THE FIFTH REVOLUTION: ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE BIBLE DO NOT HAVE A MEANING FOR US, AND THE DETAILS AND NUANCES ARE NOT IMPORTANT. THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES CONTAIN MANY “JUNK TEXTS.”
The Bible Students and Jehovah’s Witnesses held the Bible in high esteem for 140 years. They could not dream of questioning any passage in the Bible, and they forcefully defended its text against any attack. However, in 2015, there came a change with the introduction of a new view of the Bible. This change was so comprehensive and all-encompassing that I call it a revolution, the fifth revolution among the Bible Students and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
This was not a direct attack on the Bible, questioning its status as the inspired word of God. But it was a covert attack that, on the surface, appeared to defend the Bible but, under the surface, set aside the meaning of large parts of it. In order to understand how this new view of the Bible, in reality, was an attack on the Bible, I repeat what it means to believe in the full inspiration of the Bible:
- WE MUST TAKE EVERY ACCOUNT LITERALLY IF THE CONTEXT EXPLICITLY DOES NOT SAY THAT A TEXT IS FIGURATIVE.
- WE MUST BELIEVE THAT EVERY ACCOUNT IS INCLUDED WITH A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
- WE MUST ACCEPT THAT ALL SUBTLETIES AND NUANCES IN THE TEXT ARE IMPORTANT.
If a person does not accept all these three points, he does not believe in the full inspiration of the Bible, even though he claims to do so.
CHANGING THE VALUE AND APPLICATION OF THE BIBLE’S TEXT
The three points above represent criteria that can help us exclude false treatments or interpretations of the Bible.
For example, if someone says that some words do not mean what they say, we will reject this view if he cannot demonstrate that the words are figurative. (point 1)
If someone says that an account in the Bible is not important for us today, we can only learn some principles from it. This is the same as rejecting the view that every account was chosen by holy spirit with the particular purpose and “were written for our instruction.” (Romans 15:4) (Point 2)
If someone says that it is not so important to analyze the creation account in Genesis chapter 1 to see whether it fits what we find in the sedimentary rocks, because the whole picture of God as creator is important, not the details and subtleties, we reject this as a false claim. (point 3)
In view of the points above, I will quote The Watchtower of March 15, 2015, pages 11 and 17:
Page 11
SIMPLER, CLEARER APPROACH TO BIBLE NARRATIVES
7 If you have been serving Jehovah for decades, you may have noticed a gradual shift in the way our literature explains many of the narratives recorded in the Bible. How so? In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype. Is there a Scriptural basis for prophetic pictures? Yes. For instance, Jesus spoke of “the sign of Jonah the prophet.” (Read Matthew 12:39, 40.) Jesus explained that Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the fish—which would have been Jonah’s grave had Jehovah not preserved him alive—was prophetic of Jesus’ own time in the grave.
8 The Bible contains other inspired prophetic pictures. The apostle Paul discussed a number of them. For example, Abraham’s relationship with Hagar and Sarah provided a prophetic picture of Jehovah’s relationship with the nation of Israel and the heavenly part of God’s organization. (Gal. 4:22-26) Similarly, the tabernacle and the temple, Atonement Day, the high priest, and other facets of the Mosaic Law contained “a shadow of the good things to come.” (Heb. 9:23-25; 10:1) It is fascinating and faith-strengthening to study such prophetic pictures. Can we conclude, though, that every character, event, and object described in the Bible foreshadows someone or something?
9 In the past, such an approach was often taken. Consider, for example, the account about Naboth, whose unjust trial and execution were arranged by wicked Queen Jezebel so that her husband, Ahab, could seize Naboth’s vineyard. (1 Ki. 21:1-16) Back in 1932, that account was explained as a prophetic drama. Ahab and Jezebel were said to picture Satan and his organization; Naboth pictured Jesus; Naboth’s death, then, was prophetic of Jesus’ execution. Decades later, though, in the book “Let Your Name Be Sanctified,” published in 1961, Naboth was said to picture the anointed, and Jezebel was Christendom. Hence, Naboth’s persecution at Jezebel’s hands pictured the persecution of the anointed during the last days. For many years, God’s people found this approach to Bible accounts faith strengthening. Why, then, have things changed?
10 As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so. Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts.
11 How, then, do we now understand the account about Naboth? In much clearer, simpler terms. That righteous man died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integrity keeper. He held to Jehovah’s Law in the face of horrific abuse of power. (Num. 36:7; 1 Ki. 21:3) His example thus speaks to us because any one of us may face persecution for similar reasons. (Read 2 Timothy 3:12.) People of all backgrounds can readily understand, remember, and apply such a faith-strengthening lesson.
12 Should we conclude that Bible narratives have only a practical application and no other meaning? No. Today our publications are more likely to teach that one thing reminds us of or serves to illustrate another. They are less likely to present many Bible accounts in a rigid framework of prophetic types and antitypes. For example, we can rightly say that Naboth’s integrity in the face of persecution and death reminds us of the integrity of Christ and his anointed. However, we can also be reminded of the faithful stand of many of the Lord’s “other sheep.” Such a clear and simple comparison has the hallmark of divine teaching.
