Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Many Miles]

13 minutes ago, George88 said:

The incident at Meribah Rock is an important reminder of the importance of obedience to God, and the consequences of disobeying his commands. It serves as an example to us all, of the importance of trusting in God’s will, and of the consequences of disobeying him.

The illustration of Meribah Rock helps to deepen our comprehension of the contrasting concepts of obedience and disobedience. As I mentioned earlier, it serves as a powerful reminder of the profound significance of wholehearted obedience to God and the potentially severe consequences that can result from disobedience.

Those who dare to alter their preaching or teaching in order to distort, mishandle, or misinterpret the word of God, go against what is stated in Galatians 1:8. This indicates their disobedience towards God.

Although Paul did not explicitly state that you would be excluded from the new system due to your personal actions, he did warn of being cursed, or more simply put, damned. This implies that God will judge individuals, much like he did with Moses.

So does this mean you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

[George88]

40 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

So does this mean you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

If you wish to obtain a response that aligns with your viewpoints, I recommend providing your own answer by carefully analyzing the bible. My comments are exclusively rooted in the conclusions drawn from comprehending scripture in its authentic context.

Once again, Moses found himself compelled to make a split-second judgment call due to the Israelites' lack of faith, despite witnessing numerous miracles performed by God. Firstly, it is important to consider how Aaron could have possibly predicted Moses' actions. Additionally, Aaron himself faced similar judgment, albeit with even more severe consequences than Moses did. Numbers 20:10-13. 23-29, Deuteronomy 3:23-28. 

Did Aaron collaborate with Moses when they both led the assembly to the rock? Even if he did, would it have made a difference since they both faced the same judgment for betraying their faith and disobeying God?

Aaron's act of making the Golden Calf to satisfy the crowd clearly demonstrated his disobedience towards God. Therefore, whether he could have changed his mindset becomes irrelevant. His disobedience is already recorded in history, just like Moses actions.

[Many Miles]

14 minutes ago, George88 said:

If you wish to obtain a response that aligns with your viewpoints, I recommend providing your own answer by carefully analyzing the bible. My comments are exclusively rooted in the conclusions drawn from comprehending scripture in its authentic context.

Once again, Moses found himself compelled to make a split-second judgment call due to the Israelites' lack of faith, despite witnessing numerous miracles performed by God. Firstly, it is important to consider how Aaron could have possibly predicted Moses' actions. Additionally, Aaron himself faced similar judgment, albeit with even more severe consequences than Moses did. Numbers 20:10-13. 23-29, Deuteronomy 3:23-28. 

Did Aaron collaborate with Moses when they both led the assembly to the rock? Even if he did, would it have made a difference since they both faced the same judgment for betraying their faith and disobeying God?

Aaron's act of making the Golden Calf to satisfy the crowd clearly demonstrated his disobedience towards God. Therefore, whether he could have changed his mindset becomes irrelevant. His disobedience is already recorded in history, just like Moses actions.

I have carefully examined the Bible on this issue, and many others. I have no trouble providing the answer I found to the question I asked you. I'd like to know your answer to that question.

Moses did act rashly. But Aaron was there too. He could have done something more than just passively stand there. He could have acted to check (i.e., suppress, restrain) what Moses was saying. But he didn't. Hence, aside from Moses, Aaron was too guilty for supporting Moses when he should not have. Despite being anointed by God as His spokesman, Aaron's higher loyalty (hence: obedience) should have been to God. I'm sure you agree with this latter statement.

I really would like your answer to the same question. It should be easy enough.

- Do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

[Juan Rivera]

14 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I have carefully examined the Bible on this issue, and many others. I have no trouble providing the answer I found to the question I asked you. I'd like to know your answer to that question.

Moses did act rashly. But Aaron was there too. He could have done something more than just passively stand there. He could have acted to check (i.e., suppress, restrain) what Moses was saying. But he didn't. Hence, aside from Moses, Aaron was too guilty for supporting Moses when he should not have. Despite being anointed by God as His spokesman, Aaron's higher loyalty (hence: obedience) should have been to God. I'm sure you agree with this latter statement.

