The Watchtower — August 1, 1960

Do You Turn the Other Cheek?

WHENEVER anyone slaps you on the right cheek, do you turn the other also to him? Jesus in the sermon on the mount set this as a rule of conduct for Christians to follow. Do you practice it? When wronged do you find yourself saying: “Just as he did to me, so I am going to do to him”? Many feel it is necessary to pay back injury for injury and wrong for wrong to keep people from taking advantage. Do you feel that way? Do you think Jesus’ words are pleasant to listen to but impractical to follow?—Prov. 24:29.

Today professing Christians will generally praise the teachings of Jesus as sublime, but they feel that they are impractical in this evil world. As Oliver Wendell Holmes so well expressed it: “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” Pharisee-like, people of Christendom often “say but do not perform.”—Matt. 23:3.

“Since 1914 the world has had a new character . . . it closed a long era of general peace and began a new age of violence,” according to H. R. Trevor-Roper, don at Oxford University. Hand in hand with the age of violence came a new set of standards of conduct: ‘Swindle others before they swindle you.’ ‘Get everything you can, and preserve everything you get.’ ‘Fight fire with fire.’ People have come to be governed by these standards; they are looked on as being more practical. Nikita Khrushchev recently commented on his view of Christ’s teachings and particularly what he thought about turning the other cheek. “I don’t agree with turning the other cheek. If I was struck on the left cheek I would strike the fellow back on the right so hard, what is more, that I would knock his block off.”

Has this ‘be tough’ policy, this ‘doing to others as they do to you,’ reaped peaceful fruit? Is it really practical? The evidence shows it has resulted in an “age of violence.” Fear, distrust and hatred have never been more prevalent. Once started, the cycle of rendering evil for evil, slap for slap, injury for injury rolls along, picking up momentum like a plunging avalanche sweeping into destruction everything and everyone in its path. Once started it is difficult to stop; but it can be stopped. Meditate on Christ’s teachings, consider their value, and then put them into practice.

Jesus said: “Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him.” (Matt. 5:39) Now, Jesus did not say that if someone strikes you on the jaw you should get up off the floor and hold up the other side of your face for a target. No; how foolish and ridiculous that would be! A slap is not intended to injure physically but only to insult or provoke into a fight. What Jesus was saying was that, if anyone tried to provoke you into a fight or an argument, by either literally slapping you with an open hand or stinging you with insulting words, it would be wrong for you to retaliate. “Return evil for evil to no one. . . . Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.” Peter said that Christians would not be “paying back injury for injury or reviling for reviling, but, to the contrary, bestowing a blessing, because you were called to this course, so that you might inherit a blessing.”—Rom. 12:17, 21; 1 Pet. 3:9.

Years ago it was the practice to challenge or provoke another into a duel by slapping him across the face with a glove. Because of pride or fear of public opinion few were enough of a man to turn the other cheek. In France, under Henry IV, it is said that no less than four thousand men lost their lives in just one year fighting duels. Today, in effect, the same thing is done. How fast people and nations take offense and are provoked into fights and wars! It is considered weak to turn the other cheek. How quick persons insulted are in returning insult! The target of a gossiping tongue swiftly becomes the shooter of poisonous words, which wound and kill reputations and friendships. How can this vicious cycle be stopped? Heed Jesus’ instruction to turn the other cheek! Yes, heed the wise proverb: “Do not say: ‘Just as he did to me, so I am going to do to him.’”—Prov. 24:29.

Is following this course practical today? Will not people take advantage of you? Will they not consider you weak if you turn the other cheek? That is generally what is thought, but just the opposite is true. Others will usually respond according to your action. If you are cold and unpleasant, likely you will receive a cold, unpleasant response; but when you are warm and congenial toward others, have you not found that they are usually that way toward you? If others try to begin a cycle of evil by slapping you on the cheek, why let it develop into a cycle? Why not “keep on blessing those who persecute”? It is very difficult to continue hostile toward one who is loving and kind. “If the one hating you [perhaps he has slapped your cheek] is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.” Try this and see if it does not prevent the devilish cycle of evil and put into motion the Christlike method of blessing. Do not give up, but keep it up; “keep conquering the evil with the good.”—Rom. 12:14; Prov. 25:21.

Let Khrushchev and world leaders like him continue to live by their rule of ‘knocking another’s block off if he tries to start something.’ Their course will continue to cause evil feelings, hateful words, and may lead to further conflicts between the nations. It is much better that we as Christians follow the teachings of Jesus not merely as the standard to sail under but as a rudder by which we can steer our course into peace and unity with our fellow man and eventually into God’s new world of peace and righteousness.

Not Forgetting the Name of God

What is God’s name? Why is it vital to honor his name now?

THAT God has a name there can be no doubt. He is not a nameless God. Even though his name is mentioned over 6,800 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is surprising how few persons know of it. The vast majority of mankind call the Creator by his title “God,” and believe this to be his name. Says the Corpus Christi Caller: “Strictly speaking, Christians have no name for the Creator, for the word ‘god,’ an Anglo-Saxon word, literally designates any being or object held to be supernatural, as: pagan gods, the god of war, etc. However, the name God is accepted generally among Christians as the name of the Deity.”

Another striking fact is the absence of the divine name, not only in the extant Greek manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures, but also in the many ancient and modern Bible translations. At the same time, it is impossible to read at any length in the Bible without realizing that God has a name that is to be “hallowed,” “praised,” “exalted,” “made glorious,” and that his name should not be taken in a worthless way. Why, then, is there so much misunderstanding concerning the name of God?

God himself gave his name and revealed the correct pronunciation of it to his prophet Moses. When Moses was sent by God to deliver the children of Israel from bondage in Egypt, Moses said to God: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” God said to Moses: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel: ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to eternity, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” (Ex. 3:13-15) We, therefore, have the Creator’s own words for it that his name is Jehovah.

It is also clear that the prophets of God were acquainted with the name Jehovah and that they preached in that name. They were Jehovah’s witnesses, as Isaiah 43:10-12 states. At Isaiah 42:8 the Creator says: “I am Jehovah. That is my name.” What could possibly be plainer than that? Why, then, is there so much ignorance concerning the name Jehovah?

Dr. Carlyle Adams, in the Albany, New York, Sunday Times-Union, says: “Ancient people—both Hebrews and others—attached tremendous significance to names. A particular person often had both a ‘primary’ and a ‘secondary’ name. The primary name was often guarded as a secret because to reveal it was to yield something of one’s own personal identity or even one’s personal power. Names of tribal chiefs were held in secret by members of the tribe—used only when needed to work some magic power over an enemy. Pagans did the same with secret names of their tribal gods. So, in the days of persecution, the Jewish people under the Roman Empire guarded the Holy Name.”

After the Hebrew Scriptures were written, superstitious Jews considered the name Jehovah too holy even to be pronounced. They avoided pronouncing it because of fear of violating the Third Commandment. (Ex. 20:7) First the common people, who felt themselves unworthy to mention the name, left off pronouncing it. The priests, however, continued to use it in the temple service. The divine name was spoken ten times on the day of atonement and in prayers after the daily sacrifices in the temple. In time even these few instances were eliminated and the people and the priests left off pronouncing the name altogether.

JESUS USED THE NAME

There is ample reason to believe that Jesus and his disciples used the name of God in their ministry. In the Hebrew Scriptures, which Jesus knew and used, the name of God was represented by its four consonants יהוה (JHVH), called the tetragrammaton. Recent findings of remains of a papyrus roll of the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX) containing the second half of the book of Deuteronomy show the tetragrammaton in it in Aramaic characters. This discovery proves that in Jesus’ day copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name where it occurred in the Hebrew original. So when Jesus read out of the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, as Luke’s account says he did, would he avoid pronouncing the name of God because of fear of profaning it or because of some superstition or tradition concerning it? We can hardly imagine that to be the case. Matthew says: “He was teaching them as a person having authority, and not as their scribes.”—Matt. 7:29.

Since Jesus was neither fearful nor superstitious, nor did he have a high regard for human tradition, he most likely did pronounce the divine name in the hearing of all. In prayer to his Father Jehovah, Jesus said: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known.” The Jewish Talmud indirectly admits that Jesus used the divine name when it asserts that his miracles were performed by his pronouncing the name of God.—John 17:6, 26; Matt. 15:1-9.

We have no reason to doubt that, in their teaching and preaching, the disciples of Jesus followed his example closely, which means that they also used God’s name. When they wrote their books that now form the Christian Greek Scriptures, they made hundreds of quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures, and many of these quotations included the divine name. As faithful writers they would be obliged to include the tetragrammaton in their writings whenever they quoted from the Hebrew account. When these letters were read in the Christian congregations, the reader doubtlessly pronounced the divine name.

EXACT PRONUNCIATION LOST

After the death of the apostles, professing Christians left off pronouncing the name. Copyists even removed the divine name in tetragrammaton form from the text. They either did not understand or appreciate the divine name or they developed an aversion to it. The historian Josephus declared that religion forbade him to make known its pronunciation. Superstitious people believed that the one who pronounced the divine name with its own letters would not have a part in the world to come. Philo calls the name “ineffable,” to be spoken only by those whose ears and tongues are purified by wisdom to hear and utter it in a holy place. Those who used the name unseasonably were sentenced to death, he says. So those who were assigned to read the Scriptures were careful not to pronounce the divine name. Whenever they came across the tetragrammaton, JHVH, they studiously substituted the Hebrew words Adonayʹ, meaning Lord, and Elohím, which means God. To remind them to make this substitution the vowel points of Adonayʹ were placed under the consonants of the tetragrammaton.

Hebrew, like other Semitic languages, has no vowel letters, but even in early times vowel signs were used. These vowels, according to Adams, “are indicated by ‘points’ or little symbols—usually dots, resembling small periods. So when scholars of the early Modern Age began translating the Bible into English they devised what were sometimes wrong interpretations of the vowels.” The name-form Jehovah came to be when early translators took the vowels of Adonayʹ and inserted them between the consonants JHVH, and then changed the original “a” to “e” to aid in pronunciation of the name. Recent discoveries show this form of the name as early as A.D. 1270 in Raymond Martini’s Pugio Fidei. So the name-form Jehovah is one of long usage.

