The Watchtower — January 15, 1957

Does the End Justify the Means?

ORTHODOX religions answer that question yes by their deeds, if not by their words. They have a long record of beheading principles with the ax of expediency. Their actions say that they are more concerned with their standing with the world than their standing with God.

The divine principle is: “The friendship with the world is enmity with God,” and, “Do not be loving either the world or the things in the world.” But most of Christendom’s religions reject this principle of separateness from the world, preaching in its place: “The end justifies the means.” The clergy seek to justify their entry into politics by saying they will bring in moral law and put God in government. Their centuries-long politicizing has not done this yet, nor will it ever do it.—Jas. 4:4; 1 John 2:15, NW.

They involve themselves in the wars of this world, blessing whichever side they reside with, and end up by approving of Catholics in one country killing Catholics from another country, and similarly Protestants killing Protestants and Jews killing Jews. This bad means, they say, is justified by the end in view.

Science teaches evolution and smears the Bible. Christendom’s religions seek popularity, so they say evolution is true and compromise the Bible by saying God used evolution to create living things. The end of holding on to church members justifies the means of compromise, they argue.

Actually, such religions want the world to be fond of them, and in gaining this fondness from the world they eliminate themselves as Christians. Jesus said: “If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you.”—John 15:19, NW.

False religions do not lead; they follow. They lack the moral strength to lead properly and end up being led improperly. In the days of Emperor Constantine and thereafter the apostate Christians compromised, adopting pagan doctrines into their creeds, and justifying these means on the ground that the end would be many converts from pagan religions.

The Jewish religions in Jesus’ day executed him because they thought it would save their nation under the Romans. The end of saving their nation justified their murder of Jesus, they argued. They said: “If we let him alone this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”—John 11:45-48, NW.

This immoral slogan that puts expediency ahead of principle cannot work. Jesus said that it could not: “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit.” Bad means do not bring good ends. Good means, good end; evil means, evil end. To purchase expediency at the expense of principle is the snare of the shortsighted. Only by clinging to divine principle can permanent good come.—Matt. 7:18, NW.

How We Got the Bible

The Bible was written so we could get the thoughts of God. We need God’s thoughts. The Son of God said that “every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth” is vital for life. How did we get the Life-giver’s thoughts in written form?

NO ORDINARY book is the Bible. It is unique. It is God’s Book. It contains his thoughts. It tells us what God’s purposes are and what he wants us to do. To learn the sublime thoughts of the Creator is necessary. Recognizing the imperative need for man to know the Life-giver’s thoughts, Christ Jesus said: “Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.”—Matt. 4:4, NW.

The written utterances of God may be had in hundreds of languages today. In many countries the common people may read the Bible freely. But during the Middle Ages the common people could not read the Bible; it lay entombed in a dead language.

But God never caused the Bible to be written originally in a dead tongue. He wanted people to get his thoughts. So as not to be speaking into the air the Bible’s Author caused his thoughts to be written in the familiar language of the people.

The everyday language of God’s chosen nation of Israel was Hebrew. So the Bible’s Author used that tongue for the writing of the bulk of the so-called Old Testament, properly called the Hebrew Scriptures.

When did Bible writing begin? About the year 1513 B.C., shortly after the Israelites had been delivered from bondage in Egypt. Jehovah said to Moses: “Write this as a memorial in the book.” God himself had given to Moses “two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone written on by God’s finger.” These tablets contained the Ten Commandments. Moses incorporated these into the book of Exodus when he wrote the first five books of the Bible.—Ex. 17:14; 31:18, NW.

From then on the writing of the Bible continued. God used many men, men from all walks of life, such as Joshua a general, Samuel a judge, David a king, Daniel a prime minister, Ezra a scribe, Nehemiah a court official, Amos a herdsman and Jeremiah a prophet. These men wrote by the infinite wisdom and might of the Bible’s Originator. They confessed that the thoughts they wrote were not of their own origin. Said David: “The spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, and his word was upon my tongue.”—2 Sam. 23:2, NW.

With the writing of the book of Malachi, some eleven centuries after Moses started the book of Genesis, the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures was finished.

More Bible writing was yet to be done, but in a different language. Christ Jesus came to earth. It was vital that the life and teachings of the Founder of Christianity be put down in writing. Thus the disciples and apostles of Christ wrote twenty-seven more books, from Matthew to Revelation. They wrote under the influence of God’s spirit. Thus the apostle of Christ could say: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Tim. 3:16, 17, NW.

In what language were these twenty-seven inspired books written? Not in Hebrew, for Hebrew had become a dead tongue. The koiné or common Greek had become an international language, the speech of the people. So common Greek was the language God used for the writing of the so-called “New Testament,” properly called the Christian Greek Scriptures.

How clear, then, that God wanted people to learn his thoughts! Psalm 119:105 (AS) tells us: “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and light unto my path.” The Bible is man’s guide. Many handwritten or manuscript copies of the Bible were made; these were distributed far and wide for the benefit of all Christians.

But time changes language. New languages are born. So Bible translation became necessary to preserve God’s thoughts. As early as the third and the fourth century B.C., the Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria and Egypt could not read the Scriptures in Hebrew. So about the year 280 B.C. a group of some seventy men, according to a letter quoted by the historian Josephus, began the work of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into common Greek. This version, completed sometime during the first century B.C., was called the “Septuagint.” It is also known by the Roman numerals for seventy, LXX.

Copies of the Septuagint were in great demand, especially in the first century of the Christian era. No doubt the publishing houses of Alexandria found it difficult to supply the demand, even though publishing was organized on a large scale in the houses of the rabbis in the Jewish quarter. Here a chief scribe would read slowly from the Septuagint while a battery of five to ten scribes seated at desks wrote in concert. They used pens and ink and wrote swiftly. After being carefully proofread the papyrus strips were rolled up, packed and shipped to the entire Greek-speaking world. So far and wide did the Septuagint Bible go that the apostle Paul, on his missionary journeys, found many Gentiles who already knew the Scriptures.

THE BIBLE IN A DEAD LANGUAGE

As the centuries went by even Greek ceased to be an international language; Latin became the popular tongue in western Europe. Near the end of the fourth century a man named Jerome translated the Bible into the Latin language. His work is called the “Latin Vulgate.” But in time even the Latin language became a dead tongue as far as the common people were concerned. Other languages came into use. One of them was English.

Despite this change in languages, all the people had was a Latin Bible, one they could not understand. Yet any idea of making the Bible available to the people in their language was anathema to the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Innocent III declared in 1199: “The secret mysteries of the faith ought not to be explained to all men in all places, since they cannot be everywhere understood by all men.” Other popes condemned the use of the Bible by the common people. They had the Latin Bible, yes, but such a Bible, in an unknown tongue, was not much different from a Bible that never existed at all.

Toward the latter part of the fourteenth century a Roman Catholic clergyman named John Wycliffe, scholar and lecturer at Oxford, denounced the spiritual indifference and ignorance he found among the clergy high and low. If ignorance of the Bible was appalling among the clergy, what of the common people, many of whom never knew there was such a book as the Bible! Said Wycliffe: “To be ignorant of the Scriptures is to be ignorant of Christ.” So Wycliffe took the Latin Bible and made the first complete translation of the Bible into English. This was about 1382.

The Roman Catholic Church did not appreciate Wycliffe’s efforts. He was bitterly opposed. Writing to the pope in 1412, Archbishop Arundel called Wycliffe “that wretched and pestilent fellow of damnable memory . . . who crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue.” Church authorities put a ban on any further translation of the Bible into the English tongue.

But then something happened: in 1453 Constantinople fell. This resulted in the dispersion of scholars into the West. These scholars carried with them a knowledge of the Greek language, something the West had almost forgotten. About the same time also, Johannes Gutenberg became the inventor of printing from movable type. These two events coincided to spark the beginning of intense activity to put God’s thoughts into the familiar speech of the people.

Foremost in the work of helping the common people get God’s thoughts was William Tyndale. Tyndale was a scholar of great merit at Oxford and Cambridge. He knew Greek. Tyndale realized that Wycliffe had translated his English Bible, not from the original Bible languages, but from the Latin Bible, with the result that Wycliffe’s Bible was only a translation of a translation. Tyndale wanted to translate the Bible direct from the original languages. His goal was accuracy and complete faithfulness to the original.

Church leaders were suspicious of Tyndale. Often the scholar found himself in arguments. “We had better,” said one of his opponents, “be without God’s laws than the pope’s.” Tyndale was fiercely indignant. He cried: “If God spare me I will one day make the boy that drives the plough in England to know more of Scripture than the pope does.” Tyndale was as good as his word.

THE “INVASION OF ENGLAND”

Often in danger of arrest, Tyndale fled to the Continent, where he went underground. Though he was underground, his life was constantly in danger, but by 1525 Tyndale’s translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures into English was ready for the printer. Then a church official learned of Tyndale’s work and wrote a letter to Henry VIII to warn him about the Bible’s “invasion of England.” The letter warned the king to guard his port against the “pernicious merchandise.” Bibles had to be smuggled into England in bales of cotton and sacks of flour. Once in England they found a ready market. The clergy were alarmed. They bought up as many copies as they could find, to burn them. The bishop of London sought out a merchant named Pakington trading to Antwerp and asked him to buy up all copies across the water.

“My lord,” replied Pakington, who was a secret friend of Tyndale, “I could do in this matter probably more than any merchant in England. I will insure you to have every book that remains unsold.”

“Get them for me,” said the bishop, “and I will gladly give you whatever they may cost, I intend surely to destroy them all, and to burn them at Paul’s Cross.”

Four weeks later the merchant found Tyndale, whose funds he knew were at a low ebb. “Master Tyndale,” he said, “I have found you a good purchaser for your books.” “Who is he?” asked Tyndale. “My lord of London!” “But if the bishop wants the books,” said Tyndale, “it must be only to burn them.” “Well,” was the reply, “what of that? The bishop will burn them anyhow, and it is best that you should have the money for the enabling you to imprint others instead.”

So the bargain was made. The bishop got the Bibles and Tyndale the money. “I am gladder,” said Tyndale, “for these two benefits shall come thereof. I shall get money to bring myself out of debt, and the whole world will cry out against the burning of God’s Word and the overplus of the money that shall remain with me shall make me more studious to correct the said New Testament, and so newly to imprint the same once again, and I trust the second will be much better than ever was the first.” Thus the Bible’s bitter enemy, the bishop of London, unwittingly financed Tyndale in Bible translating.