Page 17:
If such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma. Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.
So for these reasons our publications in recent years have emphasized the lessons we can learn from Bible accounts instead of trying to find typical and antitypical patterns and fulfillments.
The quotation above is a revolution, because the value of the accounts in the Bible is turned upside down. It is not the face value of the accounts that is important, but what the accounts remind the members of the Governing Body of is we can learn.
If we want accurate knowledge of a verse in the Bible, we examine the meanings of each word, consider the grammar and syntax, and, on this basis, determine the literal meaning of the verse. Then we proceed on the basis of Paul’s words in Romans 15:4:
4 For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.
The text speaks about “all the things (hosa, “as many as; as much as”) that were written beforehand,” and these words must refer to the Hebrew Scriptures. Why were “all the things” written? The answer has two sides: “all the things were written for our instruction (didaskalia, “teaching”),” so “we might have hope.”
Let us consider the old and new views of the Bible in the light of these words.
The old view: Each line is analyzed linguistically to find its literal meaning, and then its prophetic or antitypical meaning is sought.
The new view: It is not necessary to analyze each line linguistically. But each account, such as the account of Naboth, is viewed as a whole. And what each account reminds the members of the Governing Body of regarding faith, endurance, and godly devotion is presented to the Witnesses as “food at the right time.”
The definition of the Greek word elpis (“hope”) is “to look forward with confidence to that which is good and beneficial” (Louw and Nida). So, the accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures are prophetic, written to point to the future and to make our hope of a new system of things more certain. Faith, endurance, and godly devotion are important Christian attributes. But they do not give us hope, as the prophetic word does.
What the members of the Governing Body have done is to superficialize the word of God, making dramatic accounts into general, petty principles.
EXCURSUS:THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY: 38 BOOKS AND HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES IN THE WATCHTOWER ARE PURE FICTIONThe members of the Governing Body have, on several occasions, directly or indirectly criticized previous members of the Governing Body. They say they are wiser than previous members and understand passages in the Bible that previous members did not understand, as we read in The Watchtower of March 15, 2015, “As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet.”The fifth revolution, which the mentioned issue of The Watchtower presents, is so dramatic that its consequence is that 38 books listed below and published by the Watchtower Society in part or in whole are pure fiction. The same is true with hundreds of articles in The Watchtower:
The new view of the Bible presented in 2015 does not say that prophetic types and antitypes are not found in the Bible. But it says that we can only take it as a prophetic type when an account is explicitly described as such. (The Watchtower of March 2015, page 17) This view has been practiced in The Watchtower literature for the last 11 years, and it is the reason why we can say that, according to the members of the Governing Body, 38 books and hundreds of articles in The Watchtower are pure fiction.However, my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, pages 339-344, discusses ten criteria for identifying an account in the Hebrew scriptures as a prophetic type with antitypical fulfillment, without directly stating that the account is a prophetic type. |
THE SONG OF SOLOMON — AN EXAMPLE OF SUPERFICIALIZING THE MEANING OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES — EXAMPLES OF “JUNK TEXTS“
Most of the Governing Body’s teaching today is superficial. There are almost no articles in the Watchtower literature that provide in-depth analyses of specific parts of the Bible. But in almost all the publications, the details are not stressed, but only the broad picture. As a result, knowledge of the Bible among publishers, pioneers, and elders is extremely low.
In order to shine a light on this false teaching of the Governing Body regarding the Bible, I will use the illustration of junk DNA. The DNA molecule is a very long double helix, and only a part of this great molecule codes for amino acids that are the building blocks of proteins. The theory is that most sequences in very long DNA molecules have no function. But the sequences are there in order to keep the molecule together, so the areas that code for amino acids can function properly. The part of the molecule that is believed to have no function is called “junk DNA.”
In a similar way, the members of the Governing Body believe, and express it in articles, that a large portion of the accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures have no intrinsic prophetic meaning, or any meaning at all, for us today. These texts code for only a few moral principles or general lessons, using the DNA analogy. And in keeping with that analogy, we can call these scriptural accounts “junk texts.” But this is a false teaching; in reality, it says that not all parts of the Bible text are included because of God’s particular purpose. We should note that this is a view diametrically opposed to that C.T. Russel, J.F. Rutherford, and N.H. Knorr believed and taught.
The Song of Solomon is an excellent example of a “junk-text” in the Hebrew Scriptures
The book has 8 chapters and 117 verses, and the whole account is a drama. First, I will identify the persons:
| The Shulammite | 6:13 |
| Her shepherd lover | 1:7 |
| Her mother | 1:6; 8:2 |
| Her brothers | 1:6 |
| King Solomon | 3:11 |
| Daughters of Jerusalem | 3:5 |
| Daughters of Zion | 3:11 |
The drama of the book is as follows:
King Solomon, the Shulammite maiden, and the shepherd who loved her, are the principal persons of the drama. The Shulammite met the shepherd at his place of birth, and they fell in love with each other. The Shulammite wanted to accept her lover’s invitation to view the beauties of the spring. Her brothers became angry with her and appointed her to guard the vineyards instead.