Notwithstanding, it is almost certain that the name of God was originally pronounced “Yah·wehʹ.” (In “Jehovah” the sound of “Y” is represented by “J” and the sound of “W” by “V,” as in Latin.) The Encyclopædia Britannica says: “It is now generally agreed that Jahwe (Yahwe) is the true pronunciation.” The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states: “Yahveh is the most probable transliteration of the ancient Hebrew name for God.” Bible translator J. B. Rotherham said: “The true pronunciation seems to have been Yahwe.” The Catholic Encyclopedia declares: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament. . . . Inserting the vowels of Jabe [the Samaritan pronunciation] into the original Hebrew consonant text, we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh), which has been generally accepted by modern scholars as the true pronunciation of the Divine name.” The New World Bible Translation Committee stated: “While inclining to view the pronunciation ‘Yah·wehʹ” as the more correct way, we have retained the form ‘Jehovah’ because of people’s familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton JHVH.”

FORGETTING THE NAME

The first English version of the entire Hebrew Scriptures translated direct from the Hebrew text appears to be that of the popular King James Version, published in 1611. The name Jehovah appears in it only four times. For this reason the name Jehovah has been obscured for many centuries. Recently the translators of the Revised Standard Version have deleted the name from the text altogether.

Since the fourth century the triune-god or the trinitarian concept of the deity has gained ground. It is this mythical or fictitious deity that Christendom’s clergy call “god” and “lord.” Jehovah is looked down upon as the tribal god of the Jews. His name is reproached and vilified. People are doing their best to forget it. But Jehovah, true to his promise at Acts 15:14, has a name people on earth today, namely, Jehovah’s witnesses, who are dedicated to the very purpose of making known Jehovah’s name and purpose in all the earth. And he himself will vindicate it in the “war of the great day of God the Almighty” when he destroys all who refuse to honor his name. Jehovah’s very Word assures us that his name will not be forgotten, for he says: “The earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea.” Then none will say: “Know Jehovah!” for “they will all of them know me, from the least one of them even to the greatest one of them,” is Jehovah’s promise.—Isa. 11:9; Jer. 31:34; Ex. 9:16.

Establishing the Ancient State of Israel

JEHOVAH’S dealings with the ancient “state of Israel” are shown by Paul to be a “shadow of the things to come.” Now that the theocratic government of the new world is rapidly taking form in our own day, modern Christians are intensely interested in the legal steps taken by the Sovereign Majesty to establish that ancient typical government.—Eph. 2:12; Col. 2:17.

As we now know, legal procedures accepted under patriarchal customs and in accord with divine justice were employed by God in producing this new state some thirty-four hundred years ago. A preliminary step was taken to produce a legal person in the sight of God with whom Jehovah could enter into a basic valid covenant. Such a one proved to be the patriarch Abraham. After Jehovah had put Abraham to the test by asking him to leave his native land of Ur, Jehovah found him to be faithful and therefore legally recognized him as God’s “friend,” declaring him righteous by faith.—Jas. 2:23.

The covenant promise with Abraham began when Abraham completed his exodus from Mesopotamia by crossing the river Euphrates into the land of Canaan, Nisan 14, 1943 B.C. Later in Canaan this covenant was ratified according to patriarchal law when both Abraham and Jehovah passed between the halves of cut-open animals to establish the necessary sacrificial basis to bind this covenant legally. Jehovah now legally became Abraham’s powerful protector and benefactor. The resultant patriarchal society built around Abraham remained nomadic, not becoming subjected to any of the pagan city-states of Canaan. Why? Because Abraham was “awaiting the city having real foundations and the builder and creator of which is God.”—Gen. 12:1-5; 15:9-18; Heb. 11:10.

It was 215 years later that Abraham’s descendants went into Egypt to become servants of Pharaoh by reason of the food shortage in Palestine. In Egypt for another 215 years they became a large slave society. Before this period came to an end Jehovah commissioned Moses at the “burning thornbush” to serve notice on Pharaoh that Jehovah was “reclaiming” Israel in accordance with patriarchal law, which provided for a near relative to reclaim or repurchase relatives that had become slaves. “And you must say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what Jehovah has said: “Israel is my son, my first-born. And I say to you: Send my son away that he may serve me. But should you refuse to send him away, here I am killing your son, your first-born.”’” This warning implied that Jehovah as the rightful repurchaser would use punitive force if Pharaoh refused to release Israel, God’s legal “son” under the Abrahamic covenant.—Gen. 46:1-7; Ex. 6:2-7; 4:22, 23.

Because Pharaoh hardened his heart against Jehovah it became necessary for the true God to use his almighty power to deliver Israel by force and thus enforce his legal claim. By means of the blood covering of the passover lambs the firstborn of Israel were preserved on the night of Nisan 14, 1513 B.C., exactly 430 years to the day after Abraham completed his exodus from Mesopotamia, and thus the Israelites themselves began their own exodus as a delivered people out of Egypt. As Pharaoh had been warned, on that same night Egypt suffered the loss of their firstborn of both man and beast. In the final contest of power at the Red Sea Egypt lost its army in total defeat and Israel moved forward in their exodus as a freed people of some two millions belonging to the God of Abraham.—Ex. 12:13, 29, 40, 41; 14:27, 28.

FORMING THE STATE

By every right the people of Israel now had become the exclusive property of Jehovah. No longer were they a society of slaves in Egypt. They were too numerous to be effectively organized as a patriarchal society. Steps were now taken to form the state of Israel with a theocratic government. Through mediator Moses Jehovah next proposed a national covenant, to which the people unanimously said: “All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do.” At Mt. Sinai, amidst a spectacular inauguration in the third month after coming out of Egypt in 1513 B.C., the Law covenant went into effect between Jehovah, the Theocrat, and the people of Israel. The blood of bulls and goats was used to sprinkle the “book of the covenant,” representing Jehovah’s side, and then the people were sprinkled as the other party, thus bringing about a sacrificial basis to legally validate the national covenant. The covenant contained a basic set of commandments, the Ten Words, and a further detailed code of some six hundred laws, statutes, regulations and judicial decisions.—Ex. 19:8; 24:6-8; Deut. 5:22; 6:1.

Supernaturally there was a loud trumpet sound at Mt. Sinai to signify that governmental control by the Sovereign Power had become effective. Thus the ancient state of Israel became a reality in 1513 B.C. Jehovah was the immediate Sovereign Ruler over the nation, with the people as his sworn subjects. Jehovah was their Lawgiver, their Judge and their King. The Law covenant as a constitution vested no authority in any one man or any parliamentary body of men, nor even in the whole assembled nation, to make any new laws or alter old ones. The reigning Sovereign reserved the legislative power exclusively to himself. Likewise, the Sovereign reserved to himself the final judicial power. Jehovah became the Supreme Court, making all final infallible judicial decisions. The theocratic constitution likewise recognized no one hereditary chief magistrate nor gave power to any, even to the whole nation, to elect a supreme governor. It was the special prerogative of Jehovah to appoint whomever he pleased to guide the people as judge, his own immediate administrator. During the first five hundred years of this government many faithful men were raised up to lead the nation as the circumstances of the state required, and they performed many remarkable deliverances for their countrymen.—Ex. 19:19; Isa. 33:22; Acts 7:35; 13:20.

The Law covenant constitution, however, did make provision for a future dynasty of Israelite kings to be chosen in Jehovah’s due time. This line of kings began with David in 1077 B.C. They were not absolute monarchs as were neighboring pagan kings, nor were they to be deified or to unite in themselves the office of high priest with that of the kingship. The dynasty of constitutional kings was to be kept separate from the dynasty of high priests. Furthermore, their station was that of a consort king in that they sat upon “Jehovah’s throne,” not their own throne, and were in subjection to the higher will and governmental direction of the true Sovereign of the state, King Jehovah.—Deut. 17:14, 15; 1 Chron. 29:23.

Under this new theocratic government idolatry not only became a grave moral wrong, but also became an act of treason against the state. Idolatry was a virtual rejection of the authority of their acknowledged Sovereign and God-King. It was committing lese majesty. It was a breach of the national covenant, an open rebellion against God. Therefore, on the established principles of all earthly governments, such lese majesty merited capital punishment. The state of Israel through its officers and the community were empowered to administer punishments in various ways upon law violators after the courts found them guilty.—Ex. 20:2-5.

In order to keep their relationship toward their God constantly before their eyes, the Most High as their King caused a royal tent to be erected in the midst of their encampment. Later it was the gorgeous royal palace or temple built at the capital city of Jerusalem. These regal residences of the Sovereign Jehovah were equipped with all the splendor of royalty surpassing those of earthly Gentile potentates. The palace was divided into two compartments. In the innermost room, the Most Holy, was the royal throne adorned by golden cherubs. The throne was the lid of the ark of the covenant, which as a royal archive contained the governmental reminders of the two tables of stone of the Ten Words, Aaron’s rod that budded and the bowl of manna. The second compartment amounted to the state banquet hall known as the Holy. In this anteroom a gilded table was spread with bread of presence as the royal table, and precious incense was burned daily. The exterior courtyard might be considered the royal outdoor kitchen, where the sacrifices were prepared and burned. Here also music was played and sung, by instruments and chorus, similar to musical performances at the tables of eastern monarchs.—Heb. 9:1-5.

PRIESTS AND LEVITES

The state of Israel also had an official priesthood vested in the paternal house of Aaron, to whose family the line of the high priesthood was limited. High Priest Aaron and his successors served as the chief officer of the court of law and the first minister of state under Jehovah the King. It was the high priest who wore on high state occasions the costly state garments and the state crown of gold reading across the shining plate, “Holiness belongs to Jehovah.” He too wore the breastpiece that contained the Urim and the Thummim in its pouch to enable him to receive Jehovah’s “yes” or “no” to state problems presented to the divine Majesty in his palace.—Ex. 28:4, 29, 30, 36.

The assistant ministers of the priesthood were the males of the tribe of Levi set aside by Jehovah for temple duties and other state service. These Levites served as Jehovah’s courtiers, state officers and palace guards. They also looked after the sacred robes and utensils, were the royal bakers of the bread of presence, assisted in preparing the meal or grain offerings, took charge of the treasury and served as temple musicians and singers. When not serving at the sacred palace in their semiannual weekly course of temple duties, the underpriests and Levites were scattered throughout the land as educators in the law; they supervised the gathering of the tithes of produce into the various storehouses, served as local judges in many cities and took charge of the six cities of refuge. This department of the state government of Israel was also responsible for quarantining those with contagious diseases, that the national health might be maintained.—Num. 3:9, 10.

