Without any support in the context, the members of the Governing Body claim that the words “as a man of the nations and a tax collector” refer to disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation.
From 1938 to 1952, The Watchtower said that these words did not refer to disfellowshipping. But from 1954 to the present, the decision of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that these words refer to two particular disfellowshipping offenses, namely, fraud and slander.
There was not yet any Christian congregation when Jesus spoke these words, so the word “congregation” refers to the Jewish congregation, to the Jewish nation. A Jew could not be disfellowshipped from the Jewish congregation, and it is demonstrated that Jesus’ words do not refer to disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation.
It is shown in detail how the members of the Governing Body read into the text of the Bible something that is not there, and by this, they are abusing the Word of God.
The text I will study is found in Matthew 18:15-17, and it is quoted below:
15 “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.
There are two issues that we must consider:
- How was a man of the nations and a tax collector viewed in the first century CE?
- Should the sinner be treated as a man of the nations and as a tax collector only by the man he had sinned against or by the whole Jewish congregation?
The maxim of the discussion is the words in The Watchtower of August 1, 1974, page 472, dealing with a balanced view of disfellowshipped Witnesses. This maxim is universal:
“Holding to the Scriptures, neither minimizing what they say nor reading into them something they do not say, will enable us to keep a balanced view toward disfellowshipped ones.
THE EARLY COMMENTS ON MATTHEW 18:17
The Watchtower of August 1, 1938, page 238, quotes Matthew 18:17 and says:
“If he neglect [sic] to hear the congregation [the assembly or organized company of obedient servants of God], let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” (Matt. 18:17, margin) Those who were once in the organization of the Lord and who put themselves in opposition thereto put themselves outside of his organization and are classed with and are such as the opposing clergy.
These comments suggest that the man who does not want to listen to the congregation has put himself outside the Christian congregation. However, there is no mention of the disfellowshipping of this man, so there is an open question about the position of the man.
The Watchtower of May 15, 1944, page 154, discusses Matthew 18:15-17, and we read:
If now the offender refuses to heed this second and reinforced admonition to a right course, then the offended one may tell it to the “church.” According to Theocratic order, this would not mean to a congregational meeting with all present, but telling it to those charged with the care of the congregation and representing it in special service capacities. If he refuses to hear the church through its representative servants, then what? Does the Lord say the church or congregation should excommunicate the offender? No; but the Head of the church says to the offended one, whose efforts at reconciliation have failed: “Let him bee unto THEE [not, unto the church] as a heathen man and a publican.” The offended one may refuse to have anything further to do with such one until he comes for a reconciliation.
Only where the peace and unity of an entire congregation are involved, and its activity in the Lord’s witness work is being disturbed and hindered, there the theocratic organization steps in and must take action in behalf of the congregation, as illustrated in the words and actions of the apostle Paul… The servant acting for the Theocratic organization would give no assignments of service to such disturber of unity. (brackets in the original)
The quotation has two important points:
1) Verse 17 says that it is “to you” (THEE, singular) that the person must be as “a heathen man and a publican” and not to the congregation.
2) The words about “a heathen man and a publican” do not mean that the offender will be disfellowshipped.
But the offended brother will not have anything to do with the offender. The book This means Everlasting Life, (1950) page 90, discusses the situation but does not speak about disfellowshipping:
If the offender refuses to hear the congregation, that is, what its representatives have to say with meekness, Jesus did not say to drag the matter before the worldly law courts of the land. The apostle Paul said it would be better to suffer injustice than to do that, as this spares bringing the Christian congregation into a bad light before the worldly public. (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) Jesus said to let the stubborn offender alone to take his worldly course, like a worldly Gentile or an oppressive tax collector.
The first detailed discussion of the different sides of disfellowshipping occurred in The Watchtower of March 1, 1952, and I quote from page 147. It is interesting that Matthew 18:17 is not applied to disfellowshipping in this article. After quoting Matthew 18:15-17, the article says:
This scripture here has nothing to do with disfellowshipping on a congregational basis. When it says go to the congregation, it means to the elders or the mature ones in the congregation and discuss your own private difficulties. This scripture has to do with merely a private disfellowshipping…If you cannot straighten it out then with the offending brother, then it just means a personal avoidance between you two persons, your treating him like a tax collector or a non-Jew outside the congregation. You do what you have to do with him only on a business basis. It has nothing to do with the congregation, because the offensive act or sin or misunderstanding is not any grounds for disfellowshipping him from all the company…Matthew 18:15-17 has often been used in connection with disfellowshipping or putting such persons out of the congregation, but it has merely to do with personal avoidance.
