The Watchtower — November 1, 1962

Spare Your Words

WORDS pouring out of the mouth of a talkative person are, to some people, like the endless gushing of water from a large pipe. There seems to be no end to them. They inundate polite listeners and drown any efforts to carry on a refreshing conversation. The loquacious person fails to realize that conversation is a two-way exchange of expressions in which listening is as important as speaking.

The Greek philosopher Socrates once said: “Nature has given us two ears, two eyes, and but one tongue, to the end that we should hear and see more than we speak.” If you deluge your listeners with a steady stream of words, how much can you learn from them? In fact, how much can they actually learn from you?

It takes thought to say something that is instructive and beneficial to your listeners, but if you are constantly spouting words, how can your speech contain anything that is thought-provoking? It is more likely to be prattle that endlessly drums on benumbed ears. “The less men think the more they talk,” said the French philosopher Charles de Montesquieu.

Chattering on and on about personal problems, views and experiences, giving unnecessary and tiresome details, is a display of selfish disregard for the interests and time of other people. Instead of talking at great length about yourself, encourage others to talk about the things that interest them. When they express themselves, listen to what they say. Do not impolitely daydream or begin reading something. You do not fool them by occasionally nodding your head or giving a grunt. They know if you are not listening. Out of politeness, pay attention to what they say, and you may learn something.

It is self-centeredness in the extreme to pour into another person’s ear tiresome chatter and then not listen when he finally has an opportunity to squeeze in a few words. A considerate person will be listening instead of thinking of the next barrage of words to fling at his companion. One should not vainly imagine that he has the only worthwhile things to say. Talking endlessly about oneself may seem worthwhile to the one doing the talking, but it is not to others. By the multitude of words one reveals oneself as being foolish. “The foolish one speaks many words.”—Eccl. 10:14.

The incoherent ramblings of a talkative person do not produce uplifting conversation. A conversation becomes interesting when those in it linger for awhile on one subject, allowing each person to make expressions. With each speaking and listening, the conversation can become constructive and enjoyable. A pause in it should not be viewed as an embarrassing gap that must be filled with words. That may be the view of the talkative person who is accustomed to inane chatter, but in a thought-provoking conversation a pause is refreshing, not embarrassing. It allows a person to think about what has been said, and to think about what he is going to say. Such thought can result in stimulating expressions that make a conversation worthwhile.

Injurious gossip and even slander can easily slip out in the torrent of words that pour from a busy tongue. Such speech can have only damaging results that may eventually boomerang upon the speaker. It causes him to transgress the trust of friends and the counsel of God. We are told in the Bible: “In the abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression, but the one keeping his lips in check is acting discreetly.” “He that is keeping his mouth and his tongue is keeping his soul from distresses.”—Prov. 10:19; 21:23.

While it is wise to spare your words, avoiding loquaciousness, it is not wise to be uncommunicative. Instead of remaining mum, letting others do the talking, express yourself. Make an effort to contribute to the conversation so others can benefit from your views and know how you think. When you feel that the conversation is senseless prattle, try raising a question that might tactfully steer it into more profitable channels. Questions are always good stimulators of interesting conversations.

Those who claim that they have nothing to say need to be a little more observant of the things they read in newspapers, magazines and books. They need to take particular note of the interesting things that can be found from reading the Bible regularly. These are sources of information they can draw upon for something about which to talk. Being well read is very helpful for participating in a stimulating conversation. When the conversation happens to turn to something in which you are not interested, do not crawl into a shell of silence, but try to cultivate an interest in the subject by asking questions.

Before you speak give thought to what you are going to say so it will be worth saying. This does not mean your expressions must be profound words of wisdom, but they should be constructive. If what you are about to say is derogatory rather than constructive, imaginary rather than factual and sensual rather than uplifting, it would be better to leave it unsaid. Thought and good sense can produce edifying speech. It is written: “The lips of the wise ones keep scattering knowledge about.” (Prov. 15:7) Such ones will not dominate a conversation, but will use their words sparingly, giving others an opportunity to speak. But when they open their mouths they let out knowledge. They say something that is informative, something that adds to the conversation.

Rather than let words gush from your mouth in an unpleasant torrent, let them come out like a gentle, intermittent rain that is beneficial and welcomed. Let them be upbuilding, edifying and instructive. In all your conversations be considerate of your listeners by sparing your words.

What Is Extrasensory Perception?

What is the source of this power? Is it something for Christians to cultivate?

THE man with the X-ray mind,” “the man with the radar mind”—such are expressions sometimes used to describe extrasensory perceiver These are persons, whether men or women, who are said to have the means to learn something without the aid of any of the five senses. This power is usually referred to as ESP, the telescoped term for extrasensory perception; it is also known as the “psi” (psychic) faculty. What is this mysterious “psi” faculty or ESP?

ESP is said to include telepathy or the consciousness of what is taking place in the minds of others and clairvoyance, a supernormal mode of perception, which may result in a visual image being presented to the conscious mind. The perception may be of objects or scenes, or forms distant in space, or in time, past or future.

Obviously there is something “extra” or something beyond the normal senses involved in ESP. “I believe,” says one extrasensory perceiver, “that ESP can and does give glimpses of worlds and states beyond my ken, and beyond the ken of any twentieth-century earthling.”

SCIENTISTS LOOK AT ESP

In view of such claims by extrasensory perceivers, how do scientists regard ESP? Many are skeptics. They say tests proving ESP must be faulty or else frauds, since ESP is “against common sense.” Dr. D. O. Hebb, professor of psychology at McGill University, says: “Personally I do not accept ESP for a moment, because it does not make sense. My external criteria, both of physics and physiology, say that ESP is not a fact.”

Thus many scientists either reject ESP or come to no definite conclusion. “If we accept these observations [regarding ESP] for what they are said to be,” concludes Dr. W. Grey Walter in The Living Brain, “we cannot fit them into the physical laws of the universe as we define them today. We may reject the claims of transcendental communication on the grounds of experimental error, or statistical fallacy, or we may withhold judgment, or we may accept them gladly as evidence of spiritual life; but it does not seem easy to explain them in terms of biological mechanism.”

Though unable to explain ESP except in terms of the “subconscious,” many psychologists now acknowledge ESP phenomena. Some even spend their time studying it. These ESP researchers, called parapsychologists, have published numerous volumes about tests conducted by university scientists to substantiate the claims made for ESP. Some of the most noted tests were conducted by Dr. J. B. Rhine at Duke University. Recent telepathy tests conducted in a laboratory on a celebrated extrasensory perceiver resulted in odds against its being mere accident of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Recent studies in England were reported in the book Modern Experiments in Telepathy, by S. G. Soal and F. Bateman; the authors’ work concludes that the odds against ESP being mere chance are astronomical. For the work on telepathy the odds against its being chance were of the order of 10⁷⁰ to 1, or 1 followed by seventy ciphers—a million to 1 being only 10⁶ to 1.

In view of the numerous tests conducted by reputable scientists, Dr. H. J. Eysenck concludes in Sense and Nonsense in Psychology:

“Unless there is a gigantic conspiracy involving some thirty University departments all over the world, and several hundred highly respectable scientists in various fields, many of them originally hostile to the claims of the psychical researchers, the only conclusion the unbiased observer can come to must be that there does exist a small number of people who obtain knowledge existing either in other people’s minds, or in the outer world, by means as yet unknown to science.”

WHAT THEY DO

A number of extrasensory perceivers give their clairvoyance in a manner called object-reading or psychometry. “Psychometry,” explains an extrasensory perceiver, “is obtaining a ‘spirit message,’ or as I prefer to call it, an E.S.P. impression, from holding some inanimate object closely associated with the person.”

To read an object, psychometrists use no crystal balls, no divining rods, no pendulums, no ouija boards, although some of them go into a trance for the reading. Many of them, however, handle the object while in the conscious state and almost immediately visions flash into their minds. Then they make their comments about people. So actually the object is read in a relative sense. It is the personal data—the characteristics and personal experiences—of those who have handled the object that are brought out by the reading. The object merely establishes “contact.” The principle is similar to that in which a voodooist, in order to cast a spell on someone, has a possession taken from an intended victim and brought into the sorcerer’s presence; or an object or article may be transferred from the voodooist into the presence of the intended victim, to establish “contact.”

In psychometry “contact” can be established even when the person associated with the object is dead. Even this aspect of ESP has been substantiated by scientifically controlled tests. An example is given in a recent book about Peter Hurkos, a prominent extrasensory perceiver: “In Antwerp I had worked with Dr. René Dellaerts, a professor of psychology at the University of Louvain, to try to unravel some of the mysteries of extra-sensory perception. Dr. Dellaerts would give me a number of photographs of men and women and as I went through them, one after the other, I would describe the sensations I had when I handled the photos. ‘This man is living in Antwerp,’ I said, of one, ‘but he is much older now than when this photograph was taken—it must be 20 years old.’ ‘This woman is dead,’ I said of another. In fact nearly half of the photographs were of persons who were dead and nearly always I could tell whether the person pictured was alive or dead.”—Psychic: The Story of Peter Hurkos.

ESP impressions, whether psychometric or not, deal to a great extent with personalities. Hence, extrasensory perceivers have been used to find missing persons, to track down criminals and to give information about dead persons. Some have analyzed problems of big business. Some give predictions about a person’s future, which are said to be amazingly accurate. Some find lost objects or possessions. Some look at a map and either pick out land that contains precious ore beneath it or a place where water can be found. Some are said to be even able to detect diseases. In general they perceive the past and foretell the future.