After that the Bibles came thick and threefold into England. The church authorities soon found the printed Bible beyond their power to destroy. The clergy now attacked the English Bible from the pulpit. Tyndale, meanwhile, studied Hebrew to translate the Hebrew Scriptures direct from the original. He succeeded in translating some of the Hebrew Scriptures. But in 1535 he was caught by church authorities. The following year he was condemned as a heretic, strangled to death and burned at the stake. But Tyndale’s work could not be brought to an end with his body.

In the seventy-five years after Tyndale’s death six important English Bibles appeared. These were Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible and the Rheims-Douay Bible. The Douay Bible was translated from the Latin Bible, but the others were basically revisions of Tyndale’s work.

In England the most influential of translations made during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was yet to come. This was the King James Version, 90 percent of which is estimated to have come from Tyndale’s translation.

Tyndale had done his work well; he had made God’s thoughts known to the common people. Then why were so many revisions of the English Bible made? Why was the King James Version made, since Tyndale’s work was so expertly done? The answers, together with an enlightening discussion of the King James Version, will be presented in a later issue of The Watchtower.

Bible Movie Exposes Bible Illiteracy

THE Biblical accuracy of Hollywood’s “The Ten Commandments” has been trumpeted abroad by producer-director Cecil B. DeMille. Many clergymen have leaped to his side and like Hollywood yes-men add their praises. Movie critics in general join in the chorus.

But the facts force you to conclude that these men are either indifferent to the truth or ignorant of it.

The first half of the film is largely fictional, though it claims some historical backing. The second half, concerned with the period of Moses’ life that the Bible covers, is advertised as faithful to Scripture. DeMille says: “All these things are as I have found them, in the Holy Scriptures.”

Rabbi Magnin of Los Angeles declared: “I don’t know when I have been so moved and inspired. . . . The whole subject is treated with reverence, dignity and spirituality.” Rabbi Pressman of Los Angeles said this history “has received its most powerful and reverent narration,” and added: “I pray that the Supreme Maker may accept this your offering as a genuine tribute upon the altar of serving and spreading his truth.”

Methodist Bishop Kennedy of Los Angeles told DeMille: “Your contribution to this generation through that picture will be one of the significant ones of our time.” George Heimrich, affiliated with the National Council of Churches of Christ, wrote: “God has truly used Mr. DeMille at a time when spiritual understanding among peoples all over the world must have an added emphasis if we are to escape complete chaos. . . . Mr. DeMille, your picture can and will influence world peace.” President McKay, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, approved it as “a sacred story treated masterfully and reverently.”

Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York said: “Mr. DeMille’s moving portrayal of The Ten Commandments will spiritually enrich the lives of all who see it.” Cardinal McIntyre of Los Angeles said: “We take it as being a great mission given to Mr. DeMille. . . . I’m sure that the Lord in his goodness and mercy will be bountiful upon him and those who have helped him in this great production.”

Dr. William Lindsay Young, vice-president of The National Conference of Christians and Jews, wrote: “From time to time in history men have emerged who have made lasting and significant impact on the moral and spiritual life of their time. The apostle Paul in the first century, St. Francis in the 13th century, and Martin Luther in the 16th, each in his own way stabbed awake the conscience of his generation. It may well be that Cecil deMille, through the production of ‘The Ten Commandments,’ will stand out as one of the great prophets of the 20th century.”

REVIEWS OF MOVIE CRITICS

Bosley Crowther of the New York Times wrote: “It is conspicuous that Mr. DeMille and his corps of researchers and writers have hewed to the Old Testament for the details of the fundamental happenings and the dramatic guidance of their plot. They have followed the story of Moses, as it is told in the Book of Exodus, with absolute faith in the occurrence and the literalness of the incidents.”

Just the opposite is what is conspicuous. It is conspicuous that DeMille has not followed the Bible account. It also seems conspicuous that this reviewer and the majority of other reviewers have not taken the time to read it. If they had spent an hour reading in the Bible after spending nearly four hours sitting through the movie, the critics would not blunder and expose their Bible illiteracy.

Crowther was not content to stumble as a movie critic. He tried his wings as a Bible critic and took a tumble there also. He said that the Bible books are “pocked with contradictions and, in many details, do not agree with archaeological knowledge, but that we won’t go into here.” He does not know the simple Bible account well enough to know that DeMille contradicted it many times, but still he sets himself up as a Bible critic.

Like so many persons today, he thinks he must prove he is a modern intellectual too educated to gullibly believe God’s Word. Too many persons today disbelieve without a solid foundation for their disbelief. They parrot a set of expressions that have become standard, a kind of party line. The facts are that archaeology confirms the Bible and the more that is learned the more supposed Bible contradictions are dissolved. But Crowther makes his smear and then dodges any burden of proof with the glib dismissal, “But that we won’t go into here.” His column is headed, “Lesson for Today.” He is a very poor teacher.

Another reviewer, Kate Cameron of the New York Daily News, says: “The latter half of the film, which has to do with Moses as the Hebrew patriarch, follows the Biblical line to the letter.” She is very unlettered, Scripturally speaking. It seems that movie critics should take the few minutes necessary to read the Bible account involved when they review Bible movies. Do they not owe this to their reading public? Is it not a part of their work to criticize intelligently rather than merely spread the assertions of the film’s publicity agents? Otherwise, what are their qualifications to review Bible movies? Nevertheless, most of the critics emoted about the supercolossal grandeur and spectacular impressiveness of DeMille’s “The Ten Commandments.” It is impressive and it is entertaining, but it is also riddled with fiction and errs as to the Scriptures. Both sides should be told.

NOT ALL CRITICS GULLIBLE

Not all the movie critics were dazzled and led astray by DeMille’s publicity claims or by the clerical beating of the drums. Even if these more penetrating ones did not single out the Bible inaccuracies of the film, they did smell the odor of Hollywood glitter and glamor and mammon that more than neutralized any fragrance of spirituality that might be present.

Newsweek, November 5, 1956, wrote: “DeMille, a man of deep religious feelings, has taken Old Testament passages, made a variety of conjectures which seemed reasonable to him (after a look at the ancient historians, Philo and Josephus), and developed a story which is occasionally faithful to Biblical history and often faithful only to DeMille’s own vision of a ‘religious movie.’ He takes most of his Biblical material from Exodus. The story he tells is chiefly the life story of Moses, from the bulrushes to the tablets on Sinai. A typical aspect of his works is the fact that, of the many stories which ‘The Ten Commandments’ tells, none gets more attention than the foredoomed—and hypothetical—love affair DeMille has cooked up between Moses and the seductive Egyptian princess, Nefretiri.” After further criticism the review concludes: “If he is to take the credit for what is impressive about his works, he must accept the responsibility for what is not. Each is quite a handful.”

After Time magazine, November 12, 1956, had outlined the time and money and effort that had gone into the film, it asked: “And the result of all these stupendous efforts? Something roughly comparable to an eight-foot chorus girl—pretty well put together, but much too big and much too flashy. And sometimes DeMille is worse than merely flashy. It is difficult to find another instance in which so large a golden calf has been set up without objection from religious leaders. With insuperable piety, Cinemogul DeMille claims that he has tried ‘to translate the Bible back to its original form,’ the form in which it was lived. Yet what he has really done is to throw sex and sand into the moviegoer’s eyes for almost twice as long as anybody else has ever dared to.”

Time concludes with a very pointed charge: “There are moments, in fact, when it seems that the Seventh Commandment [“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”] is the only one DeMille is really interested in; to the point where the Exodus itself seems almost a sort of Sexodus—the result of Moses’ unhappy (and purely fictional) love life. Is this blasphemy? Technically not; but it is sometimes hard to determine where the fine line between bad taste and sacrilege is to be drawn. When God speaks to Moses from the burning bush, out booms a big, creamy bass voice that sounds like nothing so much as a TV announcer making a pitch for a local funeral home. At such moments it is impossible to avoid the impression that the moviemaker, no doubt without intending to, has taken the name of the Lord in vain.”

BIBLE ILLITERACY EXPOSED

Dick Williams, in his column in the Los Angeles Mirror-News of November 14, 1956, said: “I am not an expert on Biblical history. So, while highly suspicious of some portions of the film which I have already seen, I am in no position to dispute DeMille’s announcement that the only place in the picture where he does not expect to be Scripturally accurate is in the golden calf sequence. But others, presumably more versed in the facts, are beginning to step forth to disagree with DeMille and not just on minor issues, either. One of these is the religious magazine Awake! published by a society associated with Jehovah’s witnesses.” He then quotes from the article on “Hollywood’s Version of ‘The Ten Commandments,’” published in the Awake! of November 8, 1956. What are the contradictions between movie and Bible there disclosed?

The Bible shows Pharaoh had the Hebrew babies killed to curb increases in Israelite population, but DeMille’s movie says it was to cut off the deliverer Moses while he was a babe.—Ex. 1:9, 10.

The Bible indicates Moses knew all the time he was a Hebrew, and because he knew he was he killed an Egyptian that was striking one of his Hebrew brothers. He fled from Egypt. But the movie has him exiled because when he is grown it is learned he is a Hebrew and loves the same girl as Pharaoh’s son.—Ex. 2:11, 12, 15.

The Bible first tells of the law to be written on human hearts in the prophet Jeremiah’s time, but DeMille runs ahead of God in this by about nine hundred years, having it said to Moses at the burning bush.—Jer. 31:31-33.

The Bible account shows that the Israelites used God’s name Jehovah and that it was specifically discussed with Moses, at Exodus 6:3, but the movie repeatedly refers to God’s name being unknown to the Israelites and it never is disclosed in the film.

The Bible, at Acts 7:23-30, shows that Moses fled Egypt when he was forty years old and was eighty when he returned from Midian. But the movie shows no such passage of time, keeping all the characters involved in love episodes wonderfully youthful, although Moses was allowed to age miraculously all at once, at the burning bush.

The Bible shows that Moses’ enemies in Egypt were dead when he returned, but the movie has his worst enemy sitting on the throne as Pharaoh.—Ex. 4:19.

The Bible tells of God’s determination to bring the tenth plague, the death of the Egyptian first-born. But in the movie this death of the first-born is Pharaoh’s idea, he intending to do this to the Israelites, and only then does God turn the tables on him by doing it to the Egyptian first-born.—Ex. 11:1-5.

