"Out of your own mouth."
Luke 19:22
Based on the Watchtower study of December 15, 2001 p. 15-20 and discussed at the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses in the week of February 3,2002 The application of this letter is with regard to the Watchtower's position on blood transfusion. See the end of letter for a complete transcript of the Watchtower. It would be best to have read the article beforehand.
Those are the words found at Hosea 6:6 as highlighted in par. 15 of this Watchtower article. As par.13 relates, "Jesus castigated the Scribes and Pharisees as hypocritical" and told them "go learn what this means" (Mt.9:13). The Watchtower makes some valid points in this article. The Governing Body should take it to heart.
This letter is directed to the Governing Body. I am confident they will see it, as a talk in my hometown last week has confirmed that NY HQ monitors most Jehovah's Witness related sites. Last week, Brother K gave a "Special Needs (KM)" talk in which he stipulated that "even some of the ones [brothers] in (our city) are on these sites" posting with "other names". Brother K is in constant contact with his hierarchical superiors at the Canadian Branch. Brother K would do well to read here also.
The Watchtower opened in par. 2 with the proposition, '"We can ask ourselves, "Whose disciple have l become?"' Yes indeed, after review of this letter it would be good to look deep into life's mirror and ponder this. As par.4 insists "Let us note the way the religious leaders ...dealt with people ...The contrast will be enlightening." And you can ask yourself the question from par. 10 "Would you respond as did Jesus, or would you feel a bit like his Pharisee host?"
"How Did Jesus Handle Problems?" That's the subheading at par.17 and the question that we seek an answer to. Then let us do as par.17 suggests and "Consider how Jesus handled a situation...(which) involved a woman who had had a flow of blood for 12 years". Paragraph 18 relates that she was "'frightened and trembling'... Doubtless because she knew that she had broken God's law."' Paragraph 19 asks, "If you had been present that day, how would you have viewed the situation?" The paragraph goes on to relate "that Jesus treated this woman in a kind, loving, and considerate way, not even alluding to any problems she may have caused '".
As a Jehovah's Witness elder, how would you have handled this situation? A better question would be, how does the Governing Body stipulate that you will handle this situation? I listened to a few elders comment at the congregation Watchtower study, and they seemed to struggle. I also spoke personally with several former elders and response did not come easily. Could they have a twinge of conscience? Did this article reveal something in their self-analysis that they would like not to have seen?
The article of course is hypothetical, for we cannot go back in time to be there, to see how we would fare. We can actualize though, by making a supposition of a modern application. So, while today the Levitical law regarding a woman's unnatural flow of blood does not apply to Christians, we need to find some other realistic and modern law that our hypothetical woman may transgress to make her equal. Can you as the reader find one? Perhaps we need to have a closer look at the original case to see what would be fitting.
The woman in the Biblical account had transgressed against a very specific law. There was no ambiguity about it. The law at Leviticus 15:28 applied to her in aggregate -yet she transgressed it. Is there a modern law, which Jehovah's Witnesses must absolutely follow, that can be the modern equivalent? The Watchtower article of December 1, 1968 pages 735-6 Questions from Readers, discussed the Levitical law in question and said "In regard to menstruation, …respect for blood as something sacred to God seems also to have been involved.
By this examination, we see that any modern equivalent would have to be a law that Jehovah's Witnesses must follow in relation to "God's law" on "blood as something sacred to God". Therefore our hypothetical, modern day, Jehovah's Witness woman could likewise have a uterine hemorrhage, and for the sake of argument, we will say that from loss of blood she was too weak to push "her way through the throng" as par.18 relates. But in order to have her be a transgressor in the eyes of the religious leaders of today, we'll have our modern woman receiving a pint of blood, so that she has sufficient strength to make her way to Christ, to appear at his feet as a transgressor of the law.
What would the Christ do? Jesus would cure her as surely as he cured the woman in the Biblical account, putting mercy ahead of sacrifice. What would you do? If you are an elder, would you conduct an inquisition, center her out, demand of her to be judged by you in a secret star-chamber court, after which you would fill out an S79 form, since she would not repent to you -for something that the Lord had not spent any words even "alluding to"(par.19)?
