Skip to main content

COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLES IN THE WATCHTOWER OF AUGUST 2024

By 8. July 2024July 10th, 2024The Governing Body

INTRODUCTION

The Watchtower of August 2024 presents some new viewpoints regarding disfellowshipping and how to treat disfellowshipped persons. But these are only minor adjustments compared to what was the procedure before this article was presented.

I have demonstrated in my book, My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body and several articles that 37 of the 48 reasons for removing a person from his congregation are man-made and have no basis in the Bible. I have also demonstrated that shunning those who have been removed from the congregation, i.e., do not have any contact with them and isolating them completely, also is man-made without basis in the Bible.

The mentioned articles from The Watchtower express a positive view of helping sinners so they are not removed from the congregation and for helping those who have been removed to become reinstated. This is a positive change.

THE NEW TREATMENT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CONGREGATION

Some new procedures are connected with the treatment of those who have been removed from the congregation.

The old view was that no one should have any contact with those who had been disfellowshipped. Members of the congregation should not say a greeting to them, and they should not speak with them. This was also the case with family members, and they could only have contact with disfellowshipped ones when it was absolutely necessary in connection with family matters.

I will now look at the main points of the article regarding those who have been removed from the congregation. I quote page 27 (above), 15 (middle) and 27 (below):

4 When an unrepentant wrongdoer is removed from the congregation, an announcement is made to inform the congregation that he is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The purpose of that announcement is not to humiliate the wrongdoer. Rather, it is made so that the congregation can follow the Scriptural admonition to “stop keeping company (synanamignymi) ” with that person, “not even eating with” him. (1 Cor. 5:9-11) That direction is given for good reason. The apostle Paul wrote: “A little leaven ferments the whole batch of dough.” (1 Cor. 5:6)

5 Read 1 Corinthians 5:13. Under divine inspiration, Paul wrote a letter directing that the unrepentant sinner be removed from the congregation. How were faithful Christians to treat him? Paul told them “to stop keeping company (synanamignymi)” with him. What did that mean? Paul explained that this command included “not even eating with such a man. (1 Cor. 5:11) Sitting down to a meal with someone can easily lead to having further association with him. Clearly, then, Paul meant that the congregation should not socialize with that man.

5 How, then, should we view a fellow believer who is removed from the congregation? Although we do not socialize with him, we should view him as a lost sheep, not a lost cause. A sheep that has strayed from the fold may well return.

When a person is removed from the congregation, the congregation will be informed. The words “stop keeping company with him” from 1 Corinthians 5:9 are quoted, and it is said that one side of this is “not eating with such a man,” which is found in verse 11. However, such a person should be viewed as a lost sheep. All the words so far, are directly based on the Bible. But there are some small changes in the treatment of those who have been removed from the congregation, and I quote from pages 30 and 31.

13 As discussed in the preceding article, sometimes an announcement is made that a person has been reproved. In such a case, we can continue to associate with him, knowing that he repent- ed and abandoned his wrong course. (1 Tim. 5:20) He is still a part of the congregation and needs the encouragement that comes from associating with fellow believers. (Heb. 10:24, 25) However, the situation is quite different with a person who has been removed from the congre- gation. We “stop keeping company” with that person, “not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.

14 Does what we have considered mean that we would completely ignore a person who has been removed from the congregation? Not necessarily. Certainly, we would not socialize with him. But Christians can use their Bible trained conscience in deciding whether to invite a person who was removed from the congregation—perhaps a relative or someone they were close to previously—to attend a congregation meeting. What if he attends? In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.

15 Some may wonder, Doesn’t the Bible say that a Christian who says a greeting to such a person becomes a sharer in his wicked works?’ (Read 2 John 9-11.) The context of this scripture shows that this direction refers to apostates and others who actively promote wrong conduct. (Rev. 2:20) Therefore, if a person is actively promoting apostate teachings or other wrongdoing, the elders would not arrange to visit him.

The new procedure is that the congregation members can invite someone to a meeting. And if the person comes to the meeting, he can be greeted. But it is not allowed to have an extended conversation with one who has been removed from the congregation and who attends a meeting. Relatives are mentioned together with previous friends, and this means that relatives cannot have more contact with one who has been removed from the congregation, than non-relatives. This means that the changes in treatment are minor and the traditional procedure of shunning and isolating a person completely is standing.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are now allowed to invite those who have been removed from the congregation to a meeting. They can say a short greeting if the person attends the meeting. But they are not allowed to have a conversation with one who has been removed from the congregation.

THE TREATMENT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CONGREGATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED

Disfellowshipping unrepentant sinners started in 1952, and the strict measure of shunning those who were removed from the congregation, started immediately. Because shunning still is practiced, the requirements regarding shunning in different publications are still valid.

