At Luke 19:11-27, Jesus illustrates the need to work to increase the kingdom. The "slaves" are rewarded with authority over cities, clearly showing that the reward spoken of has to do with their possession of the heavenly kingdom. Such an understanding is also shown in chapter 100 of the Greatest Man book. Why then is it that an ALMOST IDENTICAL illustration found at Matthew 25:14-30 is applied to the reward of more preaching responsibilities? The "joy of the Master" referred to is the 'sitting down at the right hand of God' found at Hebrews 12:2. Of course, one explanation would be that all of these parables were referring to the beginning of Christ's 'presence' in 1914. Yet, it cannot be ignored that there are MANY THINGS in Matthew chapters 24 and 25 that are CLEARLY NOT FULFILLED until the Master 'comes' to execute judgment. Why then does there seem to be an arbitrary time placement of the fulfillment of these things?
A full 2 years after the Apostle John received the Revelation, he wrote at 1 John 2:2, "And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but for the whole world's." How did the congregation at that time understand this? They must have been able to benefit from it and comprehend its meaning, otherwise it would never have been penned. Was it just empty verbiage? John gave no explanation of the passage. Why write it since it could not be understood or benefitted from until 1935 when 'light flashed up' to reveal that the "world" in question was, in fact, NOT really the world at all, but rather, the non-anointed "great crowd?"
Why did the Apostle Peter at 1 Peter 4:7-11 (thinking that the end of all things had drawn close) list prayer, love, hospitality and ministering TO ONE ANOTHER the most important things to keep to the fore, and NOT the preaching work?
Why did the congregation at Antioch NOT have to clear it with Jerusalem before they sent out missionaries? Why is there no record of congregations waiting or sending for Jerusalem's approval before appointing older men? Why was it in ANTIOCH that by Divine Providence the disciples were given their official name; Christians? and NOT at Jerusalem, to the governing body, and then to all the rest of the congregations?
Why is it that the words love, loving etc. are used more than 10 to 1 in the Scriptures over the words preach, preaching etc.?
Why is it that the word "minister" as used in the Scriptures refers more often (about 90% more often) to things like serving a meal, cleaning a home and sundry responsibilities to one's family and one's spiritual family, over that of the usage with reference to preaching?
Why are quelling hunger, quenching thirst, receiving strangers hospitably, clothing the naked, looking after the sick and visiting prisoners listed as earmarks of a "sheep" as opposed to a "goat," and NOT the helping of the Apostle Paul with his preaching assignment?-Matt. 25:34-46.
Jehovah has, at great cost of human suffering, not to mention the reproach heaped upon His holy name, allowed Satan over 6,000 years to present his case, a case that was DOOMED TO FAIL from the outset. Why then do we censure even the mildest of critics in our own midst?
Why have we been critical of the Catholic Church's styling of itself as the "mother" Church when we use the same term ie. "mother" organization? Is there a difference between a 'church' and an 'organization?'
Why is Satan bound for the 1,000 years so that he "might not mislead the nations anymore?" Would not Armageddon accomplish this since the "nations" that he is "misleading" are gone? Two possibilities exist: (1. That the "nations" he is "misleading" INCLUDE US, therefore his 'binding' prevents his "misleading" US, that is, the "nations." However, that would mean that WE are NOW thus 'misled.' Or; (2. That the truly blinded or misled, will be spared the coming wrath because they are just that, truly blinded, deceived, misled, and they will have ONE FULL, FAIR OPPORTUNITY to conform to the Divine Will during the Millennium.
At Ephesians 5:21-23, the relationship between Christ and the congregation is likened to that of a husband to a wife and vice-versa. In reading these verses consider: Does a husband earn a wife's respect if he "micro-manages" her chores or the WAY she carries them out? Does Christ then so manage the congregation? What about earthly leaders?-Hebrews 13:17
Is there a 'pull-date' on spiritual 'food?' Can it spoil? Is the Bible complete in itself for spiritual feeding?-2 Tim. 3:16, 17(Note the word COMPLETELY)
If it's NOT POSSIBLE to learn the truth outside of the organization, then how did Charles Taze Russell learn it? Or, did Jehovah deal with Russell individually? If so, why did He stop dealing with individuals? How did Russell figure out the book of Daniel with respects to the chronology contained therein when the book of Daniel was NOT to be understood UNTIL the time of the end, which time of the end did not begin until 1914?
If Jehovah put up with an enormous amount of crap and stupidity from His first Covenant people, and still dealt with them, why do we say that He will not deal with a group of individuals that, say, does not agree with certain aspects of OUR 'lesser' doctrinal issues?
Has Christendom been any more bloodguilty in the past 1900 years than was ancient Israel during its tenor as God's chosen nation?
If it's true that 'every man be found a liar,' does that include you and me? If so, does it include everyone in our organization, including the 'faithful and discreet slave?' If so, why are we told to put our trust in them since the Bible declares that we should not put our trust in earthling man? If the 'slave' is not amongst those that are found to be a liar, then are they infallible?