How would the Lord view the actions of an elder who, at the Governing Body's direction, had executed judicial action against one whom He had exercised mercy towards? He would tell that one the same thing as he told the hypocrites of His day when he said "Go and learn what this means "I want mercy, and not sacrifice".(Mt.9:13)
Yes, those hypocritical "fools" would show mercy -to that woman's surviving relatives, as long as she would have stayed at home and bled to death! But this woman sought a cure, from one viewed as a physician, for her serious ailment involving blood loss -at the expense of the Law.
At Matthew 12:11-12 Jesus showed the value of life when "'He said to them: "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath.'"
For the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, the "Sabbath" of their man-made dicta, which they teach as if it were God's word, is more important than mercy. Not for a sheep, actual or symbolic, would those hypocrites bend then, nor will their progeny today. They are not satisfied until you bleed to death. I am sure that after Jesus cured the woman of her ailment, she was very happy. But most likely, when she showed up at the Synagogue, the hypocritical religious leaders were waiting for her, to see if she was "truly repentant". Else they would issue her into a secret chamber, where no-one could see their devilish act, so that they might "expel (her) from the synagogue" (John 16:2)
If you are an elder, what would you have done? Indeed, what would you do today? Paragraph 21 holds the answer, where the Watchtower article said... "Where God's Law was definite, it meant what it said. If it seemed general, their conscience would come more into play and they could show their love for God by their decisions." The Watchtower here attempts to blur the lines by suggesting that in this woman's case, a conscience decision was involved. Yet, the truth is, the woman's decision was not a conscience matter, but rather a direct violation of a specific law that applied completely in her case with no room for conscience. The point made in the account was not a question of a person's conscience, but a question regarding the absolute application of law where a person's life and well being are at stake. Hence, in the modern world of Jehovah's Witnesses, where a Watchtower edict is concerned, an elder would view it as the paragraph says... "Where God's Law was definite, it meant what it said." Since the Watchtower views their anti- blood transfusion doctrine as "God's law" with no "room to live and breathe" -for "conscience"- then a Jehovah's Witness elder would not take the view that either the woman in the Biblical account, or our hypothetical modern woman are worthy of a cure, since they are in direct violation of "God's law". Better that they both bleed to death in a pious display of blind loyalty, than that they should transgress "law". After all, "Where God's Law was definite, it meant what it said."
Hence, if an elder had been there 2000 years ago, he would have participated with the hypocritical Pharisees and disfellowshipped that poor woman as unworthy.
In the Biblical account, as the Watchtower noted in par.19, Jesus made no mention of the supposed sin, "not even alluding to it" because he well knew that her life was involved. Paragraph 20 said "Suppose you were an elder….How would you react? Would you publicly humiliate her with critical counsel?" If you are an elder, you know what you are told to do. You would publicly humiliate her, announcing her as a sinner and requiring all members of the congregation to shun her. You would not rest there. Shortly thereafter, you are required to give a "critical" talk on the subject of her sin, furthering the public humiliation.
This letter gets its title from Luke 19:22, where Jesus promises that he will judge the "fools" by their own words. This Watchtower article is one of the most accurate ever I have read. It seems though, that the writing department is mocking the Governing Body with it, for the entire content points out, not the flaws of "Christendom" as it were, but the flaws of the hypocritical Watchtower Society. It is a self-damnation apropos.
Paragraph 11 states that "…the Pharisees thought highly of themselves as guardians of the public good and the national welfare". This could be comical if the Governing Body were not so blood guilty. They call themselves "the faithful and discreet slave", an entity prophesied to come, like a messiah, appointed over "all the Master's belongings." They say they are the "custodian of God's Word: w86 5/15 12-14", worthy of strict adherence by all on earth. If the Pharisees did boast, then they were only beginners compared to the Governing Body. It reminds of the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black".
