• “Recent examples” of changes to Watch Tower teachings are invoked show that Jehovah approves all of them. This is, of course, meant to prepare the reader to approve of the changes to various teachings, and respond positively.
  
• “Our way” (meaning: the Watch Tower Society’s way) of explaining Bible accounts has changed “gradually,” which is exactly what Jehovah’s Witnesses have been taught to expect of the Watch Tower Society through the repetition of the phrase: “The light keeps getting brighter and brighter.” This has been the solution to dozens of problems with teachings in the past so that no one ever labels them “false” doctrines. Doctrines don’t change from “false” to “true.” Past doctrines are rarely even called “mistaken.”  Instead all the focus is on “further clarifications” or “brighter light.”
  
• “Our understanding” refers (again) to the understanding presented in the Watch Tower publications, the understanding promoted by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The idea of “increasing light” is repeated again using the word “refinement.”  This is just another way to excuse the Watch Tower’s prior rejected teachings without ever hinting they were “false.” In fact, it implies that prior “false” teachings were in some sense “true.”
• This idea has been indicated in past publications by implying that a now-changed doctrine was important at the time. In fact one of these past “false” doctrines was justified by calling it “incomplete, even inaccurate” yet the wrong (inaccurate) doctrine was referred to again just a few sentences later referred to like this: “That was an important lesson, one that fortified them during the years of world turmoil that followed.” (“Proclaimers” p. 146)
• The idea of “refinement” reminds us of gold, for example, which is valuable, not to be “despised” even if unrefined. But it becomes more valuable when refined. This idea has also been used to promote the idea that even incorrect teachings somehow still had some value in our history. This idea was also found repeated in the conclusion of David Splane’s original discourse, when he pointed out that we were once “thrilled” with these doctrines. Yes, we were “thrilled” with doctrines which are now shown to be untrue, yet we should not “despise the day of small things.” (Taken from Zechariah 4:10, almost always used with this idea of appreciating the Watchtower’s small beginnings, including the mistakes of the past.) 

[Paragraph] 4. In what ways has the simplified edition of The Watchtower proved to be a loving gift?

⁴ In recent years, the spiritual instruction provided by Jehovah’s organization has reflected an increased emphasis on simplicity and clarity. Consider three examples. First, there is the simplified edition of The Watchtower. * This edition has proved to be, in effect, a loving gift to those who struggle with language or find reading a challenge. Family heads are finding that their children are now more involved in the study of this journal, the main channel of our spiritual feeding program. Many have written touching expressions of heartfelt appreciation. A sister wrote that she had held back from commenting at the Watchtower Study. “I was a wallflower,” she said. Not anymore! After making use of the simplified edition, she wrote: “I now comment more than once, and the fear is gone! I thank Jehovah and you.”

_____________________________________________________

DEEP TRUTHS FOR DUMMIES….AND OTHER OXY-MORONS 

The first thing to notice here is the use of the phrase “deep truths.” The subject of the first paragraph is the Simplified Edition of the Watchtower, which doesn’t sound like it lends itself immediately to the general idea of “deep truths.” The idea is sometimes based on 1 Corinthians 2:10 which says: ”For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God.” In general Watchtower-speak, “deep truths” are what responsible men at Watch Tower headquarters learn and then impart to Witnesses through the Watch Tower publications and various assembly discourses.

In times past, we often heard talks given by F. W. Franz, for example, that highlighted complex types and antitypes, and these complex (but now mostly obsolete) teachings, were often spoken of as “new truths,” “deep truths” and even “the deep things of God.” It was one of the conceits about these presumptuous forms of “type-antitype” explanations, that they were once considered “deep truths” in the past. Perhaps some Witnesses are concerned that, now, without these “types and antitypes,” the Watchtower will start to look more like a “Sophia and Caleb” comic book. The “thrill” of the old Congregation Book Study is gone. (Splane’s talk referred to how “thrilling” we found these Congregation Book Studies with all the old type and antitype material.)