I really would like your answer to the same question. It should be easy enough.

- Do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

@Many Miles @George88 Witness recognize a hierarchy of authorities, similar to what the centurion in Scripture says in Matthew 8:9 and Luke 7:8, and found clearly in the epistles. The authority of someone lower in the hierarchy does not subvert the higher authority, but depends upon it, without reducing to it.

So applying the Apostles’ statement (Acts 5:29) to Aaron that we should obey God rather than men in is not a rejection of divinely established hierarchy. It is rather the claim that when human authorities oppose divine authority, then we must obey divine authority. Thus, rightly interpreted, the truth that we should obey God rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority, it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion; indeed, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. At the same time, the standard for obedience to God isn’t one’s own interpretation of Scripture, such that any leader who doesn’t conform to one’s own interpretation of Scripture is ipso facto in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded. That notion would eliminate the very possibility of a Governing Body.

I’m concerned we are perhaps glossing over the essential role of the interpreter and the interpretative framework they each bring to scripture.

So in order to determine whether it's right for us Christians to go against the Congregation's authorities, (like your example of Aaron) we need to know the principled difference between those situations in which one is justified in acting against the Congregation authorities, and those situations in which one is not justified in acting against them. Otherwise, the individual JW could treat every case in which he disagrees with the Congregation as a case justifying his acting against the Congregation. The Bible is just as adamant against vigilante Christianity as it is about false prophets. You will not find anywhere in the scriptures vigilante Christians ever praised for rebelling against lawfully ordained authority on the basis of their private interpretation of scripture. There being a standard by which acts of both the Governing Body and those who hold the office can be judged (and ought to be judged) is fully compatible both with Jehovah's Witnesses not being their own ultimate interpretive authority.

So no one is expecting any JW to be a blind follower, but God does expect them to distinguish between when they have such prerogatives and when they don't.

Jesus nor the apostles opposition to the authorities of their time serve as precedent, since they themselves were the new authority in Israel, as God’s Son and his commissioned apostles. Jesus opposers (Jewish leaders) were the lawfully-ordained authority of their day, when Jesus rebukes them is from one authority to the other not a case where someone on the basis of his private reading of scripture rebels and tries to correct those taking the lead (seat of Moses).

So we need to back up and answer a prior question. How do we rightly determine the criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority? Until we answer that question, we cannot determine objectively whether any particular leader has or has not lost his ecclesial authority, and we thus run the risk of rebelling against a rightful ecclesial authority. That's a very serious error that we shouldn't trivialize or take lightly. When the Amalekite reported to David that he had found Saul impaled on his spear, still living, and that he had killed King Saul, David's response was this, “Why did you not fear to lift your hand to do away with the anointed of Jehovah?” (1 Sam 1:14) Likewise, we too ought to have this kind of fear lest we be rebelling against the LORD's anointed ecclesial authority. That's why we need to know with certainty how to determine rightly what are the objective criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority, before we conclude that they no longer have ecclesial authority.

[Many Miles]

34 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

So we need to back up and answer a prior question. How do we rightly determine the criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority?

No one here, including me, is talking about anyone losing their authority. It is as David said of King Saul, “It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, by thrusting out my hand against him, for he is the anointed of Jehovah.” Accordingly David dispersed his men with these words, and he did not allow them to rise up against Saul."

It is one thing to act to remove someone from authority whom God has place in authority. That is for God to decide. Whoever that might be, God put them there, not us.

It is another thing to give a man (or group of men) unlimited obedience. God has not asked for that. God always expects us to act in good conscience to put Him first ahead of any other loyalty, or authority. This is the sin Aaron was guilty of at Meribah. When Moses said "we" at Meribah he was speaking of himself and Aaron. Aaron knew better, and so did Moses for that matter. It was God providing the miraculous provision of water, not Moses or Aaron. By not stepping up and checking Moses' actions to give the glory rightfully to God, Aaron was disloyal to God. This despite the fact that God had told Moses that he was "God" to Aaron. Aaron put his loyalty to Moses ahead of his loyalty to God. Aaron could have acted to check Moses, and he didn't.