Paragraph 11 went on to say of the Pharisees, "They were not satisfied that God's law was fundamentally clear and easily understood. Wherever the law seemed to them to be unspecific, they sought to plug apparent gaps with defined applications to eliminate any need for conscience". One needs to gasp at the level of hypocrisy! Is the Watchtower "satisfied" that the Bible is "fundamentally clear and easily understood"? Is that why they have printed so many millions and millions of pages of "gap" plugs, defining "applications" of every word in the bible, going so far as to actually print the opposite of what God counseled. Is that why they work so hard to "eliminate any need for conscience", by stipulating which holidays should not be celebrated, what a man and woman cannot do in their bedrooms, what our children must do in school, if we can or cannot wear clothing of a certain nature, or a beard, or how our home and car should look, or how even though the Apostles said nothing about blood transfusions, we are told to die refusing them.
I could go on almost for eternity. But, to make the point, one must only ask, What area of life has not been covered in the pages of the Watchtower and carried into minutia? Indeed, if the actions of the Pharisees have not been duplicated in full by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, then what would it look like if they did? If they have not done exactly as the Pharisees, then what more would they need to do to fulfill it?
Paragraph 12 relates that "the Pharisees considered themselves to be kind, gentle, just and altogether right for their task". It sounds to me that they thought they were "faithful and discreet".
And so I would stand at the side of our sister, as she lay in her hospital bed recovering, -the bag of blood hanging at her side. In would walk elder John to see what he would see. In his desire to be righteous and in keeping with organizationally revised procedures, he would walk up to our sister and tell her that she has 'disassociated herself by her actions'. She would know that he would further publicly humiliate her by making everyone aware with announcements and talks. There would also be slander and gossip, for that's the way of it. And I would face that hypocrite and say "Go and learn what this means…'I want mercy and not sacrifice.'"
…biblexaminer
Watchtower magazine of December 15, 2001
JESUS CHRIST always thought, taught, and acted appropriately. His time on earth was short, but he enjoyed a rewarding and satisfying career, and he remained happy. He gathered disciples and taught them how to worship God,
love humanity, and conquer the world. (John 16:33) He filled their hearts with hope and "shed light upon life and incorruption through the good news." (2 Timothy 1:10) If you count yourself among his disciples, what do you think it means to be a disciple? By considering what Jesus says about disciples, we can learn how to enrich our lives.
That involves adopting his viewpoint and applying some basic principles. Matthew 10:24, 25; Luke 14:26, 27; John 8:31, 32; 13:35;15:8.
2 In the Christian Greek Scriptures, the word translated "disciple" basically means one who directs his mind to something, or one who learns. A related word occurs in our theme text, Matthew 11:29: "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for your souls." Yes, a disciple
is a learner. The Gospels usually apply the word "disciple" to Jesus' intimate followers, who traveled with him as he preached and who were instructed by him. Some people might simply have accepted Jesus' teachings, even doing so secretly. (Luke 6:17; John 19:38) The Gospel writers also referred to "the disciples of John [the Baptizer] and the disciples of the Pharisees." (Mark 2:18) Since Jesus cautioned his followers to "watch out ...for the teaching of the Pharisees," we can ask ourselves, 'Whose disciple have I become'-Matthew 16:12.
3 If we are Jesus' disciples, if we have learned from him, then others ought to feel spiritually refreshed in our presence. They ought to discern that we have become more
mild-tempered and lowly in heart. If we have management responsibilities on our job, are parents, or have shepherding duties in the Christian congregation, do those in our care fee] that we treat them as Jesus treated those
in his care?
How Jesus Dealt With People
4 We need to know how Jesus dealt with people, especially those with serious problems. That should not be hard to learn; the Bible contains many reports of Jesus' encounters with others, some of whom were troubled. Let us also note the way the redealt with people with similar problems. The contrast will be enlightening.
5 In the year 31 C.E., while Jesus was on a preaching tour in Galilee, "a certain one of the Pharisees kept asking [Jesus] to dine with him." Jesus was not averse to accepting the invitation. "Accordingly he entered into the house of the Pharisee and reclined at the table. And, look! A woman who was known in the city to be a sinner learned that he was reclining at a meal in the house of the Pharisee, and she brought an alabaster case of perfumed oil, and, taking a position behind at his feet, she wept and started to wet his feet with her tears and she would wipe them off with the hair of her head. Also, she tenderly
kissed his feet and greased them with the perfumed oil."-Luke 7:36-38.