The Bible record states that Pharaoh later pursued the Israelites to recover his slave labor, but DeMille says it was because Moses spurned the love of Pharaoh’s queen.—Ex. 14:5, 6.

It may be debatable whether Pharaoh accompanied his troops to the Red Sea or not, but if he did he died there, according to the Bible. But the movie let him survive that watery debacle and return to Egypt.—Ex. 14:28.

Did Dathan instigate the golden-calf worship at Sinai, and did the earth swallow him and others for that? DeMille says yes, but the Bible says no. Did those calf worshipers die that way at all? No, but by sword and plague. Dathan was not among them, for he and other rebels were swallowed up by the earth at a much later time and for an entirely different sin.—Ex. 32:27, 28, 35; Num. 16:1-3, 12, 25-32.

Ironically, where DeMille said he would depart from the Bible he actually did not. He said the people danced naked at the worship of the golden calf but he would clothe them; modern translations accurately show they did not dance naked but merely broke loose in unrestraint and unruliness.—Ex. 32:25, NW, RS, AT, Le.

Now answer the questions for yourself. How faithful was DeMille to the Bible record? How correct were the clergymen that lauded the film as moving, reverent, spiritual and inspiring? Did God truly use DeMille and give him this mission to perform, as some of them said? And is it not more than slightly ridiculous to put him in the same class as the faithful apostle Paul, as one of these clergymen did? What about the movie critics that wrote that it was conspicuous how he hewed to the Bible with literalness and followed the Biblical line to the letter?

This Bible movie has certainly exposed Bible illiteracy!

All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching.—2 Tim. 3:16, NW.

[Picture on page 41]

CLERGY PRODUCER CRITICS PRESS Holy Bible sex love glamour fiction “The Ten Commandments”

Monotheism Preceded Polytheism

EVOLUTIONARY thinking does not stop with its gradual development of man from inanimate matter. It also makes the supreme God a product of evolution. In the beginning primitive man had no concept of an Almighty God, this evolutionary thinking says. Man first evolved the idea of many gods, and from these many gods the concept of one Almighty God developed. So according to this theory monotheism evolved from polytheism, and it is the view that is generally taught with the same airy glibness and dogmatism that accompanies the teaching of organic evolution.

Life magazine of December 12, 1955, published the article “The Dawn of Religion,” with the subtitle: “Awed by the phenomena of nature and by the mysteries of life and death man evolved a belief in higher powers and rites to honor the spirit world.” Written by the evolutionist Lincoln Barnett, the article said:

“Early man could only imagine some all-powerful and supernatural volition behind such ordered phenomena as the daily rising and setting of the sun, the cycle of the seasons and the nightly rotation of the starry celestial sphere. He could only tremble in fear and wonder at the unpredictable paroxysms of the natural world—the sudden rifting of the earth and the blinking scintillation of lightning in the opaque sky. Here surely lay the origin of his belief in the supernatural. . . .

“But early man must have been aware of equally mysterious and alarming occurrences that took place not in the exterior world but within himself. What, for example, could he think of sleep? The difference between sleep and consciousness suggested that there existed within him something which transcended his body, something which could go away and, in dreaming, lead an active life of its own, traveling wondrously through space and time. And finally, death confronted man with the ultimate mystery. When any individual died the vital attributes of his body disappeared—warmth, movement, speech, breath, volition. Where did they go? Since the flesh itself disintegrated, the body could only be a dwelling place for the spirit that inhabited it in life.”

So it is speculated that from nature myths, star myths, magicism, totemism, fetishism, animism and polytheism man finally evolved the concept of one supreme Almighty God, called in the Bible “Jehovah.” This is not proved. It is only speculation. It is based on another unproved speculation—the organic evolution of man. Since man’s body evolved his brain evolved, and as it evolved his thinking evolved, and from this evolving thinking religion evolved. The article, as is customary in evolutionary writings, cites an imposing list of scholarly authorities as proof of accuracy. This, of course, is no proof to anyone except those willing to follow men blindly.

Are there any facts to prove or disprove the speculation that polytheism preceded monotheism?

THE EVIDENCE FROM PRIMITIVE CULTURES

Scientists seek out the origins of religion by archaeological investigations of the mute remains of ancient peoples and by studying the religious beliefs of the most primitive cultures whose members still live on earth. Lincoln Barnett agrees with this and says that for this latter category the “prime representatives are the Aborigines of modern Australia.” He states: “That their religion has its roots in the depths of prehistory cannot be questioned. And that a similar, if less complex, form of belief prevailed among Palaeolithic men 100,000 years ago is also an indubitable fact.”

But when we go to the roots of these primitive religions we find, not polytheism, but monotheism, the belief in high gods, and the more crude and polytheistic elements of their worship are discovered to be later additions and indicate a degeneration from an original monotheism into polytheism. For example, among the Australian tribes those of the southeast are the oldest, and concerning their religion researcher W. Foy writes: “It is at first sight surprising to find, especially in South-East Australia, a belief in one god, known as ‘father’ or ‘grandfather,’ who is supposed to have created man and the principal phenomena of nature.” Foy adds that this one high god has a son at his side, “acting as mediator between him and man.”¹

One of the most prodigious laborers in this field is Professor Wilhelm Schmidt. After showing that the Pygmy peoples are even older than the Australian Aborigines, he says: “Every one of the Pygmy peoples, which without doubt belong to the oldest strata of humanity, is seen to have magical beliefs and practices only to a relatively small extent . . . Now on the other hand, among all these peoples of the lowest stratum, and among them especially, we find clearly and definitely the recognition and worship of a personal and moral Supreme Being. Thus by the methods of historical research we find a certain proof that this religion of a high god is not later than magic nor developed out of it, but in all probability has preceded it.”²

Schmidt quotes another authority as saying concerning the Pygmies: “If we now pass to points of positive comparison, we are struck by one very remarkable fact above all others. That is, the clear acknowledgment and worship of a Supreme Being. He is everywhere the creator and sovran lord of the whole world, thus refuting the theories of those who suppose that such primitive peoples are quite incapable of envisaging the bewildering variety of the universe as a single whole, much less of referring it to a single cause.”³

But monotheism among primitives is not limited to the Australian Aborigines and the Pygmies: “Such high gods are to be found not only in South-East Australia but also among the Pygmies, the Bushmen, the oldest Arctic peoples, the natives of North Central California, the primitive Algonkin, the Tierra del Fuegians, in a word, all the primitive peoples with whom we have any close acquaintance.”⁴

R. B. Dixon discloses that one of these Central Californian tribes of primitives, the Maidu, has a supreme Creator and an opposer called “Coyote.” The Creator is benevolent and acts for man’s good and happiness and everlasting life, but Coyote always opposes and seeks to make life hard for man. On this point Schmidt adds: “The reason why the Creator apparently yields to Coyote’s onsets is really that mankind lets itself be misled by Coyote into following him and deserting the Creator. Therefore the latter lets them have their way, and at the same time prepares the most condign punishment thereby.”⁵

These further statements appear in Schmidt’s monumental work, Origin and Growth of Religion: “Monotheism, under the influence of animism with its offerings to the dead, its ghostly phantoms, its worship of ancestors and its cult of skulls, has often been overlaid, thrust into the background and stifled. Thus the figure of the Supreme Being is obscured and often quite disappears.” “The belief in a Supreme Being is found in its strongest and clearest form among the oldest peoples in particular, and among all of them without exception.” “We are able to show that mythology and magic did not attain to their full vigorous development until later periods of culture, and that the earlier they appear the weaker they are.” “These high gods in their oldest form, that in which we meet them in the primitive cultures, come before all other elements, whether nature-myths, fetishism, ghost-worship, animism, star-myths, totemism or magic, from one or another of which the earlier theories of preceding decades had derived the origin of religion.”—Pages 85, 147, 148, 220.

In 1924 Paul Radin spoke on “Monotheism Among Primitive Peoples” before the Jewish Historical Society and said: “That many primitive peoples have a belief in a Supreme Creator no one today seriously denies.” In 1954 he says in a preface to this published essay: “About the existence of some form of monotheism among practically all primitive peoples there can be little doubt.”⁶

J. H. J. Leuba writes: “It is an old opinion that even the lowest savage entertains a belief in a Supreme Being, however dimly conceived and little reverenced. . . . Although this opinion suffered temporary discredit . . . recent anthropological researches furnish sufficient evidence to warrant a return to this view.” He concludes his synopsis of this evidence with the words: “The general existence of the belief in High Gods is now accepted by most anthropologists.”⁷

THE EVIDENCE FROM ARCHAEOLOGY

More important than the present beliefs of primitive peoples is evidence as to the ancient beliefs of the earliest known races. For such evidence we turn to archaeology. It is found that the farther back the history of polytheistic races is penetrated the fewer gods they have and the nearer to monotheism they become. Concerning India and Egypt A. Rendle Short says:

“The literature of India covers a period from about 2000 B.C. to modern times, and as it is traced backwards, by common consent, the stream becomes purer and tends towards monotheism the nearer we get to its source. A. A. MacDonell speaks of Rig-Vedic literature having a ‘monotheistic tinge.’ The Vedic gods, reckoned at 33, in later ages came to be counted popularly as 330,000,000. The whole process was one of degeneration from an early age downwards. . . .

“In Egypt, also, there is evidence that monotheism is earlier than polytheism. To this a number of scholars bear testimony: Brugsch, Blum-Ernst, Renouf. Renouf writes: ‘It is incontestably true that the sublimer portions of the Egyptian religion are not the comparatively late result of a process of elimination of the grosser. The sublimer portions are demonstrably ancient, and the last stage of Egyptian religion was by far the most corrupt.’”⁸

Historian Dr. Albert Hyma wrote: “According to many present authorities, the Sumerians were originally monotheistic in their belief, for the most ancient written records state clearly that they believed in only one God. This is a very important fact to note, because until very recently (1937) a large number of historians believed that mankind originally was polytheistic and that gradually as human beings became civilized, they formed a higher conception of the deity.” Also, “As stated previously, the Sumerians originally believed in only one God, but after 3500 B.C. [Hyma’s dating] they developed various forms of polytheism. They began to worship a large number of gods, from among whom they transmitted to the later Babylonians their chief god Marduk.”⁹

Stephen Langdon, professor of Assyriology at Oxford, wrote an article on “Monotheism as the Predecessor of Polytheism in Sumerian Religion.”¹⁰ The Sumerians are claimed to be the oldest people known to archaeology and their concepts can be read in their ancient writings. Some of the sites of their prehistoric cities have been excavated down to virgin soil. “In doing this with three hundred workmen at Kish,” says Langdon, “over a period of twelve years, I came to the conclusion that the vast Sumerian polytheistic system was preceded by monotheism. This conclusion was also made more clear to me by the excavations of the Germans at Erech and a city Shuruppak, between Nippur and Erech.”