Throughout the history of the Watch Tower publications, the expression “deep truths” has sometimes been associated with Bible truth in general. But it is usually associated with something more than the general doctrines (such as: soul, Trinity, Jesus’ death, resurrection, ransom, and the forgiveness of sins). It often tends to be associated with the special relationship these “anointed” supposedly now have in both the visible and the heavenly part of Jehovah’s organization. The context will usually bring attention to the special relationship of the anointed class through whom all Jehovah’s Witnesses receive spiritual food at the proper time. Therefore, it is supposedly a “deep truth” that the Watch Tower publications are the only source of “deep truths.” The following is a general example from 2010:

*** w10 7/15 p. 23 par. 10 “The Spirit Searches Into . . . the Deep Things of God” ***
10 When the time comes to clarify a spiritual matter in our day, holy spirit helps responsible representatives of “the faithful and discreet slave” at world headquarters to discern deep truths that were not previously understood. (Matt. 24:45; 1 Cor. 2:13) The Governing Body as a whole considers adjusted explanations. (Acts 15:6) What they learn, they publish for the benefit of all. (Matt. 10:27) As time goes on, further clarifications may be needed, and these too are honestly explained.—See the box “How the Spirit Revealed the Meaning of the Spiritual Temple.”

The point about the “Spiritual Temple” is explained in the same article,  and includes the line:

“Toward the year 1971, however, responsible members of the slave class began to discern that the temple spoken of by Paul in Ephesians could not be Jehovah’s great spiritual temple.”

Oddly, this refers to a time when brothers who were working on the book “Aid to Bible Understanding” began to realize that focusing doctrines on the date 1914 will often contradict related scriptures. The scriptures often refer to fulfillments that began in the first century C.E. when Watch Tower doctrines place them in and around 1914.  Most of the people involved in this doctrinal change were disfellowshipped or dismissed from Bethel’s Writing Department as they soon discovered that 1914 is totally unworkable, along with all doctrines that depend on it.

A large proportion of the references to “deep truths” going all the way back to Russell’s time, and also echoed in doctrines repeated 100 years later, refer at least indirectly to a certain “mystery” doctrine that is almost forgotten these days, but still not explicitly rejected even to this day in the Watch Tower publications. But that’s another story. We’ll explain this in another article in the future.

With reference again to the paragraph 4 of this Watchtower there is something else going on here. It’s related to the idea that the Watchtower is the primary channel of “deep truths” in spite of any changes or simplifications. Whether or not the existence of a simplified Watchtower provides an improvement we will leave to another time. We will say that presenting badly formulated logic more simply can sometimes end up being even more misleading. It may give an appearance of greater certainty to conclusions that were arrived at through  bad assumptions. This potential problem will prove to be all the more true of those who struggle with language or with young children, the very persons this simplified version tries to address. Care still needs to be taken that the concepts are both true and simple, not misleading and simple.

CAUTION: OPEN WITH PRAYER!

Also, it may be useful to note that the experience found in paragraph 4, finds a way to tie Jehovah’s approval to those behind The Watchtower as “the main channel of our spiritual feeding program.” A sister writes “I thank Jehovah and you,” where the word “you” is implied to be the Governing Body. The above experience is a more subtle version of the following experience printed in an earlier Watchtower:

*** w64 9/15 p. 574 Experiencing Jehovah’s Love ***

The brother went down to get the mail before breakfast, and when we had breakfast he said, “Brother Riemer, I got a new Watchtower this morning, and do you know the first thing that Ma and I do when we get that Tower? We kneel down before we take the wrapper off and ask Jehovah to make us worthy to see what the message is that Jehovah has for us. Now, before we take the wrapper off, will you kneel down and pray with us?” How different that elective elder was from this humble couple who appreciated Jehovah’s organization!

 This doesn’t sound all that odd to most Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yet, imagine what the average Witness would think if they watched a Catholic receiving a monthly newsletter from the Vatican and kneeling down in front of it to pray each month, before they took the wrapper off.  And just to bring this idea “full circle,” if we think about it, this Witness couple were very often kneeling down to pray that they could be worthy to open up a magazine explaining various “types and antitypes,” that have since been recognized as having no direct Scriptural support.

_____________________________________________________

[Paragraph] 5. What are some benefits of the revised edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures?

