David Bercot describes the Watchtower’s interpretation of Matthew 13 (mustard seed and dragnet) as flipping Jesus’ plain meaning into “counterfeit kingdoms” and “two nets”; what did that experience teach him about the character of God’s communication in Scripture—does God intend His Word to be readable and trustworthy on its face, or only decipherable through an authorized interpreter?
Another way to ask: What did Bercot learn about how God speaks in the Bible when the Watchtower’s reading of Matthew 13 changed Jesus’ plain meaning? Is Scripture meant to be clear and trustworthy as written, or only understandable through an approved teacher?
Direct Answer
Based on David Bercot’s teaching, that experience convinced him God intends Scripture to be readable and trustworthy “for what it obviously says,” not something that only an authorized interpreter can decode.
Support from Transcript:
He says the Watchtower claimed the mustard seed and dragnet parables were about a “counterfeit kingdom” and “two kingdoms,” even though “Jesus didn’t say the counterfeit kingdom of God. He said the kingdom of God.”
He highlights the dragnet reversal: Jesus said “the unjust in his kingdom…would be taken out…by the angels,” not by Witnesses “going door to door.”
His conclusion that night: “If I can’t pick up the Bible and read it and believe it for what it obviously says, what’s the point of having a Bible?”
He warns that if “every verse can be interpreted…opposite of what it apparently says,” then “the Bible is of little use.”
He says that approach makes you need “the Watchtower…because we would never come to those conclusions by reading God’s Word.”
Discussion Follow-ups
What safeguards help us avoid turning the Bible into something that needs a specialist to make it say what it “really” means?