Solomon camped close to the vineyards. He saw the Shulammite and had her brought to his camp, where he expressed his admiration for her. She felt no attraction to Solomon, but instead longed for her shepherd lover. The daughters of Jerusalem suggested that she leave the camp to look for her lover. But Solomon did not want her to leave and tried to entice her to stay with offerings of gold and silver. But the Shulammite girl told him that she loved someone else.
The shepherd then came to Solomon’s camp and voiced his affection for her. Solomon took the Shulammite to Jerusalem, but the shepherd followed. Solomon again showered her with flattering compliments, but the Shulammite insisted on returning to the shepherd. It seems that Solomon allowed Shulammite to return to her home.
Paul wrote in Romans 15:4:
For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.
The Song of Solomon is one book written for our instruction, and it is very important that this instruction gives us hope. So, what instruction and hope do we get from this book? The view of the Bible Students in the 19th century and Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 20th century was that the accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures were prophetic types of greater significance for Christians in our time. This long-held understanding is rejected by the present Governing Body, and therefore, The Watchtower of March 15. 2015, page 7, reads:
Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so… Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts.
An angel told the apostle John in Revelation 19:10:
For the bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying.
The Bible encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, pages 691-692, has this to say regarding this Bible verse:
Since the fulfillment of God’s great purpose is all bound up in Jesus (compare Col 1:19, 20), then all prophecy, that is, all inspired messages from God proclaimed by his servants, pointed toward his Son . . . Peter could rightly say of Jesus that ‘all the prophets bear witness to him.’
The members of the Governing Body still hold to the above understanding about Jesus, and if asked, they would, to a man, tell you that they absolutely believe this to be true. Contrary to their claims, however, their new treatment of the Hebrew Scripture accounts, especially the Song of Solomon, amounts to a blatant and utter rejection of the above-quoted scripture and reference. After all, if ‘all inspired messages from God point toward Jesus,’ and if ‘all the prophets bear witness to him,’ the inescapable conclusion is that the Song of Solomon must also be about Jesus.
And since it is about Jesus, the accompanying characters, all of whom interact with each other, must be part of a prophetic drama that, in some way, relates to Jesus Christ and the fulfillment of God’s purposes in connection with him. Thus, there appears to be a “clear Scriptural basis” to look for a prophetic meaning, not only in the Song of Solomon but also in the rest of the inspired accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Nevertheless, the Watchtower literature after 2015 is a testament to the Governing Body’s view that there is almost no “clear Scriptural basis” for viewing any account in the Hebrew Scriptures as a prophetic drama. But this would mean that large portions of the Hebrew Scriptures have no meaning for us today; they are just filler material or “junk texts.”
My book, My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition, pages 343-346, discusses in detail ten different criteria for what constitutes “a clear scriptural basis” for viewing an account in the Hebrew Scriptures as a prophetic drama. Most of these are ignored by the present Governing Body. The criteria are:
- Explicit declarations of prophetic types.
- References to groups of prophetic types.
- Clues in other books of the Bible.
- Accounts with special or peculiar content.
- General expressions identify prophetic types.
- Words about the restoration of all things.
- Accounts connected with prophetic words in the prophets.
- Texts that are written down after their initial fulfillment must represent. prophetic types.
- Persons and events that are said to be signs or portents.
- Prophetic actions that are said to refer to the last days.
The Song of Solomon is included in point 4). This is a drama with different persons speaking and acting. If we claim that God inspired this drama, but it has no meaning for us today, it calls into question God’s purpose for inspiring His Word. The Bible students and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who for 120 years believed that the Song of Solomon was a prophetic drama, used three scriptures as support, namely, John 3:29; 10:11; and 2 Corinthians 11:2. I quote from NWT13:
Whoever has the bride is the bridegroom. But the friend of the bridegroom, when he stands and hears him, has a great deal of joy on account of the voice of the bridegroom. So my joy has been made complete.
For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ.
I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his life in behalf of the sheep
These scriptures do not prove that the Song of Solomon is a prophetic drama about Jesus Christ and his anointed followers. But the scriptures show that the anointed followers of Jesus are a chaste virgin like the Shulammite maiden and that Jesus is both bridegroom and shepherd, as was the shepherd-lover of the Shulamite.
Believing that most of the Song of Solomon is included in the Bible just to teach us a few moral points or lessons is the same as rejecting the full inspiration of the Bible. In that case, most of the book would be nothing more than “junk text.”