⁵ Second, there is the revised edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, released in English at the annual meeting on October 5, 2013. * Many Scriptures now use fewer words, yet their meaning is intact or even clearer. For example,  Job 10:1 went from 27 words to 19; Proverbs 8:6 went from 20 words to 13. Both verses are clearer in the new edition. In fact, one faithful anointed brother with a record of decades of loyal service commented: “I just read the book of Job in the new edition, and I feel as if I understand it for the first time!” Many have made similar comments.

_____________________________________________________

It’s a good idea to try to word a Bible translation as simply as possible so long as this remains a truly accurate translation of the original. However, we know that certain words and phrases were specifically chosen in the NWT because they support a doctrinal theory, even if it means utilizing words that do not represent the most likely or the most accurate translation. Examples, highlighted on this site, include “presence” for “parousia” even when it refers to the arrival of a royal dignitary or king. This was done, of course, to support the 1914 doctrine about an “invisible presence.” The 1984 New World Translation had an appendix about the word “Parousia” that included this:

*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia) ***
“Also, Bauer, p. 630, states that pa·rou·siʹa ‘became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.'”

The sentence that followed it in that Appendix 5B attempted to remove the potential impact of learning that there might be special definition that had previously been ignored. But the simpler 2013 New World Translation removed this appendix altogether.

As to the reduction in words, two verses are mentioned.

(Job 10:1)  “My soul certainly feels a loathing toward my life.” has changed to  “I loathe my life.” That’s from 9 words down to 4 and the meaning appears to be intact.

(Proverbs 8:6) “Listen, for it is about the foremost things that I speak, and the opening of my lips is about uprightness.”  This has changed to, “Listen, for what I say is important, My lips speak what is right.”

Of course, in the previous NWT, the Hebrew verb tenses had also been artificially stuffed with extra words. For example, Joshua 1:5 “Just as I proved to be with Moses I shall prove to be with you.” This has changed to “Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.”

This type of verb-tense translation might have been done so that Exodus 3:14 could make Jehovah’s name mean “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” That must have sounded much more impressive than “I am what I am.” But, the attempt to be consistent ended up requiring a variation of that phrase “prove(d) to be” which appeared nearly 500 times in the rest of the old NWT, and was found in almost every book of the Hebrew Scriptures. Since the 2013 revision, however, it now only shows up in only 6 of those places. Those six places simply appear to have been accidentally missed by the editors. 

In at least one respect the new translation became worse. That’s partially because words in the translation that had no equivalent in the original language were often put in square brackets. In the revised version, there are no more brackets.

All in all, the 2013 Revised NWT, appears to be a much improved, yet still deeply flawed, translation. For the most part the examples given do appear to make a much better translation. The updated example given from Proverbs 8:6 is now: ““Listen, for what I say is important, My lips speak what is right.” This is now much closer to the “Holman Christian Standard Bible” which says: “Listen, for I speak of noble things, and what my lips say is right.” It may also be compared with the “New Living Translation” which says: “Listen to me! For I have important things to tell you. Everything I say is right.” Yet, these comparisons just make us wonder just why Jehovah’s Witnesses were still saying up until 2013 that the previous, pretentious version was the best version in the world.

_____________________________________________________

[Paragraph] 6. How do you feel about the refined understanding of Matthew 24:45-47?

⁶ Third, consider some of our recent  refinements in understanding. For example, our clarified understanding of “the faithful and discreet slave,” published in the July 15, 2013, Watchtower, thrilled us. (Matt. 24:45-47) It was explained that the faithful slave is the Governing Body, while the “domestics” are all those who are fed spiritually, whether of the anointed or of the “other sheep.” (John 10:16) What a delight it is to learn such truths and to teach them to new ones! In what other ways has Jehovah shown that he approves of teaching in a simple, clear way?

_____________________________________________________

We already discussed why it’s so important to address this issue first. It could be very dangerous to allow the reader to wonder about this particular parable. It is the most famous “type-antitype” doctrine that Jehovah’s Witnesses accept. (The second most famous is the idea that Nebuchadnezzar kingship was a “type” of God’s Kingdom.)

