How are we to understand the GB/Slave interpreting scripture, as the sole chanel, and at the same time accept that they can err?

[JW Insider]

32 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

With respect (still), these references to the words of Jesus and Paul are there to substantiate your viewpoint NOT to show why this viewpoint differs substantively from that expressed at Numbers 16:3.

Fair enough, but to me, it's pretty simple. If the words of Jesus and Paul substantiate the viewpoint that Christians should avoid looking to any kind of Governing Body as a "sole channel" then we are jumping the gun by worrying about any particular response to any Governing Body that makes that claim. We first need to deal with whether the claim is proper. I have no doubt that the claim of Moses was proper. The Bible said it was. I also have no doubt that this particular claim of the Governing Body is improper. The Bible said it was.

To me, it's exactly as simple as having a group of very respected and authoritative elders in the congregation claiming that we should celebrate Christmas, for example. Not likely to happen, but for the purpose of this illustration, let's say that it will happen in 2018. If these are very respected elders who are pillars in the congregation and good examples and have offered a lot of excellent spiritual teaching in the past then perhaps many in the congregation will go along. But let's say that some others are still respectful, but don't go along with these elders. Let's say that those who don't go along are told that they are acting like Korah, Dathan and Abiram. In such a case, I think the first thing to concern ourselves with is whether the reference to Korah et al is appropriate. It's only appropriate if the respected, authoritative elders are really in a situation comparable to Moses.

To someone who believes that the elders are in a situation comparable to that of Moses in Numbers 16, then obviously the situation would appear similar, and nothing could likely be said that could easily convince them otherwise.

That's why I refer directly to the words of Jesus and Paul that address this exact kind of situation. It was Jesus and Paul who said that it was the spiritual responsibility of all of us to be servants of each other. Jesus spoke out directly against any kind of governing body that would think of itself as if they were in a similar situation to the seat of Moses. And Paul spoke out directly against a situation that had occurred due to problems emanating from the congregation where the Jerusalem council provided leadership, and went so far as to show how he did not treat the Jerusalem council as if they were a governing body for other congregations. 

[Anna]

On 1/30/2017 at 0:13 PM, Witness said:

“For I know this, that after my departure SAVAGE WOLVES WILL COME IN AMONG YOU, not sparing the flock.”

We can see that these appear among the congregations, AND ARE ANOINTED ONES as verse 30 shows:

Also FROM AMONG YOURSELVES men will rise up, speaking perverse things, TO DRAW AWAY THE DISCIPLES AFTER THEMSELVES. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.” Acts 20:29-31

If you are insinuating that this is the case of the GB then please tell me what are the "perverse things" that you think they are saying, and how are they "drawing disciples" after themselves?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If these are very respected elders who are pillars in the congregation and good examples and have offered a lot of excellent spiritual teaching in the past then perhaps many in the congregation will go along. But let's say that some others are still respectful, but don't go along with these elders. Let's say that those who don't go along are told that they are acting like Korah, Dathan and Abiram. In such a case, I think the first thing to concern ourselves with is whether the reference to Korah et al is appropriate. It's only appropriate if the respected, authoritative elders are really in a situation comparable to Moses.

Good point to ponder.

 

For some reason my responses are merging into one post....I cant seem to change it....never did this before...

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, Anna said:

For some reason my responses are merging into one post....I cant seem to change it....never did this before...

I find that was happening to me too. Only recently in the last couple of weeks. I thought it was when I had created two responses back to back where no one else had created a response in the meantime in the same thread/topic. I assumed the software was smart enough to only do this when both of your back-to-back posts were to the same person, which might make sense. (Except for me, since each of my responses is already too long and wordy and this new feature just makes it too long, twice over.) But yours seems to have happened in responses to two different persons.

[Evacuated]

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I also have no doubt that this particular claim of the Governing Body is improper.

Presumably you are referring to the view that the Governing Body are the "faithful and discreet slave" referenced at Matt.24:45?

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

To me, it's exactly as simple as having a group of very respected and authoritative elders in the congregation claiming that we should celebrate Christmas, for example

No need to hypothesize on this. You are describing the apostasy that took place within the Christian congregation (Acts 20:29-31) And as for the savage treatment meted out to those brave individuals who disagreed with such "superfine apostles"....well it makes Jehovah's treatment of Korah & Co. appear positively humane. So, are you really suggesting that todays governing body are some how synonymous with the aforementioned apostasy from true Christianity because they identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave" of Matt.24:45?

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's why I refer directly to the words of Jesus and Paul that address this exact kind of situation.

I cannot see any words or actions of Jesus and Paul to contradict the idea of an arrangement to govern the activities of the ChrIstian congregation. Of course, in no uncertain terms, they severely castigated the Pharisees and scribes and any who would follow their pattern: Jesus: " Serpents, offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33); Paul: "I wish the men who are trying to unsettle you would emasculate themselves" Gal.5:12.

But as for the idea of a sole channel of communication?

Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6. And as for the delegation of sole authority in matters relating to the kingdom, he himself set up an earthly channel when he said to Peter "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of the heavens," Matt. 16:19. By saying that whatever Peter 'would loosen would already be that loosened in the heavens', he showed that in no way would his own position be usurped by those who represented his authority on earth, but in this case it was sole authority in the most literal sense that was delegated to Peter, despite it's being relative to heavenly direction. The later descriptions of Jesus holding the stars of various congegations in his right hand support the view that responsibility for earthly matters is still in the hand of the Christ, despite the delegation.

Paul's recognition of a lead body consisting of the apostles and some older men in Jerusalem is indisputably seen in the account of Acts 15. His words in Gal.Ch. 2 in no way contradict this, but merely lend weight to the argument that Paul himself likely became a member of that lead body. His public rebuke of Peter's shameful fear of man (Gal.2:11-15) add to this understanding. Additionally, his words to the Thessalonians at 2 Thess. 2:1-2 support the idea of a right and wrong channel of communication. (regardless of the subject matter, a topic for separate discussion).

So for me, the concept of the "faithful and discreet slave" being an arrangement for spiritual nourishment as a part of the sign of these last days now in progress is quite acceptable. There was absolutely no need for such a question in the 1stC preceding the apostasy, in the same way that the term "Christian" was unambiguous, so no need to ask "who really is" at that stage.

However, the presence of apostate Christendom in all it's manifestations renders that question highly relevant in these "last days". The activity of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout this period since 1914 leave no doubt in my mind that they are indeed Jehovah's faithful and discreet slave at this time. The dispensing of spiritual information provided under their direction as accountable to Christ,  is without parallel in the world today in any aspect one cares to consider. None of us would be serving the true God Jehovah in the manner that we do (Col.3:23), with the knowledge that we have (Jo.8:32), with full confidence in the things hoped for (Heb.3:14), and knowing how to maintain the full assurance that we are doing the will of God (Heb.6:11) if it was not for their diligent and courageous work.

So. Where does that leave us? Still trying on caps? I sincerely hope not!

[JW Insider]

7 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So, are you really suggesting that todays governing body are some how synonymous with the aforementioned apostasy from true Christianity because they identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave" of Matt.24:45?

Not at all. In fact, the Governing Body must identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave." They would be wrong not to identify themselves as such. 

[Evacuated]

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Not at all. In fact, the Governing Body must identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave." They would be wrong not to identify themselves as such. 

Phew!!!

16 hours ago, Anna said:

 

(Don't know why this Anna field is here???

[Witness]

17 hours ago, Anna said:

If you are insinuating that this is the case of the GB then please tell me what are the "perverse things" that you think they are saying, and how are they "drawing disciples" after themselves?

Aside from the false sense of “peace and security” offered by the organization, a false teaching that Zion that it is an earthly organization, a trampling of God’s temple priesthood (true Zion) by an elder body not anointed; is evidence of your own struggle to make sense of the two quotes you offered above and settling on man’s opinion to connect the two. 1 Cor 3:16,17; Ezek 44:7; 1 Thess 5:3; Exod 20:4,5; Isa 48:1-5

Here are three more quotes that can be contrasted with, " Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food":

"Today, harmony of belief and unity of action prevail among Jehovah’s Witnesses, who total some 7,000,000 in well over 100,000 congregations around the earth. How is such unity possible, especially in view of the turmoil and divisive thinking prevalent in today’s world? Principally, unity results from the clear and decisive direction that Jesus Christ, the Head of the congregation, provides through “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Matt. 24:45-47) Unity also results from the way the worldwide brotherhood cooperates willingly with the direction of the Governing Body."  2009/ bt chap. 14 pp. 108-115

“The faithful and discreet slave,” whom Jesus Christ directly supervises, diligently provides timely spiritual food for all." w01 5/15 pp. 28-31

"No matter what comes upon his people, Jehovah constantly provides spiritual food and needed direction. God also gives discernment and insight to responsible brothers to prepare for further advancement and refinements in theocratic organization. (Deuteronomy 34:9; Ephesians 1:16, 17) Without fail, Jehovah provides what we need in order to fulfill our disciple-making commission and to accomplish our ministry worldwide." w01 1/15 pp. 17-21

With their most recent declaration, they have knocked people off path, again – those who all along thought Jesus was providing clear and decisive direction.  When we distort someone’s faith by providing excuses for wrongdoings, aren’t we basically perverting the truth? 

The path we take with Christ is always straight and clear because men are not distorting our direction. Acts 5:9 

How are they drawing disciples after themselves?  

"Like a mother who makes sure that her child is well-fed and cared for, “the faithful and discreet slave” provides an abundance of timely spiritual food for our spiritual advancement." w06 4/1 pp. 21-25 

“Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?  I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.  So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.  Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.” 1 Cor 3:5-8

"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”;  and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 

 Therefore let no one boast in men.

For all things are yours:  whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours.  And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” 1 Cor 3:18-23

Innumerable times, the Watchtower has patted the  "faithful and discreet slave", the Governing Body, on the back -  for what?  For providing a clear direction for the sheep through scripture?

They have successfully perverted the scriptures and created a following based on a delusion. 

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Phew!!!

What if Jesus told us an illustration about, let's say, a "Good Samaritan" and we said that this didn't apply to us because we know of a specific body of elders within our organization who already identify themselves as the fulfillment of the "Good Samaritan." If that specific body of elders actually becomes known for a ministry that is very much like the good Samaritan of the parable, and they manage such a ministry on a world-wide basis and encourage others to join them and help them, then I'd have to say that they really are fulfilling the role of the "Good Samaritan." 

There would be nothing wrong with such a ministry even if (or especially if) millions of people sincerely followed them, obediently followed the lead of their instructions, displaying a combination of such charity, motivated by love of God, and combined with their confident expressions of faith that indicated that their motivation was heartfelt. There would be nothing wrong with identifying that special body of elders as the "Good Samaritan" class or group or body.

But would it be right to say that only the persons of that group of elders should be identified as the "Good Samaritan" and that Jesus had assigned this particular group of elders to that position? Would it be right to say that Jesus had only this particular group of elders in mind in a prophetic sense and that the phrase "Good Samaritan" can only refer to persons appointed into this group during a specific time period?

This might sound ridiculous, but the two parables actually provide a much closer parallel than might appear at first glance:

With respect to the good Samaritan, Jesus was answering the question:

WHO REALLY IS MY NEIGHBOR?

• (Luke 10:29) . . .“Who really is my neighbor?. . .

With respect to the parable of the faithful and the unfaithful slave Jesus was answering the question:

WHO REALLY IS THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE?

• (Luke 12:42) . . .“Who really is the faithful steward,. . .
• (Matthew 24:45) . . .Who really is the faithful and discreet slave. . .

For some reason the Watch Tower publications now say that one of these "Who really is..." questions applies to millions of us all around the world, and the other one applies to only about seven of us: only a specific body of elders in New York. 

As I said before, however, this is simply a matter of not yet noticing the contradiction between this explanation and other passages of Scripture. This does not mean there is anything wrong with the "faithful slave" or that the "faithful slave" has turned unfaithful, because the phrase was never intended to identify a small group of seven "New York" residents in the first place. It would really be no different than if the same group had called themselves "The True Neighbor class" or "The Faithful Steward body" or "The Good Samaritan group." It doesn't mean that they don't belong in the group, or that they might even take the lead in trying to represent the group in the most effective way. It does not mean that Jehovah won't bless their endeavors either. They are trying to do the right thing in the best way that they currently understand the scripture. In time however they will probably recognize the contradiction that this understanding produces against several other passages of scripture. This has happened with many other understandings. It's simply a matter of context and conformity with ALL the scriptures on the particular subject.

I'd say that the Watchtower has already come very close to dealing with one of the contradictions, and their conclusion apparently led them to the right answer, in spite of the contradiction. Therefore, this one contradiction was already noticed, but this was not enough yet to overturn the entire entrenched teaching. At least it digs around it a bit. The following Watchtower paragraph deals with the idea that this particular "faithful slave" will become entitled to a greater reward than the rest of the "domestics" whom they were serving. This is the obvious implication of Jesus' parable, yet those who formulated this latest interpretation also realize that it would be a mistake to interpret it in the same way that Jesus implied. It would produce too strong a contradiction with other passages:

• *** w13 7/15 p. 25 par. 19 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
• Does the faithful slave receive a greater reward in heaven than the rest of the anointed? No. A reward promised to a small group in one setting may ultimately be shared by others. For example, consider what Jesus said to his 11 faithful apostles the night before he died. (Read Luke 22:28-30.) Jesus promised that small group of men that a fine reward awaited them for their faithfulness. They would share his throne of kingly authority. But years later, he indicated that all of the 144,000 will sit on thrones and share his rulership. (Rev. 1:1; 3:21) Similarly, as stated at Matthew 24:47, he promised that a small group of men—the anointed brothers who make up the faithful slave—will be appointed over all his belongings. In reality, all of the 144,000 will share his vast heavenly authority.—Rev. 20:4, 6.

So what we end up with is this: a small group of men prove faithful until Jesus returns and this particular slave therefore is rewarded with an appointment over ALL the master's belongings. If Jesus returned tomorrow, then these seven elders who make up the Governing Body would therefore be expected to receive a reward much greater than any reward promised to the domestics whom they were serving. The contradiction required an explanation. The explanation correctly shows that there is NO special reward that these 7 elders receive that is any different from 143,993 others who were also included in the domestics. The only explanation is that all of the 144,000 get the EXACT same reward, instead of what Jesus indicates. What the writers hadn't noticed is that the contradiction doesn't need to be rationalized away, because there is no contradiction if we change the premise by accepting the explanation of Matthew 24 that we find in 1 Peter and 2 Peter.

 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

This might sound ridiculous

I confirm this. For me it certainly does.

Comparing the parable of the Good Samaritan with the prophecy of the faithful and discreet slave and extrapolating on this with the aim of dismantling the current explanation provided in the Watchtower is, for me, a fruitless, (pardon!), "apples and oranges" type excercise, (idiomatic use regardless of Smithsonian debate). 

I have stated my position on this matter above. I think that the position you appear to be stating measures up quite comparatively to that described at Numbers 16:3. I do not see the behaviour of those rebels at that time as a "picture" or "prophetc type" working out here. But I do see quite simply a similar circumstance in that an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time (i.e. The Governing Body), is disputed internally and made out, subtly, to be a self-appointment on the part of participants, rather than a divine provision.

Pardon if I misunderstand. I am sure clarification will be forthcoming if this is the case.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Comparing the parable of the Good Samaritan with the prophecy of the faithful and discreet slave and extrapolating on this with the aim of dismantling the current explanation provided in the Watchtower is, for me, a fruitless, (pardon!), "apples and oranges" type excercise, (idiomatic use regardless of Smithsonian debate).

As I'm sure you know, for many years the Watchtower already did make distinct "class" applications to groups that were supposedly represented by the Good Samaritan, the robbers, the road, the innkeeper, the money, the victim, and the road-crossers. There were specific class applications made to the parable of the Prodigal Son that were said to be prophetic and referred specifically to changes in the heavenly and earthly classes of Christians that had their start in the 1918/1919 period, and resulted in specific rewards and conditions in the 1931 to 1935 period. This was said to be specifically what Jesus had in mind prophetically when he gave the parable.

So, yes, there is a certain ridiculousness to drawing parallels between and among some of these types of interpretations. I'm sure that the ridiculousness of turning such parables into prophecies and identifying only a specific group (or groups) within the Good Samaritan parable was finally noticed by the writers of the Watchtower articles. This is why some of these "class" explanations that had lasted for many decades were finally exposed to be fruitless in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower.

Yet we still twist and strain logic to try to keep treating this particular parable of "the faithful and the unfaithful slave" as a prophecy. (This can easily be shown if you observe the logic and reasoning of the July 15, 2013 article you referenced previously.)

That article also says that "It is vital that we recognize the faithful slave." That same article indicates that "in the past" (the previous 130-plus years) we had not recognized that slave correctly.

Without getting into any of those reasons given in the July 15, 2013 article, I would only hope that we could recognize that we might be making an important mistake. If Jesus wanted all of us to apply this parable to ourselves, and we say that we want that parable to apply not to ourselves but only to seven members of a Governing Body, then isn't it quite possible that we have rejected an assignment by our Lord? Would we really want to reject an assignment of sacred service?

But, we might say that we don't want to accept this particular assignment. Surely, some men will step up and take the lead for us. That's what always happens with groups of people. Then we won't have to carry our own load. It's certainly a lot easier to be the one served than to be a steward who is also responsible for the operation of the household of faith. Besides, once we accept that these men are our leaders, doesn't it become an act of disloyalty and rebellion to go back and claim that we were all -- each one of us -- supposed to be faithful stewards? Each one of us would have to be responsible to pay attention to ourselves and our teaching. If we merely follow, we don't really have to think that much on our own. We can just do what they tell us. Who needs to prove to ourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God? Let someone else do the proving. Let someone else be noble-minded and do the searching. Surely it would be chaos and disunity if all of us were allowed to question things that a body of elders have agreed upon.

I know that many of us think, or prefer to think in the way described in that last paragraph. But I think it shows a lack of faith in Jehovah to question his Word just so we can make a non-biblical doctrine out of one verse of a parable, especially if that doctrine relies on a rejected type of interpretation, and conflicts with the context of that same parable and conflicts with the rest of the Christian scriptures.

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

But I do see quite simply a similar circumstance in that an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time (i.e. The Governing Body), is disputed internally and made out, subtly, to be a self-appointment on the part of participants, rather than a divine provision.

Pardon if I misunderstand. I am sure clarification will be forthcoming if this is the case.

Your last line quoted here appears to be a reference to whether or not you think I'm saying that the Governing Body is a principal aspect of an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time. I think the other side of that same coin is made out to be that if they are not that, then they are therefore self-appointed, and are not therefore a divine provision.

In so many circumstances, the most dangerous thing a human can do is speak about someone's leaders. For most of us, we find our comfort zone when we understand our own fixed place in an ideological hierarchy, and humans have been known to squirm, fight, or even kill when that ideological comfort zone is disturbed or threatened.

So, yes, there may yet be a significant portion of this discussion that needs clarification.

If you are trying to understand my own position on this subject, then I appreciate the opportunity to explain. Unfortunately, we have so much invested in the Watchtower's current explanation of Matthew 24:45 that any different view might prove to be quite difficult to explain without taking a couple more steps back to get a fresh look at the parable. 

I believe I have already stated that bodies of elders should be found in every congregation and they should serve as leading examples, overseers, administrators, teachers, etc. It is therefore inevitable that groups of congregations who work together or share assemblies together will also find a need for different kinds of administrators and leaders, and in effect a body of elders might be found for various groupings of congregations. We have utilized circuit overseers, assembly servants, branch or zone overseers, etc., to form such bodies (or committees) of elders. An even more important leadership role will inevitably be needed over the global set of congregations, and this is, from another perspective, a single congregation, too. It will also have whatever type of body of elders is deemed useful, wise, and important for that particular need. As Fred Franz pointed out in a previously referenced speech, it seems that most major large religious denominations invariably end up with some type of "governing body" even if it's called by another name.

Are they self-appointed? Not really. Remember that we follow the Biblical instructions for qualifications of elders, and therefore elders are appointed by previously appointed elders, who were all apparently approved due to meeting scriptural qualifications. And the very fact that some will reach out for the office of overseer (or qualify as a spiritually mature older man) is a good thing. Some of these men will be better at teaching, some at speaking, some at evangelizing, some at comforting, some at managing, some at visiting the sick, some at looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation, some at judicial matters, some at helping married couples, etc., etc. These are "gifts in men" as we sometimes say. Jehovah has given everyone an opportunity to find areas of sacred service no matter what our personalities. So it would be very unfair to point to the members who have been selected as a committee or body of elders for the overall congregation, and say that they were self-appointed. We need to recognize that the entire orderly arrangement for any congregation is all part of an arrangement from Jehovah. And for our particular type of ministry as Jehovah's Witnesses, there is going to be a strong desire to see men in leadership positions who tend to best represent that ministry to the entire world. We would expect to see good, sincere, faithful examples who are well-spoken, have excellent reputations, understand the scriptures, and have decades of experience in full-time ministry. And this certainly shows up in the selected appointees to the Governing Body. And it is an important part of our preaching and teaching ministry that the Governing Body takes a lead in making choices about the Bible-based publications, Bibles, and various types of Bible-based instruction that the congregations appreciate.