Let us see what the Song of Solomon reminds the members of the Governing Body of. The Watchtower of June 15, 2015, pages 28-32, has the article, “Is unfailing love possible?” This article describes the Song of Solomon as a love poem. Because this article was published in the same year as the fifth revolution occurred, it is the first example of what I call “the superficializing of the text of the Hebrew Scriptures.
On page 28, we read:
The Song of Solomon shows that enduring love can exist between a man and a woman. It also vividly portrays what that love is like and how it is displayed. Both married and single worshippers of Jehovah can learn much about such love by carefully considering this Bible book.
Two particular lessons are mentioned:
When the shepherd asked the Shulammite girl to go for a walk with him on a spring day, her brothers did not permit her to go. Instead, they assigned her the work of guarding the vineyards. Why? Did they not trust her? Did they perhaps think that she had immoral intentions? Actually, they were taking precautions so that their sister would not come into a tempting situation. (Song of Sol. 1:6; 2:10-15) Here, then, is a lesson for single Christians: During courtship, take necessary precautions to keep the relationship chaste…
Christian couples generally enter the marital relationship with much love and affection for each other. Since the marriage arrangement instituted by Jehovah is a lasting one, it is vital that couples endeavor to keep the flame of their love ablaze and maintain an atmosphere in which love can grow.
The whole article in The Watchtower of 2015 misses the mark. It is correct that the Song of Solomon “shows that enduring love can exist between man and woman.” But during the time when two are dating, as in the case of the Shulammite and the shepherd, it is erotic love (eros), or romantic love, which is the natural affection between the two; I do not include sex in the concept “erotic love.”
In contrast to erotic or romantic love, there is a kind of love based on principles (agapē), and this is the kind of love that Jesus stressed for his followers, who became his bride. This is what can rightly be called “unfailing love,” growing stronger between a married couple as they live together and get to know each other. But the Shulammite and the shepherd were not yet married, and so the love that the book describes is only erotic or romantic love. But the article applies the concept of erotic or romantic love in a much broader and undefined way, and that is one reason why I say that the article misses the mark.
| The Song of Solomon describes only erotic or romantic love (eros), but the Governing Body erroneously applies this to love in a much broader sense (agapē), thereby misleading readers. |
As the origin of the line of communication, God inspired his secretaries by implanting in them the divine message emanating from him, thus, giving them a mental picture of what they should write. And the secretaries themselves chose the words to write the account.
A natural question would be: Why would God implant in Solomon a mental drama involving several persons simply to show what erotic love is? Is the subject of erotic or romantic love so important that eight chapters and 117 verses of God’s Holy Book had to be allocated to describe it? On the other hand, if the book is a prophetic drama, then the erotic or romantic love it describes would have to be a type, and its antitypical application helps us understand the reason for the numerous beautiful descriptions of this love.
If we look at the two Governing Body reminders quoted above, they do not fit well. It is true that the brothers were angry with their Shulammite sister and arranged for her to guard the vineyards rather than meet the shepherd. But the text does not show that this was for moral reasons, namely, to remove their sister from a sexually compromising situation. This may or may not have been their reason.
So, there is no courtship advice in the book, as the Governing Body claims. And there is no direct advice for married couples. It is true that married couples should “maintain an atmosphere where love can grow.” But this is the kind of love based on principles (agapē), love between friends (philia), and family love (storgē). To be sure, these kinds of love are important, but they are not discussed in the Song of Solomon; only romantic love is. Therefore, any intended advice for married couples cannot be gathered from the book.
Ostensibly, the bottom line of the book appears to be that erotic or romantic love of a young woman toward a young man can be so strong that she refuses to leave him for the sake of riches and fame. As it relates to Christian doctrines and Christian morals, this is a rather petty issue. But as a prophetic type, this is important.
In addition to the reminders from The Watchtower of June 15, 2015, that are strange and incongruous with the text of the Song of Solomon, I submit a case in point taken from Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 996: It says regarding the value of the Song of Solomon:
The Song of Solomon illustrates the beauty of enduring and constant love. Such unswerving love is reflected in the relationship of Christ Jesus and his bride. (Eph 5:25-32) Thus The Song of Solomon can serve to encourage those professing to be of Christ’s bride to remain faithful to their heavenly bridegroom.—Compare 2Co 11:2.
This comment is misleading. I have already shown that the Song of Solomon only expresses erotic or romantic love (eros). Therefore, the expression “enduring and constant love” would apply to other kinds of love, such as the one the apostle John so often mentions. However, to attempt to superimpose these other kinds of love onto the erotic or romantic love discussed in the Song of Solomon is wrong. The last part of the Insight quote above is even more problematic. Why did the Governing Body single out one small group as those whom the book can encourage, namely Christ’s bride? The only way that this expression can have meaning is if the Shulammite maiden is a prophetic type of the 144,000 who constitute the bride of Christ.