The Law covenant finally required all the Hebrew males of certain ages to report to Jehovah’s palace every year on the three great annual festivals. They were to come with presents (sacrifices and gifts) to render homage to their God-King. Furthermore, these days of renewing their allegiance to Jehovah were to be celebrated with festivity and joy. The law provided for the second tithe to be spent in providing the expenses necessary for those happy occasions.—Deut. 16:16, 17; 14:22-26.

There was also an advisory group of state officials made up of the princes of the nation. Each of the twelve tribes had their hereditary prince (sar). The high priest served at times as their spokesman, being considered the prince of the thirteenth tribe of Levi. Others likewise served as princes, such as the rulers over the tribal divisions of a thousand and lesser sections of the army. This group of princes did not act as a parliament to make or cancel laws. They were merely administrative servants who carried out orders and abided by decisions already rendered by the divine Sovereign. The princes brought tribal offerings to Jehovah, furnished military leadership, confirmed treaties already negotiated, such as the treaty with the Gibeonites, heard the judicial case of Zelophehad’s daughters, and as a committee under the headship of the high priest reproved the tribe of Reuben for building a separate altar. In later times the group of princes gave counsel to the kings who sat as administrators on Jehovah’s throne.—Num. 1:16; Josh. 9:15; 17:4; 22:13-16.

A final outstanding feature of the ancient state of Israel was that it had an assigned invisible angelic prince. Obedience to the direction of this angel prince was commanded by the Sovereign in the Law covenant constitution. “Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, because my name is within him.” The Bible identifies this prince as Michael. Later this angel prince was transferred to earth as a human, becoming Jesus Christ the promised Messiah. History attests that his expert leadership as angel prince and as Messiah was rejected by Israel as a whole.—Ex. 23:20, 21; Dan. 10:21.

For the first forty years of its existence the state of Israel governed a nomadic society on the move in the wilderness of Sinai. Then in 1473 B.C. the Israelites entered the land of Canaan promised to Abraham and conquered it in accord with their Sovereign’s orders and with His help.

After Joshua’s death, time and again the people of Israel deflected away from their God-King, and sections of their land would be sold to their enemies; then after due repentance Jehovah would deliver them and strengthen the operation of the state. Over the centuries their iniquity became so great that Jehovah permitted the last vestiges of the theocratic state to be fully destroyed in 607 B.C. It was after 906 years of their continuous statehood that theocratic government ceased from the earth. This is five times longer than the statehood of the United States and longer than the world powers of Babylon, Assyria, Medo-Persia and Greece under their respective demon princes. No independent sovereign state was re-established in 537 B.C. Rather, a Hebrew commonwealth under Gentile suzerainty was set up permitting the Law covenant to operate as a secondary legal structure subordinate to the dominant non-Israelite powers. All traces of the operation of Israel’s matchless ancient law came to an end with the second fall of Jerusalem A.D. 70.—2 Chron. 36:15-17.

The question now remains, Was this ancient state of Israel “the city having real foundations” that Abraham was awaiting? No. Israel’s theocratic state was merely a “shadow” or a type of the real “city,” the heavenly “New Jerusalem,” the theocratic government of the new world. Learn about this amazing new government which must fill the whole earth with its rule and which lasts forever.—Heb. 11:10.

“Creating New Heavens and a New Earth”

NO MAN or group of men called governments can create the promised “new heavens and a new earth.” Who, then, can create a new world of righteousness? The One who has promised to do so, the One of whom an angel from heaven said: “With God no declaration will be an impossibility.” We can have complete confidence in Jehovah God’s declaration: “For here I am creating new heavens and a new earth.” What is the “new heavens”? What is the “new earth”? When does the creating of these take place?—Luke 1:37; Isa. 65:17.

A world, according to the Scriptures, is made up of “heavens” and an “earth.” The “heavens,” that part of a world invisible to human eyes, stands for or represents the spiritual ruling powers. The present “heavens” of this old world are wicked and are doomed to pass away. Why? Because Satan the Devil and his demons are “the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places,” the “heavens” of this evil world.—Eph. 6:12.

The “earth” of this wicked world is the human society over which Satan tries to rule as the “ruler of the authority of the air.” No wonder God has promised that “the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men”! After telling of the destruction of the wicked “heavens” and “earth,” the apostle Peter went on to say: “But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell.” How thrilling to know that the creating of the “new heavens and a new earth” is already under way!—Eph. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:7, 13.

Since the true Christians in Peter’s day were still “awaiting” the promised new world, the promised “new heavens and a new earth” had not been established in the apostle’s day. God had already taken certain preliminary steps, however, toward creating the “new heavens.”

THE “NEW HEAVENS”

What are the “new heavens”? They are the new spiritual governing powers that God has ordained to rule the righteous new world. They are a heavenly government. The “new heavens,” then, stand for what Jesus Christ called the “kingdom of the heavens,” and for which he taught his followers to pray in these words: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your kingdom come. Let your will come to pass, as in heaven, also upon earth.” So God’s purpose in creating the “new heavens” or the “kingdom of the heavens” is that his divine will may be done on earth as well as in heaven.—Matt. 13:31; 6:9, 10.

Well, then, what preparatory steps had God taken in the first century of the Christian era toward the creating of the “new heavens”? The first took place at the Jordan River A.D. 29; this was when God begot his dedicated, baptized Son Jesus with his holy spirit, thus anointing him to become King in the heavens of the new world. Ah, no wonder “righteousness is to dwell” in the new world! The new world’s King is none other than the tried and tested Jesus Christ, the One who proved his love for righteousness by keeping integrity toward his Father’s universal sovereignty, though it meant death on the torture stake at Calvary. Of this King of kings it is written: “God is your throne forever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of straight principles. You loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.”—Heb. 1:8, 9.

Who besides the King Jesus Christ constitute the “new heavens”? The angels in heaven? No, God has purposed that the “new heavens” or Kingdom government would be made up of the King together with a limited number of “a new creation.” The small number of those who would make up the “new creation” are taken from among mankind. The number of those who will be joint heirs with Christ in the heavenly kingdom is small in comparison with the billions of mankind that will eventually gain everlasting life on this earth. So Jesus Christ said to the anointed Christians: “Have no fear, little flock, because your Father has approved of giving you the kingdom.” In the book of Revelation the number of this “little flock” is given as “the hundred and forty-four thousand, who have been purchased from the earth. . . . These were purchased from among mankind as a firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.” Thus the “new heavens” will be made up of Jesus Christ and his 144,000, the “joint heirs with Christ.”—2 Cor. 5:17; Luke 12:32; Rev. 14:3, 4; Rom. 8:17.

God took another preparatory step toward creating the “new heavens” A.D. 33. This was when Jehovah himself directly resurrected his Son from the dead. After a period of forty days Jesus ascended to heaven, there to sit at the right hand of God until the time came for the planting of the “new heavens”: “He sat down on the right hand of the majesty in lofty places. But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet’?”—Heb. 1:3, 13.

Can it be said, then, that the foundation of the new world was laid A.D. 33, when Jesus ascended to heaven to present the merit of his perfect human life to his Father and to sit “on the right hand of the majesty in lofty places”? Yes, but only in a first-stage way. The complete laying of the new world’s foundation could take place only when the “new heavens” begin to operate. This would be when God’s promise at Isaiah 51:16 regarding the “new heavens” would be fulfilled: “I shall put my words in your mouth, and with the shadow of my hand I shall certainly cover you, in order to plant the heavens and lay the foundation of the earth and say to Zion: ‘You are my people.’” So only by the planting of the “new heavens” could the new world’s foundation be laid in a complete or final way.

PLANTING AND ENLARGING THE “NEW HEAVENS”

Has this promised planting of the “new heavens” taken place? Indeed it has! It was A.D. 1914, as this journal has often explained, when Jehovah empowered his Son to rule as King, giving him “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Dan. 7:14, AS) The book of Revelation, in symbolic language, describes God’s woman Zion or his heavenly universal organization giving birth to the Kingdom: “She gave birth to a son, a male, who is destined to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne.”—Rev. 12:5.

The male-child Kingdom is “caught away to God and to his throne.” This shows that Jehovah himself is the one installing the “new heavens.” The date A.D. 1914 thus marks (1) the creating of the “new heavens” and (2) the preliminary to a full-scale laying of the new world’s foundation.

But the “new heavens” are not made up of the King Jesus Christ alone. The time soon came for Jehovah to enlarge the “new heavens.” How? By raising to heavenly life Jesus’ faithful anointed followers who had been sleeping in death and by admitting them to his royal Son’s presence at God’s spiritual temple or palace.

When did this enlarging of the “new heavens” take place? It was A.D. 1918. How do we know? A parallelism of events helps us know the date. Jesus Christ was anointed with God’s spirit to be King A.D. 29. Three and a half years later, or A.D. 33, Jesus proceeded to the temple at Jerusalem. He cleansed the temple of those who were making it a “cave of robbers.” Rejected as King by the Jewish leaders, Jesus was put to death a few days thereafter. At his death an earthquake rocked Jerusalem and the curtain of the temple sanctuary was rent down the middle, picturing that God’s wrath was against the killers of His Son.—Luke 19:46; Matt. 27:51.

In a time parallel, Jesus Christ was enthroned as King in heaven A.D. 1914. Three and a half years later, or in 1918, would be the time for him to come to God’s spiritual temple. Would Christendom’s rulers receive him or reject him as King? They rejected him and showed it by killing the work of Jehovah’s witnesses concerning the Kingdom. Just as the Jewish leaders’ rejection of Jesus could not prevent God’s raising of his Son from the dead, so Christendom’s rejection of the King could not prevent God from raising Jesus’ faithful followers from the dead. So in harmony with the picture of 1900 years ago, it was only a short time after the temple’s cleansing in 1918 that the heavenly resurrection of the anointed Christians sleeping in death took place, unseen to human eyes. The nations were then at war: “‘But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged’ . . . And the temple sanctuary of God that is in heaven was opened.” (Rev. 11:18, 19) The spring of A.D. 1918 marked the opening of the temple to the King’s entrance and thereafter the resurrection of the anointed Christians who, along with Jesus, make up “the temple of the living God.”—2 Cor. 6:16.