HOW IT COMES TO THEM

Extrasensory perceivers usually explain very little about their clairvoyant powers and how the impressions come to them. Peter Hurkos says: “I have no easy answers. I know what happens to me—that my personal life and personal thoughts are swept away as if by a wave, and that I am actually seeing the world through the eyes of the other person whose vibrations I am absorbing.”

Extrasensory perceivers usually agree that the more they use their powers the stronger they become, although some find a long session of ESP exhausting. They say they usually have no control over the initial reception of the impulses, except that they may be able sometimes to direct them toward a particular person or thing. Most of the impressions that come to them are concerned with petty things, similar to the messages given on ouija boards. And as a ouija board may convey messages in languages unknown to those using them, so extrasensory perceivers can sometimes produce sentences in languages they know nothing about.

One of the most informative descriptions of ESP and how it arrives is given by Ronald Edwin, more than thirty years an extrasensory perceiver. In his autobiography, Clock Without Hands, he tells about the speed with which ESP impressions arrive and then vanish. “This,” he states, “immediately suggests one important factor: That the normal processes of memory are not closely involved in the E.S.P. impression, and in its initial stage not at all.” He further explains:

“E.S.P. thought appears to use some of the normal channels of my brain, but it has what I can only call a different ‘texture’ from a normal thought. There is usually no possibility of confusing the two. . . .

“E.S.P. thought comes to me always as an inner disturbance. It arrives without using any of the usual senses of smell, sight, hearing or touch. Its most interesting characteristic is an accompanying feeling of compulsion to do something about it. I have always felt as though I was being forced to say what had come into my head, to tell somebody about it or to write it down. The arrival of an E.S.P. impression is almost impossible to describe. It seems either to burst suddenly in my head like a bubble . . . or to occur as a sudden awareness of something as though an ordinary conscious thought process is about to begin. It appears to slide into my brain from above through the head itself, at an angle of 45 degrees. . . . Names frequently come to me as if they were spoken in my head.”

IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE OF POWER

“Where does E.S.P. come from in the first place?” asks this same extrasensory perceiver. “Here I have to admit that I do not know.” He says the clues are slender, if there are any. Yet in his own autobiography he gives ample clues. For instance, he tells of the time when he tried to prove that it would be easy to fake a spirit medium’s séance, including the ectoplasmic materializations. He bought some cheesecloth for fake ectoplasm. During the seance he went into a trance and later discovered that he had really produced ectoplasm, which was proved by scientific test not to be mere cheesecloth but a kind of protoplasm:

“A percentage of the phenomena photo graphed was . . . quite genuine. . . . In all cases, I was conscious of a strange feeling of ‘extension’ and an inexplicable sense of loss. . . . While entranced on one of these occasions, I gave permission for one of the sitters to break off a piece of the white substance which photography afterwards showed had hovered over my face.

“This independently taken sample was handed to a public analyst, Percy Egerton. This was his report, for those who may be interested: ‘ . . . a sticky material containing many squamous epithelial cells with their nuclei. There were also a few epithelial cells without a nucleus and some disintegrated cells of a similar character. A large number of highly refractile ovoid bodies resembling a yeast were also seen together with a few threads resembling cotton. No pus cells, but a few organisms and much amorphous debris were also observed.’ It is a strange thought that a man in the midst of fraud may also be capable of producing genuine phenomena.”

Here we see ESP linked to spiritism, for the extrasensory perceiver was able to produce, rather unexpectedly, the ectoplasmic figures common to spirit mediums. Moreover, this same extrasensory perceiver admits: “Witchcraft, with its basic ingredients of E.S.P. and, in some other cases, perhaps, of other psychic phenomena, is still practiced even in this country [England].” Note that he speaks of witchcraft as having the “basic ingredients of E.S.P.” Further, spirit mediums are able to produce some of the phenomena done by extrasensory perceivers, although not always in a conscious state. The famous American spirit medium Mrs. Piper was carefully studied by members of the Society for Psychical Research, and, as the volume Beyond the Reach of Sense says, “they all agreed that she had a remarkable gift of ESP.”

What, then, is the source of ESP? The same as the power behind spirit mediums, voodooists, ouija boards and the like—the spirit creatures that the Bible speaks of as “the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place.” (Jude 6) These spirit creatures materialized as men on earth before the Noachian flood; this was disobedience to God, and thus these angels turned themselves into demons. After the Flood God restrained them from materializing again, and now these self-demonized angels operate through humans or mediums. Jesus Christ expelled demons by God’s holy spirit—these self-demonized angels that have power to cause physical disabilities, to torment people and to possess people.—Matt. 12:28; Luke 9:38-43; 11:14, 20.

Demon powers can give humans the power to perceive the past or foretell the future. Their giving clairvoyant powers to humans is nothing new. The Bible tells us how the apostle Paul once met up with a girl who practiced “the art of prediction.” She was a “girl with a spirit, a demon of divination.” (Acts 16:16) Or as The New Testament in Modern English puts it, she was a “girl who had a spirit of clairvoyance”; according to Knox, “a girl who was possessed by a divining spirit.” After the apostle Paul expelled the “demon of divination,” the girl lost her power to foretell the future; she no longer had ESP.

Even though extrasensory perceivers say they help people, this does not alter the fact that God’s Word shows spiritism to be a violation of his commandments: “There should not be found in you . . . anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events . . . Jehovah your God has not given you anything like this.”—Deut. 18:10-14.

God, therefore, is not the source of such ESP. His own Word condemns the “practice of spiritism” for Christians. (Gal. 5:20, 21) True Christians do not seek to cultivate ESP nor do they consult extrasensory perceivers, the so-called “psychics,” for help. They know that God has given Christians the Holy Bible for their guidance—the Book that exposes ESP to be nothing more than a modern term for the power to produce spiritistic phenomena.

“Be in Subjection”—to Whom?

“Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers, to be ready for every good work.”—Titus 3:1.

1, 2. (a) To what are even so-called free people subject? (b) How has the acceptance of subjection been made difficult, and where most of all?

FREE people are, despite their freedom, subject to the political government set up over them. Regardless of how free we may claim to be, we cannot get away from this matter of subjection. The acceptance of subjection has been made difficult by the many political revolutions that have been staged in recent centuries.

² Since the American Revolution of 1775—1783 and the French Revolution of 1789, there have been other revolutions, some that have resulted in reshaping the world. If the lands of Christendom were really Christian, there would be no revolutions in Christendom; but Christendom has been rocked by violent revolutions more than pagandom has. Our own twentieth century has seen the most stupendous revolts, uprisings and overturnings of governments in human history, those of pagan China in 1911 and 1949 and of “Christian” Russia in 1917, resulting in the two Communist giants of now. Due to all such violent, revolutionizing changes of government the people underneath have been tortured over the question of subjection—to which government to be willingly subject.

3. What questions are asked about subjection, and who must answer them?

³ Whether changes in human rulerships and styles of government have come by peaceful, progressive development or by violent revolution, the people affected must answer the questions, Why be subject to the change of government? Why not resist? What are the benefits of being subject? Even righteously-minded persons who pray for God’s kingdom to come with blessings for all mankind have to face such questions and must answer them aright to please God.

4, 5. (a) What revolt occurred in Galilee during the boyhood of Jesus Christ, and how do we know whether it was from God? (b) How did the Jewish revolt of the year 66 result, and what religious group was not tied in with that revolt?

⁴ Nineteen hundred years ago the pagan Roman Empire controlled the land areas in and around the Mediterranean Sea and much of Europe. It had subjected many peoples, including the Jews of Palestine, and so the Roman government had to deal with many problems. Many were the Jews who, because of their religion, wanted their freedom from Roman imperialism. In the year 7 of our Common Era, while Jesus Christ was still a boy in the town of Nazareth in the Province of Galilee, there occurred a revolt. It was led by a Jew, Judas the Galilean, and was stirred up because of the registration or taking of census by the Roman governor Quirinius.a

⁵ Was it of God—this revolt against Jewish subjection to Rome? No; for, just as the Jewish Law teacher Gamaliel later said, “that man perished, and all those who were obeying him were scattered abroad.” (Acts 5:34-37) Not heeding this warning example in their own history, the Jews as a nation revolted in the year 66 and brought terrible ruin and destruction upon themselves. Their holy capital city, Jerusalem, was destroyed, along with its magnificent temple to Jehovah God; the land of Judea was laid in ruins by the Roman armies, and 97,000 Jewish survivors were carried off captive into a slavery worse than that of mere political subjection to the Roman Empire. (Luke 21:5-7, 20-24; 19:41-44) None of the Christians, not even Jewish converts to Christianity, were tied in with that revolt against subjection to Roman imperialism. Why not?

6. (a) When was the Christian congregation founded, and where? (b) How was it quickly spread to regions inside and outside the Roman Empire?

⁶ On the festival day of Pentecost A.D. 33 the Christian congregation was founded in the city of Jerusalem. The members of that original congregation were marked by God himself, for he poured down his holy spirit upon them and gave them miraculous powers. (Acts 2:1-40) Thus in that critical year the Christian congregation was founded in the midst of a Jewish world where the coals of revolt smoldered against Rome despite the antichristian cry: “We have no king but Caesar.” (John 19:15, 16) But the newborn congregation was safely guided by the rule of action laid down by their Leader Jesus Christ: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” (Mark 12:17) Thousands witnessed the founding of the Christian congregation there in Jerusalem in the year 33. Many were reverent Jews from Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia Province, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya, Judea, Arabia, Crete, Rome, that is, from places inside and outside the Roman Empire. Three thousand of these Jews from such far-flung lands were converted to Christianity and baptized on that day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:5-11, 37-42) After they returned to the lands of their residence, Christian congregations were set up in those lands, including the island of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea, ruled by Rome.