But this view has been rejected, and even the newer songbooks are a reflection of this rejection. The songbook, Sing praises to Jehovah (1984), includes song no. 11 “The Shulammite Remnant (Song of Solomon 6:13).” This shows that the Song of Solomon was viewed as a prophetic drama with types and antitypes. A Norwegian edition of this songbook was published in 2007 and includes this song. However, the songbook, Sing to Jehovah (2009), does not include this song. The melody is included but the words have been changed. It is clear that the words in Insight about Christ’s bride give the reader the impression that the Song of Solomon includes a prophecy about Christ’s bride. Therefore, the reader is misled.
I will now consider the view held by Bible students and Jehovah’s Witnesses for 120 years, namely, that the Hebrew Scriptures contain a great number of types that have received antitypical fulfillment in our day.
In 1957, volume 3 of the NWT of the Hebrew Scriptures was publishe and the Song of Solomon was included in this volume. In connection with the translation of volume 3, the article “The Loved Woman of the Superlative Song,” dealing with the Song of Solomon, was published in The Watchtower of December 1, 1957, pages 720-734. This article treats the book as a prophetic drama, and it says:
9 Writing to the Christian congregation in the first century, the apostle Paul tells of a number of occasions where the Israelites fell away from the love of Jehovah God, and then comments: “Now these things went on befalling them as examples and they were written for a warning.” A warning to whom? “To us upon whom the accomplished ends of the systems of things have arrived.” (1 Cor. 10:11) It must be, then, that The Song of Solomon finds its fulfillment in connection with the Christian congregation of which the apostle Paul was a member in that century when the Jewish system of things no longer found favor in God’s eyes and it ended, Jehovah God now transferring his loving-kindness to the Christian congregation that he espoused to his Bridegroom-Son, Jesus Christ.
Based on the article in The Watchtower of 1957, I make a short outline of the types and antitypes:
- The Shulammite pictures the 144,000 members of the bride of Christ.
- The Shepherd pictures the heavenly bridegroom, Jesus Christ.
- The brothers who were very anxious to safeguard their sister pictures Paul and others who were anxious to safeguard the Christian congregation.
- Solomon pictures the rulers and the riches of this world.
- Since after 1914, the remnant of the bride class has been in this world, but they have not sought the favor of the rulers of this world or its riches. They seek the love of the shepherd, who is invisible to them.
- The Shulammite was taken to Jerusalem, and the test of this world’s materialism was put before her. In a similar way, the bride of Christ has been tested.
- Her shepherd follows her to Jerusalem and strengthens her, just as Jesus does with his bride.
- By witnessing for the kingdom, the bride class invites the shepherd to eat the kingdom fruits, and the bridegroom comes to eat.
- The bad dream of the Shulammite pictures that the remnant did not respond quickly after 1914 to the bridegroom’s invitation to have fellowship with him in gathering in the sheep because of hardships during World War I.
- The test with Solomon did not shake her devotion to the shepherd. Solomon lets her go back to her home and to the shepherd. Nothing in this world can shake the loyalty of the anointed Christians to their bridegroom.
In connection with each of the points above, the article in The Watchtower have detailed quotations from the Song of Solomon elucidating each of the points.
I now return to the question of why God would inspire a whole book filled with expressions of erotic or romantic love. In relation to the teaching of God and his principles, there would be no purpose in such a book. However, in a prophetic setting, expressions of erotic or romantic love between a typical bride toward her typical bridegroom have an antitypical fulfillment of something different from romantic love. Such beautiful poetic expressions of erotic love may impress strong mental pictures in the minds of the readers, indicating the very strong and personal relationship between the antitypical shepherd and king, Jesus Christ, and his antitypical bride of his anointed followers. This is seen in The Song of Solomon 8:6, 7 (NWT13):
6 Place me as a seal upon your heart, As a seal upon your arm, For love is as strong as death is, And exclusive devotion is as unyielding as the Grave. Its flames are a blazing fire, the flame of Jah. 7 Surging waters cannot extinguish love, Nor can rivers wash it away. If a man would offer all the wealth of his house for love, It would be utterly despised.”
In my view, the understanding of the Song of Solomon has some similarities with the drama of Sarah and Hagar (Galatians 4:22-20) and the conclusion of Paul in verse 28, “Now, you brothers, are children of the promise, the same as Isaac was.” The drama with Sarah and Hagar focuses on the sonship of the anointed Christians, who were persecuted by the Jews. And the drama with the Shulammite focuses on the anointed remnant in the time of the end and their unfailing loyalty and love for their shepherd and king, despite all the temptations of this world.
The conclusion of this study of the Song of Solomon is that the members of the Governing Body do not believe in the full inspiration of the Bible. They claim that many parts of the Hebrew Scriptures have no meaning for us; we can only gather moral principles from these. This means there is a whole lot of “junk texts” in the Hebrew Scriptures, but such a claim cannot coexist with the belief in the full inspiration of the Bible.