6 Can you picture that? One reference work claims: "The woman (v.37) took advantage of the social customs that permitted needy people to visit such a banquet to receive some of the leftovers." That might explain how a person could enter uninvited. There may have been others who hoped to glean at the end of the meal. However, this woman's behavior was unusual. She did not watch from the sidelines, waiting for the dinner to break up. She had an unsavory reputation, being "a sinner" of some note, so that Jesus
said he knew of "her sins, many though they [were]."Luke 7:47.
7 Imagine yourself living back at that time and being in Jesus' place. How would you have reacted? Would you have felt uneasy as this woman approached you? How would
such a situation affect you? (Luke 7:45) Would you have been appalled, horrified?
8 If you had been among the other guests, might your thinking have been at least some what like that of Simon the Pharisee? "At the sight the Pharisee that invited [Jesus] said within himself: This man, if he were a
prophet, would know who and what kind of woman it is that is touching him, that she is a sinner.' " (Luke 7:39) In contrast, Jesus was a man of deep compassion. He understood the woman's plight and sensed her anguish. We are not told how she fell into a life of sin. If she indeed was a prostitute, the men of the town, dedicated Jews, apparently had not helped her.
9 But Jesus wanted to help her. He said to her: "Your sins are forgiven." Then he added: "Your faith has saved you; go your way in peace." (Luke 7:48-50) Here the account ends. Someone may object that Jesus did not do much for her. Basically, he sent her away with his blessing. Do you think that she probably returned to her sad way of life? While we cannot say for sure, take note of what Luke next says. He related that Jesus journeyed "from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the kingdom." Luke also reported that "certain women" were with Jesus and his disciples, "ministering to them from [the women's] belongings." The possibility cannot be ruled out that this repentant and appreciative woman was now among them, embarking upon a godly way of life with a dean conscience, a renewed sense of purpose, and a much deeper love for God. Luke 8:1-3.
Difference Between Jesus and the Pharisees
10 What can we learn from this vivid account? It stirs our emotions, does it not? Imagine yourself in Simon's home. How would you feel? Would you respond as did Jesus, or would you feel a bit like his Pharisee host? Jesus was the Son of God, so we cannot feel and act exactly as he did. On the other hand, we may not be eager to think of ourselves as being like Simon, the Pharisee. Few would take pride in being Pharisaic.
11 From a study of Biblical and secular evidence, we can conclude that the Pharisees thought highly of themselves as guardians of the public good and the national welfare. They were not satisfied that God's Law was fundamentally clear and easily understood. Wherever the Law seemed to them to be unspecific, they sought to plug apparent
gaps with defined applications to eliminate any need for conscience. These religious leaders attempted to devise a precept to govern conduct in all issues, even trivialities.
(footnote p18)
12 The first-century Jewish historian Josephus makes it obvious that the Pharisees considered themselves to be kind, gentle, just, and altogether right for their task.
Doubtless, some of them came fairly close to that. Nicodemus might come to your mind. (John 3:1, 2; 7:50, 51) In time, some of them embraced the Christian way.
(picture p.18) How different Jesus' attitude toward people was from that of the Pharisees!
(Acts 15:5) The Christian apostle Paul wrote about certain Jews, such as the Pharisees: "They have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge." (Romans 10:2)However, the Gospels present them as they were seen by the common people -proud, arrogant, self-righteous, faultfinding, judgmental, and demeaning.
Jesus' View
13 Jesus castigated the scribes and Pharisees as hypocritical. "They bind up heavy loads and put them upon the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger." Yes, the load was heavy, and the yoke imposed on the people was harsh. Jesus went on to call the scribes and Pharisees "fools." A fool is a menace to the community. Jesus also called the scribes and Pharisees "blind guides" and asserted that they had "disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness." Who would want Jesus
to think of him as Pharisaic? Matthew 23:1-4,16,17,23.
14 Almost any reader of the Gospel accounts can see the critical nature of most Pharisees. After Jesus invited Matthew Levi, the tax collector, to become a disciple, Levi
spread a big reception feast for him. The account says: "At this the Pharisees and their scribes began murmuring to his disciples, saying: 'Why is it you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?' In reply Jesus said to them: '...I
have come to call, not righteous persons, but sinners to repentance." -Luke 5:27-32.