The paragraph is introduced with a curious, unconventional question. The answer isn’t found in the paragraph, because the question is about how the reader feels about the information in the paragraph.  Perhaps an unthinking believer might find the words “What a delight it is” and then answer that he or she must therefore be delighted. To each his own. For those who need a historical reminder explaining the changes to the “faithful slave” doctrine, it can be found at jwfacts.com at this link. We’ll add our own version of it elsewhere on the sight.

For now we can use the Watch Tower’s “Our Kingdom Ministry” review question from a few years ago to see the specific change to the definition. The quote is taken directly from the Watchtower Library CD, although we have underlined and bolded the correct answers required at the time the question was written.

*** km 2/03 p. 6 Theocratic Ministry School Review ***
13. Multiple Choice: The faithful and discreet slave mentioned by Jesus at Matthew 24:45-47 is (a) the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses; (b) all anointed Christians as a group on earth at any given time; (c) Jesus Christ himself. This slave supplies spiritual food at the proper time to the “domestics,” who represent (a) anointed ones as individuals; (b) the other sheep; (c) all readers of Christian publications. The Master appointed the slave over all his belongings in the year (a) 1914; (b) 33 C.E.; (c) 1919.

The new answer (since 2013) to that first question is now (a) rather than (b) – the “faithful slave” is now the “Governing Body.” The second question is now answered with both (a) and (b) – both the “anointed” and the “other sheep.” And the final answer is now (c) – 1919 instead of (b) – 33 C.E. 

Recall that this is the conclusion of the section about “deep truths” and it ends with this point about the special position of the Governing Body. Note that it’s worded more simply here than it was in the July 15, 2013 Watchtower. The interesting change here is that it was first written in a kind of legalese, that did not necessarily equate the faithful and discreet slave exactly with the Governing Body, but said only the following:

*** w13 7/15 p. 22 par. 10 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
In recent decades, that slave has been closely identified with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Note, however, that the word “slave” in Jesus’ illustration is singular, indicating that this is a composite slave. The decisions of the Governing Body are thus made collectively.

The passive, loose association between the slave and the Governing Body provided a measure of deniability as if they, the Governing Body, needed a “trial balloon” to see how well this would go over before they would finally say something more like: “We, the Governing Body, have not only been closely identified with ‘faithful slave’ in recent decades. More clearly, we are, in fact, the same: the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ is the Governing Body.” The trial balloon went smoothly enough, so it is now stated directly.

In fact, it will be seen that there is another important subtext of this discussion. It will re-appear repeatedly in this issue. That idea is that JW’s should be pleased and delighted that the Governing Body is at the head of this “refinement” — this positive change. Accepting that the Governing Body has Jehovah’s approval for their position is thought to be important enough to repeat in one way or another in every article in this series.  That point will be repeated explicitly, which we’ll see when we get to paragraph 6.

Speaking of the Simplified Edition of the Watchtower, the following is a quote from the very first issue of that edition, July 15, 2011, p.24. It stated the following:

***w11 7/15 p.24 [Simplified Edition] ***”We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval.”***

[Paragraphs] 7, 8. What are some examples of inspired prophetic pictures in the Bible?

⁷ If you have been serving Jehovah for decades, you may have noticed a gradual shift in the way our literature explains many of the narratives recorded in the Bible. How so? In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype. Is there a Scriptural basis for prophetic pictures? Yes. For instance, Jesus spoke of “the sign of Jonah the prophet.” (Read Matthew 12:39,40.)  Jesus explained that Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the fish—which would have been Jonah’s grave had Jehovah not preserved him alive—was prophetic of Jesus’ own time in the grave.

⁸ The Bible contains other inspired prophetic pictures. The apostle Paul discussed a number of them. For example, Abraham’s relationship with Hagar and Sarah provided a prophetic picture of Jehovah’s relationship with the nation of Israel and the heavenly part of God’s organization. (Gal 4:22-26) Similarly, the tabernacle and the temple, Atonement Day, the high priest, and other facets of the Mosaic Law contained “a shadow of the good things to come.” (Heb. 9:23-25; 10:1) It is fascinating and faith-strengthening to study such prophetic pictures. Can we conclude, though, that every character, event, and object described in the Bible foreshadows someone or something?