THE REMAINDERS TAKE THE AUTHORITY AWAY FROM THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE AND PLACE IT ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY
The view of the 11 members of the Governing Body is that most accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures are not prophetic types. When the members of the Governing Body read these accounts, they are reminded of particular things. Why do I say that these remainders show that the members of the Governing Body have taken the authority away from the Bible?
The basic reason is that those who previously wrote articles and books, including types and antitypes, had controls in place to check their work. But there are no controls for those who get remainders when they study the Bible, and no one can check the veracity of what they write. What are the controls?
The basic controls for all Bible expositors are the text, the lexical meaning of the words, and the grammar and syntax of the verses. Any exposition must accord with the literal meaning of these linguistic parameters. Another parameter is the context, and an expositor can only take the text figuratively if the context shows this to be the case.
The members of the Governing Body are not bound by these parameters. They look at the accounts as a whole, and they look for principles that can be gathered from these texts rather than the meaning of the texts. And they say that these principles are their remainders. Because these remainders are created in the minds of the 11 members of the Governing Body, there is no way to check the veracity of these remainders.
I refer to two examples in the book Pure Worship of Jehovah — Restored at Last (2018) from Ezekiel’s prophecy about the new temple he describes:
- The perimeter wall:“reminds us that we must never let anything corrupt our worship of Jehovah.” (page 152)
- The lofty outer gates and inner gates: “remind us that Jehovah has high standards of conduct for all who would engage in pure worship.” (page 152)
There is no relationship between the temple wall and the worship of Jehovah, or between the outer gates and Jehovah’s high standard of conduct. There are no controls the reader can use to check these remainders. Therefore, I say that using remainders is to take away the authority of the text of the Bible and put it on the shoulders of the members of the Governing Body. In other words, it is to set up an authority alongside the Bible, one that is even more important than the Bible.
But can we not say the same about the exposition of types and antitypes, since the antitypes are not stated in the Bible but must be inferred? No, there is a clear difference. The controls of lexicon, grammar, and syntax, as well as the context, can be used to check an antitypical exposition.
Moreover, there are also controls in the application of antitypes. If we have identified one person or situation in an antitypical application, we can identify other persons or situations by their relationship the person or situation that we have identified.
For example, Malachi 4:5 says:
5 “Look! I am sending to YOU people E·liʹjah the prophet before the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah.
According to Matthew 11:14, Jesus said that John the Baptist was an antitype of Elijah. This means that John the Baptist’s work was an antitype of Elijah’s. But that is not all. The antitype of the prophet Elijah would come before “the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah,” which is future. So, the prophecy’s ultimate fulfillment would occur in our time.
So we must look for the antitype of Elijah, and we find this in Revelation 11:3-6. One of “the two witnesses” does the same things that Elijah did. The context suggests that “Elijah” represents a group rather than a single man. When we have identified the “Elijah” of our time, we can find the antitypical actions of this group.
We have the same situation with the Song of Solomon. If we accept that this is a prophecy of Jesus and that he is represented by the shepherd, we can identify the Shulamite and the other persons and situations in the book by their relationship to Jesus.
The principle is that if we can identify one part or person as an antitype, we can identify the other parts or persons on the basis of their relation to the one who is identified. Therefore, there may be controls when the fulfillment of prophecies or antitypes is discussed.
REMINDERS IN THE PURE WORSHIP BOOK
A very good example of how the members of the Governing Body have elevated themselves to the status of prophets is the book Pure Worship of Jehovah — Restored at Last (2018). This book discusses the prophecy of Ezekiel. In 1971, the book The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah — How? was published, and it also discusses Ezekiel’s prophecy.
On the surface, the Pure Worship book may seem to be similar in composition to the Know Jehovah book. But if we look a little deeper, we see that the Pure Worship book does not resemble any other commentary on a prophetic book published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Know Jehovah book discusses the Hebrew text of the prophet Ezekiel, explains what it actually means in context, and shows how the prophecies and prophetic types of Ezekiel are fulfilled in our day and in the future. The Pure Worship book, for the most part, ignores the original text of the Bible itself, and it denies to a great extent that the accounts of Ezekiel are prophetic types.
And what is the very backbone of the new approach to the text of Ezekiel and the other books of the Hebrew Scriptures? What is important is what the text of Ezekiel reminds the Governing Body of, and not what the Hebrew text says.
| The text of the Bible is no longer the focus of the Governing Body, but what this text reminds the Governing Body of. This means that the authority has been moved from the text of the Bible to the minds of the members of the Governing Body. Thus, they have elevated themselves to the status of prophets. |
As I have discussed in part II of this series, rejecting Jesus’ words about the resurrection is a clear rejection of the Bible’s full inspiration. The same is true of the claim that large portions of the Hebrew Scriptures have no meaning for us today. Focusing on what the Bible text reminds the Governing Body of is the other side of that coin. And this is yet another way to deny the full inspiration of the Bible, because it devalues its meaning while prominently featuring the views and opinions of the members of the Governing Body above the Bible’s text.