In all the discussions of Matthew 18:17 between 1938 and 1952, the words that the offender shall be as a man of the nations and a tax collector are only said to relate to the offended one, and not to the congregation. And the words do not refer to the disfellowshipping of the offender, but that the offended one will have no social contact with the offender. This is, of course, what the text really says!
“All references to Matthew 18:17 in the Watchtower literature between 1938 and 1952 present the correct understanding of the verse—it refers to no fraternizing with the offender by the offended one and not to the disfellowshipping of the offender.”
THE NEW VIEW OF MATTHEW 18:17—IT REFERS TO DISFELLOWSHIPPING
A change of view occurred in 1954. The Watchtower of December 1, 1954, page 735 says:[1]
Jehovah will preserve the oneness and loving spirit within his congregation, and he will cause to be put out any who would continually disrupt unity and make divisions within it. There are occasions when members of a congregation are to quit speaking and associating with others, but the causes must be very serious, much more so than mere personal differences of no congregational consequence. Brothers were to separate from those who were disorderly, creating strife and rebelling against the truth. A congregation was to put from its midst unclean ones: “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.” (1 Cor. 5:11; Acts 19:9; 2 Thess. 3:6, NW) For such serious offenses brothers would disfellowship and treat as “a man of the nations” the guilty ones, but not for trivial personal offenses. Such minor things were to be forgiven, covered over by love, mercifully dismissed, not being kept account of or being provoked over beyond sunset.
Hence we must view the sin mentioned at Matthew 18:15-17 as a serious one that must be terminated, and, if that is not possible, then the one so sinning is to be disfellowshipped from the congregation. If the sinning one cannot be made to see his grievous error by mature brothers of the congregation and cease his wrongdoing, then the matter is of such importance that it be brought before the congregation committee for congregational action. If the committee cannot induce the sinner to repent and reform he must be disfellowshipped from the congregation in order to preserve the cleanness and oneness of the Christian congregation. If the wrongdoer is wicked enough to be shunned by one brother he merits such treatment by the entire congregation. If it is not that serious, then the matter should be cleared up and all unite in love and in service, with no foolish personal feuds persisting within the congregation. If the text was merely about a personal matter of no serious sin and which resulted in one’s not speaking to another but both remaining in the congregation, then certainly Jesus would not have said one should view the other as a rank outsider, as “a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” They would still have to recognize each other, not as an outsider, but as brothers in the congregation, even if they did not speak. The final rating of the unrepentant offender is too severe to mean anything less than a disfellowshipped standing, and since there is no provision for individuals’ disfellowshipping other individuals in the congregation in what might be called a personal disfellowshipping, the disfellowshipping must mean it is a congregational matter.
The arguments in this article represent a clear example of reading something into the text that is not there, contrary to the maxim I am following. This is done by circular arguments. For example, in the middle of the article, we read: “Hence we must view the sin mentioned at Matthew 18:15-17 as a serious one, leading to disfellowshipping if it is not terminated.” The word “hence” must have an antecedent telling the reason for the conclusion that the sin is serious. But there is no antecedent that represents an argument or a reason, only a claim.
The article speaks of disfellowshipping according to 1 Corinthians 5:11, then, without any evidence, says that those disfellowshipped in accordance with Paul’s words are treated as “a man of the nations.” So, the circular reasoning is: “The words of Matthew 18:17 that the offender must be treated like ‘a man of the nations’ means that he will be disfellowshipped because the verse says that he must be treated as “a man of the nations.”
The next turn of circularity is: “The sin mentioned must be serious because he will be disfellowshipped because he must be treated ‘as a man of the nations’.” But Matthew does not mention any kind of sin!
