The term "faithful and understanding slave" from Matthew 24 refers to the WTS leadership

by Eddie

First of all, the question of what this matter is all about. First of all we have to let the Bible speak for itself. We are dealing here with the text from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 24, verses 45 to 51. There it is said:

The WTS now claims that this is a prophetic prediction of its current organization. It says in all seriousness that it is this wise and understanding slave (according to its own New World translation) who distributes the food at the right time. Distributing food" refers to all WTS literature that distributes its faithful followers in door-to-door service. This is done according to the word of Christ who said, "My food is to do the will of the Father". (John's Gospel, chapter 4 verse 34). Well, giving Christian "food" is not bad in principle. On the contrary, the intention to do so is very good. Only one derivation, "we are therefore the only collective, faithful and understanding servant (or slave)", is fundamentally wrong.

Why?

Just because others Christian groups and individuals do the same. They also distribute food in the sense that they are missionarily active, no matter whether from house to house or otherwise, which is absolutely just as legitimate as this kind of preaching.

Also: Is this really so, as the WTS claims, that the verses mentioned mean prophetic foresight? Or is it not the case that this is merely a form of parable?

Basically, there is more evidence of "parables" than of "prophetic foresight". There are two good arguments:

Argument 1: If we read the above text again slowly and above all exactly, we can see that the statement refers to one – one and the same – servant or slave, who can prove to be both "good" and "bad" servant / slave, and not to two different ones, where one would be "good" and the other "bad". So if the WTS corresponded to this servant/slave, it could be good and evil at the same time. But it claims of itself to be only good.

Argument 2: That the text quoted is, however, "only" a parable and not a prophecy, emerges from a further consideration. Jesus often explained parables with parables (Matthew, chapter 13, verses 34 and 35, and Luke, chapter 8, verse 10). Please read Luke's Gospel yourself, chapter 12, verses 35 to 48, and you will see quite clearly that this is a pure parable, nothing else. This, it is presumed, is probably the reason why the WTS always likes to quote the text from the Gospel of Matthew and praise it for learning/retention in the brain, and not the parallel text from Luke that has just been mentioned. It might be noticeable more quickly that the WTS in this is a false doctrine (a WTS dogma) instead of true biblical instruction.

In addition: The WTS always likes to argue that at the beginning of the first century of the Bible there was a central leadership which took over or held the leadership within Christians.

Question: Where does this come from in the Bible?

Answer: Nowhere.

The original beginning was Christianity in Jerusalem, yes, that's right. This is quite simply explained: Christ died in Jerusalem. His disciples were in this city at his direction, simply because of the descent of the Holy Spirit. In fact, they were the most "original origin" of the Christians that existed. But was that also a basis for central leadership?

If we look at further history both in the Bible and in the first post-Biblical testimonies, we must answer the claim of central leadership with a clear "no". So, to give just one example, the first missionaries were not officially sent out by the Jerusalem church (the supposed headquarters), but by Antioch. Paul was the first to go as a missionary to the Gentiles to proclaim the word of good news. Not a "headquarters" in Jerusalem had sent him. On his travels he founded several churches, all of which existed and acted independently from Jerusalem. There were thus a multitude of individual, completely independent churches. None felt attached to a leadership from Jerusalem or anywhere else. All were brothers in the Lord, forming the body of Christ. If there were problems, no matter what kind (and there were several, as we can gather from the letters Pauli, but also from other apostles), it was settled with letters and/or sending of brothers who by no means came from a "central" or were "centrally controlled".

"And what about the Apostle Council in Jerusalem?" someone might ask. Well, one time there was a more or less "must" of a meeting of "pregnant" brothers to clarify the "blood question" and others. But one thing must not be overlooked: There was a coexistence of the brothers, both from Jerusalem and from Antioch (again: Paul), no "leading body" in the central sense.

And – very important! Where would the "Governing Body" have been after the conquest of Jerusalem by Tiberius in the year 70, had there ever been one? Well, the Catholics claim: In Rome; the bishop there acted as Oberprimus, with his college. But all those who know the Bible less by heart than by heart know that this is not correct either.