It seems that the members of the Governing Body by publishing the articles in The Watchtower og august 2024 try to hide what the treatment of those who have been removed from the congregation really is. The expression that is used in the articles is should not socialize with. The only way to understand this expression is that the members of the congregation are allowed to have a general contact with the one who has been removed from the congregation, but not have any contact with him in social contexts.

 This means that the members of the congregation should treat those who have been removed from the congregation in the same way that they treat all persons. They can greet the persons, speak with them, admonish them, and help them in different situations. But they will not share a meal with these persons or invite them to a social gathering.

Using the expression should not socialize with is a way to cover up the real situation, hiding that those who have been removed from the congregation are shunned and completely isolated.

The rule among Jehovah’s Witnesses is that decisions that the Members of the Governing Body have published in The Watchtower are valid until an article is published that changes these decisions. There is nothing in the articles in The Watchtower of August 2024 that changes the extreme treatment given to those who have been removed from the congregation, that they should not be shunned and completely isolated. There is only one small exception: the members of the congregation can invite them to a meeting and say a short greeting to them when they attend the meeting.

In what follows I will make some quotations indicating what shunning and total isolation really mean.

THE TREATMENT OF NON-RELATIVES

I quote Kingdom Ministry for August 2002:

2 How to Treat Expelled Ones: God’s Word commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. . . . Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Cor. 5:11, 13) Jesus’ words recorded at Matthew 18:17 also bear on the matter: “Let [the expelled one] be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” Jesus’ hearers well knew that the Jews of that day had no fraternization with Gentiles and that they shunned tax collectors as outcasts. Jesus was thus instructing his followers not to associate with expelled ones.​—See The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 18-20.

3 This means that loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. But more is involved. God’s Word states that we should ‘not even eat with such a man.’ (1 Cor. 5:11) Hence, we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, ball game, or trip to the mall or theater or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant.

I quote “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (2008), page 208:

Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes, for several reasons. First, it is a matter of loyalty to God and his Word. We obey Jehovah not only when it is convenient but also when do­ ing so presents real challenges. Love for God moves us to obey all his commandments, recognizing that he is just and loving and that his laws promote the greatest good. (Isaiah 48:17; 1 John 5:3) Second, withdrawing from an unrepen­tant wrongdoer protects us and the rest of the congregation from spiritual and moral contamination and upholds the congregation’s good name. (1 Corinthians 5:6, 7) Third, our firm stand for Bible principles may even benefit the disfel­lowshipped one. By supporting the decision of the judicial committee, we may touch the heart of a wrongdoer who thus far has failed to respond to the efforts of the elders to assist him. Losing precious fellowship with loved ones may help him to come “to his senses,” see the seriousness of his wrong, and take steps to return to ]ehovah.-Luke 15: 1 7.

I quote The Watchtower of 2017, page 16:

19 Respect the discipline of Jehovah. His arrangement can bring the best long-term outcome for all, including the wrongdoer, even though the immediate effect is painful. (Read Hebrews 12:11.) For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.

The three quotations above describe what shunning really is — complete isolation. There must be no contact between the members of the congregation and the one who has been removed from the congregation. When the telephone rings and the number of the one who has been removed from the congregation, comes up, the faithful Witness will not answer the telephone even when one in the family calls.

The book “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love”  (2008) says that strict avoidance is necessary. The new view is that there are two exceptions, namely, inviting a person to a meeting, and saying a short greeting when he comes to the meeting. Other conversations with one who has been removed from the congregation, are forbidden for all, including family members.

Can a Witness say a greeting to such a person if he meets him on the street? The words in 2 John 7-10 against greeting is now said to refer to false teachers and apostates and not to others who have been removed from the congregation. Therefore, the new view is that saying a short greeting to a person that is removed from the congregation is no longer forbidden.

THE TREATMENT OF RELATIVES

There is no difference in the treatment of relatives compared to non-relatives, except when a person who has been removed from the congregation lives in the same household as a Witness family. In that case, the other family members will speak with him or her in a normal way, but they will have no spiritual contact with him or her.

I quote from Kingdom Ministry for August 2002:

9 Relatives Not in the Household: “The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home,” states The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28. “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company witanyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum.​—See also The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 29-30.

I quote The Watchtower for October 2017, page 16:

19 Respect the discipline of Jehovah. His arrangement can bring the best long-term outcome for all, including the wrongdoer, even though the immediate effect is painful. (Read Hebrews 12:11.) For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.