Professor Langdon makes these statements in his article: “We know from inscriptions of about 3000 B.C. that the Sumerian pantheon already contained about 750 deities. . . . It is, however, certain that when we press back towards the beginning of religion on written documents the pantheon of 3000 B.C. dwindles down to four and then only two deities.” “The pantheon in full bloom contained more than 5000 deities great and small. The early history of this pantheon can be traced back through the inscriptions to the most primitive pictographs. A large body of early texts from about 3300 B.C. shows a pantheon of only 500 gods. In all theological treatises of the pantheon right back to 3300 [Langdon’s dating] the Babylonians and Sumerians always place the Sky-God at the beginning.” “I should add at once that in these primitive records there is no trace of magic or demons. Everything points to a primitive personal god with the name An, Heaven, Sky.” “It seems to be admitted that the nature myth gods of India, Greece and Italy and all Indo-Germanic religions started with a Sky-God.”

EVOLUTIONARY THINKING A STONE OF STUMBLING

Professor Langdon noted the difficulty for students influenced by Darwinism to investigate the origin of religion, and he says he extracted himself from the lure of certain preconceptions by his own study of Semitic religions.

Schmidt observed the pitfalls of evolutionary thinking: “According to this, the lower, the more bestial and ugly, must also be the older; the better in each case was the higher, and therefore the later, stage of development.”¹¹ “They [movements under the influence of evolution] assumed that religion began with lower forms, and explained all its higher manifestations, especially monotheism, as the latest in time, the products of a long process of development.”¹²

Paul Radin pinpoints this evolutionary thinking as the thing that blinded scientists to monotheism’s preceding polytheism when the evidence was first somewhat vaguely presented by Andrew Lang in The Making of Religion, published 1898: “That the professional ethnologist and ethnological theorist should have scouted the idea is natural enough, considering the ascendancy of the evolutionary theory at the time. . . . To have admitted among primitive peoples the existence of monotheism in any form would have been equivalent to abandoning their whole doctrine of evolutionary stages.”¹³

Again: “The cardinal error is and always has been the assumption that every element in culture must have had an evolution . . . there is no reason whatsoever for supposing that certain concepts require a long period to evolve.”¹⁴

In criticizing Dr. Söderblom Radin says: “For, like the most orthodox of evolutionists, he cannot bring himself to believe that the mentality of primitive people is not essentially different in kind from our own. . . . to him explicit and implicit monotheism must represent the last phases of a long and gradual development.”¹⁵

Finally Radin observes: “I am afraid that the thesis I have advanced will seem to many exaggerated, quite contrary to all the ideas customarily associated with primitive peoples. Most of us have been brought up in the tenets of orthodox ethnology, and this was largely an enthusiastic and quite uncritical attempt to apply the Darwinian theory of evolution to the facts of social experience. Many ethnologists, sociologists and psychologists still persist in this endeavor. No progress will ever be achieved, however, until scholars rid themselves, once and for all, of the curious notion that everything possesses an evolutionary history.”¹⁶

THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE

The Bible states that Jehovah God created man and revealed Himself to the first man. Jehovah revealed himself to other men in the centuries that followed. As men drifted away from God they conceived false gods, hundreds and eventually thousands of them, to bring to birth polytheism. But the Bible shows that monotheism was first, and the facts both from primitive cultures of today and from archaeological discoveries confirm the Bible and repudiate the theory that the concept of one Supreme God evolved from polytheism. Jehovah God is no product of evolution. When Life magazine and others teach that he is, they are spreading a message of death.

Jehovah’s servants will not stumble blindly along in the darkness of evolutionary thinking, but will testify to the truth that before Jehovah there were no gods and after him there are no real gods, only the imaginary ones of polytheism. “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”—Isa. 43:10, AS.

REFERENCES

¹ Origin and Growth of Religion, by Dr. Wilhelm Schmidt, professor at the University of Vienna, pages 242, 243.

² Ibid., pages 157, 158.

³ Ibid., page 191.

⁴ Ibid., page 88.

⁵ Ibid., page 190.

⁶ Monotheism Among Primitive Peoples, by Paul Radin, pages 8, 3.

⁷ Page 100 of Leuba’s A Psychological Study of Religion, Its Origin, Function and Future, as quoted by Schmidt on page 195 of Origin and Growth of Religion.

⁸ Modern Discovery and the Bible, by A. Rendle Short, pages 24, 25.

⁹ An Outline of Ancient History, by Albert Hyma, pages 10, 11, 14.

¹⁰ Published in the Evangelical Quarterly, April 1937, and reprinted in Sir Charles Marston’s The Bible Comes Alive, pages 189-200.

¹¹ Schmidt’s Origin and Growth of Religion, page 5.

¹² Ibid., page 12.

¹³ Monotheism Among Primitive Peoples, page 7.

¹⁴ Ibid., page 27.

¹⁵ Ibid., page 28.

¹⁶ Ibid., pages 29, 30.

Marginal Observation

The first English Bible to be translated directly from the original languages was made by William Tyndale in the first part of the sixteenth century. The margin of Tyndale’s Bible gives us an insight into the state of religion at that time. At Exodus 36:5, 6, where Moses forbids the people to bring any more offerings for the building of the tabernacle because they had more than enough, Tyndale’s marginal comment says: “When will the pope say Hoo! [hold!] and forbid an offering for the building of St. Peter’s Church? And when will our spirituality say Hoo! and forbid to give them more land? Never until they have all.”

The Course of Hospitality

“Share with the holy ones according to their needs. Follow the course of hospitality.”—Rom. 12:13, NW.

1. Who originated hospitality, and how has he set its pattern?

JEHOVAH God is the Author of hospitality. From the beginning he has bountifully provided for all his creatures. Never stingy, never miserly, never illiberal, never ungenerous, Jehovah “furnishes us all things richly for our enjoyment.” Never coldhearted, never ill-disposed, never ill-natured, never ungracious, Jehovah is even “kind toward the unthankful and wicked.” Never partial in the abundance of his liberality, he “makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous.” Always ready to share with his creation his inexhaustible riches, Jehovah sets the pattern for hospitality.—1 Tim. 6:17; Luke 6:35; Matt. 5:45, NW.

2. What does it mean to be hospitable?

² Just what is hospitality? How broad is its scope? A modern dictionary defines it as “giving or liking to give a welcome, food and shelter and kind treatment to friends or strangers.” To be hospitable means to welcome others, not ignore them. It means to show warmth, not coldness; to be kind, not harsh; to be friendly-minded, not distant; to be approachable, not aloof; to be patient, not abrupt; to be thoughtful, not inconsiderate; to be prepared, not unready; to be generous, not stingy; to be given to sharing, not hoarding; to be interested in the needs of others and not just those of yourself. Hospitality is really a far-reaching demonstration of love, even “a test of the genuineness of your love.”—2 Cor. 8:8, NW.

3, 4. In ancient times who followed the course of hospitality?

³ In ancient times the nation of Israel followed the Jehovah-given course of hospitality. All benefited from this course, including the strangers or temporary residents in Israel. God’s law through Moses was specific that the Jehovah-loving stranger was not to be ignored but treated hospitably: “For Jehovah your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, mighty and fear-inspiring God, who treats none with partiality nor accepts a bribe, executing judgment for the fatherless boy and the widow and loving the temporary resident so as to give him bread and clothing. You, too, must love the temporary resident, for you became temporary residents in the land of Egypt.”—Deut. 10:17-19, NW.

⁴ Even before Moses’ time, Jehovah’s people knew the importance of following the course of hospitality. So outstanding and generous were they in impartial hospitality that 2,000 years later an apostle of Christ referred to them when he commanded Christians: “Do not forget kindness [footnote, hospitality] to strangers, for through it some, unknown to themselves, entertained angels.” Just imagine! Because of always being friendly-minded, openhearted and alert to the course of hospitality, some of God’s early servants had the thrillingly grand experience of entertaining angels.—Heb. 13:2, NW.

HOSPITALITY—AN ENRICHING COURSE

5. How was Abraham’s hospitality enriching to himself?

⁵ So the course of hospitality enriches those who follow it. Take Abraham, for example. One day he was seated at the entrance of his tent beneath the shade of the trees of Mamre. It was in the heat of the day. Suddenly he was aroused into the brightest wakefulness by the appearance of three strangers. He ran out to meet them. He bowed down to the earth, but not because he knew they were angels; for he did the same later to the sons of Heth. (Gen. 23:7, 12) Abraham then had water brought so they could have their feet washed. He bid them to recline under the tree. “Let me get a piece of bread, and refresh your hearts,” he requested. Came the strangers’ reply: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.” But in actuality Abraham brought out “butter and milk and the young bull.” Abraham’s hospitality thus served as a remarkable prelude to the angelic announcement that Abraham and his wife Sarah would have their long-promised son. Later, Lot and Manoah, though unknown to themselves, entertained angels and so received a rich blessing.—Gen. 18:1-15; 19:1-22; Judg. 13:2-24, NW.

6. In Jesus’ day what blessings came to hospitable people?

⁶ In Jesus’ time the course of hospitality brought innumerable blessings to those who followed it. When people of good will invited Jesus, his disciples or his apostles into their homes, they received grand spiritual rewards. The thought of entertaining the Son of God itself is thrilling beyond words. Consider Mary, the sister of Martha, and how she received blessed spiritual truths “at the feet of the Master” because of hospitality. (Luke 10:38-42, NW) Consider Zacchaeus and his ready hospitality. Jesus recognized his hospitable spirit, for it was framed in the beautiful picture of Zacchaeus’ climbing a tree to get a glimpse of Jesus. So Jesus said: “Zacchaeus, hurry and get down, for today I must stay in your house.” Hospitality helped Zacchaeus get the truth. And consider the two disciples who were journeying to Emmaus on the evening of the day Jesus was resurrected. Appearing in the form of a man, Jesus approached them. They failed to recognize Jesus. During the conversation that followed Jesus opened up the Scriptures to them. “Finally they got close to the village where they were traveling, and he made as if he was traveling on farther. But they used pressure upon him, saying: ‘Stay with us, because it is toward evening and the day has already declined.’ With that he went in to stay with them. And as he was reclining with them at the meal he took the loaf, blessed it, broke it and began to hand it to them. At that their eyes were fully opened and they recognized him; and he disappeared from them.” What heart-throbbing joy must have been theirs when they realized they had entertained, unawares, the resurrected Son of God! That joy would not have been theirs if they had not made it a practice to follow the course of hospitality.—Luke 19:1-9; 24:13-32, NW.