The same person cited above (David) refused to act in a way that would, in effect, remove Saul from his appointed office. But David also refused to give limitless obedience to Saul. Saul, the anointed of Jehovah, said to David, "Come back". Instead, David "proceed to go his way". (See 1 Samuel 26:21-26)

Paul too addressed the notion of limitless obedience in his introduction to Galatia. As presented earlier, this is not a matter of personal interpretation, of giving preference to personal bias.

 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

So no one is expecting any JW to be a blind follower, but God does expect them to distinguish between when they have such prerogatives and when they don't.

In the end we have to maintain a tender, but clean conscience. Regardless of who holds authority, saying we're just following orders may not be enough. Like Aaron should have done, we have an obligation to place our ultimate obedience to the ultimate authority. We should not act out of preference or bias. But if acting based on 1) what the Bible says explicitly or 2) acting based on a sound logical conclusion of what the Bible says explicitly is insufficient, then our worship is not our own. In that case, we are worshiping for someone else. But not for ourselves.

For the life of me, I have no idea why simple the question regarding Aaron's action at Meribah is so hard to answer. It's not a hard question. Everyone here should know the answer. Aaron put loyalty to Moses (God's spokesman) ahead of his loyalty to God. In that instance, that was Aaron's sin.

The idea of limited obedience appears to be a new concept. I don't understand this.

[Pudgy]

Answer: Razzle Dazzle!

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Answer: Razzle Dazzle!

Honestly, that’s what it sounds like. Ask a basic question regarding Aaron’s behavior at Meribah, the answer to which should be known by everyone in the room, and we see everything but a straightforward answer. Admittedly, I fail to understand this. 

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Honestly, that’s what it sounds like. Ask a basic question regarding Aaron’s behavior at Meribah, the answer to which should be known by everyone in the room, and we see everything but a straightforward answer. Admittedly, I fail to understand this. 

@Many Miles Come on now! Hold on a second. I think we are getting too far afield and need to bring back the discussion to the beginning because otherwise we are just talking past each other. Let’s put a pin on Aaron , because I’m also getting frustrated with your comments. You’re so eager to criticize, that we are loosing track of what is entailed by your admission (limited obedience in regard to interpretative authority) or namely the structural problem of not having any ecclesial authority. That is what is entailed by granting that Witnesses may at any time reject what their ecclesial authority says, so long as they disagree with them. If we may reject our ecclesial authority whenever we disagree with them, then there is no ecclesial authority. That’s the implication of that concession. When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me, and then notice that if you were doing just that, i.e. submitting to a person (or set of persons) because we agree with their general interpretation of Scripture, nothing would be different than it is right now. At that point, we realize that the, we cannot reject those taking the lead, line is just a slogan, something we say to hide the unpleasant truth from ourselves that underneath it all, we’re just surrounding ourselves with persons who generally say what we agree with, and on that basis treating them as though they are authorities. But in actuality, it is all a charade, the one in charge is us. This is the contradiction I’m concerned we live, generally not allowing ourselves to see it, keeping the contradictory propositions compartmentalized, so that we can we can pull them out whenever we want, to preserve the charade of being under authority.

So I understand (and share, to some degree) your frustration. In other words, it takes a lot of hard work from all parties to a discussion to agree on even a narrow proposition and, depending on the work committed, THE discussion can either be a labor of love or a waste of time. Much of the hardest work, the real nitty-gritty of discourse, is dedicated to coming to agreement on language and the meaning behind language. This process is far less glamorous than scoring points. Too often in discussions, I see people respond to a challenging narrow proposition (the matter at issue) with a broad “shotgun” critique of the other person's overall position. A ‘shot-gun’ approach is not conducive to genuine dialogue aimed at coming to agreement concerning the truth. 