What, then, is the relationship between the “new heavens” and God’s spiritual temple? This: God’s spiritual temple or palace, made up of Jesus Christ, the Foundation Cornerstone, and 144,000 “living stones,” will everlastingly be the “new heavens” of the new world!—Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:5.

FOUNDING THE “NEW EARTH”

We remember that Jehovah promised not only to plant the “new heavens” but also to “lay the foundation of the earth,” that is, the “new earth.” When Jesus came to God’s spiritual temple in 1918 for the purpose of judging men, Christendom was rejected. A remnant of Jesus’ anointed followers on earth passed that temple judgment and were cleansed and purified and sent forth as Jehovah’s witnesses, as visible representatives of the “new heavens.” During the high point of World War I the spiritual remnant were practically silent, and they were in captivity to symbolic Babylon, Satan’s world. But in 1919 Jehovah regathered his disorganized people, increased their numbers and organized them for Kingdom preaching. What does this have to do with founding the “new earth”? The restoring of the spiritual remnant from antitypical Babylon from 1919 forward is the founding of the “new earth.”

Jehovah’s dealings with the restored remnant in 1919 thus brought about the phenomena of a nation’s being “born at one stroke” and a land’s being brought forth “in one day.” Foretold God’s prophet: “Who has seen things like these? Will a land be brought forth with labor pains in one day? Or will a nation be born at one stroke?” (Isa. 66:8) The “land” brought forth in one day, the “day of Jehovah,” is the earthly position occupied by the restored remnant of God’s spiritual nation, that is, the remaining ones of the “little flock” on earth. So the first ones to inhabit the new earthly situation are the “nation” that is brought forth at once, the anointed followers of Jesus that are alive on earth at his coming to the temple and that serve as the “faithful and discreet slave” class. (Matt. 24:45-47) To this spiritual nation a great crowd of sheeplike persons have come, and upon the foundation of the newborn nation a new-world society has been built. Right now, before Armageddon, we thus behold the spectacle of a “new earth” crowd of inhabitants rapidly growing amidst a dying corrupt old world.

What is the hope of this “great crowd” of sheeplike persons that come “out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues” to associate with the New World society? Their hope is to live in the new world and to enjoy everlasting life on earth. They expect to survive Armageddon along with the remnant of God’s spiritual nation. They keenly look forward to the time when, after the old, wicked “earth” is destroyed, the remnant dedicate the “new earth” to Jehovah’s worship. The remnant, in Jehovah’s due time, will leave the post-Armageddon “new earth,” that they may be with the King Jesus Christ in the eternal “new heavens.” The “new earth,” then, will eventually be made up entirely of the “other sheep” for whom the Right Shepherd Jesus Christ died. (John 10:16) These “other sheep” will include not only the “great crowd” of Armageddon survivors and their offspring but also those who are brought back from the dead in the “resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.”—Rev. 7:9; Acts 24:15.

How thrilling that the creating of “new heavens and a new earth” is under way! Soon now the vision of the apostle John will be realized: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more.” (Rev. 21:1) The “former heaven” is Satan and his demons; the “former earth” that passes away at Armageddon is the old-world society organized in support of Satan’s world. The “sea” is symbolic of the wicked element of mankind that will be “no more.” (Isa. 57:20) Wickedness will be gone, for of the “new heavens” and the “new earth” Peter wrote: “In these righteousness is to dwell.” (2 Pet. 3:13) Now is the time to tell others of the best news in all the world: God’s creating of “new heavens and a new earth”!

“For just as the new heavens and the new earth that I am making are standing before me,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “so the offspring of you people and the name of you people will keep standing.”—Isa. 66:22.

Using Initiative and Defense in Our Ministry

GOOD soldiers are skilled in using both initiative and defense in their warfare.a More than that, they know that the best defense is to take the offensive or the initiative. In this respect Jesus and his apostles set the example for us. Certainly Jesus took the initiative when he entered the synagogue of his home town of Nazareth and applied Isaiah 61:1, 2 to himself.—Luke 4:14-21.

By sending forth the twelve and later the seventy, Jesus, as a good Teacher, was training them to take the initiative, even as Peter and others did at Pentecost. In particular did the apostle Paul take the initiative, going where the need was greatest.

What about us today? Do we dedicated Christian ministers take the initiative by regularly and eagerly engaging in all the various features of the Kingdom ministry, house-to-house preaching, distributing Bible magazines, making return visits upon good-will persons and conducting Bible studies in their homes? Would it be possible for us to be like the apostle Paul and go ‘where the need is great,’ or is at least greater than where we now are? Do we take the initiative in inviting others to share in the ministry or do we wait until they ask us, as happens at times?

Using initiative is particularly essential if we would make the most of our opportunities to do incidental witnessing. Do not wait until your traveling companion, working associate or other “neighbor” starts a conversation and broaches the subject of religion, but take the initiative, tactfully start a conversation and then casually, seemingly, bring it around to the Kingdom hope. Those who do this have many interesting experiences and often get remarkable results. Such was the experience of a missionary who witnessed to his traveling companion in a taxicab. It was the first time the man had been presented with the good news; now he is a zealous dedicated publisher.

What about our defense? Are we ‘always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of us a reason for our hope, doing so with a mild temper and deep respect’? (1 Pet. 3:15) For our defense to be truly effective we must study diligently; we must do our ‘utmost to present ourselves approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright.’ Only by diligently applying ourselves, preparing for the meetings, attending and taking part in them, will we have the accurate knowledge so essential to wielding the sword of the spirit in such a way that it is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword.—2 Tim. 2:15; Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12.

Particularly should we guard against slighting this sword of the spirit because of liking to talk and reason on subjects. Whatever we may say along such lines cannot begin to carry the authority and power that citing, quoting and reading from the Bible can. We may not always have our Bibles with us, so we should have an adequate Scripture vocabulary for the various basic teachings of the Scriptures, such as the importance of the name of Jehovah and its vindication, the Kingdom hope, the resurrection, and so forth. We should likewise be equipped to refute effectively popular false doctrines. And as time goes on we should increase our Scripture vocabulary, even as all intelligent persons keep adding to their vocabulary of words.

In all such ways Christian ministers during August can be alert and be using initiative and defense for fruitful preaching.

[Footnotes]

The Unity of the Christian Church

“I have given them the glory which you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.”—John 17:22.

1. Why can Jehovah be called the great Unifier?

JEHOVAH is the great Unifier. He is the One who in a marvelous way is able to combine intelligent creatures into a unity for whatever purpose he desires. For millions of years before man ever saw the light of day, Jehovah had worked in perfect union with his first-born Son, through whom he created everything. As Jehovah’s work of creation proceeded and the number of intelligent creatures increased in the universe, it did not lead to confusion. Jehovah united them all into a harmonious, smoothly operating unity by binding them to him and to one another with bonds of love. To illustrate this happy union, he speaks of his universal organization of faithful heavenly creatures as his wife with whom he is united in happy wedlock.—Col. 1:16; 1 John 4:8, 11-13; Isa. 54:5, 6.

2. What is the strongest tie for making a unity of people, and how did Israel become the only true congregation or church of God in its days?

² When Jehovah God began building the human society, he started out with the smallest unit of it, the marriage union, which normally is one of the strongest of the unions man is part of. This is so because the binding factor in marriage is love, and that is the strongest cement any unity of creatures can have. In fact, it is the only basis on which any unity can last. Drawing larger circles, parents and children are bound together by strong ties of love into the family union, and it was the families or tribes of the twelve sons of Jacob, the patriarch, that Jehovah God bound together into a national unity. An agreement or a covenant was made between him and the Israelites to the effect that he should be not only their King but also their God; and that made Israel not only a nation but also a congregation or church of God, the only true church of that time.—Gen. 2:24; Ex. 19:5, 6, 8; 20:1, 2; Acts 7:38; Ps. 147:20.

3. Was Jehovah nationalistic in selecting Israel as his congregation?

³ Why did Jehovah select the nation of Israel to make a church or congregation out of it? Was he a nationalistic God? No, he was not. It was because of a promise given to his friend Abraham, the forefather of the Israelites, that they were permitted to make up the body of that new church. But Jehovah did not in a nationalistic spirit prevent non-Israelites from becoming members of the only true church by circumcision. All God-fearing people who wanted to join with Israel in worshiping the true God were accepted regardless of nationality and race, previous religion or political affiliations. Provisions were made for making all such circumcised foreigners a part of the unity God had with Israel by constitutionally providing a place for them within the congregational organization under which Israel was. Israel was told to love the stranger just as Jehovah loved him. Neither did God show consideration for nationality or race by forming separate unities or churches with his circumcised worshipers of non-Israelite origin. There was but one temple where God could be met, one high priest, one Law, one unity or church for all worshipers to be united in. The Bible record shows that some peoples and tribes, such as the mixed crowd that came out of Egypt, the circumcised Gibeonites and circumcised Rechabites as well as many individuals like the women Rahab and Ruth, became a unity with Israel. Thus Jehovah proved to be the first successful Uniter of nations.—Deut. 10:17-19; 1 Ki. 8:41-43; Ex. 12:38; 2 Sam. 21:1, 2; Jer. 35:18, 19.

4. How did the Christian congregation get to be God’s true church?

⁴ The Jewish church or congregation, however, did not show love for Jehovah in the long run; and consequently it was severed from its union with him, and the Christian congregation became the true church of God as of Pentecost A.D. 33.

UNITY

5, 6. How do we know that the congregation of God must be one, and who is included in the oneness?

⁵ Outstanding about the early Christian church was its unity. First of all, it was united with Jehovah God and Christ Jesus, and that is the most important of all unions. Jesus emphasized this unity in his illustration of the vine: “I am the vine, you are the branches. He that remains in union with me, and I in union with him, this one bears much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing at all. If anyone does not remain in union with me, he is cast out.”—John 15:4-6.