7. Today what similar benefit comes from being hospitable to our brothers?

⁷ Following the course of hospitality today also brings great enrichment. When we show hospitality to our brothers we benefit in a very practical way: with spiritual stimulation. The conversation of worldlings cannot encourage us in Kingdom work, but the theocratic conversation of our brothers does. Certainly a household that entertains a circuit servant or offers a meal to a pioneer cannot help but benefit and be uplifted by spiritually-enriching conversation.

8. How will a person of good will, by extending hospitality to Jehovah’s witnesses, not lose his reward? What, then, may hospitality be a sign of?

⁸ Those not in the truth who show a hospitable attitude toward Jehovah’s witnesses will also be enriched. Jesus said they would: “Whoever gives one of these little ones [his followers] only a cup of cold water to drink because he is a disciple, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward.” Jesus’ promise does not mean that by a single act of hospitality anyone can get through Armageddon. But it does mean that those who show a hospitable spirit toward Jehovah’s witnesses will receive a fitting reward: spiritual enlightenment. For if people are openhearted materially to us because of who we are, they are likely to receive spiritually in like manner. Sometimes, as during conventions, people invite Jehovah’s witnesses to stay at their homes without charge—just because of who we are. We, in turn, give them bountiful spiritual blessings. Then, if their hearts are right, they come into the truth and are in line for everlasting life. So hospitality given us by people in the world can be, like Zacchaeus’ climbing of the tree, a sign that one is righteously disposed and ready for the truth.—Matt. 10:42, NW.

HOSPITALITY TO STRANGERS

9. Why should we not forget kindness or hospitality to strangers?

⁹ But what now of the apostolic command not to forget kindness or hospitality to strangers? There is a vital reason for being kind to strangers: it makes it easier for them to get the truth. Did not Jesus provide 5,000 free meals for strangers? Jesus’ hospitality was exercised in connection with advancing the good news. So today hospitality can serve as a channel for advancing the good news.

10, 11. In what ways can we show a hospitable spirit toward strangers? What benefit follows?

¹⁰ Many are the ways we can be hospitable and kind. Sometimes brothers invite persons who they believe are lovers of righteousness into their own homes for a meal; they then use the opportunity to open up to them the Scriptures. Not a few employers and fellow workers in factories, stores, etc., have benefited from this hospitality shown by Jehovah’s witnesses.

¹¹ Whenever you do an act of kindness to a stranger he is impressed. He sees that you are different. Your friendly-mindedness and heart-deep kindness contrast with the harshness and coldness of the world. Small acts of kindness bring big results. On a train, for instance, a brother’s helping an elderly man or woman lift a suitcase onto the luggage rack is an act of kindness. A conversation begins, a conversation that turns into a witness. When you go out of your way to give directions to a stranger it leaves a lasting impression; if you have given the stranger some Kingdom literature, he will likely read it with heightened interest because of your kindness. So, often, because of kindness, you open up the way to advance the Kingdom message that would never have existed had you not been kind and hospitable.

12, 13. (a) What parable did Jesus give to illustrate the importance of neighborly hospitality? (b) In contrast to the clergy, how have Jehovah’s witnesses been hospitable to their “half-dead” neighbors?

¹² Because of their kindness and hospitality, Jehovah’s witnesses are like the good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable: “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers, who both stripped him and gave him a beating, and went off, leaving him half-dead. Now, by coincidence, a certain priest was going down over that road, but, when he saw him, he went by on the opposite side. Likewise, a Levite also, when he got down to the place and saw him, went by on the opposite side. But a certain Samaritan traveling the road came down to him and, at seeing him, he was moved with pity. So he approached him and bound up his wounds, pouring oil and wine upon them. Then he mounted him upon his own beast and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said: ‘Take care of him, and whatever you spend besides this, I will repay you when I come back here.’”—Luke 10:30-35, NW.

¹³ Satan’s beastly system of things is responsible for the present “half-dead” condition of the people. Political, commercial and religious highwaymen have robbed and beaten mankind. In spite of all its professed Christian religions, Christendom, like ancient Judah, is a dangerous place in which to live: “The whole head is ailing, and the whole heart sick; from the sole of the foot to the head there is no health in it—nought but blows and bruises and bleeding wounds, that have not been pressed nor bound up nor softened with oil.” Who have shown neighborly hospitality to these “half-dead” people? Not the clergy! The Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religionists, though observing the “half-dead” spiritual condition of the people, and though commenting about it time and again in the pulpit and press, steer clear of the people, remain aloof, refuse to render healing spiritual aid and so have passed them by on the opposite side of the road, just as the Jewish priest and Levite did. But Jehovah’s witnesses, like the good Samaritan, have gone out of their way to help the spiritually half-dead people. With spiritual oil and wine, the healing truths of God’s Word, they have bound up the wounds of those “that sigh and that cry over all the abominations” in antitypical Jerusalem.—Isa. 1:5, 6, AT; Ezek. 9:4, AS.

14. To extend spiritual hospitality, what kind of preparation is important?

¹⁴ We know not where we shall find a “half-dead” stranger who is eager to have his wounds bound up with oil and wine. Just as the Samaritan carried enough oil and wine and was prepared for emergencies, so Jehovah’s witnesses today must always be prepared by having on hand enough oil and wine of God’s Word. Yet sometimes brothers go out in field service without adequate “oil and wine,” and they run out of literature just when they meet a “half-dead” stranger. Some brothers take little or no “oil and wine” with them when they go on a journey. What will they do if they meet a stranger who shows signs of being half-dead spiritually? Since time is limited while you are traveling, it is most difficult to help bind up spiritual wounds unless you have “oil and wine” that can be applied then and there. Even at their homes, brothers sometimes neglect to keep on hand a wide variety of up-to-date Kingdom literature. When a stranger comes to your door, are you supplied with the oil and wine to heal his wounds, whether they are caused by evolution, trinity or spiritism? So be thoughtful. Be prepared. Keep this oil and wine wherever you are, whether on a train, boat or bus, out walking or motoring, or at home. Then when a ‘robbed and beaten’ stranger is found, you will be prepared to be hospitable—anywhere, any time.

15, 16. (a) The Samaritan’s using his “own beast” to bring a stranger to an inn compares with what hospitable act of Jehovah’s witnesses? (b) What quality is a must for servants in a congregation? Why?

¹⁵ The good Samaritan did more than just apply oil and wine; he used his own beast to bring the stranger to an inn, where he could receive better attention. So Jehovah’s witnesses gladly use their own automobiles to help a good-will stranger come to the Kingdom Hall, where he is received hospitably and tenderly cared for. The proprietors of ancient inns were often noted for their hospitality. So servants in a congregation should reflect an inn-like, hospitable spirit. So important is this hospitable spirit that without it one is not qualified to be appointed a servant. At 1 Timothy 3:2 (NW) the apostle explains that everyone who would be an overseer must be “a lover of strangers,” or, as the footnote says, “hospitable.”

¹⁶ What is it that gives a congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses a warmth not found in the world? Is it the Kingdom Hall? No, a Kingdom Hall may be the most beautiful and the newest in the country and still contain the coldest, iciest congregation. Rather, what makes a congregation warm is all the brothers’, especially the servants’, following the course of hospitality.

17. At the Kingdom Hall how can brothers manifest hospitality?

¹⁷ Servants, does an atmosphere of welcome prevail at your Kingdom Hall? Are strangers made to feel right at home? Are they taken on a tour of the hall and the charts, convention pictures, etc., explained? Is the Kingdom Hall opened far enough in advance of a public meeting so that a stranger never has to wait outside? Do the brothers readily share their songbooks and The Watchtower with a stranger? In congregations where the servants make it an unfailing point to welcome all, strangers and brothers alike, there is such a glowing warmth that brothers are reluctant to leave the Kingdom Hall after a meeting.

18, 19. (a) What happens when servants forget to follow the course of hospitality? (b) Without introductions how can reserved brothers find an easy approach to strangers?

¹⁸ But sometimes servants forget the course of hospitality. Then the whole congregation does. And what happens? Instead of the warm, inn-like atmosphere, a Kingdom Hall gets the railroad-station atmosphere. Do you know what that is? You walk into a railroad station. No one pays any attention to you. No one talks to you. You walk near people but no one looks at you or cares that you are there. You sit next to people; they never so much as lift their heads up from what they are reading. If they do and you smile, they do not smile back. It is just a place to sit and wait; and you are always glad when the waiting is over and you can get out. This is a railroad station. Now what would happen if servants ever allowed a Kingdom Hall to get that railroad-station atmosphere—and a stranger walked in?

¹⁹ Why, the stranger would say to himself: ‘Some hospitality! They are kind to me when I talk to them on the street corner or when they come to my door. Now that I’m here in their own midst they don’t even notice me. Maybe they don’t want me. I wonder if I should come back again.’ Yes, that can happen. It has happened. Never let it happen in your congregation. Be on the alert to welcome strangers. If some brothers are naturally reserved, they can find an easy approach to strangers by using questions, such as: “How did you like the talk?” or, “Our meetings are different from those of other religious organizations, aren’t they?” And, of course, there need never be any hesitancy about speaking of the obvious—the weather. After one visit to the Kingdom Hall, a stranger should no longer be a stranger, but welcomed in a warm way, as if he were a brother. “Welcome one another, just as the Christ also welcomed us.”—Rom. 15:7, NW.

20. What does it mean to “follow the course of hospitality”?

²⁰ So we shall indeed do as the apostle commanded: “Follow the course of hospitality.” To “follow” the course of hospitality means more than just having the desire to be hospitable; it means to make a practice of it, to seek after the course, to be ever alert to exercise kindness and to use every opportunity to pour “oil and wine” on the spiritual wounds of strangers. But never think that this enriching course of hospitality is something reserved for strangers. For it is by our kindness and hospitality that we can also show convincing evidence of our brotherly love. “With reference to brotherly love, you do not need us to be writing you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another . . . But we exhort you, brothers, to go on doing it in fuller measure.” By following the course of hospitality toward our brothers, yes, by sharing “with the holy ones according to their needs,” we can show our love “in fuller measure.”—Rom. 12:13; 1 Thess. 4:9, 10, NW.

