into a hospital for treatment, take the precaution of requesting in writing that no blood be used, also speak about it personally to the doctor that will be handling your case. But what if there is an unexpected emergency? Unpleasant confrontations can often be avoided by having a respectful, reasonable discussion with the doctor, urging him to use his skills to help, but with respect for your Christian conscience. (Prov. 15:1; 16:21, 23) However, if perhaps well-meaning medical personnel insist that refusing blood will endanger our life and so try to force us to acquiesce, then what? Faith in the rightness of Jehovahs ways should make us firm. Loyalty to Jehovah ought to make us resist resolutely, because we choose to obey God rather than men.Acts 5:29; compare Job 2:4; Proverbs 27:11.

    How Serious Is the Matter?

    10 To persons who do not yet know Jehovah, arguments in favor of blood transfusions may at times seem to show high regard for the sacredness of life. But we do not forget that many who argue in this way also condone the destruction of life by means of abortion. Jehovah knows more about life and blood than any medical expert. All His commandments have proved to be for our good, safeguarding our present life and our future prospects. (Isa. 48:17; 1 Tim. 4:8) Is the command to abstain from blood any different?

    11 The seriousness of respecting the sacredness of blood is emphasized by what Jehovah said regarding the only use to which blood could be put. The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: No soul of you must eat blood. (Lev. 17:11, 12) All the animal blood poured out at Jehovahs altar in harmony with that requirement foreshadowed the precious blood of Jesus Christ. (Heb. 9:11, 12; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19) Thus the sacredness of the blood of Jesus itself is emphasized by Gods law prohibiting any other use of blood. From this it can be seen that any misuse of blood shows gross disrespect for Jehovahs provision for salvation through his Son.

    12 When faced with a life-or-death situation, how shortsighted it would be to turn ones back on God! Although we appreciate the services of conscientious doctors, we do not desperately try to keep ourselves or our loved ones alive for a few more days or years by violating Gods law, as if this life were everything. We have faith in the value of Jesus shed blood and the eternal life that it makes possible. With our whole heart we believe that faithful servants of Godeven those who diewill be rewarded with eternal life.John 11:25; 1 Tim. 4:10

    .

    Review Discussion

    What makes life and blood sacred? Why does the world argue for a different view?

    As regards animals, how do we show respect for the sacredness of their blood?

    In what various ways should all of us show that we treat human life as being sacred? How important is it to do so?

    [Study Questions]

    1. (a) How does God view life? (b) How can we demonstrate that we appreciate Gods gift of life?

    2. Whose attitude toward life does the world reflect, and to what kind of reasoning does this sometimes lead?

    3. (a) Why should we be especially interested in what the Bible says about blood? (b) Read Genesis 9:3-6 and Acts 15:28, 29, and then answer the questions listed above with these texts.

    4. As discussed here, what action do the Scriptures show that a person may need to take so as not to share in bloodguilt?

    5. How is diligence in the field ministry associated with being free of bloodguilt?

    6. What connection is there between accident prevention and respect for the sacredness of life?

    7. (a) Is transfusing blood of one human into another compatible with the sacredness of blood? (b) Why is it unreasonable to restrict the command to abstain from blood to practices that were common in the first century?

    8. (a) How can you determine whether a certain medical procedure is suitable for a Christian? (b) If a doctor wanted to withdraw some of your own blood, store it and then return it to your body during an operation, what Bible principles could help you to make a sound decision? (c) How might a person reason on treatment that requires the blood to circulate through equipment outside the body?

    9. (a) To assure respect for your decision to abstain from blood, what precautions ought to be taken? (b) Even in the event of an emergency, how can an unpleasant confrontation sometimes be avoided? (c) If a doctor or a court tried to force a blood transfusion, what would you do?

    10. Why would the claim that a transfusion is needed to save a life not change our view of the matter?

    11. (a) What was the only use that Jehovah permitted the Israelites to make of blood? (b) Why is this very important to us as Christians?

    12. If faced with death, why would a true Christian not resort to any misuse of blood in an attempt to stay alive?

    Have you notice the last paragraph?

    12 When faced with a life-or-death situation, how shortsighted it would be to turn ones back on God!

    Although we appreciate the services of conscientious doctors, we do not desperately try to keep ourselves or our loved ones alive for a few more days or years by violating Gods law, as if this life were everything.

    We have faith in the value of Jesus shed blood and the eternal life that it makes possible. With our whole heart we believe that faithful servants of Godeven those who diewill be rewarded with eternal life.John 11:25; 1 Tim. 4:10

    Now, does the WBTS Inc. consider a life or death

    situation, no longer important...for thebible students??

    Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit