What Does it Really Mean to Be "No Part of the World"?

[John 12.24to28]

5 minutes ago, boyle said:

Well, I thought this was going to be a good debate. What a disappointment.

 

😆I'm not a debater, @boyle, you know that!

[JW Insider]

4 minutes ago, AudreyAnnaNana said:

Well, it looks like he's around, maybe @JW Insider would be willing to give a summary of the political party card issue that happened in Malawi? 😃

I have no desire to get drawn into a conversation about what happened in Malawi, but I would say that (in my opinion) there was nothing wrong with the Watchtower's policy about not purchasing the political party card in Malawi. It was not the fault of the Watchtower that the government in Malawi pushed an agenda of extreme and vicious persecution upon good citizens of Malawi just because they had sound religious reasons not to purchase a political party card.

[John 12.24to28]

7 minutes ago, boyle said:

You sure are making up a lot of definitions for the word neutral that are meaningless to the structure it's intended to.

 

Maybe you could explain what you mean about the word "neutral" a little more.

[John 12.24to28]

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I would say that (in my opinion) there was nothing wrong with the Watchtower's policy about not purchasing the political party card in Malawi. It was not the fault of the Watchtower that the government in Malawi pushed an agenda of extreme and vicious persecution upon good citizens of Malawi just because they had sound religious reasons not to purchase a political party card.

 

Oh, I would agree with you that it's not the Watchtower's fault that the Malawi government was so mean.

 

It's just the misapplication of scripture I am highlighting, and that it led to some people getting hurt on their watch.

[John 12.24to28]

Why is it important? Well, if you've watched the new movie that just came out for this year's convention, you will understand.

[John 12.24to28]

When troubles come, the counsel in the movie is to obey the branch direction even if you don't understand.

They say that Jehovah will save you if you obey the branch no matter what, and there is fear instilled by certain scenes in the movie, to motivate by means of fear rather than love, that if you don't obey the branch direction, you will probably die.

The truth is that we need to obey Jehovah. Jehovah's direction is what will save us.

When people obey the branch without thinking and meditating on God's Word and comparing the direction of men with Jehovah's direction, well, it doesn't always work out well. Like what happened in Malawi.

 

It's easy to look back and say, "oh, it's not the Watchtower's fault the Malawi government was so mean."

But what if it's your kids next week when the branch sends direction that is in opposition to God's Word. Or when the branch sends direction that is based on a flawed understanding of scripture. Or a misapplication of scripture. Now what?

 

Jehovah has allowed kings in the past to make mistakes. He has allowed the people to follow those kings. Sometimes there were individuals who clung to Jehovah even when the leaders were not obeying Jehovah. 

 

Jehovah is looking for those who will worship Him in spirit and truth.

[John 12.24to28]

"you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength"

 

If the branch wants the people to not use their mind, then aren't they asking people to not be complete for Jehovah?

 

There is talk about being "whole-hearted" in worship, but what about being "whole-minded" in worship?

 

If half of the mind is devoted to the branch or the GB or the organization and half to God's Word, how would Jehovah be pleased with that kind of divided worship?

 

If you cannot serve for two masters, then why is the branch asking the sheep to serve two masters?

 

[JW Insider]

19 minutes ago, AudreyAnnaNana said:

Since the Kingdom didn't start ruling in 1914, there was no need for those brothers to feel they were not keeping integrity if they were to get a political party card in nations that required it. 

You make your point based on rejection of 1914 as the beginning of the "parousia" and Jesus' reign as king. I also can't see how that idea fits the Biblical references to the parousia. But I believe Jesus was already enthroned much earlier, so it doesn't matter what happened specifically in 1914. Jesus WAS king in 1914 because he had already been raised up much earlier as the Davidic Messiah.

I noticed an earlier comment you made elsewhere where you reject the idea that Jesus became king when he sat down at the right hand of majesty. I understand that there are different ways to interpret "kingship" and "authority." But it's still a legitimate interpretation that Jesus already held his position as "king of kings and lord of lords" because he was given "all authority" at that time including a name which was above all rulers and principalities whether they be in heaven or on earth. Hebrews says that he had a crown at this time, a sceptre at this time, and a throne at this time, and that he was already of the order of Melchizedek who was both king and priest at the same time.

Revelation calls Jesus the "ruler of the kings of the earth." Paul shows that when Psalm 110 used the expression "sit at my right hand" that one should interpret that phrase as "rule as king." 

For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

The examples of Jewish persons who worked for and supported gentile governments is not necessarily seen again in Christian times, where Christians owed their citizenship to the heavens and believed they were just temporary residents in this world.

[John 12.24to28]

2 minutes ago, boyle said:

Okay, Because Jesus felt the same way about the political powers of Rome. That's why I asked how far you wanted to go.

Doing an act of worship to the emperor is not the same thing, just like getting a drivers license is not the same thing as saying "Heil Hitler". 

[John 12.24to28]

3 minutes ago, boyle said:

If you come across a survivor, let them know how their faith in God and their sacrifice meant nothing to you.

@boyle That's not what I said and you know it, stop being so naughty!😝

 

Jehovah didn't need animal sacrifices in ancient Israel. But He accepted them. They were precious to Him, because that's what the people had to give, and that's what they knew. That's what the nations around them did, so Jehovah regulated it and incorporated it into the Mosaic Law.

 

Certainly Jehovah values something about all right-hearted sacrifices made in His name, even if they were not necessary.

[John 12.24to28]

32 minutes ago, boyle said:

45 minutes ago, AudreyAnnaNana said:

Why is it important? Well, if you've watched the new movie that just came out for this year's convention, you will understand.

Realistically or you're in your head?

There's a BIG difference!

 

Was the safety of the congregation the concern of the branch back with the political party cards decision?

 

 

If the direction is in harmony with scripture, great - follow it. 

But if it is based on flawed reasoning and misapplication, then we must obey God as ruler rather than man.

Jesus said we must worship Jehovah with our Whole Mind which means We Each Have the Responsibility and Obligation to Think and Reason on the scriptural principles involved. We are not relieved of that scriptural responsibility just because some other people want to tell us what to do. We are accountable to God for our choices and if we follow men, even the men on the GB or branch, and those men are giving unscriptural direction, well, "you reap what you sow" regardless of who gave you the direction. There's no way out of that.

 

 

The context of that verse "your strength will be in keeping calm and showing trust" implies "showing trust in Jehovah." The application in the film is "showing trust in the branch is the same as showing trust in Jehovah" but that's not right. That's not what the Bible says. "Each one must carry his own load."

 

 

In the days ahead, we will need, more than ever, to trust Jehovah's Direction. His Direction is in His Word. 

 

When anyone in any position of authority, whether it be in the organization or outside the organization, gives us direction, we Have To Obey God as Ruler Rather Than Men if that direction is in opposition to God's Word. It means our life, and the lives of those we love.

 

Jehovah has to come first. Even before the branch or the GB. Jehovah comes First. He's the only One who can save us.

 

 

[John 12.24to28]

17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

You make your point based on rejection of 1914 as the beginning of the "parousia" and Jesus reign as king. I also can't see how that idea fits the Biblical references to the parousia. But I believe Jesus was already enthroned much earlier, so it doesn't matter what happened specifically in 1914. Jesus WAS king in 1914 because he had already been raised up much earlier as the Davidic Messiah.

I noticed an earlier comment you made elsewhere where you reject the idea that Jesus became king when he sat down at the right hand of majesty. I understand that there are different ways to interpret "kingship" and "authority." But it's still a legitimate interpretation that Jesus already held his position as "king of kings and lord of lords" because he was given a name and authority at that time which was above all rulers and principalities whether they be in heaven or on earth. Hebrews says that he had a crown at this time, a sceptre at this time, a throne at this time, and that he was already of the order of Melchizedek who was both king and priest at the same time.

Revelation calls Jesus the "ruler of the kings of the earth." Paul shows that when Psalm 110 used the expression "sit at my right hand" that one should interpret that phrase as "rule as king." 

For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

The examples of Jewish persons who worked for and supported gentile governments is not necessarily seen again in Christian times, where Christians owed their citizenship to the heavens and believed they were just temporary residents in this world.

 

Thank you for being willing to share that, @JW Insider🙂

 

Regardless of when the king begins his reign, the context of John's words regarding "the world" help us to see that "being no part of the world" is not just about refraining from political issues. 

 

The entire first letter of John is contrasting two things:

 

Light and Dark

Jehovah and Satan

Love and the World

 

Politics or refraining from politics isn't even mentioned in there.

 

Certainly we do not want to get involved in political stuff, it's never a good idea. But the point is that by misapplying that phrase "no part of the world" and encasing it in the word "neutrality", the whole point is missed of what Jesus was saying.