⁶ A union with Christ must also lead to unity among those united with him. So in his prayer immediately before he was betrayed, Jesus asks for such unity among his followers, saying: “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. Also I have given them the glory which you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, that the world may have the knowledge that you sent me forth and that you loved them just as you loved me.” Notice the directions this oneness takes. All his followers should be one; not only those living then, but also those putting faith in him through their, that is, his disciples’, word; whereby the oneness reaches into the future and includes all true Christians living today. At the same time it reaches into heaven to include Jesus Christ and Jehovah God, in order that his followers may be, as Jesus said, “in union with us.”—John 17:20-23.

EXTENT OF UNITY

7. What makes a union loose and weak, and what makes it close and strong?

⁷ What kind of unity was Jesus asking for in his famous prayer? How many and how strong should be the ties holding it together? Not all unions are equally strong. Some unions affect only one particular field in the lives of their members. For instance, people can belong to the same union for the protection of animals and still be as separated as East and West in matters of religion, politics and other interests. Such unions are loose ones. In contrast to them, the marriage or the family unions are close and strong unions, because they affect a whole number of interests in the lives of their members. In a normal family such things as blood ties, mutual love, the common home, its spirit or atmosphere, the family name, tradition, religion, cultural standard, trust to the extent of sharing one another’s confidence, respect and understanding are all things the members have in common; and the more things people share, the closer and stronger they are knit together.

8. What made the unity of the early Christian church so strong?

⁸ Now, back to our question. What kind of unity was Jesus talking about in John 17? Was it just a loose union, affecting merely one or two interests in the lives of his followers? No, he was asking for the strongest union there could be. “I have given them the glory which you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.” We can think of no closer and stronger unity than the one existing between Jehovah God and his Son, Christ Jesus. The strength of that unity was proved by Jesus’ obedient course even till the death on the torture stake. It was into the closest family union of God, a privileged sonship, that Jesus asked his disciples to be taken, and for that purpose he had ‘given them the glory which Jehovah had given him,’ “a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father.” (John 1:14) Some of the many things they were to have in common are mentioned by Paul in Ephesians 4:3-5, where he speaks about “endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace,” and then goes on and enumerates: “One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons, who is over all and through all and in all.” What a closely united and compact body his followers must have become considering the numerous things held in common!

9. What does Paul illustrate by referring to the human body in 1 Corinthians chapter 12 and Ephesians chapter 4?

⁹ To illustrate further that closeness and compact unity, Paul compares it to the human body: “For just as the body is one thing but has many members, and all the members of that body, although being many, are one body, so also is the Christ. For truly by one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink one spirit. . . . God compounded the body, giving honor more abundant to the part which had a lack, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its members should have the same care for one another.” “Speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. From him all the body, by being harmoniously joined together and being made to cooperate through every joint which gives what is needed, according to the functioning of each respective member in due measure, makes for the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” Could there be any more perfect unity than that between members of the human body? Could the body possibly be divided? Could there be more than one head to a body? What an excellent illustration to show the highest degree of unity and oneness of the many members making up the Christian congregation!—1 Cor. 12:12-25; Eph. 4:15, 16.

10. Why was the Christian church a true wonder of God’s spirit from its beginning?

¹⁰ From the very first day the Christian congregation proved capable of assimilating into its oneness not only persons from Palestine, but also from many different countries with their different languages, people from all sects of Judaism, Jews and circumcised proselytes, making the various religious and local opinions give way to Christian thinking. People of completely different social backgrounds, humble fishermen, farmers, shepherds, tax collectors, were brought into oneness with learned Pharisees and physicians, rich and poor, young and old, men, women and children, and were joined into the unity of the congregation. They were one even to the extent of temporarily sharing their material means to meet a critical situation that developed at Jerusalem during the first onrush of members and which required immediate relief action. “The multitude of those who had believed had one heart and soul, and not even one would say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.” It was a true wonder of the spirit of God. The first three and a half years of its existence, however, the members of the church remained Jews and Jewish proselytes having come out of Judaism.—Acts 2:5-11, 41; 4:32-35.

11. In what respect did a change take place in the Christian congregation A.D. 36?

¹¹ Then A.D. 36 the Christian congregation entered into a new phase of its history. In that year something happened that surprised everybody: An uncircumcised man and his family, Gentiles who had been in no covenant relation to Jehovah God before, suddenly became part of the Christian congregation with full and equal rights and obligations, as shown by the fact that these Gentiles were baptized and received the holy spirit the same as the believers from the Jewish organization. Now the famous commandment of Jesus was to be carried out: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations.” From being a Jewish believers’ unity or organization, the Christian congregation should open wide its gates to the rest of mankind and expand to become an international organization, facing all the problems international organizations always have had to face. By all this, true unity should be preserved in the bonds of peace and love.—Acts 10:44-48; Matt. 28:19.

OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

12. Why was the Roman Empire interested in making a unity of its subjected peoples, how did it go about it, and did it meet with success?

¹² The pagan Roman Empire of that day was building and maintaining an international organization the best it knew how. After having conquered most of the civilized world, its job was to keep the many peoples, nations and races in subjection to the Roman rule. Like any other world power, national and religious feelings were the greatest obstacles it had to contend with in uniting the great variety of people under its control. Attempts were made to level class distinctions and to replace local customs by uniform laws and administration, and to supersede national religions by a common religion so as to weld the whole empire into a solid block; but the efforts were never crowned with success. Says Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV, p. 293: “Rome was never able to make a solid nation of her Empire. . . . The Empire had higher aims from the first, and the sense of duty to the conquered world increased on it as time went on; but it could neither restore nor create the patriotism of a nation. The old Roman nation was lost in the world; and if the world was lost in Rome, it did not constitute a new Roman nation. Greeks or Gauls might call themselves Romans, and seem to forget their old people in the pride of the Roman civitas [‘state’]; but Greeks and Gauls they remained. . . . There were peoples in great variety; but the old nations were dead, and the one new nation was never born.”

13. Why have our day’s world rulers no reason to look down on Rome?

¹³ Our day’s world rulers have no reason to boast, because they have not achieved any better results than the Romans, in spite of the enlightenment of the twentieth century and its United Nations organization. H. G. Wells compares the accomplishments in A History of the World as follows: “The Roman people found themselves engaged almost unawares in a vast administrative experiment. . . . It was always changing, it never attained to any fixity. In a sense the [administrative] experiment failed. In a sense the experiment remains unfinished, and Europe and America today are still working out the riddles of the worldwide statecraft first confronted by the Roman people.”—Chapter 33, “The Growth of the Roman Empire,” pages 149-151. Published 1922.

14. As single blocs, has the West or the East solved the problem of making a true unity of nations?

¹⁴ As single blocs of nations, neither the Democratic West nor the Communistic East has solved the riddle of international unity. In the Western world an international military alliance such as NATO often finds co-operation frustrated because of national pride on the part of some of its members. In the East, when Yugoslavia separated from the rest of the Communistic bloc and preferred its own brand of communism, an international movement as highly idealistic as the Communist and working for years under the motto “Workers in all the world unite” had to face the fact that not all Communists were prepared to sacrifice their national pride on the altar of Communist international unity. Whereas the Communist movement has achieved amazing results in uniting people of many nations around a political program, it has failed to make an international unity out of Communists. Nationalism, races, religion, languages and many other dividing factors have been like rocks in the sea on which the ships of human international rulers have met their disaster sooner or later.

15. (a) What made the international Christian church a greater wonder than the originally Jewish Christian church? (b) How did it accomplish its results?

¹⁵ For this sea, so full of undersea rocks and shipwrecks, the Christian congregation, young and inexperienced in international affairs, was now to set sail. In branching out and opening its doors to people of all nations, in meeting with all shades of pagan religion and philosophy, national pride, language barriers, racial, political and social controversies, could it maintain its achieved absolute unity? Could it do so without having to compromise as to its teachings and standards for membership? Could it still maintain its theocratic organizational setup unchanged, with a visible governing body at Jerusalem? Would it not have to break up into national groups with some form of self-government for each group and then join them somehow? Could it remain itself? If already the national Jewish church had been a wonder, it was a small one compared to the wonder of the international church, especially as seen on the historical background. What has been an unsolvable problem to human world builders till this day proved to be no problem to Christ Jesus, the Head of the Christian church. The Christians went to work at the very root of that which divides as well as unites, namely, the human mind. They started making over the minds of humble, Godfearing persons everywhere. Quite soon such believing persons in all nations experienced a change in personality as they started imitating their Head, Christ Jesus, and the result was amazing: All separating barriers vanished as people of the nations were incorporated in the body of Christ. To the local congregation at Colossae in Asia Minor Paul wrote: “Strip off the old personality with its practices, and clothe yourselves with the new personality which through accurate knowledge is being renewed according to the image of the one who created it, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, slave, freeman, but Christ is all things and in all.” And to those of the church in Galatia: “You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus.”—Col. 3:9-11; Gal. 3:26-28.

16. What is a prerequisite for one church, and did the first Christians have it?

¹⁶ The basis for one church is unity in teaching and belief, and as long as the apostles and other mature brothers filled with the spirit were present, this unity was preserved. When once there were tendencies to building of sects in the congregation at Corinth, Paul reminded them: “Does the Christ exist divided?” and they were exhorted that they should “all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” Common faith makes a common church, no matter who and where the believers are.—1 Cor. 1:10, 13.

17. What other factor contributed to international unity?

¹⁷ Another factor supporting the Christian unity was the particular view of government held by the first Christians. They were no part of this world and its political system, which fact alone can contribute a lot to unity. Still they did not consider themselves a people without a government or ruler, but they had confidence in the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus’ own words as to himself as the real King in a real kingdom exercising real government and with an army strong enough to destroy all other kingdoms in due time. They confessed the supernational King Jesus Christ as their Lord and dedicated their lives to God’s kingdom through him in unswerving loyalty. They were still obedient citizens of the nations they lived in, but in case of a clash between the commandments of their Lord and Master and those of man they took the stand that they must obey God rather than men; and they meant it, as Rome’s Caesars found out when they tried to interfere with the union in which Christians were bound to their God and to their King. They did not imagine that God’s kingdom is something just in the hearts of men, as many professing Christians do today. Keeping separate from the world, with the eyes firmly fixed on that heavenly kingdom and guided by the love-producing holy spirit, they were “one body” though international.—John 17:16; 18:36, 37; Dan. 2:44; Acts 5:29.