Sharing Things with Others

1. Explain the difference between worldly and Christian hospitality.

Christian hospitality expresses love; worldly hospitality expresses pride. There is a vast difference between the two. One is prompted by love and kindness, the other by pride and selfishness. Worldlings practice hospitality “in front of men in order to be observed by them.” They often expect recipients to make repayment. ‘I will share a dinner with you, if you will share a dinner with me’ is the essence of the world’s hollowhearted hospitality. But how different the Christian! He shares things with others not because of pride or a desire for repayment but out of deep love for God and man. So while the worldling gives to a man for what he has, the Christian gives to a man for what he is—his neighbor, his brother. The time is soon coming when every living human will follow this Christian course of hospitality and thus be like his Father in heaven.—Matt. 6:1, NW.

2, 3. (a) What feeling manifests itself when one receives the truth? (b) To what full extent have the sheep, in contrast with the goats, responded to the message of the King’s brothers?

² Having received Jehovah’s bountiful spiritual provisions, the right-hearted person feels the urge to be hospitable and to share his material things with others—all for the end result of sharing the good news with others. Was it not the sheep in Jesus’ parable who shared things with the King? Said the King to the sheep: “I became hungry and you gave me something to eat, I got thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; naked, and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to me.” How could the sheep do all this for a heavenly King? “Truly I say to you,” said Jesus, “To the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”—Matt. 25:35, 36, 40, NW.

³ In the parable’s fulfillment, during this time of the end, how true it is! To get the good news preached the King’s brothers, the anointed remnant, have put up with persecutions and hardships. Who came to their aid? The goats? Never! They refuse to share anything, not even sympathy or time, with the King’s brothers. They would no more render help and relief to the King’s spiritual brothers than they would to the King personally if he were upon the earth. But the sheep, grateful for the spiritual riches brought them, respond not only with hospitable aid to the remnant of Christ’s followers but with even more: heart allegiance to their Brother, the King. And so because of the aid and help rendered to the King’s brothers, the King says to the sheep: “Come, you who have my Father’s blessing, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the world’s foundation.”—Matt. 25:34, NW.

4-6. While the Devil’s system of things is still in existence, how can we show that we have the true love of God?

⁴ Sharing things with others, especially with those who are true Christians, obviously has the King’s approval and recommendation. Since the preaching of the good news of the Kingdom is not yet finished, there is still opportunity for sharing things with others to aid them, whether of the remnant or the other sheep, in carrying on the Kingdom work. “Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.”—Gal. 6:10, NW.

⁵ That the doing of good to our brothers embraces the sharing of material provisions there can be no doubt. For in describing true love, the apostle John said: “Whoever has this world’s means for supporting life and beholds his brother having need and yet shuts the door of his tender compassions upon him, in what way does the love of God remain in him? Little children, let us love, neither in word nor with the tongue, but in deed and truth.”—1 John 3:17, 18, NW.

⁶ As love is more than a wag of the tongue, so is an active expression of love: hospitality. “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it. Do not say to your neighbor, ‘Go, and come again, tomorrow I will give it’—when you have it with you.” Hence, one with true love shares things when help is needed; he does not weigh the goods so long that he never shares anything or if he does, it is too little, too late. Since we are still in the Devil’s world, sometimes our brothers, through no laziness or fault of their own, find themselves in desperate need. The cause may be a storm, a flood, a fire, an accident, sickness or persecution. If one sees his brother in such need and withholds help, when it is in his power to give it, “in what way does the love of God remain in him”?—Prov. 3:27, 28, RS.

SHARING “ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS”

7. What is the Scriptural view of sharing things? To follow the admonition what must we overcome?

⁷ To share things with others at the right time and in the right amount, we must battle and overcome the human tendency to be forgetful and thoughtless. Engrossed in his own sphere of activity, each man tends to become unmindful and unalert to the needs of others. So Christians are admonished to keep an eye “not in personal interest upon just your own matters, but also in personal interest upon those of the others.” “Share with the holy ones according to their needs.” “Be liberal, ready to share.” “Do not forget the doing of good and the sharing of things with others.”—Phil. 2:4; Rom. 12:13; 1 Tim. 6:18; Heb. 13:16, NW.

8. With whom can we especially share “according to their needs”? Why is this not favoritism?

⁸ Because of devoting full time to preaching the good news, some brothers may be more in need than others. It is to the needs of these that there is often opportunity to minister. This is not favoritism. It is the Scriptural rule, preserved for our learning at 1 Timothy 5:17, 18 (NW): “Let the older men who preside in a right way be reckoned worthy of double honor,” or, as the footnote adds, “a double reward.” Who especially are worthy of this “double reward”? “Especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. For the Scripture says: ‘You must not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain’; also, ‘The workman is worthy of his wages.’” You know those who work hard. It is not difficult to tell. To take a personal interest in these and to share with them “according to their needs” and yet according to our means is proper and well pleasing to God. It is not favoritism when we render such “double” hospitality to circuit and district servants, missionaries, pioneers and others “who work hard in speaking and teaching” the good news. It is God’s will.

9, 10. (a) What did the apostle, when writing to the congregation, say concerning those who preside in a right way and who work hard in preaching the good news? (b) As with the first-century Christians what privilege is open to us today?

⁹ The apostle often recommended that certain ones, because of their work, be received with generous and understanding hospitality: “I recommend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a minister of the congregation which is in Cenʹchre·ae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the holy ones, and that you may assist her in any matter where she may need you, for she herself also proved to be a defender of many, yes, of me myself.” Paul knew that Phoebe, “a minister” of the Cenʹchre·ae congregation, was a hard worker and that she had often shared her provisions with others, yes, with the apostle himself. Now he recommends that she be received by the brothers in Rome in a manner in which she has received others, “in a way worthy of the holy ones.”—Rom. 16:1, 2, NW.

¹⁰ When the governing body of the first-century Christians dispatched special servants to congregations to minister to their spiritual needs it was the privilege of the brothers concerned to extend hospitality. It is the same today. The governing body sends out special servants, such as circuit and district servants and Bethel brothers to assist congregations spiritually. It is the privilege of the congregations to receive these special servants “in a way worthy of the holy ones,” and to share with them “according to their needs.”

11. (a) What does it mean to share things “according to their needs”? (b) In sharing things what is it that really wins God’s favor?

¹¹ Since Christian hospitality is “according to their needs,” it is liberal yet moderate. We should be ready to share but reasonable in sharing. (Titus 3:2) Be “moderate in habits.” Though liberality is a Scriptural rule, extravagance is not. No one should make himself poor, though it be only temporarily. Sometimes brothers do not offer to share things with others because they feel that what they have to offer is not something special, that it is not a “fatted calf.” Such ones have the wrong attitude. No brother should refrain from entertaining a special servant because what he has to offer is ordinary food. When the Son of God extended hospitality, did he feel that ordinary food was not good enough? Why, the meal that he miraculously provided for the 5,000 was not made up of the “fatted calf” but of bread and fish. Though Jesus, by God’s power, could have provided a banquet as sumptuous as that of the rich Romans, he chose to feed them “according to their needs.” So never feel that you must show off better conditions than are really yours; that would not be following the course of hospitality but the course of pride. Our Christian generosity should be equal to our disposition to economize for the sake of the good news. Then our generosity will never turn into extravagance and our economy never turn into stinginess. When you share, it is not what you share but why you share that counts with God: “If the readiness is there first, it is especially acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what a person does not have.”—1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Cor. 8:12, NW.

12. (a) Explain the Christian way of receiving things. (b) What danger lies in unchecked selfishness?

¹² Just as we must be reasonable in giving, so we must be in receiving. Since we give “in a way worthy of the holy ones,” we should, in like manner, receive. Be reasonable in accepting what is offered. For example, if you have been invited to share another’s food, be moderate, be unselfish. If there are five persons to share a meal and there are only five pieces of meat on the table, the kind thing, the unselfish thing, is to take just one piece, though one’s appetite may crave more. Jehovah hates selfish people. So no greedy person will inherit God’s kingdom. (1 Cor. 6:10, NW) Remember, at the end of the thousand-year reign of Christ it will be an expression of selfishness that will cause numberless humans to share the fate of the Devil. Begin now to root out all forms of selfishness. The more progress we make in that direction now, the better it will be for us when the final test comes. So just as giving requires alert kindness and thoughtfulness, so does receiving.

SHARING “WITHOUT GRUMBLING”

13. For hospitality to count with God how must it be given?

¹³ The unselfish person gives ungrudgingly. “Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” It would seem unnecessary to admonish anyone about ungrudging giving. Yet Peter found it necessary to say: “Be hospitable to one another without grumbling.”—2 Cor. 9:7; 1 Pet. 4:9, NW.

14. (a) Why may some be grudging givers? (b) How can one detect abusers of hospitality, and what Scriptural rule should be applied to them?

¹⁴ Some early Christians must have grumbled when they offered hospitality. They may have been selfish, stingy, miserly. Or possibly they had an experience with an abuser of hospitality, causing them to go “sour.” Certain ones at Thessalonica were “walking disorderly” and were “not working at all.” Some of these may have been spongers, making a living off the hospitality of the brothers. They may have gone to different homes, sponging off the brothers. In any event Paul found it wise to lay down the rule: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” By applying this Scriptural principle no brother need feel that it is dangerous for him to extend hospitality. Why? Because if he is at all discerning he can spot the abuser of hospitality. For the sponger is not spiritually-minded; his conversation is not sincerely theocratic. A lack of spiritual-mindedness is readily detected. But, above all, there is the positive sign of working. A hard worker has no time to sponge because he is too busy providing for his own needs and preaching the good news. A sponger has time to sponge because he is not a hard worker. So there are easy ways to tell those worthy of our hospitality. With these we should share “without grumbling.”—2 Cor. 9:7; 2 Thess. 3:10, 11, NW.

15. What commendation and encouragement did the apostle John give his beloved friend Gaius?

¹⁵ Many are those named in the Bible who esteemed hospitality a great privilege and gave “without grumbling.” To Gaius, the apostle John wrote: “Beloved one, you are doing a faithful work in whatever you do for the brothers, and strangers at that, who have borne witness to your love before the congregation. These you will please send on their way in a manner worthy of God. For it was in behalf of his name that they went forth, not taking any money from the people of the nations. We, therefore, are under obligation to receive such persons hospitably, that we may become workers with them in the truth.” Gaius had shown hospitality to hard workers and now John, who had heard about his marvelous spirit, commends him for “doing a faithful work.” He encourages Gaius further by telling him to keep on receiving the brothers “in a manner worthy of God” himself.—3 John 5-8, NW.

