The recent changes on the treatment of disfellowshiped persons among JWs is no longer news. They have softened the approach and treatment of disfellowshiped persons. I want to appreciate this new change for it is good. In my earlier series on shunning, I did show why strict shunning as done by JWs is not biblical. It is rather unloving. From my research, I feel that each religious Leader(s) have the responsibility to apply discipline to it's congregant. The bible allows the Leaders to decide when to disfellowship a member in their midst. There is no way we can pindown one rule for this matter scripturally. But as for strict shunning, that is not biblical. If you care to know more about my view of shunning among JWs, see https://www.nairaland.com/7951638/ministry-jws-part-6-shunning

In the Governing Body update #2 2024, there new policy was announced. I have some observations to make.

1. Why Exclude Apostates from loving encouragement?

During the update Mark Sanderson stated that they now have a new understanding on 2 Tim 2:24,25. After reading the study Note comment on that verse, Mark said "this could include those who disregard scriptural counsel and get involved in serious wrongdoing." However, the study Note says:

"Paul uses a Greek word that in this context refers to people who resist Christian teachings or who place themselves in opposition to them. Paul may have had in mind, among others, those in the congregation in Ephesus who had a negative attitude toward following Scriptural counsel or heeding admonition from brothers taking the lead."

The study Note shows that these are apostates from JWs definition. They resist/oppose christian teachings.

Few verses above, Paul had just spoken of Hymenaeus and Philetus. You will notice that these two were handed over to Satan, it is likely that they are still in the congregation. Perhaps that is why Paul said in verse 20 that in a large house, there are different vessels, one good and one for a use lacking honor. So, Paul could have these two and those they deceived who are still in the congregation in mind when he stated what is in 2tim 2:24,25. Even if one maintains that Hymenaeus and Philetus can't be among since they have been handed over to Satan, those they subverted their faith, could be the example of those Paul says are not favourably disposed. The point is, those not favorably disposed are opposers to the christian teaching. Vincent commentary says about this:

"The meaning is, those who oppose the servant of the Lord; Who carry on the ἀντιθέσεις oppositions (1 Timothy 6:20); equals gainsayers (ἀντιλέγοντες Titus 1:9). Paul's word is ἀντίκεισθαι to oppose: see 1 Corinthians 16:9; Galatians 5:17; Philippians 1:28; 2 Thessalonians 2:4."

This is not just one who disregard a scriptural counsel and fail into sin, this is one who do not agree to some christian teaching and who oppose those christian teachings. So when Mark Sanderson says the new arrangement does not include " apostates and those who voluntarily promote wrong conduct", he is directly going against the context of 2Tim 2:24,25. Those two groups that the new policy isolated are those 2tim 2:24,25 says needs to be spoken to with mildness. It should be noted that what JWs call apostates is what other theologians call heretics. Many of them want to be in the congregation but they do not agree with some teachings of the GB.

Secondly, Mark Sanderson says the Governing body was trying to see how they will imitate Jehovah's mercy toward wrongdoers. He stated that His mercies was available for those who even show no sign of repentance.

That is a good move Governing Body. We should try to imitate Jehovah. But is it not shocking that while trying to imitate Jehovah, you limit the imitation to few 'wrongdoers'?

In the update, the example of how Jehovah was merciful to the Israelites was mentioned. But, are you saying that the Governing Body doesn't know that the major problem of the Israelites was APOSTASY? What was the major sin of both Judah and Israel? Was it not that many many kings dabbled into Apostasy?

This is the reason I feel that some changes done by the GB is not out of a new understanding of scripture, they rather decide on what to change, then go to find a scripture to support it. In other not to make it sound as if that is what they did, they will just tell the brothers, 'after prayerful study, we saw one or two scripture that indicates we need to make adjustment in our view of so and so'. It doesn't seem true that the Governing Body, after a careful scrutiny of the scriptures and input from their research team will omit this fact that Jehovah showed mercy to apostates. Coming to think of it, do they want us to believe that both then and their research team didn't know the context of 2john 9-11 for decades now?

I propose two theory for this: changes occur to JW theology either because, the GB and their team of researchers are not thorough meticulous bible students or they just chose what to change whatever they want and then walk backwards to find scripture to support it. The latter is evidently true.

In the update, the case of Jezebel of Rev 2:20 was mentioned as an example of mercy from Jesus. Let's read:

20 “‘Nevertheless, I do hold this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezʹe·bel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and misleads my slaves to commit sexual immorality and to eat things sacrificed to idols."

From the bold faced, does Jezebel not fit the description "apostates and those who voluntarily promote wrong conduct"? The answer is obvious, but what the GB learned from Jehovah is that Jehovah's mercy does not include apostates. This decision is not based on the bible.

Then comes 2john 9-11. This is now understood to apply only to apostates. The update pointed out that the case of 1cor 5:11-13 is different from this one. But I wonder why they didn't follow the result of their own research to the full. If the restriction to the wrongdoers is only in "association" and not "eating with them", that is, not socialize, why then didn't they say you can greet and talk to them briefly whether inside or outside the kingdom hall? Obviously, they didn't intend to follow the scriptures, they just have a policy decision already made but just want to give it a scriptural basis. If tomorrow they receive pressure from courts, or their branch committees to add one or two policy, they will do it, and then look for another scripture they will claim they now understand in a new way. I am not against a church making policy for their members, they always have that right, they are the leaders, but don't keep making it sound as if the decision is because of a bible study you did.

In summary, I appreciate the softening of the way disfellowshiped ones are treated because no matter how little, it is something. It is also true that the GB doesn't tolerate any opinion apart from theirs. And this is reflected in the new update. My advise is to start following the scripture in your decision-making. That is what your sheep would appreciate more.

My 2 cent.