7. Why did Paul leave Titus behind in Crete, and what counsel did he write Titus to give concerning relations with all sorts of men?

⁷ Sometime about the year 61 the Christian apostle Paul and his young fellow missionary Titus visited Crete. When Paul left the island he had Titus stay there to attend to the needs of the Christian congregation. In a letter to Titus Paul said: “I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were defective and might make appointments of older men in city after city, as I gave you orders . . . For there are many unruly men, profitless talkers, and deceivers of the mind, especially those men [Jews] who adhere to the [Jewish] circumcision.” (Titus 1:5-10) In order to have any defective thinking corrected in the minds of the Cretan Christians and in order to help them to take the right road in their relations with persons of all sorts, Paul wrote Titus to give proper counsel when he talked to the congregations: “Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers, to be ready for every good work, to speak injuriously of no one, not to be belligerent, to be reasonable, exhibiting all mildness toward all men. For even we were once [like them] senseless, disobedient, being misled, being slaves to various desires and pleasures, carrying on in maliciousness and envy, hateful, hating one another.”—Titus 3:1-3.

8, 9. (a) What questions here arise as to the “governments and authorities” mentioned? (b) Whom did Paul mean by them, and why was he obliged to tell Christians to be in subjection to them?

⁸ Here is the only place in his letter to Titus that Paul mentions “governments and authorities.” Since the Christians were to be in subjection to these, whom did Paul mean by “governments and authorities”? Are they inside the Christian congregation? Or are they the political governments and authorities outside the Christian congregation and, back there, under the domination of imperial Rome? Whom would Titus mean when he reminded the Cretan congregations to be in subjection?

⁹ Evidently he meant the political governments and authorities of this world. But Paul had not instructed Titus to consult the governments and authorities and to get their approval in regard to appointing older men to service positions in the congregations of Crete. Such authorities were rulers, not for the government of affairs inside the Christian congregation, but for the government of things outside the Christian congregation, outside in the world. As Jesus realistically stated the matter, his followers are in the world although they are no part of this world and are hated by this world. (John 17:14-16; 15:19) If they wanted to get away from any relations whatever with the governments and authorities of this world, the Christians would have to get off the earth. But they could not signal the motorman to stop the world and let them get off. (1 Cor. 5:9, 10) God did not take the Christians out of this world. They have to get along with the still-existing governments and authorities. So Paul says to be in subjection.

10. What question arises as to the advisability of this subjection, and upon what does this depend?

¹⁰ But is it really not dangerous to the congregation’s teaching, morals, worship and activities when true Christians are in subjection to political governments and authorities of this world of which Satan the Devil is the invisible “ruler” and “god”? (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Cor. 4:4) That, of course, depends upon how far the subjection goes. Did the apostle Paul mean that Christians should be in total subjection, in which a person simply takes orders from above and becomes a mere mechanical robot, not letting Christian conscience dictate what is right and what is wrong according to God’s written Word? Does it mean a complete subjection of one’s will, in which the Christian offers unquestioning obedience in all cases to commands by worldly governments and authorities?

11. What other kind of subjection could there be, and who indicates for us which kind is meant?

¹¹ Or does it mean a relative subjection? By “relative” we mean a comparative subjection, a subjection that is related with other things. That is, it has to take other things of concern into consideration. It is not absolute or independent of other things. It has to be balanced with other things that dare not be overlooked. In his brief letter to Titus Paul indicates how far the subjection may go and whether it must be absolute or relative.

12. How does Paul indicate this, and what related case for determination does he first mention?

¹² How does Paul do this? By telling Titus that there are also other things to which true, dedicated, baptized Christians must be in subjection. Political governments and authorities of this world are not the only ones to whom a measure of subjection is due. There are other subjections for Christians to consider. What? Well, for one thing, a marriage subjection. In Titus 2:3-5 Paul writes this counsel on responsibility of the older women of the congregation: “That they may recall the young women to their senses to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sound in mind, chaste, workers at home, good, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively.” Are wives to be “subjecting themselves to their own husbands” in a total sense? Let us see.

WIVES

13. (a) On what does a wife’s subjection rest, regardless of the religion of her husband? (b) What kind of subjection must this be, and what must it shield against abuse?

¹³ We must note that Paul does not say that it matters whether their own husbands are true Christian or Jewish or pagan. Still, subjection of a wife to a husband rests on a Bible principle, which Paul himself states. To the congregation in Corinth he writes: “I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God. . . . man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels.” (1 Cor. 11:3, 9, 10) Yet, according to the apostle Paul, the subjection of a Christian wife to any husband could not be total, without consideration of a still higher subjection. Otherwise, how could Paul say that the younger women who obey the teaching and example of the aged women should be subject to their own marriage heads “so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively” by outsiders?

14. Regardless of the headship of her husband, what things does a truly Christian wife have to take into consideration in connection with her subjection?

¹⁴ Consequently, in the case of a Christian wife’s subjection in the marriage union, the “word of God” has to be taken first into account. She has dedicated herself completely to Jehovah God and has been baptized in symbol of this dedication the same as Jesus was. Her husband, whether Christian, Jewish or pagan, is imperfect and sinful by birth. If, then, he should ask or demand that she do something contrary to God’s Word, she could not conscientiously do so and at the same time carry out her dedication to God, as Christ did with his dedication. We must grant that her marriage mate is her visible head in the family circle; but Christ is higher than any man, than any husband, and Christ is the head of a Christian husband, besides which fact God is the head of Christ. The dedicated Christian wife cannot therefore consider the third-rate headship of her human husband as final and absolute. She must consider the supreme headship of God, to whom she has dedicated herself through her superior head, her Savior Jesus Christ.

15. What kind must her subjection to her husband necessarily be, and what can no one say about God’s Word in this regard?

¹⁵ If in abject obedience to her earthly husband she violated God’s Word, she would not be treating God’s Word right, even though people outside the Christian congregation approved of her doing so. That would be sin. It thus becomes plain that the Christian wife’s subjection to her husband is a relative subjection. It must be rendered in relation to God’s Word. God’s Word is in harmony with her being in subjection to her husband, and it teaches her to be so. No one outside the congregation can truthfully say that God’s Word does not teach the wife to be subject to her husband and to love him and to show this love for him by being subject.

16. How could she cause God’s Word to be spoken of abusively, and why would this be?

¹⁶ What if the Christian wife, who preaches God’s Word to others, does not give her husband this relative subjection but defies him and fights over household things in which Christian conscience is not involved? Then she gives outsiders the idea that God’s Word, which she preaches, teaches her to be rebellious, insubordinate, ambitious for the headship. For that reason she causes God’s Word to be “spoken of abusively” by these outsiders, and they do not want to listen to it whether preached by her or by some other member of the congregation to which she belongs. Hence her being subject to her husband in the proper things, in things not contrary to God’s Word, is really a shield to God’s Word against abusive speech by ignorant people who judge God’s Word by the way a Christian wife acts.

17. How, then, could she recommend God’s Word to others?

¹⁷ The Christian wife, by the way that she subjects herself to her marriage owner, should recommend God’s Word to outsiders and make them inclined to listen to it. God’s Word is the main thing in her married life; and thus Paul argues that her subjection to her husband is only relative, not total.

SLAVES

18, 19. (a) What other subject class does Paul then speak of, and what questions come up as to their dedication? (b) Why did it become necessary for the apostles to write about how those in this class should act as Christians?

¹⁸ In his letter to Titus the apostle Paul speaks of another kind of subjection that could not be brushed aside in his day. In the Roman Empire there were many slaves, not just Negro slaves but white slaves. These were persons who had been taken captive in war or who had fallen into debt and could not pay. So numerous were the slaves that a Roman citizen could have as many as four thousand slaves in his establishment. Many of them heard the preaching of the good news of God’s kingdom of freedom and accepted Christianity. In spite of being slaves to some rich or powerful man or woman, they believed in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and dedicated themselves to Jehovah God. Did God refuse their dedication and say that they could not make such a dedication because they were not free to do so? Did God say they were subject to a slaveholder and were owned by him and could not give themselves completely to God and undertake a dedication to Him?

¹⁹ No! God did not refuse their dedication through Christ. Had God refused it, then the Christian congregation would not have admitted slaves. But God did accept their dedication and let them into the congregation of his holy people. That is why the apostles of Jesus Christ recognized these dedicated slaves as members of the congregation and wrote about how they should act as Christians.

20, 21. (a) How did the slave’s dedication affect his relationship with his master? (b) What did Paul’s writing on the slave question indicate as to his subjection to the Roman government?

²⁰ Well, then, when God accepted their dedication and made these slaves members of His congregation, did this free them from their earthly owners? Not at all. They remained earthly slaves, although they had now gained a spiritual freedom that undedicated, non-Christian slaves did not enjoy. “For anyone in the Lord that was called when a slave is the Lord’s freedman,” said Paul, meaning it in a spiritual way and not encouraging a slave to make a breakaway.

²¹ That is why Paul said: “In whatever state each one was called [to be a holy one of God], let him remain in it. Were you called when a slave? Do not let it worry you; but if you can also become free, rather seize the opportunity. . . . likewise he that was called when a free man is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price [of Christ’s sacrifice]; stop becoming slaves of men. In whatever condition each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it associated with God.” (1 Cor. 7:20-24) Paul was no reformer of the Roman Empire, and he was not authorized by God to be such. Why should he be, when he and God knew that the unholy Roman Empire was to be destroyed in God’s due time? The widespread slavery in the Roman Empire was enforced by the imperial government. Paul subjected himself to the existing Roman government in this matter of slavery. He did not tell slaves to run away. He did not advocate a slaves’ revolt, like that of Spartacus of 73 B.C.