_____________________________________________________

So we are just about to get to the meat of the discussion. And the point of these two paragraphs is generally correct: There were a few “true” examples of “types and antitypes” in the Bible. The examples of Jonah and Abraham/Hagar/Sarah may have been intended more as “analogies” rather than as “prophetic patterns” in the way that the Watchtower has used “types and antitypes.” Also, the foreshadowed meanings of many of the Jewish sacrificial processes are in a somewhat different category. Paragraph 8 ends with the question that correctly indicates that even if these cases really are “types and antitypes” that this would still not be a basis to consider every other narrative in the same way.

_____________________________________________________

[Paragraph] 9. How was the Bible account about Naboth explained in the past?

⁹ In the past, such an approach was often taken. Consider, for example, the account about Naboth, whose unjust trial and execution were arranged by wicked Queen Jezebel so that her husband, Ahab, could seize Naboth’s vineyard. (1 Ki. 21:1-16) Back in 1932, that account was explained as a prophetic drama. Ahab and Jezebel were said to picture Satan and his organization; Naboth pictured Jesus; Naboth’s death, then, was prophetic of Jesus’ execution. Decades later, though, in the book “Let Your Name Be Sanctified,” published in 1961, Naboth was said to picture the anointed, and Jezebel was Christendom. Hence, Naboth’s persecution at Jezebel’s hands pictured the persecution of the anointed during the last days. For many years, God’s people found this approach to Bible accounts faith strengthening. Why, then, have things changed?

_____________________________________________________

This explanation about how Naboth was once explained as a “prophetic type” of Jesus, but later as a “type” of the anointed is true. Yet this was really just a small part of a very convoluted, and ever-changing explanation of the entire set of Bible narratives regarding the lives of Elijah, Elisha and almost all the other persons and entities mentioned in their recorded experiences. The narrative about Naboth, Ahab and Jezebel was just a small part of a much larger set of now obsolete explanations.

Making the point that these incorrect and unnecessary explanations were “faith strengthening” stretches the point. Although it’s difficult to see how an incorrect explanation can actually strengthen our faith in Jehovah, it is easy to see how these incorrect explanations may have strengthened our faith in an earthly organization. Witnesses have been impressed over the years that such deep, complex and convoluted explanations could be made to fit the experiences of the leaders of the Watch Tower organization, initially in the years from 1878 to 1914, and later applied primarily to “prophetic patterns” that matched the experiences of the Watch Tower’s events and activities of its leaders especially during the years 1918, 1919, the 1920’s, 1931, 1935, and 1941 to pick the most common examples.

When the article says “Naboth was said to picture the anointed” (1961) it really referred to the experience of the Watch Tower organization under Rutherford during the years from the end of World War I up through 1941. The “prophecy” referred to time when a Jezebel-type clergy of Christendom had used the Ahab-type political powers to “stone to death” the good reputation of the Naboth-type “anointed remnant” so that the Elijah-type Rutherford fulfilled this prophetic drama between 1918 and 1941. Note some of the actual, quoted excerpts from chapter 17 of the 1961 book mentioned above in paragraph 8:

As an instance, at the London (England) international convention of May 25-31,1926, in the public address on the subject. . . Speaker Rutherford said:. . .In this same public address Rutherford exposed. . . But Rutherford said:. . . and he set forth Bible prophecies that predicted its destruction. . . .September 8, 1926. . . September 17, 1934. . . . in the year 1927. . .Many battles in law courts resulted. . . .in 1930, when, on July 30 and August 11, Volumes I and II of the book entitled “Light” were released to the headquarters family of the Watch Tower Society in Brooklyn, New York. . .  In September, 1930, the book Light was released for general distribution. . .  In 1931, . . .the Elijah class, the anointed remnant, the “faithful and discreet slave” class, . . .Afterward . . .the book entitled “Vindication” was released. . . . On October 7, 1934. . .For example, President Rutherford received a cablegram on April 26, 1933. . .That day Rutherford suggested . . .Then came the convention at Washington, D.C., May 31 to June 3, 1935. . . . In this address President Rutherford discussed . . .The address that Rutherford now gave. . . Years previous, on August 25, 1923, at the Los Angeles (California) convention President Rutherford had discussed . . . Also in 1931 . . . But from 1935 onward. . . .On January 31, 1936, there was released at Brooklyn headquarters the new book entitled “Riches,” . . . Then on February 23, 1936, President Rutherford broadcast the speech . . .The Watchtower as of May 1, 1937, page 130, announced . . .The Watchtower as of February 15, 1938. . .”