If the kingdom is the only hope for mankind, why then do we put equal trust, faith and hope in our organization? Or are we the 'religious expression of the Kingdom of God on earth?'
Why did Jehovah tolerate Abraham's questioning of the propriety of His judicial decision when we are told not to judge the propriety of a 'committee's' judicial decision? Or, by the same token, why is it not proper to question the interpretation of a parable or symbolism by the 'slave?'
In Jesus' parable of the 'prodigal son,' the father is overjoyed to see his son return, so much so that he throws a big celebration and slaughters the fatted calf etc. In view of the fact that one of our applications of the parable is that of Jehovah's joy over a stray sheep returning to the fold and recognizing the error of his way, how does this square with our organization's policy of NOT clapping when someone is announced as having been reinstated?
How does Jesus come with power and great glory both at Matthew 24:30 and 25:31? Also, why did Christ wait nearly twenty years to start separating the sheep from the goats when the parable says that it BEGINS UPON His arrival? (Note: as of the Oct. 15, 1995 WT. light has "flashed up" on this question)
At Romans 4:15 and 5:13, Paul makes the point that without law there can be no law-breaking, also such sinning apart from law is not charged to an account. Question: If those destroyed in the flood were 'apart from law,' how can their sins be charged to an account by which would condemn them to the second death without a possibility of a resurrection?
Jude 9; "Michael" (Christ) does not rebuke even Satan. Why then do we censure questioners in our own midst?
At Matthew 15:21-28, a Phoenician woman, or Canaanite, asked Jesus to heal her daughter. Jesus said that He was SENT ONLY to the lost sheep of the tribe of Israel. Jehovah then SENT JESUS WITH INSTRUCTIONS, 'ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL'. Yet, because of her faith, Jesus healed her daughter. There are other examples like this in Jesus' life and ministry. Was Jesus a rebellious son? Was he failing to follow the example of Noah, doing 'just so?' Was He flouting 'Theocratic direction?'
Paul's list of the qualifications for elders and ministerial servants at 1 Timothy chapter 3 and Titus chapters 1 and 2, conspicuously leave out any formula for time spent in the preaching work. In fact, the preaching work as such is NOT MENTIONED AT ALL. To address the seeming inconsistency, some have attempted an answer by suggesting that the reason why preaching was left out of the Apostle's requirements was that the preaching work was a requirement for Christians period. No special mention need be made for such an obvious qualifier. This explanation on its surface seems plausible enough, yet, a careful consideration of Paul's words reveal that MOST OF THE THINGS MENTIONED ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL CHRISTIANS. For instance; are there any allowances for Christians NOT serving in the capacity of elder or ministerial servant to be a polygamist, a drunken brawler or greedy of dishonest gain? Are not suchlike ones expelled from the congregation? Are we to assume that there exist those that need such obvious moral requirements of all Christians spelled out for them, so that they can discontinue those practices to qualify as an elder or ministerial servant? Given the fact that our organization puts a tremendous amount of importance on whether or not one is regularly sharing in the ministry (9 or 10 hours a month or more) before they are considered for appointment, should we not expect to find this all important requirement to be in the Apostle's list?
Ezekiel chapter 9: The 'smashing' of those without the mark is done INSIDE the city. We have always applied apostate Jerusalem to modern day Christendom. Logically, the "old men" would represent the clergy. Yet, are not the "sighers" WITHIN apostate Jerusalem at the time of the "smashing" judgment?
James writes at James 1:27, that the form of worship ("religion" NEV) that god approves is to 'look after orphans and widows in their tribulation and to keep oneself without spot from the world.' The responsibility is clearly a personal one, since he uses the term "oneself." In this description of the "form of worship" or "religion" that each one is to be personally responsible for, did you notice something that is conspicuously left out?
At Numbers 11:26-30, Eldad and Medad are 'prophesying outside of Moses.' Moses is happy about this. Joshua and a 'young man' are jealous for Moses. Moses however, reproves them and says that he wants ALL of God's people to be prophets. Do we see a similar humble attitude displayed by those in our midst today, who claim a position that is comparable to Moses?
Romans 14:1-6; Paul in arguing in defense of personal conscience, writes that no one should judge as to the observing or not observing of certain days, Sabbaths etc. as being more holy than other days. Question: If Paul were engaged in the door-to-door ministry today and were to happen upon an Adventist or Church of God member that observed the seventh day, would he feel the need to engage in Scriptural debate over the wrongness of their practice? Or, call them "less Christian," or worse, "non-Christian" because they so chose? Based on the Apostle's own words at the above cited Scripture, what do you think?
At Matthew 25:37 the "other sheep" are called "righteous ones" and are termed so because they gave "food at the proper time" to the 'faithful slave??!!'
|If you would like more information please write to||P.O. Box 472
Copyright © 1994 PW/EC