22, 23. (a) How did dedication affect a person who was a slave? (b) In behalf of what did Paul give instructions concerning slaves, and what did he tell Titus to instruct slaves to do?

²² What, now, was the slave’s relationship to his earthly master after the slave became a dedicated, baptized Christian? According to his flesh he was still a slave under a human master or slaveowner. Instead of becoming a runaway slave like Eliza in the story of Uncle Tom’s Cabin of 1851-1852, he was to become a better slave because of his Christianity. The apostle Paul instructed the young overseer Titus as to what to tell slaves down there in Crete to do now that they had become Christians. In writing Titus, Paul strongly urged doing things to protect the Christian organization and God’s Word against undeserved abuse, reviling and blasphemy from the world. First, Paul told Christian wives how to act in the home and told young Christian men how to act, showing “wholesome speech which cannot be condemned; so that the man on the opposing side may get ashamed, having nothing vile to say about us.” Paul next spoke about slaves and wrote:

²³ “Let slaves be in subjection to their owners in all things, and please them well, not talking back, not committing theft, but exhibiting good fidelity to the full, so that they may adorn the teaching of our Savior, God, in all things. For the undeserved kindness of God which brings salvation to all sorts of men [including slaves] has been manifested, instructing us to repudiate ungodliness and worldly desires and to live with soundness of mind and righteousness and godly devotion amid this present system of things.”—Titus 2:6-12.

24, 25. (a) What distinction did Paul not make as to slaveowners? (b) Were slaveowners permitted in the congregation, and what does the case of Philemon show?

²⁴ How is this possible today for literal slaves in Asia or Africa or elsewhere? How can slaves, after becoming dedicated, baptized Christians, “be in subjection to their owners in all things, and please them well,” and at the same time stay Christians? Again, be it noted that Paul does not say whether the slaveowner is pagan, Roman, Jewish or Christian, or that the Christian slave could be in subjection to only a Christian slaveowner and please him well.

²⁵ Yes, back there, there were even Christian slaveowners in the congregation. Paul did not try to be a prototype of the Russian Tsar Alexander II, who in 1861 emancipated 23,000,000 Russian serfs; nor of the American president, Abraham Lincoln, who in 1863 issued an Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery in parts of the South not occupied by Federal Union armies. No, Paul did not declare all Christian slaves to be free and all Christian slaveowners to be slaveless, deprived involuntarily of their slaves. He did not declare that Christian slaveholders who did not free their believing or unbelieving slaves must be disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation. No; but Paul even wrote a letter preserved in the Bible addressed to a Christian slaveholder, Philemon. Instead of his being disfellowshiped from the congregation, the local congregation of Christians met right in Philemon’s home.—Philem. 1, 2.

26. In harmony with Paul’s instructions for slaves, what did he do to Onesʹimus, and what did Onesʹimus do?

²⁶ The Roman government allowed Philemon to be a slaveholder, and Paul subjected himself to that pagan government arrangement and did not abolish slavery from Philemon’s house. In harmony with the instructions to Titus for slaves to be in subjection to their masters in all things, Paul sent back a runaway slave to Philemon, as a bearer of Paul’s letter to Philemon. Paul did not proclaim this runaway slave Onesʹimus a freedman because he had listened to Paul’s preaching and had become a Christian. Paul sent Onesʹimus back to slavery. So now Onesʹimus, just because he had become a Christian, went back to slavery, to be in subjection to the fellow Christian Philemon in all things, “exhibiting good fidelity to the full.” On his way back Onesʹimus did not change his mind, destroy the letter, disappear into this world and continue as a runaway. Though he faced renewed slavery, he delivered the letter to Philemon. That is how we have it in the Bible today.—Philem. 10-17.

27. (a) What, then, are the “all things” in which the Christian slave is to be subject to his owner? (b) Therefore, what kind of slaves would Christianity make them?

²⁷ How can slaves who have become dedicated Christians be in subjection to their owners in all things, especially if these owners are not Christians or are of a different religion? Does the expression “in all things” mean that the subjecting of oneself is total, absolute, without consideration for God’s will and Word? Hardly so! The “all things” are limited to the area or sphere in which the human slaveholder has a legal right to demand service of his slave. He had no right to change the slave’s religion, for that rested with the slave’s own conscience and was a personal matter between the slave and his God. Paul indicates what the “all things” include by adding: “and please them well, not talking back, not committing theft, but exhibiting good fidelity to the full;” Rather than making them worse slaves, Christianity made them better slaves, slaves who take pleasure in pleasing their owners by doing assigned tasks well, slaves who do not saucily talk back to owners, slaves who do not steal from their owners, slaves who are loyal and do not betray the material interests of their owners.

28, 29. (a) What does subjection to an owner not oblige a slave to do? (b) What kind is their subjection thus proved to be, and their service is to be rendered as to whom and with what motive?

²⁸ Subjecting oneself does not oblige a Christian slave to steal from others if his unchristian master commanded him to do so. And if he would not steal for his earthly master, he would also not break any other of God’s commandments. “Let the stealer steal no more,” says the apostle Paul, “but rather let him do hard work, doing with his hands what is good work, that he may have something to distribute to someone in need.” (Eph. 4:28) The Christian subjection of oneself as a slave to a human slaveholder is thus proved to be a relative, comparative, limited subjection, dependent on Christian conscience. Pleasing the slaveowner does not include breaking God’s commandments. In Colossians 3:22-24 Paul said this to slaves:

²⁹ “You slaves, be obedient in everything to those who are your masters in a fleshly sense, not with acts of eye-service, as men pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, with fear of Jehovah. Whatever you are doing, work at it whole-souled as to Jehovah, and not to men [your slave masters], for you know that it is from Jehovah you will receive the due reward of the inheritance. Slave for the Master, Christ.”

30. According to Paul’s instructions, why could obedience to slaveowners “in everything” not include breaking God’s law?

³⁰ Being obedient to slaveholders “in everything” could not mean to the point of being disobedient to Jehovah God, breaking his commandments. Why, the apostle says that this obedience in everything is to be rendered by slaves “with fear of Jehovah.” That is to say, with the fear of displeasing Jehovah. Whatever the slaves were told to do, they were to work at it, not complainingly as to the men who were their masters, but “whole-souled as to Jehovah,” knowing that it was Jehovah who would reward them even though the slave master did not reward them but exploited them as his slaves.

31. How, then, would fear and the desire to please control the slave’s deeds as a slave?

³¹ Fear of Jehovah would not let slaves be the gunmen or the dagger men for their owners to kill someone on orders. If their masters ordered them to steal another’s property, or to lie and bear false witness before a judge, or to abduct another man’s wife, they could not do such things whole-souled as if they were doing them to their God, for Jehovah forbids his Christian witnesses to do such crimes. If Christian slaves were men pleasers, they would subject themselves and obey their masters when these commanded them to do anything wrong, unscriptural, unchristian. But there are some things, many things, in which they cannot obey imperfect, sinful human masters, because Christian slaves are pleasers of God and they are most of all in fear of Jehovah. They are really slaves for the Master, Christ, who bought them by his sacrifice.

32. What similar instructions for slaves does Paul give in Ephesians 6:5-9, and what incentive to good service does it present?

³² In Ephesians 6:5-9 the apostle Paul gives similar instructions to Christian slaves, members of the congregation. Rather than be ill-tempered, evil-minded slaves, they are told to “be slaves with good inclinations, as to Jehovah, and not to men, for you know that each one, whatever good he may do, will receive this back from Jehovah, whether he be slave or freeman.” They keep in mind that they have a Master who is higher than their earthly human slave master, a Master in the heavens. This Master is not partial to earthly slave masters as against slaves, provided that the slaves obey their heavenly Master when faithfulness to Christianity becomes necessary rather than slavish obedience to man.

33, 34. (a) Why would Christian slaves not do things formerly done for their masters, but would this hurt their masters’ interests? (b) What is their desire in being better-mannered slaves, and how does this affect their subjection?

³³ In every case the apostle Paul makes the subjection of Christian slaves to their human owners or masters a relative subjection. Things that slaves did previously in total obedience to their earthly owners they will do no more because of now having a Christian conscience. In spite of that, they will be better slaves and be more profitable to their owners in a loyal way. By sticking to the right Christian course in spite of the wishes of their masters, they will not harm their masters or hurt their interests, but will bring their masters around to respecting their educated, trained Christian conscience. Because of their being better slaves for their having adopted Christianity, they will be no shame or disgrace to what God teaches his dedicated witnesses.

³⁴ By being better-mannered slaves they desire that “they may adorn the teaching of our Savior, God, in all things.” If their desire and effort are to adorn God’s teaching, which they follow in all things, they could not render themselves in subjection to earthly masters so far as to obey orders to do wrong. By doing what is wrong they would not be living adornments to God’s teaching; they would, instead, misrepresent and disgrace His teachings.

SUBJECTION TO GOVERNMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

35. (a) What do the cases of wives and slaves argue as to the kind of subjection Christians must render to governments and authorities? (b) Despite their imperfection, what responsibility do governors have?