Clearly, this is intended to be a listing of highlights of Rutherford’s career as the president of the Watchtower Society from 1919 to about 1941. In fact the next chapter of the same book makes that point even clearer. (See this site’s previous article on Elijah and Elisha.) The incorrect doctrines had strengthened faith, not in God, but in the leadership of the Watch Tower Society and publications from their Brooklyn headquarters. Is it really such a good thing that they strengthened faith in such a way, through incorrect doctrine?

Although the original Bible narratives were considered to contain actual events that happened to various people in their real lives, they were also considered to have been recorded as prophecies about the Watch Tower Society. In other words, the Bible writer’s may have had one thing in mind, but Jehovah was supposedly inspiring them to write it in such a way that they were prophesying about the activities and trials of the Watch Tower Society and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Gradually, the Society shifted from referring so much to the fulfillment of prophecy in the “Watch Tower Society” through its various presidents, and referred to just the “anointed” or “Jehovah’s Witnesses” or “Jehovah’s people.”

Many of these ideas probably seemed silly to many Witnesses, even at the time, but they couldn’t say it. Now, of course, by formally admitting these ideas had no Scriptural support, the Watchtower opens itself up to the idea that they really were “silly,” or at least presumptuous and indiscreet.

_____________________________________________________

[Paragraph] 10. (a) How has discretion led to greater caution when explaining certain Bible accounts? (b) Our literature focuses more on what today?

¹⁰ As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so. Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts. *

_____________________________________________________

Really? “More discreet”? This is more diversionary sleight of hand by the writers. We would not necessarily expect a “faithful and discreet slave” to be chosen, let’s say, in1919, specifically for their quality of discretion, and then be found to need improvement in their discretion. At least, we shouldn’t expect them to take nearly 100 years before noticing that they had shown a lack of discretion all that time.

The paragraph frankly admits some of the problems of keeping these false doctrines around for so long. But there is a special irony in the fact that it says: “Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments”.  If this is true, then where is the concern over having lost the moral and practical lesson in Jesus’ parable of the “faithful and discreet slave”?

Another point to notice is the difference between the following two statements. One is from the Watchtower paragraph just quoted, and the other is from the original discourse by David Splane. Note how the more recent Watchtower statement has been weakened. The original statement could not have accommodated the doctrine of the “faithful and discreet slave.” It seems likely that this difference had been noticed. That would explain the weakened statement in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower:

“Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so.”

The summary quote from the original talk by David Splane in October 2014 didn’t just ask for “greater caution” when there is no basis, it called for silence when there is no basis:

“And we feel that we must follow the light, wherever it leads us. Our love should be for the truth and not for a particular doctrine or teaching. Well how would you sum this talk in a few words. . . . The wrong answer is, ‘We don’t believe in types and antitypes any more.’ We do! We certainly do where the Scriptures identify them as such, we embrace them. But where the Bible is silent, we must be silent.”

_____________________________________________________

[Paragraph] 11. (a) How do we now understand the account about Naboth, and why does that man’s example speak to us all? (b) Why have our publications in recent years seldom mentioned types and antitypes? (See “Questions From Readers” in this issue.)

¹¹ How, then, do we now understand the account about Naboth? In much clearer, simpler terms. That righteous man died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integrity keeper. He held to Jehovah’s Law in the face of horrific abuse of power. (Num. 36:7; 1 Ki. 21:3)  His example thus speaks to us because any one of us may face persecution for similar reasons. (Read 2 Timothy 3:12.) People of all backgrounds can readily understand, remember, and apply such a faith-strengthening lesson.

_____________________________________________________

This now conforms with the general view of almost every religious group in Judaism or “Christendom.”  Jehovah’s Witnesses were fairly unique in the pervasiveness of this obsolete practice.

_____________________________________________________

[Paragraph] 12. (a) What conclusion should we not draw regarding narratives recorded in the Bible? (b) Why are we able to have clear explanations of even deep things? (See footnote.)