I quote “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (2008), pages 208, 209:

What if a relative is disfellowshipped? In such a case, the close bond between family members can pose a real test of loyalty. How should we treat a disfellowshipped relative? We cannot here cover every situation that may arise, but let us focus on two basic ones.

In some instances, the disfellowshipped family member may still be living in the same home as part of the im­mediate household. Since his being disfellowshipped does not sever the family ties, normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue. Yet, by his course, the individu­al has chosen to break the spiritual bond between him and his believing family. So loyal family members can nolon­ ger have spiritual fellowship with him. For example, if the disfellowshipped one is present, he would not participate when the family gets together to study the Bible. However, if the disfellowshipped one is a minor child, the parents are still responsible to instruct and discipline him. Hence, lov­ing parents may arrange to conduct a Bible study with the child. -Proverbs 6:20-22; 29: 17.

In other cases, the disfellowshipped relative may be living outside the immediate family circle and home. Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such con­ tact should be kept to a minimum. Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative not living at home. Rather, loyal­ty to Jehovah and his organization moves them to uphold the Scriptural arrangement of disfellowshipping. Their loyal course has the best interests of the wrongdoer at heart and may help him to benefit from the discipline received. -He­ brews 12:11.

The quotations show that relatives not living in the same household as other Witnesses must be treated in exactly the same way as non-relatives. There should be no contact between Witnesses and relatives who have been removed from the congregation, not even answering a telephone call.

There is one exception, though, that has existed for several years. The brown text in the last quotation says that “there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter.” What do the members of the Governing Body mean with “a necessary family matter”?

The Watchtower for October 1. 1970, pages 351, 352, said:

Again, the disfellowshiping does not dissolve the flesh-and-blood ties, but, in this situation, contact, if it were necessary at all, would be much more rare than between persons living in the same home. Yet, there might be some absolutely necessary family matters requiring communication, such as legalities over a will or property. But the disfellowshiped relative should be made to appreciate that his status has changed, that he is no longer welcome in the home nor is he a preferred companion. (The word “absolutely” is in italics)

The quotation shows that contact with family members who have been removed from the congregation should almost never occur, and this is still the requirement.

WRONG VIEWPOINTS EXPRESSED IN THE WATCHTOWER OF AUGUST 2024

The wrong viewpoints relates to greeting those who have been removed from the congregation.

A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF 2 JOHN 7-10

The article expresses a new view of greeting persons who have been removed from the congregation. I quote 2. John 7-10:

 7 For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

8 Look out for yourselves, that YOU do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that YOU may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him.

These words have been used in the Watchtower literature since the 1950s to show that it was not allowed for Witnesses to greet disfellowshipped persons or inviting them into their homes. The Watchtower of August 2024 says that this was a wrong understanding, and the right understanding is found on page 29:

Consider the differences between the circumstances addressed by each apostle. Paul wrote with regard to a man who was committing sexual immorality. About 43 years later, John wrote with regard to apostates and others who actively promote false teachings and wrong conduct. For example, some were teaching that Jesus was not the Christ. When John wrote his letters, apostasy was widespread. Although he knew that he could not prevent it, he fulfilled his responsibility as an apostle to act “as a restraint” against apostasy by holding it back as long as possible.—2 Thess. 2:7. Thus, John warned fellow believers to avoid being fooled by these deceivers and false teachers. He directed Christians never to accept such ones into their homes or even to greet them…

So while Paul directed those in the congregation to stop keeping company with him—not even eating with him—he did not state that they must never say a simple greeting.

It is correct that the words in 2 John do not apply to those who have been removed from the congregation. However, the words, “John wrote with regard to apostates and others who actively promote false teachings and wrong conduct” is not true. The context shows that the words of John are directed to only one group, “the antichrists,” those who deny “Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” The online article “Bible questions answered,” page 97, said that that the Antichrists were the Gnostics, which were not Christians who had left or who had been removed from the Christian congregation. But the Gnostics were a sect different from the Christians.

By using this definition, the members of the Governing Body have now created two groups of those who have been removed from the congregation. And it is not allowed to say a greeting to the group that they define as apostates.

This is again an example of how the members of the Governing Body read into the text of the Bible things that are not there.[1]

THE SHUNNING OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CONGREGATION ARE UPHELD  

The important point is that the Greek word synanamignymi shows that the way shunning of these who have been removed from the congregation, is practiced by Jehovah’s Witnesses, is wrong.