³⁵ It is only after he had written about how Christian wives should be in subjection to their husbands and Christian slaves to their earthly owners that the apostle Paul told persons in the congregation “to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers.” (Titus 3:1) By what Paul said about those previous cases of subjection to husbands and slaveowners, we have a standard of measurement by which to measure how far the subjection and obedience to political governments and authorities as rulers goes with regard to dedicated, baptized Christians, such as Jehovah’s witnesses are. The subjection was to be, not total, but merely relative, toward husbands and slaveowners or masters, who are mere imperfect humans. Likewise the subjection must be a relative one toward governments and authorities, which are also made up of humans born in sin and condemned to death. However, the human “governments and authorities” have a responsibility toward all their peoples. One of their main responsibilities is to maintain good order and to give the people a measure of protection. Governments have enough trouble of their own with the unchristian people in general, without having dedicated, baptized Christians add to their troubles by joining worldly people in lawbreaking.

36. As far as being praised is concerned, why is it very fitting that Christians be obedient to governments and authorities?

³⁶ However, for Christians who are really God’s “holy ones” it is very fitting to be obedient to “governments and authorities as rulers.” Instead of deserving the ill will of these men in political office of this world, Christians should win, or, at least, deserve praise for being orderly and for respectfully abiding by the laws by which good order and public welfare are kept up in the community. Christians, because of their whole-souled devotion to God and their faithful imitation of Jesus Christ, are misunderstood and criticized enough and are therefore falsely accused for this cause alone, without needing to make themselves targets of true criticism and accusation for wrongdoing. Christians should show that the fear of God makes a difference in one’s life, for the better. Paul’s counsel is therefore for them to “be ready for every good work.”

37. How is this in harmony with the fact that Christ died and delivered us for a certain purpose, but how does this affect our subjection?

³⁷ This is entirely in harmony with the fact just mentioned beforehand by Paul, that our Savior Jesus Christ “gave himself for us that he might deliver us from every sort of lawlessness and cleanse for himself a people peculiarly his own, zealous for fine works.” (Titus 2:13, 14) How could doing this make us a potent danger to any governments and authorities of this world, even though our subjection to them is merely relative? At the same time our being a people delivered by Christ from every sort of lawlessness and our being “zealous for fine works” prevents us as Christians from rendering more than relative subjection to human governments and authorities. Why? Because human rulers may at times make demands and may enforce laws that are contrary to God’s supreme law.

38. What will our obedience to God’s law never let us do regarding governments and authorities, but what will it not let us join governments and authorities in doing?

³⁸ Our conscientious obedience to God’s law may embarrass human governments and authorities. It may show up their error and their nonalignment with God’s law. But it will never, no, never lead us into subversive movements or conspiracies or violent revolts against such existing governments and authorities. When we render to God what belongs to God during this system of things, it does not mean that we do not also render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. (Matt. 22:21) It does not mean that we are violating the apostolic counsel to “be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers.” It simply means that as conscientious Christians we will not join with imperfect, human governments and authorities when they fight against God. We must take our stand with Christ’s apostles when they said to a nonpolitical, religious court in Jerusalem: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29.

39. Accordingly, what apostolic instructions will we follow, and with what in mind?

³⁹ In all cases we will follow the apostle Paul’s instruction about being in subjection to husbands, to slaveowners and to worldly, political governments and authorities as rulers, and about other affairs of life. This we will do “in order that those who have believed God may keep their minds on maintaining fine works. These things are fine and beneficial to men.”—Titus 3:8.

[Footnotes]

Subjecting Ourselves to “Every Human Creation”

1. Who are the freest people today, but how could they lose their freedom?

FREE people must be careful not to abuse their liberties or to use them as a cloak for selfish, lawless deeds. The freest people today are the people who have been set free from the bondage to the “ruler of this world,” Satan the Devil, who is the “god of this system of things,” the chief opposer of Jehovah God. (John 12:31; 2 Cor. 4:4) These people have been made free from the bondage to untruth, ignorance and superstitions. “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free,” said Jesus Christ, adding that “every doer of sin is a slave of sin. Moreover, the slave does not remain in the household forever; the son remains forever. Therefore if the Son sets you free, you will be actually free.” (John 8:31, 32, 34-36) Such disciples are free from the false human traditions and philosophies of this world that enslave men and hold them fast in a groove. They are not sin’s slaves who are not free to do right. But if they abused their freedom by becoming wild and then used their liberty as a cover for selfish lawlessness, they would lose their freedom. They would become slaves of sin, slaves of wrong.

2. How do true and imitation Christians differ as to use of freedom?

² Imitation Christians abuse the liberties they have. True disciples of Christ do not abuse their freedom, for they are guided by God’s Word. They are wise. They know that to abuse one’s freedom leads to trouble and difficulty with existing institutions of men.

3. When and to whom did Peter address his first letter, and how did he address them?

³ Christians follow God’s Word as expressed through the apostle Peter in his first letter to Christians. About A.D. 62-64, or about the same time that the apostle Paul wrote his letter to Titus, Peter wrote the letter to the Christians in Asia Minor, which was then part of the Roman Empire but now belongs to Turkey. Peter addressed them, not as permanent residents of where they were then living, not as a component part of the local community, but as the “temporary residents scattered about in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.”—1 Pet. 1:1.

4, 5. (a) Their being merely temporary residents was all the more reason for Christians doing what? (b) Because they were aliens and temporary residents, what did Peter write them to do?

⁴ As they were only “temporary residents” they had all the more reason to keep from abusing their Christian freedom. Otherwise, they might not be understood or treated right by the community of which they were no real part, since they are no part of this world though being in the world. (John 17:14-16) True Christians today, such as the dedicated, baptized witnesses of Jehovah, are temporary residents in Turkey and all other parts of this world, for they are awaiting a new order of God’s creating. (2 Pet. 3:13) They are taking heed to Peter’s words that he wrote to caution true Christians against going too far with their freedom in Christ, namely:

⁵ “Beloved, I exhort you as aliens and temporary residents to keep abstaining from fleshly desires, which are the very ones that carry on a conflict against the soul. Maintain your conduct fine among the nations, that, in the thing in which they are speaking against you as evildoers, they may as a result of your fine works of which they are eyewitnesses glorify God in the day for his inspection. For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation: whether to a king as being superior or to governors as being sent by him to inflict punishment on evildoers but to praise doers of good. For so the will of God is, that by doing good you may muzzle the ignorant talk of the unreasonable men. Be as free people, and yet holding your freedom, not as a blind for moral badness, but as slaves of God. Honor men of all sorts, have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God, have honor for the king.”—1 Pet. 2:11-17.

6. Why is there no real reason to think that “a king as being superior” means Jesus Christ?

⁶ Who is this king? Who are the governors sent by this king? Since Peter wrote his letter to the Christian congregations, does Peter’s expression “a king as being superior” mean the Head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ? There is no real reason to think so. In his first letter Peter never directly mentions the kingdom of God, the closest suggestion of it being when Peter says that the Christians who are sanctified by God’s spirit are a “royal priesthood, a holy nation,” this meaning that they were king-priests. (1 Pet. 1:2; 2:9) But Peter does not speak of Jesus Christ as king. Peter always speaks of him as the Lord. This is so even in 2 Peter 1:11, where we read: “Thus there will be richly supplied to you the entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”a

7. How does Peter indicate whether this applies to a king inside or outside the Christian congregation?

⁷ Who, then, is the “king” mentioned in 1 Peter 2:13, 17? He is not the Lord Jesus Christ, nor is he Jehovah God, “the King of eternity.” Peter sets God in contrast with “the king,” saying: “Be in fear of God, have honor for the king.” When Peter gives his orders to Christians concerning this king, where does Peter locate the Christians to whom he writes? Is it inside the Christian congregation? Or is it outside in the world with its Roman emperor and its subsidiary kings and governors? Is Peter speaking to the Christians about their conduct inside the congregation, or about their conduct outside among the people of this world? In the opening sentence Peter addresses them as “temporary residents,” not inside the Christian congregation, but in the Roman provinces in Asia Minor. Then, just before speaking of the superior king and his governors, Peter reminds them of their status as aliens and temporary residents and tells them therefore to keep their conduct “fine among the nations,” where they are spoken against as evildoers.

8, 9. Why, then, was it necessary for Peter to tell Christians how to conduct themselves, and why was it particularly fitting at the time of his writing his letter?

⁸ That is outside the Christian congregation. Undeniably, then, Peter locates the Christians to whom he writes outside in the world of which they are no part. That is why Peter needed to tell them how to conduct themselves out there in close touch with the political, religious and social institutions of this world. From what he said in his letter it is plain that the Christians were suffering persecution, either from the pagans or from the unconverted Jews throughout the Roman Empire. So the Christians needed to watch themselves. If Peter wrote his letter about A.D. 62-64, it was just shortly before the Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire broke out at Jerusalem, which was in the year 66. The Christians had got their religion through the Jews, and the Christians’ headquarters were then at Jerusalem. Hence the general public confused the Christians with the unconverted natural Jews. By bad conduct against the Roman authorities just at that time Christians would give more reason for pagans to connect them up with the revolt-minded Jews.

⁹ Furthermore, the city of Rome was about to suffer the horrors and ruin of a great fire, A.D. 64, and Emperor Nero was about to turn the blame for this accidental fire away from himself by blaming the generally disliked, misunderstood Christians. Would the Christians inside the Roman Empire, by improper conduct, make themselves deserving of being suspected as the arsonists responsible for the burning of Rome? Providentially, in good time and with good forethought the inspired Peter showed Christians how to comport themselves in the Roman Empire under political governments.

10, 11. (a) Where is the “human creation” to which Christians are to be subject? (b) How or by whom did “every human creation” come into existence?