¹² Should we conclude that Bible narratives have only a practical application and no other meaning? No. Today our  publications are more likely to teach that one thing reminds us of or serves to illustrate another. They are less likely to present many Bible accounts in a rigid framework of prophetic types and antitypes. For example, we can rightly say that Naboth’s integrity in the face of persecution and death reminds us of the integrity of Christ and his anointed. However, we can also be reminded of the faithful stand of many of the Lord’s “other sheep.” Such a clear and simple comparison has the hallmark of divine teaching. *

_____________________________________________________

Nothing blatantly wrong here. But obviously the Watchtower writers realize they are going to need exceptions to this new rule. We, the readers, won’t necessarily know exactly which narratives will be treated one way and which will be treated another way. We will continue to rely on “our publications.” The publications will only be “less likely” to present many Bible accounts in a rigid framework of types and antitypes.”

_____________________________________________________

[Paragraph] 13. What examples show that we now explain some of Jesus’ illustrations in a simpler, clearer way?

¹³ Jesus Christ was the greatest Teacher ever to walk this earth. One of his favorite teaching methods involved the use of illustrations. (Matt. 13:34) Illustrations paint vivid word pictures that stimulate the mind and reach the heart. Has our literature also come to explain Jesus’ illustrations in a simpler, clearer way over the years? The answer is unmistakably yes! Were we not thrilled to gain a clarified understanding of Jesus’ illustrations regarding the leaven, the mustard seed, and the dragnet in The Watchtower of July 15, 2008? We now see clearly that these illustrations apply to God’s Kingdom and its phenomenal success in gathering true followers of Christ out of this wicked world.

_____________________________________________________

 For many Witnesses, this may come across as some kind of a joke. Compare the following from: Man’s Salvation Out Of World Distress, 1975, p. 208:

*** sl chap. 12 p. 208 par. 8 Christendom and Judaism Now Facing Desolation ***
In the parable, the “man” that sowed the mustard grain pictures the “wicked one,” Satan the Devil.

That book was released at the summer convention. I got my copy in August, and read it in September. Also in early September, we received the October 1, 1975 Watchtower, which said:

*** w75 10/1 p. 600 pars. 21-22 The Exposing of the False Kingdom Refuge ***
“. . . Jesus as the Sower of the parable plant the symbolic mustard grain. . .Jesus Christ, with his prophetic foresight, could foreknow the outcome for the symbolic mustard grain that he planted in the first century.”

The same issue that “corrected” the sower from Satan to Jesus, also discussed the parable of the leaven a few pages later:

“. . . that the Bible unvaryingly uses leaven to symbolize something bad, unrighteousness, error, sin … So the parable must illustrate something unfavorable about matters having to do with the ‘kingdom of the heavens.’”

The July 15, 2008 Watchtower (p. 20) mentioned in paragraph 13, above, changed the leaven to mean a little something more positive:

“Like leaven, the Kingdom-preaching work … has expanded to the point that the Kingdom is now being preached ‘to the most distant part of the earth;’”

Note that although each explanation is considered to be the opposite of the previous explanation, neither is really more simple or clear than the other one. Satan-as-Sower is just as simple and clear as Jesus-as-Sower. In other words, it’s just the latest explanation. According to Splane’s original discourse, it was also “thrilling” to learn to wrong explanations. Splane actually made the point that being “thrilled” about a doctrine didn’t make it right, and he even gave the example of a brother who was thrilled with the “Satanic” explanations the Watchtower once promoted about the “Great Pyramid of Geza.” That idea, of course, didn’t make it into this Watchtower article, although the idea of being “thrilled” found its way in.

_____________________________________________________

[Paragraph] 14. (a) How have we explained the parable of the neighborly Samaritan? (b) How do we understand Jesus’ parable now?

¹⁴ What, though, about the more detailed stories, or parables, that Jesus related? Some, of course, are symbolic and prophetic; others emphasize practical lessons. But which is which? Through the years, the answer has gradually become clearer. For instance, consider the way we have explained Jesus’ parable of the neighborly Samaritan. (Luke 10:30-37) In 1924, The Watch Tower said that the Samaritan pictured Jesus; the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, which ran downhill, pictured mankind’s downward course since the rebellion in Eden; the thieves on the road pictured giant corporations and profiteers; and the priest and the Levite typified ecclesiastical systems. Today, our literature uses that illustration to remind all Christians that we must be impartial in rendering aid to those in need, especially in a spiritual sense. Does it not make us happy to see that Jehovah makes his teachings clear to us?