[Juan Rivera]

 

On 10/27/2023 at 1:02 PM, Many Miles said:

Thanks for sharing that piece of video. I had not recollected that part, if I ever saw it at all. He gave quite a bit of testimony.

What he says does, as you suggest, stop short of saying that if JWs see something the society asserts as a belief is incorrect that they should then reject it as false; that in such a case the governing body should be accursed, to borrow Paul’s term to Galatia.

It’s noteworthy here that Jackson went on to say the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision maker about interpreting what they Bible says. If it’s true that all JWs can read their Bible and know what is correct vs incorrect teaching, then why a need for interpretation by anyone?

Taken together, this is pretty circular. In essence he’s saying we can tell if what the governing body says is true based on what the Bible says, but the governing body is who has the final say about what the Bible says. If what the Bible says is what the governing body asserts it to say then what the governing body says is not falsifiable, which makes the notion useless in terms of rational thought.

So, on one hand it’s nice to see a contemporary governing body representative acknowledge that we can read our Bibles for ourselves to determine correctness of teaching, yet the same representative stops short of saying we should hold them as accursed if we find what they say is false. That’s the difference between what Paul did in writing Galatia compared with our contemporary governing body. At no point does our contemporary governing body say there is a point at which they should be rejected. Paul and the early apostles did that. The society does not.

 

Like I said, the solution to arguing this stuff in circles, is not to quit the discussion, but to argue in straight lines, in an ordered way. And usually it takes training to know how to do that, particularly, training in logic. I’m not going to claim having that. Without that sort of training, discussions will typically go in circles or move all over the place and down every rabbit trail. That's why a profitable discussion usually requires a trained guide or moderator, just as a profitable classroom experience requires a trained teacher. So whoever you guys think is more qualified take the lead. @JW Insider 😉

 

 

[Pudgy]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Honestly, that’s what it sounds like. Ask a basic question regarding Aaron’s behavior at Meribah, the answer to which should be known by everyone in the room, and we see everything but a straightforward answer. Admittedly, I fail to understand this. 

The instant you proposed your basic question , I knew the correct answer, as do you, although you have a much more elegant and civilized way of expressing yourself.

it’s like the Farmer in the bar telling a friend about his talking mule. The Farmer tells his friend to go out to his place, and behind the barn his talking mule is tied up, but go ahead and he will follow in about ten minutes.

When the Farmer gets home his friend is trying to have a conversation with the mule, with no success, and accuses the Farmer of lying about his talking mule.

The Farmer picks up a 4x4 and whacks the mule upside his head. The mule falls over, and when it gets up it won’t stop talking.

The Farmer looks at his friend, Many Miles, and says “… What you fail to understand is …. FIRST …. you have to get his attention!.”

Breaking away from Agenda driven thinking often requires a knock down blow  to “get your mind right”.

[Juan Rivera]

15 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Do you think Aaron should have stood is passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman?

Or, do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

@Pudgy @Many MilesDid I or didn’t I answer the first question by my answer: 

“The truth that we should obey God rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority; it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion; indeed, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. At the same time, the standard for obedience to God isn't one's own interpretation of Scripture, such that any brother taking the lead in the congregation who doesn't conform to one's own interpretation of Scripture is ipso facto in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded.

In regards to your second question due Aaron’s position and Authority he was the right person to rebuke Moses. This is similar to Galatians with Paul and Peter. Paul was right in rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy, and the pointing out of the hypocrisy becomes the backbone for the rest of what Paul writes in the Galatian letter about the futility of the Jewish law and the saving power of the New Covenant. But when you get right down to it, this passage has nothing to do with teaching, but with personal actions: Paul’s famous public rebuke of Peter was for conduct that seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law. Paul rebuked Peter for what he saw as hypocritical behavior, not for false teaching. While such a correction of a Congregational Authority (Peter was either the an overseer or a Member of the Governing Body) should in an ordinary case take place privately according to Matthew 18, there are also cases where it can and should be done publicly. Specifically, public rebukes would be called for if the faith were endangered or if the crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.