16-18. (a) Who was Lydia, and why should we be like her? (b) How did the apostle Paul view hospitality? Why should we be like him?

¹⁶ Another who showed the right spirit was Lydia. Paul met her at Phi·lipʹpi in Macedonia. She accepted the truth and was baptized. “Now when she and her household got baptized, she said with entreaty: ‘If you men have judged me to be faithful to Jehovah, enter into my house and stay.’ And she just made us come.”—Acts 16:15, NW.

¹⁷ Lydia truly followed the course of hospitality. Paul too showed the right spirit. Lydia considered that it would be a great privilege to entertain these servants of Jehovah. And Paul was not overly anxious; he never acted as though Lydia was under obligation to take him in. Paul never showed any “I-have-it-coming,” “You-owe-it-to-me” attitude. He made not one reference to food and shelter. Lydia herself made the suggestion. How alert she was! She knew Paul needed to eat and that he needed a place to sleep for the night. And Paul, not wishing to be a burden on anyone, no matter how substantial his means, accepted only after she strongly urged him. Luke’s comment—“And she just made us come”—shows what a considerate, warmhearted person Lydia was. Be like her.

¹⁸ We should also be like Paul. He never made anyone feel that he was obligated to the apostle. So never count hospitality as something due you. Never think that brothers owe it to you. For example, if a brother uses his automobile to bring you to a meeting, never think that he is henceforth obligated to do it every week. The proper, unselfish attitude should be: ‘Why, I will walk to meeting rather than be a burden on anyone. If a brother shows me kindness by taking me to meeting in his car, I will thank Jehovah for his gracious kindness; and if he does not do it again, I will not be resentful.’ By our maintaining this unselfish attitude, the brothers who give will feel that what they share is “a bountiful gift and not as something extorted.”—2 Cor. 9:5, NW.

MAKING THE EFFORT

19. When making the effort to be hospitable, what should we keep in mind?

¹⁹ If we wish to share things with others, we must make the effort. This effort should be unembarrassing and easy to accept. Thus, if you invite a fellow hard worker to dinner, instead of saying, “Would you like to have dinner with us?” say, “Come and have dinner with us.” If you mean it say it positively. Remembering the apostle Paul’s attitude about keeping himself unburdensome, you can imagine how he would have responded to a question like, “Would you like to have dinner with us?” Lydia used a positive invitation, and even then she just ‘had to make him come.’

20, 21. (a) Give Bible examples of those who went out of their way to share things. (b) What heartfelt response did their hospitality inspire?

²⁰ To make the effort, at times, requires going out of our way. When Paul wrote Timothy, he mentioned how On·e·siphʹo·rus went out of his way to visit the apostle in prison and to bring him refreshments. “May the Lord grant mercy to the household of On·e·siphʹo·rus, because he often brought me refreshment, and he did not become ashamed of my chains. On the contrary, when he happened to be in Rome, he diligently hunted for me and found me.” In a big city like Rome it took ‘diligent hunting’ to find Paul. But Onesiphorus made the effort. He brought the imprisoned apostle refreshments, not once or twice but “often.” So deeply did this hospitality stir the heart of Paul that he had to exclaim: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from Jehovah in that day.”—2 Tim. 1:16-18, NW.

²¹ Another who went out of the way to make hospitality possible was the Shunammite woman. She observed that Elisha was serving Jehovah. When he passed by, she put forth the effort to ask him in for refreshment. One day she decided that she could do more. So she said to her husband: “See here, I am sure that this is a holy man of God who is continually passing by us. Let us make now a little enclosed roof chamber, and let us put a bed for him there, a table, a chair, and a lamp, so that whenever he comes to us, he can go in there.” One day when Elisha was resting in this chamber he inquired of his hostess if he could render her some kindness in return. She made no request. But through his servant, Elisha learned that the Shunammite had no children and that her husband was advanced in years. He realized what a great blessing it would be for this woman to have a son. The prophet called her and told her that next year she would embrace a son. What a blessed lot was hers! Her fondest hope was realized—just because she made it possible for one of Jehovah’s servants to share her shelter.—2 Ki. 4:9, 10, AT.

22-25. (a) What may be the cause of failure to be “ready to share”? (b) When the apostle Paul fell in need, who were “ready to share” and who were not? (c) Why did the apostle say he “robbed” the Macedonian congregations by accepting their support?

²² When brothers fail to be alertly considerate and “ready to share,” like the Shunammite and Onesiphorus, and they have the means, is it because they are stingy? More likely it is outright thoughtlessness or perhaps lack of maturity. In this regard we are reminded of the Corinthians, when Paul first ministered to them. In spite of part-time work he fell in need. Now the Corinthians were not “ready to share.” They made no effort to share provisions with Paul. Later, when absent from them, Paul felt the need to mention the fact that he had ministered to them without asking for a single thing:

²³ “Did I commit a sin by humbling myself that you might be exalted, because without cost I gladly declared the good news of God to you? Other congregations I robbed by accepting support in order to minister to you; and yet when I was present with you and I fell in need, I did not become a burden to a single one, for the brothers that came from Macedonia abundantly supplied my need.”—2 Cor. 11:7-9, NW.

²⁴ Those words should make us think. The Corinthians failed to think. Paul ministered to them more than a year, yet they never shared with him ‘according to his needs.’ When he fell in need the brothers from Macedonia supplied his provisions and abundantly at that. The hard-hitting statement that Paul “robbed” other congregations by accepting support from them to minister to the Corinthians shows how deeply moved the apostle was. Why so? Not for himself. “I have learned, in whatever circumstances I am, to be self-sufficient. I know indeed how to be low on provisions.”—Phil. 4:11, 12, NW.

²⁵ Here was the thing: The brothers at Corinth apparently had the material means to share things. In fact, the wealth of Corinth was so celebrated as to be proverbial. But the Macedonian congregations—they were poor, very poor, so poor that Paul spoke of their “deep poverty,” which “made the riches of their generosity abound.” Yet despite this extreme poverty the Macedonians begged for the privilege of sharing things; often they gave beyond their actual means. Further, the Macedonian congregations needed what little they had to advance the good news in their own territory, and here they were supporting Paul in a city celebrated for its wealth. The Corinthians could have helped. But Paul, who always wanted the good news to be a free gift, never asked them, and they never offered to help.—2 Cor. 8:1-4, NW.

26. How can Christian congregations today show a “Macedonian” spirit to share?

²⁶ What a contrast! The Corinthians too thoughtless and too immature to think of sharing things and the Macedonians so thoughtful and so mature that they shared things beyond their actual ability. Christian congregations today should be like the Macedonians, thoughtful and alert in sharing things. Some brothers with automobiles readily go out of their way to bring good-will persons to meetings. That is fine. Yet sometimes those who own autos forget that they can share transportation with their own brothers. How wonderful it is when brothers use their cars to help infirm or elderly ones and those who live in out-of-the-way places! Some who neglect the sharing spirit say: ‘Why, if I drove to the edge of town to take an elderly sister home after meeting, I would lose half an hour!’ True, sharing things may take some of your time. But when we go out of our way to help our brothers and we use a few minutes of time, that time is not lost: “Do not forget the doing of good and the sharing of things with others, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.”—Heb. 13:16, NW.

27. What questions concerning sharing things with others should we ask ourselves?

²⁷ Ask yourself now: Do I ever share things with others? Could I? Do I ever go out of my way to show kindness to my brothers? Think upon those questions. And if you have a car and it is raining after a meeting, before you drive off do you make a special effort to inquire whether you can show kindness by giving someone a ride? If you are having a meal and you have a surplus, do you ever think of asking a pioneer to share it with you? If you have surplus clothing, do you ever ask a needy brother if he can use it? Or do you forget to share things with others? Christ’s apostle said: “Do not forget.”

28. To what should congregation servants be alert?

²⁸ If you are a congregation servant and you invite a brother from a neighboring congregation to speak, do you leave it to chance that he will be received hospitably by the brothers? Or do you inform them of their privilege? Can you imagine the Macedonian brothers, despite their poverty, ever putting a visiting minister back on the road with an empty stomach?

ALL THINGS FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOOD NEWS

29. (a) Though brothers share things with us for the sake of the good news, what obligation of ours is not canceled out? (b) How can gratitude, like love, be expressed both in word and in deed?

²⁹ When brothers show us hospitality according to our needs, we know that they do so, in the lofty sense, for the sake of the good news. Knowing this does not nullify our obligation to be grateful; in fact, we should be all the more alert to be grateful. When brothers share things with you, do not forget to express appreciation in words. It was foretold for these “last days” that men would be “without gratitude,” and so they are. (2 Tim. 3:1, 2, NW) But never must those of the New World society be asleep to gratitude! Sometimes we can express appreciation not only by word but by deed. Thus, in riding in an auto with one whom you know is of limited means, such as a pioneer, a reasonable contribution toward gas and oil reflects a grateful spirit. Always remember that if a man shows appreciation for small, even trifling benefits, it shows that he weighs men’s hearts and not their goods, that he values a man for what he is and not for what he has. So gratitude can help us become like our heavenly Father, who looks upon the heart.

30. What blessings stem from sharing things with others for the sake of the good news?

³⁰ Really, hospitality extended for the sake of the good news produces rich blessings. For there is kindled not only a spirit of gratitude to man but, above all, to God. The more grateful we are to God the more our heart widens out, the richer we grow in spiritual discernment. Said Paul: “In everything you are being enriched for every kind of generosity, which produces through us an expression of thanks to God; because the ministry of this public service is not only to supply abundantly the wants of the holy ones but also to be rich with many expressions of thanks to God.” Hospitality, both given and received, thus deepens our love for the One who has put the hospitable spirit in the heart of our brothers, the God of loving-kindness, Jehovah.—2 Cor. 9:11, 12, NW.