18. (a) Did the spirit guide the local congregations direct in the early church? (b) Why might one think complications could arise over decisions made by the visible governing body at Jerusalem, and did they arise?

¹⁸ Since there was just one organization, there could be only one central administrative agency for the whole organization. The apostles and the mature brothers at Jerusalem made up such a visible governing agency or body under the guidance of the spirit. It was recognized and readily co-operated with, world-wide. Problems of international significance to the church were taken to Jerusalem to be decided on. When the matter of circumcision arose, Paul did not summon to a synod the congregation overseers of Antioch and the rest of the province of Syria for the purpose of discussing and deciding on the matter, neither did he expect the spirit of God to give direct guidance to the congregations, but he went to the visible governing body at Jerusalem; and after the matter was settled there under the guidance of the spirit on that body, he was sent back to the congregations to make known the decision to them. This procedure led to no complications on the part of the non-Jews, as might have been expected under other circumstances. From a normal worldly viewpoint one would not have been surprised to hear the Greeks make objections, calling attention to their proud traditions of the past. After all, were not the world’s leading historians, poets, mathematicians and architects Greeks? Was not everything by the name of culture even in all the Roman Empire actually Greek? Or the Romans, the self-assured citizens of the world’s capital, why should they listen to despised Judeans, who, at times, were not even permitted to live at Rome? The world domination of the Semitic race, had it not passed from the Semitic to the Aryan race with the fall of Babylon? Why, then, should Aryan Romans and Greeks take orders from Semitic, Aramaic-speaking Jews in Jerusalem? Could they not think for themselves? There is nothing in the records to indicate any such worldly nationalistic or racial thinking gnawing away like termites on the roots of the Christian unity. Evidently everybody looked at it the same way as Paul did: “There is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all.” Far from its causing dissension, the record says: “Now as they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem. Therefore, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day.”—Acts 15:2, 41; 16:4, 5; Rom. 10:12.

19. In which respect was the early Christian church something never seen before?

¹⁹ Indeed the church was a wonder and an outstanding exception in the history of mankind; an international organization, yet characterized by “one heart and soul,” “same mind,” and “same line of thought,” ‘one body, one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father.’ (Acts 4:32; 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:4-6) Something never seen before. A true product of God’s spirit. Certainly, Jehovah had fulfilled Jesus’ prayer for unity of the Christian church.—John 17:20-23.

The Mark of the Spirit

“I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”—John 13:34, 35.

1. (a) Why is it only logical to expect Christian unity to be seen in the world today? (b) Of what use would it be to us to find that unity?

TO Jesus the unity and love among his true followers was something unique, something that would set them apart from everybody else, something that should be a special sign to the whole world to prove that he had been sent by the Father and that they had been sent by him. Because Jesus prayed for his future followers to be part of the Christian unity and promised that “Hades will not overpower” his congregation and that he is with it “all the days until the consummation of the system of things,” it is only logical to expect that particular sign should be visible to the world today, and that it can serve as one of the means of identifying his congregation or church. This so much the more as the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches and an ecumenical Protestant world conference all agree that the church of the Greek Scriptures is one visible church. Thus we will look around among church systems calling themselves Christians to see what unity we can find.—John 13:35; 17:23; Matt. 16:18; 28:20.

THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES

2. Why do none of the Protestant churches claim to be the true church?

² As is common knowledge, there is nothing in the Protestant world that can be compared with the unity of the early Christian church. Neither the Protestant churches as a whole nor any single one of them can claim to be international or universal and still a unity in faith and organization. It is so obvious, that for this and other reasons none of the Protestant churches claim to be the true ecclesia or church of the Greek Scriptures.

3. Considering the evident separation, how do Protestants explain their belief in one church?

³ With the acceptance of the Nicene Creed, the Protestant churches all confess belief in “one, holy, catholic, apostolic” church, but as in all other matters of belief, there is a vast number of theological speculations and theories about the unity of the church. Some say unity is not required at all and is even a disadvantage. From the days of the Reformation many have believed in a so-called “invisible” and “visible” church, the invisible consisting of all sincere Christians in all denominations who are dedicated to God and have been accepted by him. The body of these cannot be discerned by human eyes, wherefore it is called invisible in contrast to the ordinary number of members of the churches, the visible part, which it was found hard to identify as true followers of Christ. In America the so-called “branch theory” is common. The various churches are compared to branches of the vine in Jesus’ illustration in John, chapter fifteen, and are supposed to make a unity by being joined in Christ, the vine. Others think that the unity must not be in organization, but in spirit only; and others again believe in a kind of mystic, supernatural, already existing unity in Christ in spite of all evidences of disunity. Thus, paradoxically, in the reports from the ecumenical conferences of the World Council of Churches, repeated mention is made of the member churches’ “unity in Christ,” although no serious attempt is ever made to explain wherein this unity actually consists.

4. What did the world conference of Faith and Order in Lund declare about the church?

⁴ Inter-confessional discussions between the various parties seldom lead to a common view of matters. However, on the subject of the body of Christ, the world conference in Lund, Sweden, in 1952, of the ecumenical movement called Faith and Order has declared in its official report as the majority opinion: “The Pauline image of the Church as the Body of Christ is no mere metaphor, but expresses a living reality.” And furthermore: “We are agreed that there are not two Churches, one visible and the other invisible, but one Church, which must find visible expression on earth.”

5. What does Bishop Giertz conclude from the division of Christendom?

⁵ Realizing the need for the Christian congregation to be one, few things grieve the Protestant churches as much as the fact that they are not one. Says Swedish Bishop Bo Giertz about the division of Christendom: “It is simply a sin, and it is a sin of the most fatal kind, a sin against the very body of Christ. . . . The terrifying conclusion which we are forced to draw is that a divided church is no longer a true church. . . . As long as we are divided, the body of Christ is bleeding, and we do not know which day it will bleed to death.”

6. (a) What is the World Council of Churches? (b) What makes it impossible to recognize the early Christian church in the Protestant world?

⁶ In their plight, many Protestants have set their hope on the ecumenical or interconfessional discussions that began especially with our century and resulted in the founding of the World Council of Churches in 1948, an international organization including most Protestant churches and the Eastern Orthodox, but not the Roman Catholic Church. However, the World Council of Churches is not a church, and it does not claim to be so. It declares itself to be neither a “Super-Church” nor an “Una Sancta” or the “one, holy” church, but considers its purpose to be “to bring the churches into living contact with each other.” As for its capability to fulfill this purpose, opinions differ among theologians. Danish professor Dr. Regin Prenter says: “At any rate, one thing is certain: This world council of Christian churches represents by no means a real reunion of the separated churches. The World Council of Churches is still only a federation of mutually independent church communities. . . . It might just as well mean that the new contact which the churches within the World Council of Churches have obtained with one another will lead to a more severe mutual condemnation between certain of the church communities than before, since they simply did not know each other well enough to be able to condemn each other.” Some of the things that hinder dedicated Christians from recognizing the church of Jesus Christ and the apostles among the Protestant churches is lack of unity in teachings and organization, nationally and internationally.

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCHES

7. What makes it evident that unity is lacking in the Eastern Orthodox Church?

⁷ The Eastern Orthodox churches are not one church but a number of national churches mainly in East Europe and the Balkan Peninsula, which fought for and gained their independence from the patriarchate at Istanbul. Nominally, some of them recognize the patriarch of Istanbul as head of their church, others the patriarch of Moscow, but none of the patriarchs have any say in the internal affairs of the other churches. A constant struggle is going on between the two patriarchates about jurisdiction over the churches in Finland, Poland and the Russian colony of emigrants in Paris. Since the church of God and Christ was one international church, and not a number of national churches, we can see no traces in the Eastern Orthodox Church of the unity of the first Christian church.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

8-11. What proves that the Roman church is not one body? Which crucial test of true unity can the Roman church and others not pass successfully?

⁸ Is not the Roman Catholic Church a big international church with unity in teachings and organization? Whereas it may have a uniform set of dogmas for the whole international church, the religious beliefs of Roman Catholics are not the same everywhere. The imagination of God and Christ Jesus and what they do for mankind is hardly the same to an Italian Roman Catholic as it is to a Haitian native Roman Catholic still practicing his pagan Voodoo religion on the side.

⁹ Neither is the organization unity so firm as many think. If the Roman Catholic Church is actually one body with the pope as a visible head, why do not all Catholics then obey the head? Says Roman Catholic priest and author Peter Schindler in defending the Catholic church against the charge of intolerance toward Protestants in Spain and Colombia: “Why does the pope not intervene? Who says that he does not ‘intervene’? After all, we who are sitting in Rome have a bit more of an idea of his impotence. The pope is not dictator in Spain or president in Colombia, and if the local Catholics (headed by their church leaders) ignore their own church law as they in many places ignore papal instructions (for example, the social encyclicals) then the very pope is powerless.” If the members do not obey the head, can there be one live body?

¹⁰ If the Roman church is just one body, why are the different orders, like the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Jesuits, and so forth, acting like separate bodies? Why do such orders fight each other like political parties to get the deciding influence on the pope and church policy?

¹¹ Is the church really a unity when its members, like the Catholics in Italy, are found in all political parties from the extreme right all the way across the political color spectrum to the extreme Communist left? Could they ever make up one true church body; one, as Jehovah and Christ Jesus are one? Could they internationally be one when some of them are headed by cardinals who, for nationalistic reasons, are not even on speaking terms? And in the case of war, does the Roman church, and other denominations for that matter, preserve the unity they claim to possess? Everybody knows they do not. They all give in under that crucial test of their unity as a church and prove that the ties uniting them to worldly unities are stronger than those binding them to their church unity and to their god. All this makes it impossible to see the unity of the Christian church in the Roman Catholic international church organization.

A SIGN TO THE WORLD

12. (a) What do Jehovah’s witnesses have to back up their claim of true unity? (b) With what right do they join Paul in using Romans 8:35-39?