¹⁰ Accordingly, in 1 Peter 2:13-17 our attention is turned, not inside the congregation with its apostles, overseers and ministerial assistants, but outside the congregation to men in the visible, tangible world. Hence Peter tells us: “For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation.” (1 Pet. 2:13) Here Peter does not say every spiritual or divine creation, which would be a creation inside God’s organization, such as the spiritual creation spoken of in 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:10; 4:24; and Colossians 3:10. A “human creation” is one founded or arranged for or produced by a human individual or a group, such as an ambitious human or a lawmaking body like a senate or an assembly. The first human king was the founder of the city of Babel or Babylon. This was Nimrod, the “mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah.” (Gen. 10:8-10) Of course, Nimrod did not create himself as a human creature. He created or founded the office of king.

¹¹ A lawmaking assembly or a government-making committee does not create the person who fills a certain government position. Such assembly or committee creates merely the office or government post that is to be occupied. It does not create the man that later occupies that office or post. When a man takes that office or post and assumes a title belonging to that position, then, as such, he becomes the creation of that human assembly or committee; he becomes a “human creation.” Thus by reason of his own action, aided by his followers, Nimrod was a “human creation” as the first earthly king. Likewise kings of other worldly nations are human creations by reason of the human origin of their office and of their appointment. Governors who are sent by such kings are also human creations.

WHETHER TO A KING OR TO GOVERNORS

12. For whose sake do they subject themselves, and how for his sake?

¹² Peter names or enumerates whom he means by the expression “every human creation” by going on to say: “Whether to a king as being superior or to governors.” Such a king does not mean the Lord Jesus Christ, because Peter just referred to him by saying: “For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves.” Thus Christians do not do something directly to God’s Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, but for his sake they subject themselves to “every human creation.” How for his sake? Because they do not want to bring any reproach upon the Lord Jesus Christ. They do not want their following him to be blamed for being disorderly and worldly among the nations. They desire to honor their Lord by being law-abiding residents, paying back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.—Luke 20:25.

13, 14. (a) Whom is the expression “king” thought by some to mean? (b) Where is it that such a “human creation” as a “king” is “superior,” and to whom?

¹³ The king whom Peter here mentioned to Christians within the Roman Empire is thought by some to mean the Roman emperor, Nero at this time. In fact, some modern Bible translations, such as Moffatt’s and An American Translation, read: “the emperor as supreme”; and The New English Bible (New Testament): “the sovereign as supreme.”

¹⁴ However, Herod Agrippa I of Palestine and his son Herod Agrippa II, and Aretas of Nabataea, are mentioned as kings. (Acts 12:1; 25:13, 24; 26:1, 2; 2 Cor. 11:32) Such a “human creation” as a king or emperor is not superior or supreme inside the Christian congregation. There he is not superior to Jehovah God, who is the Most High, or to Jesus Christ, who is the Lord and Head of the congregation that is his body. But outside in the Devil’s organization the king is supreme locally or the emperor is supreme in the empire. So, as Christians are in the world of which Satan the Devil is the ruler and god, they have to be realistic and recognize that fact and act accordingly. The king or the emperor is superior to the governors whom he sends (John 13:16), but specially to the people his subjects. Hence the honor that is paid to the king or to the emperor is higher than that paid to governors.

15. When honoring a king, whom also must we honor, and what is his purpose in sending them, according to Peter?

¹⁵ Of course, if we honor the king or the emperor we must show it by also honoring his representatives, the “governors as being sent by him.” Now, when he sends these human creations, these governors, does the king intend to promote badness, disorder, confusion, moral decline, and business ruin and stagnation? Are governors sent by the king with a harmful, malicious intent? No! answers Peter, who says: “Being sent by him to inflict punishment on evildoers but to praise doers of good.” According to their own national laws or their own assignment of duties, Peter says that this is the purpose of sending and locating governors in Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia, Asia Province and Bithynia and elsewhere.

16. What was the mission or function of governors in the Roman Empire with regard to Christians?

¹⁶ This mission of governors was especially true with regard to imperial colonies in distant parts of the Roman Empire. Otherwise, such governors would only induce revolt in the colonies. They were sent to maintain law and order. They were not sent specifically to persecute or act against true Christians. But, of course, if Christians did not bring forth the fruits of God’s holy spirit but turned to bringing forth the “works of the flesh” and thus did the same bad things that worldly persons did, then the governors would punish such Christians, not for being Christians, but for becoming evildoers and unfaithful examples of Christianity. The governors did not turn their attention solely to Christians. They inflicted punishment upon evildoers in general, including Christians who disobeyed Peter’s instruction and became evildoers. Of course, governors were obligated to give Christians the benefit of a trial when these were falsely accused by enemies. The unjust punishment of Christians was not the specific or exclusive function that governors were sent out to serve. Governors might even protect Christians.

17. (a) Was it the mission of governors to praise Christianity? (b) What is the idea, then, of Christians in seeking to win praise favorable to their religion?

¹⁷ To be sure, the governors were not sent by the king or by the Roman emperor to praise Christianity, for they had their own gods. But individual persons, whether Christian or not, could receive praise or approval from the governor for being orderly and law-abiding and beneficial to the community. The good conduct of the Christian would reflect favorably upon the religion that he practiced—Christianity. So in expressing any praise to the law-abiding Christian the governor would be indirectly paying a compliment to Christianity, the religion of these “aliens and temporary residents” in the Roman provinces. Christians have the right idea when they seek to win praise in behalf of their religion rather than to have punishment inflicted upon them for evildoing. What they want is that those ignorantly speaking against them “may as a result of your fine works of which they are eyewitnesses glorify God in the day for his inspection.” (1 Pet. 2:12) Because of being misunderstood for their religion Christians may be spoken of as evildoers, in spite of their “fine works.” But such evilspeaking by enemies does not necessarily or unavoidably cause punishment to be inflicted upon faithful Christians by the king’s governors.

“SO THE WILL OF GOD IS”

18. Why, according to the way that Peter puts the matter, could it not be dangerous for us to be subject thus to worldlings?

¹⁸ But are we not going ahead on a dangerous basis, if we say that Peter was talking about political kings and governors of this old world? How could a Christian apostle tell Christians to subject themselves to worldlings? Is that not perilous to Christian faith and practice? Would that not oblige Christians to obey the king and his governors rather than obey God? By no means; for Peter says that such subjecting of ourselves is God’s will for Christians who spiritually are “aliens and temporary residents” in this world of kings and governors. Such subjection has a purpose. What? “For so the will of God is, that by doing good you may muzzle the ignorant talk of the unreasonable men.” (1 Pet. 2:15) It would not be God’s will for Christians to obey kings and governors rather than God. Christians could not be “doing good” and at the same time be obeying the king and his governors to the point of disobeying God and sinning against God. Peter did not mean that Christians in subjection to kings and governors should break God’s laws. Disobeying God by breaking his commandments does not muzzle the ignorant talk of unreasonable men who do not want to understand Christianity.

19. (a) What is the “good” for doing which the Christians earn praise? (b) For the sake of what do they do it, and is their subjecting of themselves a forced subjection?

¹⁹ So the “good” for which the doers of good earn praise from the governors means what the governors think to be good and yet what is in harmony with God’s law and not against Christian principles. Good of this kind, although not directly itemized or specified by God’s Word, Christians may safely do. Spiritually as God’s people they are a free people. Their being slaves of God frees them from slavery to men. But “for the Lord’s sake” and for the sake of the good news of God’s kingdom they must do as the apostle Paul did, make themselves slaves to all sorts of people or creations in order to gain Gentiles and Jews to the side of God’s kingdom. (1 Cor. 9:19-23) Accordingly, when Christians subject themselves to the human creations that people of this world recognize and obey, Christians also do as Peter said: “Be as free people, and yet holding your freedom, not as a blind for moral badness, but as slaves of God.” (1 Pet. 2:16) Christians subject themselves freely, voluntarily, and it does not hurt them. It helps to keep them out of trouble.

FREEDOM AND HONOR

20. What does our Christian freedom not entitle us to do, and, if we did, what would governors be obliged to do?

²⁰ Peter’s thought should be plain to us. Our Christian freedom does not entitle us to ignore political governments or to try to live as though they did not exist, thus flouting them, defying them even in things not contrary to God’s will and law. Such disrespectful conduct would only get us into trouble, because we are still in this old world, not God’s new world of righteousness. It is only right that we hold back from moral badness. Even political governors would not consider us free to commit moral badness but would rightly punish us as evildoers in fulfillment of their official duties. We must therefore not abuse our freedom in Christ.

21. Hence what one thing only could Peter mean with respect to Christian subjection to human creations?

²¹ When Peter says that our subjecting of ourselves is God’s will for us and that our doing this should be as “slaves of God,’? there is only one thing that he could mean. What? That our subjecting of ourselves to human creations such as kings and governors of this world is not total, not unlimited, but merely relative. It does not make us their abject slaves. We remain God’s slaves, obeying Him as our one Master and thus remaining free from other masters. Though we subject ourselves, we never forget that we are slaving for God, not for political kings, emperors or governors.

22. Our subjecting ourselves should not be with what attitude toward the human creations?

²² When we thus voluntarily and wisely subject ourselves, it should not be with a contempt toward the creations just because they are human and part of a condemned world. Peter tells us the proper attitude for us to take toward them, saying: “Honor men of all sorts, have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God, have honor for the king.”—1 Pet. 2:17.

23, 24. (a) What makes the honor Christians render to members of the congregation different from that rendered to “all men” outside? (b) Why must we honor “all men” outside, and to what extent?

²³ The honor that Christians render to all persons inside the congregation is, of course, different from that rendered to all men outside. Just the same, we must render honor to all men in responsible political positions outside the congregation. It is formal honor. But for the “whole association of brothers,” Christians must have more than mere formal honor; they must have love, the brotherly love that proves that they are Christ’s disciples. (John 13:34, 35) As regards rendering honor, Romans 12:10 says to the congregation: “In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing honor to one another take the lead,” thus not seeking honors from our brothers.