_____________________________________________________

This one about the Good Samaritan may have been chosen because it is a bit simpler than the explanation the Watchtower promoted about the Prodigal Son for example. (See the article on this site concerning that parable.) The Good Samaritan was probably chosen here because it is one of the few “type-antitype” parables, that was not tied specifically to the 19th and 20th century chronology of the Watch Tower Society.

But there is something well worth noting here. Per the Watchtower article, the Good Samaritan parable is now seen as a moral lesson about Christian conduct in general. This makes perfect sense. But notice that it was introduced in the Bible with the question: (Luke 10:29) . . .“Who really is my neighbor?”

Sound familiar? “Who really is . . . ?” is the same type of construction introducing another parable that starts out “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” It’s the implied construction of many parables: Who really is the wise farmer? The one who plants on rocks, gravel, or fine soil?  Who really is the sower of the mustard seed?

Surely the writer noticed this (while searching the remaining context of Luke 10 that also begins this article).

_____________________________________________________

[Paragraph] 15. What will we consider in the following article?

¹⁵ In our next article, we will examine another of Jesus’ parables—that of the ten virgins. (Matt. 25:1-13)  How did Jesus intend his followers in the last days to understand that powerful word picture? As a detailed prophetic allegory, with a symbolic meaning applied to every person, object, and event? Or, rather, did he mean for his followers to use it as a practical lesson to guide them during the last days? Let us see.

_____________________________________________________
It was probably inevitable that the Watchtower finally had to give up on the “type-antitype” method, at least where it was obvious that the Bible didn’t provide any evidence for such a method. It’s not just that it comes across as a kind of presumptuousness to make a claim that is not substantiated with any Scriptures. That’s not the real problem. Witnesses will likely continue to accept presumptuous, unsubstantiated doctrines for years to come.

The real problem is that the Watch Tower doctrines have painted themselves into a chronological corner. That’s been true for years, but there has always been a way to extend it in a fairly rational fashion. A generation from 1914 could have been 30 or 40 years. It could have been 70 years, or even 80 years. But it’s difficult to see how it could be 100 or maybe 120 years. The new two-overlapping-sets-of-contemporaries method has not caught on very well yet. But 2014 was the year the Watch Tower was forced to openly admit, through a forced smile, that this has already gone on for 100 years. Most of the old prophetic explanations had been tied to 1918 and 1919.

Some subtle remarks in both Splane’s original speech and the Watchtower article shows that the subtext is really all about the “anointed” and the “other sheep.” The special place of the “anointed” has now been thoroughly transferred to the Governing Body alone. Witnesses can no longer be looking at the numbers of “anointed” for any speculation about “the end.” Those numbers haven’t been obeying the expected rules anyway. The “anointed” can’t matter that much any more, so these explanations about the parables and narratives can’t matter either — because they always highlighted the experiences of the “anointed” — even if it always was intended as a kind of shorthand for the Watch Tower Society’s leadership who claimed to represent them.

However, by taking the step to formally admit that these doctrines were always unsupported, as the Watchtower has finally done,  a new problem will become more exposed over time. It’s the loss of control over exactly when this principle should be applied.  Ultimately, the question will turn to why Jehovah’ Witnesses should believe anything claimed by the the Watch Tower publications that clearly falls into the category of “unsubstantiated.”

By attempting to define this as a better, “approved,” more “discreet” method, it is being promoted as coming from a general and fundamental style of Biblical exegesis. This goes far beyond a reason to change the traditional Watchtower explanation of just three or four specific parables. Ultimately, it effects every prophetic explanation that is unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

“CANON” FODDER

The doctrines of “1914” and the “faithful and discreet slave” are deeply engraved into the Watch Tower’s unique doctrinal canon. These will be surely be the last to fall, but the change described in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower inadvertently takes aim at those very doctrines.