¹² In contrast to all this discouraging division, it is heart-cheering to find one international body of Christians on earth today that is a true unity, a true international brotherhood, united in faith and organization by the bonds of love. It is a fact of which everybody is invited to convince himself, and we are not immodest in pointing to it, that Jehovah’s witnesses, though international, are “one heart and soul,” of the “same mind” and the “same line of thought,” and have ‘one body, one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father.’ They are Christians who are bound into a unity with Jehovah God and Christ Jesus and their brothers with bonds of love so strong that nothing, including wars, can disrupt it. Their international church organization comprising witnesses in many countries is made up of the remnant of the bride class of Christ Jesus; and united with it into “one flock” under “one shepherd” is a great crowd of “other sheep.” (John 3:28-30; 10:16) The modern history of these witnesses shows that they have experience enough to join the apostle Paul in saying: “Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword? Just as it is written: ‘For your sake we are being put to death all day long, we have been counted as sheep for slaughter.’ To the contrary, in all these things we are coming off completely victorious through him that loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things here nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”—Rom. 8:35-39.

13. For what reflections does the unity of Jehovah’s witnesses give cause, of what is it a sign, and for whom?

¹³ The world-wide unity of Jehovah’s witnesses gives cause for various reflections. If the international brotherhood of the early church of the first century was a true wonder and admittedly a product of the holy spirit alone, and if God in his church did what others have tried to do for centuries to no avail, certainly an identical international brotherhood in the chaotic twentieth century is no less a wonder and proves no less the unique manifestation of God’s spirit or invisible active force. According to Jesus, such a unity is no incident, but a sign to the world that Jehovah loves the united ones just as he loves Jesus, and that they are his disciples: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”—John 13:34, 35; 17:23.

14. Why was it not improper for the first Christians to point to their church as the only true one?

¹⁴ The first Christians were convinced they belonged to the only true church, the “congregation of God.” It would have been sinning against the holy spirit to doubt it. A sign of the mark of the spirit was on them, and a sign is of no value if it is not seen. Was it then improper for the first Christians to point to their church as the only one having that sign? In relation to the Jewish church of Judaism, was it out of harmony with true humility for Christians to call attention to this mark of the spirit even though thereby revealing the glaring absence of God’s spirit on the divided house of Israel? On the contrary, they were under obligation not to put their light under a basket, but to let it “shine before mankind, that they may see your right works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens.”—Matt. 5:14-16.

15. Is it a lack of Christian virtue for Jehovah’s witnesses to point to the New World society, of which the anointed Christian congregation is a part, as the only one that truly is of God?

¹⁵ So obviously bearing the mark of the spirit, the world-wide loving unity of Jehovah’s witnesses is one of the reasons why those witnesses who are anointed members of the body of Christ are convinced they belong to the only true church, and since those of the “other sheep” are associated with these anointed ones in the united New World society, they are convinced that this indeed is God’s organization, where true worship is carried on. Would it not be sinning against the spirit to doubt it? Is it immodest for them to call the world’s attention to the fact that this organization is singular in showing the mark of the spirit? On the contrary, to the benefit of all honest-hearted people longing for the visible congregation of God’s united people, and to the glory of God and Christ Jesus, they must not put their light under a basket even at the cost of being considered self-righteous.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Dogmatik, (Danish) 2nd edition, section “The Religious Community,” par. 54, page 208. Author: Prof. Dr. Niels Munk Plum. Publishers: G. E. C. Gad, Copenhagen 1941.

2. Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, (German) Kirchlich-theoligisches Handwoerterbuch under ‘’Kirche,” section IV. “Reformatorischer Kirchenbegriff und dessen Fortbildung,” par. 10; and section VII. “Gegenwaertiges oekomenisches Gespraech,” part B. “Die das oekumenische Gespraech bestimmende Fragen,” par. 5. Publishers: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Goettingen 1958.

3. Faith and Order, The Report of the Third World Conference at Lund, Sweden: August 15-28, 1952 (English). Published in behalf of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches by the SCM Press Ltd., London, Chapter III, section II, page 13; and section IV, page 21.

4. Kristi Kirke, (Danish) page 32. Author: Bishop Bo Giertz. Publishers: Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck, Copenhagen 1945.

5. Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon under “Oekumenische Bewegung,” section “World Council of Churches,” par. 2a. The Church, the Churches, and the World Council of Churches, (English) pages 2 and 3. Author: Central Committee of the World Council of Churches at its meeting in Toronto in July, 1950. Publishers: The British Council of Churches, London, 1952.

6. Protestantismen i vor Tid, (Danish) pages 121 and 122. Author: Prof. Dr. Regin Prenter. Publishers: H. Hirschsprungs Forlag, Copenhagen 1958.

7. Salmonsen Leksikon-Tidsskrift 1953 og 1954, (Danish). Article: Kirken hvis centrer ligger i Istanbul of Moskva, page 995. Publishers: J. H. Schultz, Copenhagen 1955.

8. Katolicismen i vor Tid, (Danish) page 137. Author: Peter Schindler, Catholic priest and author. Publishers: H. Hirschsprungs Forlag, Copenhagen 1957.

9. L’Espresso, (Italian paper). Article: “Behind the Throne of Pius XII – The Attack of the Jesuits and the Surrender of the Dominicans.” Author: Dr. Carlo Falconi, Religious Editor.

10. Katolicismen i vor Tid, page 130.

Christendom’s God-Man

IN Christendom the bridge between God and man is called “Incarnation.” The sense of the word “incarnation” is that God took upon himself the nature of man in the person of Jesus Christ. He thereby became a God-man.

Although the idea of a God-man is not foreign to paganism, yet that the Logos should become flesh belongs to Christendom alone, say these religionists. They maintain that pagan religions teach an apotheosis or glorification of man, that they do not teach an incarnation of the true God. According to the English church historian Charles Hardwick, if we purge pagan incarnations from all the lewd and Bacchanalian adjuncts that disfigure and debase them, still they come definitely short of the doctrine of incarnation as taught in Christendom, despite the striking similarities.

But merely to deny the doctrine’s paganity does not establish the teaching of incarnation as being of Christianity. In his book The Creative Christ, E. Drown associates Christendom’s concept of incarnation with pagan Greek mythology. He says: “This idea of substance . . . found its way into Christian theology from Greek sources. The result was that the Incarnation was too often interpreted in physical instead of in moral terms.”

Then there are objections of another character. An eminent professor, Dr. Charles A. Briggs, who was also a priest of the Protestant Episcopal Church, taught that the virgin birth was only a “minor matter connected with the Incarnation . . . [that it] cannot be so essential as many people have supposed.” To Adolf Harnack, German theologian and professor of theology, Jesus was not God in the flesh, but just another Jewish rabbi. Otto Pfleiderer, German Protestant theologian and professor ordinarius of theology, was amazed at the “countless parallels in the legends of pagan heroes and Christian saints,” including that of Jesus Christ.

That there should be conflicting opinions on this doctrine is not at all surprising, since the doctrine of incarnation finds no basis in the Bible, the only reliable authority for truth. (John 17:17) The ancient Jews in their long history never once declared any of their judges, kings, generals, priests or prophets to be gods. The Hebrews and the Jewish Christians utterly abhorred the defilement of heathen mythology. These facts render impossible the fanciful notion that Christian Jews absorbed the history of Jesus from pagan mythology. Neither the Bible nor faithful first-century Christians maintained the pagan concept that Jesus was a God-man. Therefore, when renegade Christians tried to sell the pagan God-man concept as Christian, they found the going rough. The doctrine itself was not crystalized until some three hundred years after Jesus’ day and not defined until A.D. 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. The noted American theologian, Henry P. Van Dusen, whose Presbyterian religion teaches that Jesus was a God-man, in his book World Christianity, page 75, calls Chalcedon’s definition of Christ’s nature “distilled nonsense.”

During the first two centuries there was considerable opposition to the doctrine of incarnation. The Ebionites, a Jewish Christian sect that began in the first century, maintained that Jesus had a natural birth, that he was not God incarnate. Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, who lived toward the beginning of the fourth century, taught that Jesus was neither coeternal nor coequal with God, that he was the head of all creation, but not “of one substance with the Father.” Docetists, a sect of Jewish Christians that flourished in the second century, believed that Jesus’ body was merely apparent, a vision, a delusion, not material. Gnosticism was a fusion of independent “Christian” beliefs. Its contention was that evil is inherent in matter and that for that reason Jesus’ body could not have been material. Valentinus, the most prominent leader of the Gnostic movement, taught that Jesus’ ethereal body passed through Mary but was not born of her. Others said Jesus had two wills, one human, the other divine, and so forth.

It was from this hodgepodge of conflicting opinions that Christendom has received her incarnation doctrine. Since some thought Jesus was man and others maintained he was God, the council at Nicaea A.D. 325 headed by a pagan political emperor, namely, Constantine, decided on a God-man to please both sides. This doctrine, though unfounded in Scripture, is generally believed by Protestants and Catholics to this day. The Catholic Encyclopedia states bluntly: “Christ is God.” A Presbyterian Church publication speaks of Jesus as “God and man.”

WAS JESUS A GOD-MAN?

Regardless of what any council or man has said about Jesus’ nature, the only reliable source of religious truth is the Bible. This Word reveals that Jesus is God’s Son and as such he was not and is not God. Jesus himself said: “I am God’s Son.” To Mary the angel Gabriel said: “What is born will be called holy, God’s Son.” Nothing is said of a God-man or a man-God. Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called a “God-man” or “God incarnate.” Such assumptions are strictly human illusions tainted with paganism.—John 10:36; Luke 1:34, 35; 2:21.

In the Scriptures Jesus is referred to as “the beginning of the creation by God.” He is God’s first creation, called the Word of God or Logos. After Adam’s sin, the Almighty God purposed to send this only-begotten Son of his to earth to redeem man from sin. He was to become the second perfect man or second Adam. This would necessitate his laying aside heavenly life to be born a man. No incarnation, but a perfect human birth. This was accomplished by holy spirit or the power of God, as Luke 1:26-38 shows. He was born of the maiden Mary and was called Jesus, who became “the man.”—Rev. 3:14; John 1:29; 19:5; 1 Cor. 15:45.

Was Jesus flesh and blood? John tells us: “The Word became flesh and resided among us.” Of Jesus Paul said: “Since the ‘young children’ are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly partook of the same things.” Had Jesus been a God-man, he would have been higher than angels and man. The Scriptures tell us that he was made “a little lower than angels.” Neither was he coequal with his Father, for he himself said: “The Father is greater than I am.”—John 1:14; Heb. 2:14, 9; John 14:28; Phil. 2:5-7.