²⁴ However, we cannot ignore worldly men in high station outside the congregation. We must duly honor them according to what position they hold as representatives of their subjects, their peoples. No, we must not “heil” them or idolize them, make gods out of them. The honor that we render them is only relative; we render it at the same time that we do as Peter says: “Be in fear of God,” the true God Jehovah. Ranked under our having fear of God is our present obligation: “Have honor for the king,” and consequently for the governors sent by him to rule well.

SLAVES AND WIVES

25, 26. (a) How does it become clearer that Peter means a relative subjection to human creations? (b) What does Peter say with regard to house servants?

²⁵ As we read on in Peter’s first letter it becomes more and more clear that the Christians’ subjecting of themselves to “every human creation” is to be only relative, limited to a certain sphere. How so? Because Peter speaks of other cases, too, where Christians may have to be subject to others. What cases? Those of slaves and wives. We cannot help being born under various forms of political government of this world, but our being slaves and wives may depend largely upon what we ourselves decide to do. Says Peter:

²⁶ “Let house servants be in subjection to their owners with all due fear, not only to the good and reasonable, but also to those hard to please. For if someone, because of conscience toward God, bears up under grievous things and suffers unjustly, this is an agreeable thing [to whom?]. For what merit is there in it if, when you are sinning and being slapped, you endure it? But if, when you are doing good and you suffer, you endure it, this is a thing agreeable with God.”—1 Pet. 2:18-20.

27. (a) How does this show that the servants’ subjection is only relative? (b) The suffering that comes upon the servants should be only because of what, and how must it be taken by Christian servants?

²⁷ Because the house servants or slaves continue to be guided by their Christian consciences, their subjection to their owners cannot be more than relative subjection. This must be so especially toward unchristian owners, who are not good or reasonable but are hard to please. Despite doing their conscientious best, Christian servants or slaves might be mistreated by such sort of owners. Also, because their Christian consciences may not let them do the morally bad or ungodly things that such owners may demand, the servants or slaves may suffer unjust punishment. But this is suffering “because of conscience toward God.” Even though the suffering is unjust, the Christian servant or slave must take it. He must not run away or fight back in revolt. He must endure it in a proper subjecting of himself to his owner. When he does so, this becomes a “thing agreeable with God.” It does not throw any bad reflections upon the Christianity to which the slave adheres.

28, 29. (a) Amid such suffering what does a Christian servant have for his consolation and guidance? (b) How does Peter describe this model conduct?

²⁸ Amid this undeserved suffering at the hands of hard-to-please owners the Christian servant or slave has a model to follow. From this model he can draw great consolation. It is a model furnished by someone greater than himself, yes, by his own Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. Notice how Peter consoles the suffering Christian slaves by referring to this perfect model, as Peter says:

²⁹ “In fact, to this course you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely. He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth. When he was being reviled, he did not go reviling in return. When he was suffering, he did not go threatening, but kept on committing himself to the one who judges righteously. He himself bore our sins in his own body upon the stake, in order that we might be done with sins and live in righteousness. And ‘by his stripes you were healed.’ For you were like sheep, going astray; but now you have returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.”—1 Pet. 2:21-25.

30. With respect to this Model, what is the main point to note, and why is this important?

³⁰ Since the Leader in Christianity thus suffered unjustly, his disciples could not expect to escape similar suffering unjustly. But the main point to note is that our Leader endured it uncomplainingly. To imitate him we must do likewise, whether as slaves or not. As in the case of Jesus Christ, such unjust suffering with no complaining, threatening or reviling works out for good, even for others. It is only the enduring of the unjust, undeserved kind of suffering that is a “thing agreeable with God.”

31, 32. (a) To whom does Peter then turn with counsel, and why? (b) What does Peter counsel these to do?

³¹ After encouraging and consoling the Christian slaves who were suffering unjustly “because of conscience toward God,” Peter then turns to others who had to subject themselves even under cases of unjust mistreatment. These were Christian wives married to unchristian husbands who did not obey God’s Word. Somewhat like slaves, wives are the property of owners, namely, their husbands, whom the Jews even today call Baalim or Owners. (Hos. 2:16; Ex. 21:22; Deut. 22:22, 24; Prov. 31:11, 23, 28) Rather than counseling Christian wives to get a separation or divorce from unbelieving, undedicated husbands, the apostle Peter points back to the case of the slaves and says:

³² “In like manner, you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they may be won without a word through the conduct of their wives, because of having been eyewitnesses of your chaste conduct together with deep respect [more literally, with fear (phobos)]. And do not let your adornment be that of the external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or the wearing of outer garments, but let it be the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible apparel of the quiet and mild spirit, which is of great value in the eyes of God. For so, too, formerly the holy women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, as Sarah used to obey Abraham, calling him ‘lord.’ And you have become her children; provided you keep on doing good and not fearing any cause for terror.”—1 Pet. 3:1-6.

33, 34. (a) What kind is this wifely subjection, and what good result is possible from it? (b) To whom does Peter point as examples for Christian wives, and like which one in particular should they adorn themselves?

³³ No more than in the case of Christian slaves, the Christian wives do not render a total subjection to their owners, without regard for God or Christian conscience. Wifely subjection too is merely relative and has to be balanced with fear of God and a conscientious regard for God’s Word. If she left her unbelieving husband and did not subject herself to him in a way to please God, how could the wife win her husband to Christianity without a word of mouth but by her faithful Christian conduct? She could not do so. For examples of wifely subjection Peter points, not to divorcees or to worldly women who demand “women’s rights” and equality with men, but to the “holy women” of former times who hoped in God.

³⁴ Peter told wives to act like Sarah’s children, instructed by Sarah on how to act as a wife. Sarah recognized Abraham as her husbandly lord. She obeyed him even when he asked her to protect his life at the risk of her own freedom and security. (Gen. 12:11-20; 20:1-14) By thus subjecting herself to her husband Sarah was rewarded with playing an important part toward the eternal salvation of herself and the rest of the human family. She became the mother of Isaac, and thus an ancestress of the Lord Jesus Christ. Likewise a Christian wife can subject herself to her husband and do so with hope in God, in whose eyes she adorns herself with a “quiet and mild spirit” toward her husband. This may work for not only her own salvation but that of her husband and of others.

35, 36. (a) During the existence of this world, to what are we all obliged to subject ourselves, and to what extent? (b) How is this a safeguard and an advantage?

³⁵ Not all of us who are Christian witnesses of Jehovah are human slaves or wives and thus bound to render subjection in those spheres. But, as long as we are in this old world by God’s permission, we are under political governments. As long as God lets these continue existing, we are bound, “for the Lord’s sake” and according to “the will of God,” to subject ourselves to “every human creation.” Neither Peter nor Paul leaves us in any doubt about it that this subjecting of ourselves to these worldly political institutions is only relative, subject at all times to a Christian conscience instructed in God’s Word. When we render such relative subjection, we avoid rousing indignation on the part of the people subject to the kings, emperors and governors because of our failing to show due honor to their rulers.

³⁶ Not only will our relative subjection please such people, but it will especially please God. It will be a safeguard for us against joining in political conspiracies or rebellions against constituted authorities, even when we are persecuted for being Christian witnesses of Jehovah. It will disarm the enemies of God’s kingdom that we are preaching, for they will have no real fault to find or to prove against us except it be with regard to the law of our God.

37. So what will we all be found doing now everywhere, and where will our subjection to government be total earth-wide?

³⁷ Wherever we live, under whatever form of government of men we live, we shall always be found doing good and glorifying God. In his new world of righteousness after the universal war of God’s great day, we shall have the honor and joy of subjecting ourselves totally to the only government then in full control of the earth, that of God’s kingdom by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[Footnotes]

Christianity and Comfortable Religion

✔ Writing in the Victoria Colonist, January 28, 1961, clergyman Frank S. Morley lamented the softness of modern-day ministers compared to heroic first-century Christians. “Reading a religious journal the other day,” he wrote, “I came on some advertisements worded to lure ministers to church vacancies. One boasted ‘Furnished manse, oil-heated . . . paved roads, modern schools.’ Another: ‘Beautiful church, excellent manse—10 minutes drive to university.’ So they went, ‘fully furnished manse,’ ‘comfortable, brick, oil-heated manse,’ ‘a comfortable parsonage, oil-heated, new garage, close to high and public schools.’”

Morley called to mind that when Paul received a call to go to Macedonia, “lacking the cautious approach of his successors today, Paul got hold of Barnabas and ‘immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia.’” (Acts 16:10) They suffered mobbings, beatings, imprisonments, deprivations, hardship and yet rejoiced in their ministerial assignments. How different are modern clergymen from first-century Christians!

United Publication of the “Word of Life”

WHAT is this “Word of life”? It is the message that tells about the hope of life, that makes it possible for its hearers to gain life. As Paul wrote Timothy, light has been shed “upon life and incorruption through the good news” regarding the Savior Jesus Christ.—2 Tim. 1:9, 10.a

This Word of life had a small beginning some six thousand years ago. At that time man, by reason of his disobedience, came sorely in need of a word of life, of some hope of life. Jehovah God, as man’s greatest Friend, gave man hope at that time by the promise recorded at Genesis 3:15, which indicated the eventual triumph of righteousness and the destruction of man’s enemy. For some four thousand years God added to this Word until its completion around A.D. 98. Since then the Word of life has consisted of the entire Bible, from Genesis through Revelation.