This word is only used three times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and I quote 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 (above) and 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15 (below):

9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company (synanamignymi) with fornicators, 10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company (synanamignymi) with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating (synanamignymi) with him, that he may become ashamed.
And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

In connection with the Greek word synanamignymi the members of the Governing Body are cheating the readers in two ways, 1) they do not tell that “quit mixing company with” in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11 and “stop associating with” in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 both are translated from synanamignymi and must have the same meaning, and 2) they explain the examples synanamignymi in very different ways. I quote from The Watchtower of August 2024, pages 15, 16, regarding how to treat one who has been removed from the congregation, and page 7 regarding how to treat one that is marked:

5 Read 1 Corinthians 5:13. Under divine inspiration, Paul wrote a letter directing that the unrepentant sinner be removed from the congregation. How were faithful Christians to treat him? Paul told them “to stop keeping company” with him. What did that mean? Paul explained that this command included “not even eating with such a man.” (1 Cor. 5:11) Sitting down to a meal with someone can easily lead to having further association with him. Clearly, then, Paul meant that the congregation should not socialize with that man. This would protect the congregation from his corrupting influence. (1 Cor. 5:5-7) Additionally, their avoiding close contact with the man might cause him to realize how far he had strayed from Jehovah’s ways, and he might feel shame and be moved to repent.

“Keep this one marked,” said Paul. The Greek word [translated by “marked”] suggests taking special notice of this person. Paul addressed this directive to the whole congregation, not just to the elders. (2 Thess. 1:1;3:6). So individual Christians who might have noticed a fellow Christian disobeying inspired counsel would choose to “stop associating with the disorderly one. Did this mean that the person was treated as someone who was removed from the congregation? No, for Paul added “Continuing admonishing as a brother.” So individual Christians would still associate with the marked one at meetings and in the ministry, but they would choose not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation.

The Greek word synanamignymi has the basic meaning of “mixing together”, and applied to the Christian Greek Scriptures the UBS lexicon gives the meaning “associate with, have dealings with.” It is interesting to see how the members of the Governing Body turns the situation upside down.  As mentioned, the Greek word synamignymi is used both in connection with the treatment of those who have been removed from the congregation and those who are marked. Instead of accepting how the Bible defines the word, they assume, without any linguistic evidence, that the Greek word has different meanings in the two instances.

Let us see how Paul defines synanamignymi (“not socializing with”). According to 1 Corinthians 5:11, one side of “not socializing with” is not to share a meal with the person. Would this apply to 2 Thessalonians 3:14 and the one who is marked as well? Yes, without doubt, the same Greek word is used both places, and having a meal with someone is one of the most used ways of socializing with someone.

Paul uses a new definition in 2 Thessalonians 3:15, “do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.” This means a member of the congregation can be greeting a person who has been removed from the congregation, speaking with him, and admonishing him to follow God’s principles. And this is not the same as violating synanamignymi, not violating Paul’s admonishing of not to be socializing with the person.[2]

But what about the words “admonishing him as a brother”? Would that fit a person who has been removed from the congregation? Absolutely! Christians would treat all persons with love and empathy, just as the way they treat the brothers and sisters in the congregation. And even the Watchtower of August 2024 agrees with this way of treating those who have been removed from the congregation, as we read on page 27:

Although we do not socialize with him, we should view him as a lost sheep, not a lost cause. A sheep that has strayed from the fold may well return.

According to Paul, not to synanamignymi, “not associating with/ not mixing company with,” means not socializing with, including not sharing a meal.

But Christians can greet the persons whom they do not socialize with, speaking with them, admonishing them, and treating them in the same ways as they treat brothers.

The requirement of shunning those who have been removed from the congregation, is something that has been invented by the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and it has no support in the Bible whatsoever.

The purpose of not socializing with a person is according to 2 Thessalonians 3:14, “that he may become ashamed.” Shunning a person which means to isolate him completely is a cruel and unloving procedure. This is an extreme pressure on a person, and this is not the way Jehovah is treating his sons and daughters on the earth. But as Paul says in Romans 3:4, it is God’s goodness that leads to repentance and not extreme pressure.

[1]. See the article, “The Witnesses are hoodwinked by the application of 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 2 John 7-11″ and “’Stop keeping company with’ (1 Corinthians 5:11).”

[2]. See the articles, “Shunning disfellowshipped and disassociated persons has no support in the Bible,” and “Shunning — The ultimate failure.”

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Some new procedures have been invented regarding the way elders should treat those who have committed serious sins. The purpose of these procedures is to help sinners to repent, so they will not be removed from the congregation.

The new procedures for the members of the congregation are that the can say a short greeting to persons they meet who have been removed from the congregation. They can invite these to come to the meetings, and when they come, they can greet them but not speak with them.

There is no change in the procedures of shunning those who have been removed from the congregation.

Rolf Furuli

Author Rolf Furuli

More posts by Rolf Furuli

Leave a Reply