We also note another example of the author reading into the text of the Bible something that is not there. We see the following clause in the middle of the quotation: “If the wrongdoer is wicked enough to be shunned by one brother, he merits such treatment by the entire congregation.” The author admits that the text says that the wrongdoer shall be shunned by one brother [“you,” singular]. But the author rejects this without any contextual evidence and applies it to the whole congregation. So, the author reads something into the text that is not there.[1]
The new view that Matthew 18:15-17 refers to disfellowshipping created a problem. The procedure is that three elders will consider a serious sin and decide whether a Witness shall be disfellowshipped. But if the words, “let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector,” refer to disfellowshipping, this means that the Witness to whom the sin is committed can forgive the sin, and then sinner will not be disfellowshipped.
In other words, Matthew 18:15-17 cannot refer to any disfellowshipping offense, but only to disfellowshipping offenses that can be forgiven by the offended one. To solve this problem, the members of the Governing Body have decided that the sins Jesus had in mind were fraud and slander. These sins are supposed to be serious disfellowshipping offenses. But they can be forgiven by the offender, according to the Governing Body. We find a discussion of this in The Watchtower of May 2016, page 6:
14 Most differences between Christians can and should be resolved privately by the individuals concerned. However, Jesus noted that some situations might require congregation involvement. (Read Matthew 18:15-17.) What would be the outcome if an offender refused to listen to his brother, to witnesses, and to the congregation? He should be treated “just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” Today, we would say that he should be disfellowshipped. The seriousness of this step indicates that the “sin” was not a small disagreement. Rather, it was (1) a sin that could be settled between the individuals concerned but it was also (2) a sin serious enough to merit disfellowshipping if not settled. Such sins might involve a measure of fraud or might include damaging a person’s reputation through slander. The three steps Jesus outlined here are applicable only where these conditions exist. The offense did not include such a sin as adultery, homosexuality, apostasy, idolatry, or some other gross sin definitely requiring the attention of the congregation elders.
This is the present viewpoint of the members of the Governing Body. To illuminate the situation, I quote the maxim once more:
“Holding to the Scriptures, neither minimizing what they say nor reading into them something they do not say, will enable us to keep a balanced view toward disfellowshipped ones.
The members of the Governing Body have done the very opposite of what the maxim says. They have read the following things into the text that it does not say:
- Being “like a man of the nations and a tax collector” means disfellowshipping.
- The singular pronoun “you” refers to the whole congregation. So, the whole congregation should view the offender as “a man of the nations and a tax collector.”
- The sins Jesus had in mind were fraud and slander, and no other sins.
- The word “congregation” refers to the Christian congregations. But when Jesus spoke the words, he referred to the Jewish congregation, the Jewish nation, because there were no Christian congregations.
[1]. The Watchtower of November 15, 1952, could possibly mean that Matthew 18:17 refers to disfellowshipping. But the text is not clear.
MATTHEW 18: 15-17 REFERS TO THE JEWISH NATION AND NOT TO THE CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION
The article in The Watchtower of August 1, 1974, page 463, correctly shows that Jesus’ words were uttered before any Christian congregations were formed, and therefore must refer to the Jewish congregation, the Jewish nation. What would happen to a Jewish man who offended another Jewish man?
There is no passage in the Law showing that Jews could be excommunicated (disfellowshipped) from the Jewish nation. W. Horbury wrote:
The failure of the subject [excommunication] to win attention doubtless owes much to the paucity of evidence. In post-exilic Jewry, even after Isa. Lxvi 5 and Ezra x 8, excommunication is notoriously hard to document; it is disputable whether Pentateuchal sources reflect any practice comparable with that envisaged in Ezra x. Various forms of excommunication are found in the Qumran sect, and among the Essenes, the early Christians, and the “Associates” of the Mishnah; but in each case it can be asked whether the custom does not reflect the exclusiveness of a close-knit minority group, rather than the practice of post-exilic Jewry as a whole.[1]
A Jewish man who had offended a fellow Jew was neither killed nor disfellowshipped from the Jewish congregation. Therefore, Jesus could not have had disfellowshipping from the Jewish congregation in mind, and by implication not disfellowshipping from the later Christian congregation.