But back to the interpretation of the parable. There is nothing in the parable that says that the faithful and discreet slave prepares spiritual food. There is a faithful and discreet slave that is put in charge of food operations in this household while a master is away. But this is a parable that Jesus says was to point out the different kind of attitude between a faithful slave and an unfaithful slave. It's actually more about the several ways that a slave might show himself to be UNfaithful. The basic idea is that it's easy to imagine how many ways a slave might show himself to be unfaithful if a master puts him in charge of the smooth operation of the household. So the important question is therefore, how will a slave prove himself to be faithful when the master is away and there are so many temptations to get away with things, especially if you don't know how long the master will be gone, and he seems to be delaying. Will food always be served on time? Will the slave let that little bit of power go to his head and start beating his fellow slaves? Will he open up all the wine for himself and start acting like a confirmed drunkard?

Just like the parable of the neighborly and un-neighborly men in the scripture about the good Samaritan, the money given to the innkeeper isn't spiritual money. The beating and the robbery that the victim received was not a spiritual robbery. It was not a spiritual inn or innkeeper. No, it was a practical example about what it means to "love your neighbor" and answer, "Who really is your neighbor?"

In the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, we have the same idea before us. A situation is described in practical terms so that we will all understand that we make judgments every day about how we will live and what decisions we will make to prove that we are really being the sort of person who is in expectation that the master will return at any time, no matter how long the delay. It's easy for us to imagine how likely we are to fail in our assigned duties. It was very poignant for a Jewish audience to hear a story about how a Samaritan showed a more neighborly attitude than the complacent Jewish "neighbor" who ignores fellow human suffering. But Jesus taught that Christianity means doing something about the sick, homeless, those lacking clothing, the hungry and the thirsty. And like the Jewish "neighbor" we too might think we are doing enough by preaching and teaching and therefore become complacent. It's easy to imagine the appointed slave falling into trouble perhaps more easily than the others, as he lets power go to his head, or abuses his authority.

Both situations, just as we would expect of Jesus' parables, are about:  (2 Peter 3:11)  what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion,

These parables are not about actually staying up all night to keep thieves from breaking into our houses, or actual robbers beating victims, or actual stewards getting drunk or beating up fellow servants. And they are not about spiritual thieves, or spiritual robbers, or spiritual drunkards. They are circumstances to make us think about what we would do in these particular situations, and how these apply to the kingdom.

The idea of food and a house with a master who has gone away is very appropriate, but there is nothing about a small group feeding "spiritual food" to a larger group in the Bible. This was not a question about who would lead. There is nothing in the Bible about any "sole channel" other than Jesus himself. Our food, like Jesus, should be doing the will of our Father. The most important part of the parable of the slave is not about the food but about our response to the circumstance, as indicated above. This is proven, too, by the way that Mark summarizes it in Mark 13:

• (Mark 13:32-37) . . .. 33 Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is. 34 It is like a man traveling abroad who left his house and gave the authority to his slaves, to each one his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to keep on the watch. 35 Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether late in the day or at midnight or before dawn or early in the morning, 36 in order that when he comes suddenly, he does not find you sleeping. 37 But what I say to you, I say to all: Keep on the watch.”

In Mark's account there was nothing particularly important about the fact that food was involved. Mark doesn't even mention food, but focuses on the doorkeeper, and the fact that each one of the slaves was authorized to do his work. It was about whether the slaves remained obedient in their assignments, and remained watchful, in expectation of their master's return.

 

[Evacuated]

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If Jesus wanted all of us to apply this parable to ourselves, and we say that we want that parable to apply not to ourselves but only to seven members of a Governing Body, then isn't it quite possible that we have rejected an assignment by our Lord? Would we really want to reject an assignment of sacred service?

Let's not overlook the fact that the timeless lesson on the result of faithful stewardship bound up in these verses at Matt 24:45-47 holds up regardless of the specific application to the Governing Body's role in modern times as part of the sign of the last days. It would be a highly myopic application here that ignored the necessity for ALL Christians to faifhfully discharge their responsibilities as stewards of Jehovah's undeserved kindness (compare 1Cor 9:17; 1Pet. 4:10). On the other hand, I see no reason to doubt that the oversight of spiritual shepherding that we currently see in the congregation has been assigned to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (regardless of membership number or place of domicile), in fulfillment of Jesus words at Matt 24:45. The outcome of faithfully discharging that responsibility is described at vs 46-47.