If Jesus was an incarnation, then he was not the second Adam; his life, death and resurrection would all be a lie. The Christian faith would be in vain. We would be still in our sins without hope. Thank God his Word remains true! Christ is true. He was the second Adam, a perfect man who gave his soul “a ransom in exchange for many.” Those who teach that Jesus was a God-man have no Scriptural basis for saying so. No wonder, when faced with a discussion on this incarnation doctrine, called by The Encyclopedia Americana “the central doctrine of Christianity,” the clergy scurry for cover behind the feeble reply, “It’s a mystery.”—Matt. 20:28.

A Blind Man Gains Sight

THE wife of a circuit servant in Korea writes: “About six months ago while engaging in house-to-house work during a circuit visit with my husband to one of the Seoul congregations, I met a person of good will who was blind. My sermon dealt with the blessings of the paradise new earth, where sight will be restored and there will be perfect health and happiness. He manifested much interest in the message. Although unable to read, he nevertheless readily accepted a year’s subscription for The Watchtower, with the thought of having one of his friends read it to him. He has always had a keen desire for knowledge and he is quite well educated. His home has become sort of a community center for his blind friends.

“A back-call was arranged for the next day and on the call a Bible study was easily started. He wanted some publications in braille so that he could make faster progress in his study, but we had no publications in Korean braille.

“When my husband and I returned to the congregation four months later we found this good-will person making excellent progress, even attending all the congregation meetings and preaching to his friends. He expressed the desire to study twice a week to make more rapid progress so he could be immersed soon.

“About that time we read in the English Watchtower about a man in Japan who had been convicted of murder but who had learned the Bible truth while in prison. Although confined to prison, it was ten years before he was executed, in June, 1959. It was during the last years of this period of waiting that he came in contact with the Kingdom message. He made a dedication to Jehovah God and symbolized it by water immersion there in prison. Before he was executed he did everything he could to present the good news to guards and prisoners, and to others, including the relatives of those he had killed, by letter writing. He even studied braille and then transcribed a number of the Society’s publications into braille and had them distributed to persons in different parts of Japan, including schools for the blind.

“Since our Korean man of good will could read Japanese braille, we wrote a letter to Japan requesting some of these publications. Just before our April district assembly a box arrived containing a number of braille publications, and immediately my husband and I took them to him. Before handing him the books, we told him the story of the brother who had transcribed them. What a joy it was to watch his fingers slowly go over the braille impressions and to watch him repeat with his lips, ‘This Good News of the Kingdom’! ‘Oh!’ he said, ‘I finally have something that I can study and use in helping my blind friends to see the truth.’ Having inquired further about the brother who had prepared these publications in braille, he said: ‘In the new world I surely want to meet and see him and express my thanks for this wonderful gift.’

“This person of good will who is physically blind has now gained spiritual sight and is a publisher of the Kingdom. He has really come out of darkness and now rejoices in Jehovah’s marvelous light.”

Questions From Readers

● Why do not the tribes of Ephraim and Dan appear among those of spiritual Israel as given at Revelation 7:4-8?—P. R., U.S.A.

It is clear from the Scriptures that Jehovah purposed the number twelve, the multiple of two symbolically complete numbers, three and four, to represent organizational completeness. This is seen not only in there being twelve sons of Jacob and twelve tribes of Israel, but also in there being “the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”—Rev. 21:14.

Early in the wilderness journey the tribe of Levi was exchanged for all the first-born survivors, who belonged to Jehovah by reason of his sparing them on the night of the first Passover. So as to have twelve tribes again, the tribe of Joseph was divided into two tribes, those of his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh.—Num. 3:12, 13, 41; 10:14-28.

It follows that in listing the twelve tribes of spiritual Israel not all the names of the tribes could appear and there still be only the symbolic number of twelve. It might be thought that the original twelve tribes would be named in the book of Revelation, but not so. The tribes of Ephraim and Dan are omitted there as not deserving of symbolic significance. Why?

Ephraim had had a most favored start. Jehovah himself had said of Ephraim, “He is my first-born.” (Jer. 31:9) Ephraim, though the younger of Joseph’s two sons, inherited the right of the first-born by reason of Jacob’s blessing upon him.—Gen. 48:13-20.

In spite of this favored start the tribe of Ephraim produced a notoriously bad record. It grumbled against its inheritance in the land; it “vehemently tried to pick a quarrel with” Gideon; it fought against Jephthah; and concerning it we further read: “The sons of Ephraim, though armed shooters of the bow, retreated in the day of fight.” No wonder that Jehovah “proceeded to reject the tent of Joseph, and the tribe of Ephraim he did not choose. But he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loved.”—Josh. 17:14, 15; Judg. 8:1; 12:1-6; Ps. 78:9, 67, 68.

Ephraim took the lead in the rebellion against the house of David as represented by Jeroboam. More than that, it despised the covenant for the kingdom, warring against the kingdom of Judah, and it poured contempt upon the covenant of Levi by establishing rival calf worship throughout the ten-tribe kingdom. Concerning Ephraim we further read: “They did not keep the covenant of God, and in his law they refused to walk.” “O Ephraim, you have played the harlot.” “Ephraim is a cake not turned”; meaning that it was halfhearted in its devotion to Jehovah God.—1 Ki. 12:25-30; 2 Chron. 13:3-20; Ps. 78:10; Hos. 5:3; 7:8, RS.

However, it is to be noted that Ephraim is really represented in Joseph his father, for Joseph’s other son, Manasseh, is given a separate individual mention and standing in the list.

The tribe of Dan also made a bad name for itself. The very terms of the blessing upon this tribe, as uttered by Jacob upon his deathbed, imply this tribe would take an unfavorable course: “Let Dan prove to be a serpent by the roadside, a horned snake at the wayside, that bites the heels of the horse so that its rider falls backward.”—Gen. 49:17.

It is also noteworthy that the only ancient historical incident specifically dealing with the Danites tells of some of them falling away to idolatry. Apparently they were the first to do so. Thus in the Targum of Jonathan “Dan” is a byword for idolatry. When Jeroboam instituted calf worship, he did so by setting up one of the calves at the chief city of the Danites, the city of Dan: “They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, As thy god, O Dan, liveth; . . . they shall fall, and never rise up again.” (Judg. 18:1-31; Amos 8:14, AS) Dan’s place was taken by Manasseh in Revelation 7:6.

In view of the foregoing it is easy to see why the names of Ephraim and Dan do not appear among the twelve tribes of spiritual Israel.

● How can Deuteronomy 24:16, which says, “Children should not be put to death on account of fathers,” be harmonized with the fact that the offspring of the adulterous relation between David and Bath-sheba died due to their sin, as shown in 2 Samuel 12:14?—J. B., U.S.A.

The law, as stated at Deuteronomy 24:16, shows that fathers were not to be put to death for their sons nor were sons to be put to death for their fathers. In man’s administration of justice each was to die for his own sin, and not drag innocent relatives down with him. In this particular case of David and Bath-sheba neither of them had a right to the child and so there was no injustice in their being deprived of it. Besides, as an uncircumcised, unnamed infant it had not as yet developed any personality pattern or consciousness so as to appreciate life. Then again, Bath-sheba could have been stoned to death for her adultery, in which case the unborn child would also have perished. However, as previously noted in The Watchtower, David was shown mercy because of the Kingdom covenant, which Jehovah had made with him. Nevertheless, to drive home the fact of Jehovah’s displeasure he let the child die, which was a very severe blow to King David. Two similar instances are recorded in David’s life: One was in connection with the death of Uzzah, who tried to steady the ark of the covenant; the other was the destruction of tens of thousands of Israelites because King David presumptuously and proudly determined to number the hosts of Israel. (1 Chron. 15:13; 21:1-27) Such records as these magnify the supremacy of Jehovah God and underscore the words: “He [God] doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?”—Dan. 4:35, AS.

● Which is the correct form of the tetragrammaton: יהוה, as found in “Let God Be True” and “Equipped for Every Good Work,” or יְהוָֹה, as found in Strong’s and Young’s concordances?—R. R. W., U.S.A.

The form you list first is the absolute form of the Hebrew tetragrammaton as shown in the Society’s publications you mention. The second form, as taken from the concordances, is the tetragrammaton with vowel points above and beneath it. At first, as is well known, Hebrew script was written altogether without any vowels, the vowel sounds being handed down by oral tradition. Vowel points were added later on to help readers pronounce the Hebrew text correctly and get the correct meaning out of it. It is generally understood that the vowel points that Dr. Young and Dr. Strong show really represent the vowels belonging to the Hebrew word Adonay, and these vowel points were really an indication to the Jewish reader that when he came to the tetragrammaton, the pronunciation of which had been lost to knowledge, he should read the title Adonay, meaning “the Lord,” instead of trying to pronounce the tetragrammaton. This course was resorted to by the Jewish clergy because they thought it sacrilegious even to pronounce the name of Jehovah and that to do so was a violation of the commandment not to take the name of Jehovah our God in vain. This religious notion accounts for the fact that the name of Jehovah appears so rarely in the authorized or King James version, even as noted in the preface of the American Standard Version.

Announcements

FIELD MINISTRY

During August Jehovah’s witnesses will continue ‘using initiative and defense in their ministry.’ (1 Pet. 3:13, 15) They will offer to all persons the splendid Bible-study aid “Your Will Be Done on Earth” together with another book and two booklets, on a $1 contribution. Would you like to share in this Christian service? You can receive further information by going to the Kingdom Hall in your vicinity or by writing to the publishers of this magazine.

THERE IS STILL TIME!

World conditions threaten even though peace talks and disarmament conferences have gone on among the nations’ leaders. In view of such you will want to be present at one of the Peace-pursuing District Assemblies of Jehovah’s witnesses to absorb the excellent counsel from God’s Word now due to be understood. The featured talk “Security During ‘War of the Great Day of God the Almighty’” will thrill you! Write the office of The Watchtower for particulars. There is still time!

“WATCHTOWER” STUDIES FOR THE WEEKS

September 4: The Unity of the Christian Church, ¶1-17. Page 465.

September 11: The Unity of the Christian Church, ¶18, 19, and The Mark of the Spirit. Page 470.