15 Levi himself appreciated something else Jesus said on that occasion: "Go, then, and learn what this means, I want mercy, and not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:13) Although the Pharisees claimed to believe in the writings of the Hebrew prophets, they did not embrace this saying from Hosea 6:6. If they were going to err, they made sure it would be on the side of obedience to tradition. Each of us could ask ourselves, 'Do I have a reputation for being a stickler for certain rules, such as ones that reflect personal opinion or common approaches to a matter? Or do others think of me as being first of all merciful and good?'
16 Pick, pick, pick. That was the Pharisaic way. The Pharisees looked for every flaw -real or imagined. They kept people on the defensive and reminded them of their failures. The Pharisees prided themselves on tithing the
tiniest herbs, like mint, dill, and cumin. They advertised their piety by their dress and tried to direct the nation. Surely, if our actions are to be in harmony with Jesus' example, we must avoid the tendency of always looking for and highlighting the flaws in others.
How Did Jesus Handle Problems?
17 Jesus' way of handling problems was far different from that of the Pharisees. Consider how Jesus handled a situation that could have been very serious. It involved a woman who had had a flow of blood for 12 years. You can read the account at Luke 8:42-48.
18 Mark's account says that the woman was "frightened and trembling." (Mark 5:33) Why? Doubtless because she knew that she had broken God's Law. According to Leviticus 15:25-28, a woman with an unnatural flow of blood was unclean for as long as it lasted, plus a week. Everything she touched and every person she came in contact with became defiled. To approach Jesus, this woman had to work her way through the throng. When we look at the account 2,000 years later, our hearts go out to her in her discomfort.
19 If you had been present that day, how would you have viewed the situation? What would you have said? Notice that Jesus treated this woman in a kind, loving, and considerate way, not even alluding to any problems she may have caused. Mark 5:34.
20 Can we learn something from this event? Suppose you were an elder in a Christian congregation today. And further suppose that Leviticus 15:25-28 were a Christian requirement today and that a Christian woman had violated that law, feeling frantic and abandoned. How would you react? Would you publicly humiliate her with critical
counsel? "Oh," you say, "never would I do that! Following Jesus' example, I would make every effort to be kind, loving, thoughtful, and considerate." Very good! But the challenge is to do it, to imitate Jesus' pattern.
21 Essentially, people felt refreshed by Jesus, uplifted and encouraged. Where God's Law was definite, it meant what it said. If it seemed general, their conscience would
come more into play and they could show their love for God by their decisions. The Law gave them room to live and breathe. (Mark 2:27, 28) God loved his people, worked constantly for their good, and was willing to be merciful when they faltered. Jesus was like that. -John 14:9.
Results of Jesus' Teachings
22 Those who listened to Jesus and became his disciples appreciated the truth of his declaration: "My yoke is kindly and my load is light." (Matthew 1:30) They never felt burdened, harassed, or harangued by him. They were freer, happier, and more confident about their relationship with God and with one another. (Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 9:49, 50) From him they learned that being a spiritual leader calls for being refreshing to others, manifesting lowliness of mind and heart. I Corinthians 16:17, 18; Philippians 2:3.
23 Moreover, many were deeply impressed with the importance of remaining in union with Christ and adopting the spirit he showed. He told his disciples: "Just as the Father has loved me and I have loved you, remain in my love. If you observe my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have observed the commandments of the Father and remain in his love." (John T.5-.9,10) If they were to be successful as ministers and servants of God, they would have to apply diligently what they had learned from Jesus, both in preaching and teaching publicly about God's wonderful good news and in dealing with family and friends. As the brotherhood grew into congregations, they would time and again need to remind themselves that his way was the right way. What he taught was the truth, and the life they had observed embodied in him was truly the life
to aspire to. John 14:6; Ephesians 4:20, 21.
24 As you now reflect on some of the things we have been discussing, do you see ways in which to improve? Do you agree that Jesus always thought, taught, and acted appropriately? Then, take heart. His encouraging words to us are: "If you know these things, happy you are if you do them." John 13:17.