In my book, My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition, pages 375-376, reminders from the Pure Worship book are listed. In addition to the comments in the book labeled as reminders, there are many examples where the word “remind” is not used, yet the text is treated as a reminder. There are also many “lessons” we can learn from the text that also represent the subjective views of the members of the Governing Body. Some of the reminders follow:
- The description of the living creatures: “reminds us of God’s name, Jehovah, which we understand to mean ‘He Causes to Become.’”(43)
- Ezekiel’s vision of Jehovah’s holiness and his surpassing might: “reminds us that Jehovah is worthy of receiving our worship.” (49)
- Apostate Judah: “reminds us of Christendom.” (54)
- Ezekiel’s prophecy about the end: “reminds us that when the coming attack against religious organizations occurs, members of the churches will not be ‘going to battle’ to defend religion. Instead, as they begin to realize that their cry for help, ‘Lord, Lord,’ is going unanswered, ‘their hands will hang limp’ and they will be ‘shuddering.’” (69)
- Ezekiel’s statements regarding the fall of Jerusalem: “remind us that the time still available for helping others to become God’s servants is limited.” (70)
- The inspired description recorded at Ezekiel 34:15, 6: “has often been used to remind Christian shepherds of the standard set by Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.” (107)
- The prophecy about the reviving of the dry bones: “God who has the power to breathe life into dead bones can surely give us the strength we need to overcome obstacles—even those that, humanly speaking, are insurmountable. Read Psalm 18:29; Phil 4:13. We may be reminded that many centuries before Ezekiel’s day, the prophet Moses stated that Jehovah has not only the power but also the desire to use his strength in behalf of his people. (120)
- The perimeter wall:“reminds us that we must never let anything corrupt our worship of Jehovah.” (152)
- The lofty outer gates and inner gates: “remind us that Jehovah has high standards of conduct for all who would engage in pure worship.” (152)
- Anointed ones can find useful reminders in Ezekiel’s vision of the temple: “They note, for instance, that the priests were subject to counsel and discipline.” (158)
- The conditions in unfaithful Jerusalem: “certainly remind us of what is happening in Christendom.” (174)
- Trees for food and healing: “They thus remind us that we serve the God who generously feeds us and heals us in the most important way, spiritually.” (207)
- Marshy places that remained barren, abandoned to salt: “We may be reminded. . . How foolish are those who stubbornly refuse to drink from the precious water of life!” (209)
- Lifting faithful humans to perfection: “reminds us of those trees that Ezekiel saw along the riverbanks, trees that bear nourishing fruit and have leaves that heal.”(210)
- Jews returning from Babylon to Jerusalem: “remind us of a similar development that has been taking place among God’s people in modern times.” (213)
- Considering details about the land and the inhabitants in the temple vision: “We are reminded that equality and unity need to be outstanding features of our worldwide brotherhood today.” (217)
- The city in the temple vision stands on common, or nonsacred, land: “It reminds us that the city refers, not to a heavenly, but to an earthly administration, which has been functioning for the benefit of all who inhabit the spiritual paradise.” (221)
- The workers near the city come from among all the tribes of Israel: “Does this arrangement remind us of an opportunity that we have today? Yes. Today all inhabitants of the spiritual paradise have the opportunity to support the service of Christ’s anointed brothers and the service of those among the ‘great crowd’ whom Jehovah has appointed to take the lead.” (222)
- The prophetic descriptions of Israel and Judah as being like prostitutes: “remind us of just how repugnant spiritual adultery is to Jehovah.” (228)
A number of the comments that are said to be reminders or function as reminders are quite petty. Claiming that God created these elaborate and spectacular visions or caused the prophet to describe a dramatic situation only to remind us of some inconsequential idea does not accord with the ways of Jehovah. Three examples follow:
Seventy Elders Offering Incense to False Gods (8:7–12) = For our prayers to be heard by God—and to keep our worship pure in his eyes—we must remain faithful even “in the darkness.” (Prov. 15:29).
Women . . . Weeping Over the god Tammuz (8:13, 14) = To keep our worship pure, never mix it with unclean pagan practices.
Men “Bowing Down to the Sun” (8:15–18) = To keep our worship pure, we must look to Jehovah for spiritual enlightenment.
All three reminders are true. But they are already mentioned, directly or indirectly, in numerous places in the Bible. That the spirit of God should convey the three dramatic situations to Ezekiel, just to stress these basic, mundane ideas, makes no sense. However, treating these three situations as prophetic types, as the Know Jehovah book does, is well in keeping with the prophetic nature of the book of Ezekiel.
A number of the reminders are allegorical. Ezekiel saw a vision of a new temple with walls and gates. I quote these allegorical interpretations one time more:
The perimeter wall: “reminds us that we must never let anything corrupt our worship of Jehovah.” (p. 152)
The lofty outer gates and inner gates: “remind us that Jehovah has high standards of conduct for all who would engage in pure worship.” (p. 152)
These interpretations are pulled out of thin air. There is no natural association, for one to be reminded of, between “walls” and ‘not corrupting the worship of Jehovah,’ or between “gates” and ‘standards of conduct.” The connection between one thing and another needs to be scripturally established first; only then can one be reminded of it.