31. Why is the sharing of material things not the main objective of the true Christian? What is his primary concern?

³¹ If we are willing to share material things for the sake of the good news, it is unthinkable that we could neglect sharing the good news itself! Still many are the people who think all God requires is that we be kind and do good in a physical way. But in actuality the sharing of the good news of God’s kingdom with others is that by which you save “both yourself and those who listen to you.” There is something defective and incomplete about the love of those who are willing to share physical things but not spiritual, for they are not truly following Christ. (Matt. 19:21) So ministering to bodily needs alone is not enough: “If I give all my belongings to feed others . . . but do not have love [so as to follow Christ by sharing life-giving spiritual things], I am not profited at all.” If we really love God and our neighbor, then, we will do everything, including the sharing of material things with others, for the sake of advancing the good news and so join in with the apostle in affirming: “I do all things for the sake of the good news, that I may become a sharer of it with others.”—1 Tim. 4:16; 1 Cor. 13:3; 9:23, NW.

32, 33. Out of what do a hospitable spirit and a willingness to share grow, but in what do they result? So whom should we be like?

³² How enriching are hospitality and the spirit to share! By showing hospitality to strangers “we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers, . . . by kindness.” By sharing things with our brothers we show love and gratitude and work for the advancement of the good news. Indeed, “in everything you are being enriched for every kind of generosity.” For one thing, you gain the greater happiness: “There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving.” You gain an indescribably rewarding inward joy. You enrich the love of others for you. Above all, you enrich our love for Jehovah by inspiring many ‘expressions of thanks to God.’ Yes, giving enriches those who practice it. Declared Solomon: “One man gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want. A liberal man will be enriched.” So though hospitality and sharing grow out of an awareness of the needs of others, they result in the enriching of the lives of those who practice them.—2 Cor. 6:4-6; 9:11; Acts 20:35, NW; Prov. 11:24, 25, RS.

³³ So why suffer want? Why not be enriched in everything? “Be liberal, ready to share.” “Be hospitable to one another without grumbling.” (1 Tim. 6:18; 1 Pet. 4:9, NW) Be like Abraham who was hospitable to strangers and entertained angels. Be like Lydia who counted hospitality a great privilege. Be like Onesiphorus who opened wide an apostle’s heart because of kindness. Be like the Shunammite who went out of her way to be hospitable and thereby enriched herself with a son. Be like the Macedonians, who, despite their deep poverty, were so alert and so thoughtful to share things with others. Yes, be like your heavenly Father: FOLLOW THE COURSE OF HOSPITALITY!

[Picture on page 56]

I recommend to you Phoebe our sister . . . . .

Questions From Readers

● Hebrews 2:14, speaking about the Devil, says that he has the “power of death.” If this is an absolute power, why does he not destroy all those serving Jehovah? To what extent does Satan have the “power of death”?—E. D., United States.

As to Satan’s “power of death,” please note how Hebrews 2:14 is translated in the New World Translation. Speaking about Jesus, it states: “That through his death he might destroy the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil.” The Devil has “the means to cause death.” From the very beginning of Satan’s career of deception, his lies and his leadings have caused death among mankind, both from Adamic sin and from Satan’s diabolical earthly servants who persecute true worshipers to death at times, even as they did in the case of Christ Jesus. It does not follow that we should conclude from this, however, that Satan can just reach out and kill any individual he wants to. Jehovah protects those belonging to him, not allowing Satan to wipe true worshipers from the earth, though God allows persecution to come upon all of them and death to come to some of them, as a result of Satan’s venomous assaults. Especially is Satan’s power limited since Christ’s enthronement as King in heaven in 1914 and since Satan’s being cast out of heaven. Christ Jesus has the power today to cause death to both Satan and his organization and he will exercise that power when Jehovah’s due time arrives for him to do so.

● Why do Jehovah’s witnesses sometimes count prophetic time on the basis of a “year for a day,” whereas at other times days are interpreted literally?—W. A., United States.

The fact that the rule, “each day for a year,” exists, as recorded at Ezekiel 4:6, does not mean that we can arbitrarily apply that rule in every context throughout the Bible. We must not confuse one Scriptural picture or prophecy with another. The context in each case will indicate whether a time period is figurative or literal. For instance, the context of Daniel chapter 4 concerning the “seven times” or “seven years” shows that in its complete fulfillment all the things foretold were not to come to pass in 2,520 literal days. At the end of that many literal days Jehovah God did not set up over the kingdoms of men the One whom he had chosen, Christ Jesus. It must be, then, that a larger time measurement applies. The rule set forth at Ezekiel 4:6 supplies that larger measurement, and the 2,520 days become 2,520 years, which came to their end A.D. 1914. However, in Revelation 11:1-4 when it speaks of 1,260 days it is evident that this could not be a period of 1,260 years because what is there discussed is all to take place within the limited “time of the end.” Therefore the days, or the forty-two months of thirty days each, are understood to be literal days. Please see the book Light I, pages 189-200.

Jesuits Safe Teachers?

IN THE United States the Jesuits operate forty-three high schools and twenty-eight colleges. The wisdom of parents in sending their children to Jesuit schools may well be questioned in view of their record. In fact their record is such that jesuitical means craftiness and equivocation; a willingness to stoop to any means to realize one’s goals.

A case in point is two bulls issued by Benedict XIV, who ruled just two centuries ago. He is described by The Catholic Encyclopedia as “perhaps the greatest scholar among the popes.” Concerning Benedict and these bulls the Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition, states: “Perhaps the most important act of his pontificate was the promulgation of his famous laws about missions in two bulls, Ex quo singulari and Omnium solicitudium. In these bulls he denounced the custom of accommodating Christian words and usages to express heathen ideas and practices, which had been extensively done by Jesuits in their Indian and Chinese missions. The consequence of these bulls was that most of the so-called converts were lost to the church.”

And that there is no difference in the morality of the Jesuits after two hundred years appears from the report appearing in Time magazine, July 30, 1956, regarding a play written, produced and acted by nuns, which was put on at Notre Dame university. Incidentally, only nuns were allowed to see this play. In it a guardian angel from heaven offered to exchange places with a nun on earth to show the nun how simple a nun’s life really was. But “in no time the angel was in hot water with the mother superior for angelic frankness. When Sister Angelica tells her to stop it, the angel complains: ‘Do you mean I cannot tell the truth in a convent?’ No, says the sister, ‘Use mental reservation . . . a gimmick invented by the Jesuits. Tell as much of the truth as you think advisable, and mentally reserve the rest.’”

In view of the foregoing can it be said that it is wise to send one’s children to Jesuit schools?

Multitude of Gods

Petronius, who lived in the first century of the Christian era, was director of entertainments at the court of Nero. In his Satires, chapter 17, Petronius tells us how he felt about the Roman state religion. “Our country,” wrote Petronius, “is so peopled with divinities that you can find a god more easily than a man.”

Check Your Memory

After reading this issue of “The Watchtower,” do you remember—

✔ How today’s religions show they are more concerned with their standing with the world than with God? P. 35, ¶1.

✔ When the Bible began to be written? P. 36, ¶6.

✔ How Bible publishing houses operated during the first century? P. 37, ¶6.

✔ How a bitter opposer helped to finance Tyndale’s Bible translation? P. 39, ¶4.

✔ Whether all the critics accepted the claim that the movie “The Ten Commandments” holds to the Bible? P. 41, ¶5.

✔ How Hollywood’s “The Ten Commandments” differs from the Bible account? P. 42, ¶4.

✔ What proves that the worship of one God not many, came first? P. 45, ¶2.

✔ How evolution tripped up those who were studying the origin of religion? P. 47, ¶4.

✔ What it means to be hospitable? P. 49, ¶2.

✔ Who show and who do not show spiritual hospitality today? P. 52, ¶13.

✔ What the difference is between the Christian’s hospitality and that of the world? P. 54, ¶1.

✔ What good example Lydia set of showing hospitality? P. 58, ¶17.

✔ Why sharing just material things is not enough? P. 61, ¶31.

✔ When, in counting Biblical time, a day stands for a year? P. 62, ¶5.

Announcements

ACTIVE TRAINING REWARDED BY GOD

All who want approval from God must be training themselves with godly devotion. This kind of training builds up the individual, fitting him for use in God’s service in ever-increasing measure, and “holds promise of the life now and that which is to come.” It is therefore “beneficial for all things.” (1 Tim. 4:7, 8, NW) In keeping with this Bible counsel all of Jehovah’s witnesses actively share regularly in ministerial service by telling others about God’s kingdom and aiding them to become proclaimers and ministers of that glorious kingdom. Without exception, this month they will continue their work of calling on people with lifegiving knowledge, presenting the Watchtower magazine at $1 for a year’s subscription. With each new subscription the valuable 96-page booklet What Do the Scriptures Say About “Survival After Death”? will be given free. This is also a good time for you to send in your subscription and to obtain subscriptions from friends whom you have interested in the good news.

“WATCHTOWER” STUDIES FOR THE WEEKS

February 24: The Course of Hospitality, and Sharing Things with Others, ¶1-6. Page 49.

March 3: Sharing Things with Others, ¶7-33. Page 55.

It Means Your Life!

This magazine, The Watchtower, can point you to life. Read this issue. Note its aim—to increase your knowledge and appreciation of the Bible. See its amazing circulation? Now, send for a year’s subscription. It is only $1. You cannot lose. You can gain your life!

Afrikaans 8,810

Arabic 4,430

Armenian 1,750

Burmese 2,500

Cebu-Visayan 5,870

Chinese 5,500

Cibemba 19,050

Cinyanja 14,980

Cishona 10,700

Danish 30,500

English 1,879,600

Finnish 27,500

French 37,150

German 263,770

Greek 18,700

Hilagaynon-Visayan 510

Hollandish 41,000

Ibo 7,200

Ilocano 13,300

Indonesian 3,400

Italian 27,300

Japanese 7,200

Kanarese 550

Korean 17,010

Malayalam 1,300

Norwegian 14,500

Pangasinan 490

Polish 7,630

Portuguese 80,140

Russian 2,570

Sesotho 7,850

Siamese 2,200

Silozi 1,530

Slovak 1,450

Slovenian 380

Spanish 187,350

Swedish 36,000

Tagalog 9,800

Tamil 1,000

Turkish 1,030

Twi 4,750

Ukrainian 4,130

Urdu 1,000

Xhosa 4,110

Yoruba 22,150

Zulu 17,770

Total Circulation—2,857,410

Mail this coupon and receive free the booklet What Do the Scriptures Say About “Survival After Death”? or three others with a foreign-language subscription.

I am enclosing $1 for a year’s subscription for The Watchtower in the following language . . .

I am to receive free the booklet What Do the Scriptures Say About “Survival After Death”? or three others with a foreign-language subscription.