But how were the people of the nations viewed and treated? The Watchtower of August 1, 1974, page 464:
18 Jesus Christ adhered to this basic rule of refraining from fraternizing with people of the nations. And he instructed his disciples that in their preaching activity they should “not go off into the road of the nations [Gentiles], and do not enter into a Samaritan city; but, instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt. 10:5, 6) Yet, notwithstanding all of this, Jesus showed no approval of, or conformity to, the extreme view found in rabbinical writings that counted all Gentiles as enemies to be treated with virtual contempt—even as he did not let such attitudes control his dealings with Samaritans. (John 4:4-40) Far from this, Jesus cited his Father’s prophetic Word to show that people of the nations would accept the Messiah, that the temple was to be a house of prayer for all nations, and that the Messiah would prove to be a light to the nations. (Matt. 12:18, 21; Mark 11:17; compare Luke 2:27-32; Acts 13:47.)
19 So, too, with the tax collectors, usually not Gentiles but Jews. Because they were so often dishonest, tax collectors were generally viewed by their fellow Jews as persons of bad reputation, to be classed with known sinners and harlots. (Matt. 9:10, 11; 21:31, 32) While not condoning their wrong ways, Jesus did not hold back from helping such ones when they showed an inclination toward righteousness, as did such tax collectors as Matthew Levi and Zacchaeus.
There is, however, nothing to show that Jews with a balanced and Scriptural viewpoint would refuse to greet a “man of the nations” or a tax collector. Jesus’ counsel about greetings, in connection with his exhortation to imitate God in his undeserved kindness toward “wicked people and good,” would seem to rule against such a rigid stand.—Matt. 5:45-48.
The points above clearly show that Jesus spoke about a problem within the Jewish nation between two people. If a Jew had sinned against another Jew, the offended person should go to the offender to try to solve the problem. If the offender would not listen, the offended one should take with him two or three witnesses. If the offender would not listen to the witnesses, the offended one should speak to the congregation, to the elders in the city gate. If the offender would not listen to these elders, the offender should be for the offended one, not for the whole Jewish congregation, as “a man of the nations and a tax collector.”
The Jews would fraternize with other members of the Jewish nation. But not with people of other nations or with tax collectors. This was evidently the meaning of Jesus’ words. But viewing people of the nations as enemies to be treated with contempt, as was the extreme rabbinic view, was not the view of Jesus, as we see in Matthew 5:43-48:
43 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; 45 that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. 46 For if YOU love those loving YOU, what reward do YOU have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if YOU greet YOUR brothers only, what extraordinary thing are YOU doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 YOU must accordingly be perfect, as YOUR heavenly Father is perfect.
The advice of Jesus would be: If a Jew sinned against a Jew, and the offender would not admit his sin, the offended one would not fraternize with the offender. But the offended one should not treat the offender as an enemy. But he should treat him in a cordial way, as he should treat all persons of any nation.
Can Christians learn anything from Jesus’ words? Absolutely. While Jesus’ words were not directed to Christian congregations, the principles behind them can be applied by Christians. This means that if a Christian sins against another Christian, several steps can be taken to resolve the issue.
CONCLUSION
I quote the maxim I have followed in this discussion one time more:
“Holding to the Scriptures, neither minimizing what they say nor reading into them something they do not say, will enable us to keep a balanced view toward disfellowshipped ones.
The discussions of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Matthew 15:15-18 over the last 72 years are glaring examples of the abuse of the Scriptures, of how ideas that are not there are read into them.
Jesus speaks about the Jewish congregation, the Jewish nation, not about Christian congregations.
Jesus speaks about how problems can be solved among Jews in his day, and not about solving problems in the Christian congregations.
Jesus speaks about unnamed sins. But the members of the Governing Body say that he had two particular sins in mind, namely, fraud and slander.
Jesus speaks about how a Jewish offender should be treated — not by being disfellowshipped from the Jewish congregation, which was impossible — but the offended ones should not fraternize with the offender.
The members of the Governing Body claim that Jesus’ words refer to possible disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation. But there is nothing in the context that supports this interpretation.
These points show that the members of the Governing Body no longer believe that the text of the Bible is the only authority for Christians. They give themselves the right to manipulate this text and add to it when it fits their purpose.
[1]. W. Horbury, “Extirpation and Excommunication.” Vetus Testamentum XXXV, 1 (1985) 13-38.
OVERSKRIFT 3
Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.
CONCLUSION
Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.