The Pure Worship book provides no textual evidence for these associations. The authority for these conclusions is, instead, centered around what the members of the Governing Body and the author of the book were reminded of when they read the book of Ezekiel.
All the allegorical reminders stress that the members of the Governing Body have elevated themselves to the status of prophets. Their opinion is put above the text of the Bible.
REMINDERS FROM DIFFERENT HEBREW SCRIPTURES
The same approach that the Governing Body used in the Pure Worship book can be found in their treatment of other texts of the Hebrew Scriptures. I give one additional example beyond the reminders in the Pure Worship book.
According to the Governing Body, the text of the Hebrew Scriptures was written to teach us moral lessons and to give reminders to the Governing Body. All the banal and allegorical reminders stress that the members of the Governing Body have elevated themselves to the status of prophets — their interpretations cannot be tested by readers, but readers must, without evidence, believe them to be true. This means that the subjective opinions of the members of the Governing Body take precedence over the Bible’s text. I give one example.
The Watchtower of November 2019 has the article, “Lessons We Can Learn from the Book of Leviticus.” The article says, “Leviticus was written 3,500 years ago, yet Jehovah had it preserved ‘for our instruction.’ (Rom. 15:4)” The article discusses the following lessons that we can learn from the book:
1) We need to have Jehovah’s approval for our sacrifices to be accepted.
2) We serve Jehovah because we are grateful to him.
3) Out of love, we give Jehovah our best.
4) Jehovah is blessing the earthly part of his organization.
The points above are fine but trivial, and we can find similar points in many other books of the Bible. The reference to Romans 15:4 is interesting. The text says: For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction.” And what was the purpose of this instruction? The text says, “that we must have hope.” But these four points do not give us any hope. The claim that Leviticus was written to teach the aforementioned lessons is, in reality, a devaluation of the book as the Word of God.
However, the book of Leviticus also contains a number of special accounts that, according to the Christian Greek Scriptures, are types of greater things. Important examples are the festivals, the weekly sabbath, the yearly sabbaths, the day of atonement, and the Jubilee. Paul says in Colossians 2:16, 17 that these are shadows of a reality (antitype) that comes with Christ. A discussion of the antitypes, how they refer to a bright future with the restoration of all things, would have given us hope. But the members of the Governing Body have shown that they do not accept Paul’s words.
One attempt to address the Jubilee as a type is found in the article “Jehovah Provides for Your Liberty” in The Watchtower, December 2019, pages 8-13. However, this discussion is a bleak and diluted attempt of an antitypical application of the Jubilee in comparison with the article in The Watchtower of August 1. 1976, pages 454, 455. And the discussion in The Watchtower of December 2019 is along the lines of “this reminds us of” rather than a detailed exposition of the antitypical nature of the Jubilee.
Moreover, the cycles of 7 x 7 sabbath years and the 50th Jubilee year are fillers or “junk texts” that have no logical purpose if these cycles do not have an antitypical meaning. This is the view of the Governing Body.[2]
[1]. I refer to my book, My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, third edition. Chapter 2 has a detailed discussion of the words about “the faithful and discreet slave” in Matthew 24:45-47 and Luke 12:35-43. The conclusion is that the view that a small group should constitute this “slave,” interpreting the Bible for others, is just fiction. The chapter demonstrates that this “slave” refers to any Christian who is faithful when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation. Chapter 3 shows that there was no governing body in the first century, and a governing body in our time has no basis in the Bible.
[2]. See the three articles: “The appointed times of the great Jubilee — the importance of the year 1975 (PART I.”
“The appointed times of the great Jubilee — the importance of the year 1975 (PART II).”
“The appointed times of the great Jubilee — the importance of the year 1975 (PART III).”
(https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/06/23/the-appointed-times-of-the-great-jubilee-the-importance-of-the-year-1975-part-iii/)
BELIEF IN THE FULL INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE REQUIRES THAT:
- WE MUST TAKE EVERY ACCOUNT LITERALLY IF THE CONTEXT EXPLICITLY DOES NOT SAY THAT A TEXT IS FIGURATIVE.
- WE MUST BELIEVE THAT EVERY ACCOUNT IS INCLUDED WITH A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
- WE MUST ACCEPT THAT ALL SUBTLETIES AND NUANCES IN THE TEXT ARE IMPORTANT.
THIS ARTICLE HAS PRESENTED A VIOLATION OF POINTS 2) AND 3): THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY DO NOT ACCEPT THAT EVERY ACCOUNT IN THE BIBLE IS INCLUDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WITH A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. AND THEY DO NOT BELIEVE ALL THE SMALL NUANCES IN THE TEXT HAVE IMPORTANCE.