Since the Word of life is the complete Bible, publishing the Word of life would be done by multiplying copies of the Bible and distributing them. The early Christians were great publishers of the Word of life, both as regards the written and the spoken Word. Then after many centuries of darkness Bible publishing was resumed with the translation of the Bible into living languages, the invention of the printing press greatly aiding toward that end. In particular did publication of the Word of life receive an impetus by the formation of Bible societies during the nineteenth century, which societies presently account for as many as thirty million copies of the Bible being printed and distributed annually.

But is such publication of the Word of life sufficient? No, it is not. For what will it profit a man if he enthusiastically begins to read the Bible after purchasing a copy, only to lay it down and forget all about it because of not understanding and appreciating what he reads? The fact is that the vast majority of those who obtain copies of the Bible today continue to conform to this old world, just as do atheists, agnostics and other unbelievers, showing that publication of the Word of life has been in vain as far as they are concerned. The conditions in Christendom bear this out.

For publication of the Word of life not to be in vain help must be provided in understanding its contents. It is not an individualistic but an organization book. Even as the Hebrew Scriptures were given to Israel, so the Christian Greek Scriptures were given to followers of Jesus Christ. In the days of Jesus and his apostles help was needed to understand and appreciate the Word of life. The same is true today.—Luke 24:32.

Concerning the obligation Christians have in regard to this publication of the Word of life, Paul wrote: “Be blameless and innocent, children of God without a blemish in among a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you are shining as illuminators in the world, keeping a tight grip on the word of life.” One does not become an illuminator by merely placing Bibles, or Bible-study aids, for that matter, into the hands of the people To be an illuminator one must shed light, cause people to see. That means calling back on persons who have obtained Bibles or Bible-study aids, such as From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained, which is being featured during the month of November, and helping them to understand and gain appreciation of the Word of life.—Phil. 2:15, 16.

The same thought is implicit in the instructions to be “keeping a tight grip on the word of life.” This does not mean selfishly to treasure this Word by clasping it firmly to one’s bosom, as it were. Not at all! This Word of life is also called “the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word.” This admonition takes for granted that the Christian is wielding the sword of the spirit in spiritual warfare and that he must keep a firm grip on it so that the foe does not knock it out of his hand and he suffer harm.—Eph. 6:17; 2 Cor. 10:3-5.

Important is it also that this be a united publishing work, for only united publication can present a clear, harmonious and inviting message to those who are of goodwill toward God. And this publishing is to be done regardless of circumstances and opposition. Yes, in the words of the text for November, the apostolic command comes down to dedicated Christian ministers today: “Preach the word, be at it urgently in favorable season, in troublesome season, reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all long-suffering and art of teaching.”—2 Tim. 4:2.

[Footnotes]

“Our Help Is in the Name of Jehovah”

As told by August Peters

MUCH has been said about the persecution of Jehovah’s witnesses in Nazi Germany. What broke out upon the proclaimers of the good news in this land was a test to prove that their Christian thinking and behavior were genuine. Christians expect to be persecuted, even as Jesus was. (John 15:20) But you may ask yourself, Could I maintain my integrity under severe trial? God’s Word and the experiences of your Christian brothers in Germany should enable you to confidently answer, Yes! There can be no doubt that Jehovah strengthened us during moments of great danger. Our uncompromising stand for his kingdom proved to be the best course in every instance. I know this from personal experience.

INTERVIEWED BY THE GESTAPO

When the storm of persecution broke I was forty-three years old and the father of four children. To be brutally torn away from my family was a test in itself. At the police station a young Gestapo agent, hardly out of his teens, asked many questions. I was determined not to give the “Philistines” any details about the congregation of which I was overseer. The Nazis wanted neither to know anything about Jehovah nor to learn anything from him. I refused to deliver my faithful brothers and sisters over to the sword. Several blows to the face, administered by four squarely built men, did not change my mind. The record they were taking down remained incomplete.

On the following day the Gestapo agent returned with a head assistant of the police prison. Another kind of hearing was to take place, this time in the attic behind soundproof doors. Would they be able to complete their report today? The twenty-four intervening hours had made me even more determined. My refusing, as a matter of principle, to answer questions having to do with the congregation made it difficult for them to find grounds for complaint against me. They became angrier and angrier and felt called upon to schedule a third questioning about twenty-four hours later in the Gestapo basement. I had already heard the plaintive cries that emanated from the basement. They came from political prisoners who were anti-Nazi. Now it was my turn.

On Saturday morning a Gestapo secretary dropped by and advised me in a “friendly” way to tell them what they wanted to know so that I could be released and return to my family. Noticing my determination, he shrugged his shoulders and said, “All right, if that’s the way you want it.” Then I was moved into another cell, which I shared with another prisoner. Only a thin wall separated our cell from the guardroom and we could hear everything going on in there. Around midnight I heard my wife’s voice. This was designed to unnerve me. Later I found out that it was only a tape recording that had been made days before when she was questioned at the police station. I heard heavy footsteps going down into the basement, followed by a great deal of noise as they scuffled about getting ready for my next hearing. Unexpectedly a messenger came in with a telegram. A telephone call followed, whereupon the executioners straightened things around in the basement and left. In answer to an anxious question from a nearby prisoner, a guard answered, “No, they can’t do it any more; a telegram has just arrived.” My scheduled basement hearing was canceled. However, in order to hand me over to the district judge they had to finish up the record and sign it.

On Monday afternoon six persons, some high officials, showed up at my hearing in the police administration building. They asked many questions about personal matters, doctrinal points and the organization. They received their answers pertaining to personal data and Bible doctrine, but did not get any information about the organization. Angrily the Gestapo secretary declared: “We should have known this sooner. Then we would have let the others [political prisoners] out and taken you instead.” If only he could have crushed my fingertips in the washing machine wringer or beaten my naked, wet body before that telegram halted such treatment! I raised my heart and mind in thanks to Him whose arm is not too short to stop a gigantic police organization in its tracks.

After appearing before the district judge I spent several years in a prisoners’ camp. Thereafter, without benefit of a fair trial, I was thrown into a concentration camp near Berlin. Whereas the political officials in the Emslandmoor section were interested in reclaiming land in this arid section through hard labor, the SS officials who controlled the concentration camps were primarily interested in breaking down resistance to the Nazi regime. Daily and even hourly we were bullied by the SS men and also by trusties. Yet Jehovah proved to be with us. Even under those circumstances seven or eight prisoners became Jehovah’s witnesses and were baptized. The camp officials never learned their names, despite severe pressure applied to the “old Bible Students.”

MASS MURDER PLOT

Right after World War II broke out and Poland had been occupied by German troops, I overheard a prisoner say: “Have you heard? All the Bible Students are being taken away.” I thought about this the rest of the day. On the following day a prisoner who worked on the cleaning detail and served the SS commanders at meals called to the SS guard in the corridor: “Head watchman, when are the Bible Students to be taken away?” Came the reply: “Probably tomorrow; their things are already here,” meaning that they had been brought in from the storage room. So it was true!

On the third day the clatter of the commander’s boots, jangling with spurs, echoed through the corridors. Cries of “Heil Hitler!” from the guards were followed by the footsteps of the official commission. “Are you still a Bible Student?” “Yes.” “And do you plan to remain one?” “Of course!” Bang! The door was slammed shut. Several cells farther along: “Still a Bible Student?” The brother gave a lengthy witness. The same thing happened at the third cell. Then cell 6, the fourth door bearing the posted instructions: “Utmost solitary confinement!” No questions were asked here. Instead the commander explained to the commission; “The one in there must definitely be sent along, because he tried to desert his working group by excusing himself from a rattle-brained guard and then trying to go out to preach the gospel.” The SS officer’s “thumbs down” sign with both hands told everything. There was no mistaking it, we were to be taken away. But where? Those gestures with the arms and hands looked like something was to be sunk into the water or into a pit. Did it mean that all 500 or perhaps even more of our brothers would be murdered?

To our surprise nothing happened and the talk about taking the Bible Students away began to die out. How strange! All the plans had been made, lists had been drawn up, plans of march had been devised, instructions had been given and now all was quiet. Five or six days after the commander’s visit we heard a voice cry out from cell 20: “Head watchman, have you already read? A whole transport of prisoners from a concentration camp had an accident in the Polish swamps, caused by a misplaced switch. All prisoners were killed to the very last man.”

A trainload of prisoners from a concentration camp? Killed in the Polish swamps? What were they doing there? They could not have been Witnesses, because we would have missed such a large group by now. Could it be that a shipment of prisoners scheduled to follow Jehovah’s witnesses had left first by mistake? Had they met death intended for us? We were reminded of Jehovah’s words at Isaiah 43:4, 5: “Owing to the fact that you have been precious in my eyes, you have been considered honorable, and I myself have loved you. And I shall give men in place of you, and national groups in place of your soul. Do not be afraid, for I am with you.”

It would fill volumes to relate how secret baptisms were carried out in camp, how the bread and wine for the Memorial were smuggled in to us, how Jehovah provided spiritual food that strengthened us, and how much sacrifice, vigilance and tact were necessary. Even through indescribable tortures Jehovah enabled his servants to preserve their integrity. Often he provided escape from the most critical situations.

How glad I was that years before the storm broke I made use of every opportunity to attend meetings and impress upon my mind the various Bible prophecies and their present-day fulfillments! I wrote them down and often repeated them during lectures. This helped me to remember them. Later, during the years of persecution, I had many opportunities to recount many of these things to those who were hungering and thirsting for spiritual food. The Nazis were unable to rob me of the riches stored away in my mind, because it had become part of me.

The fall of the Nazis freed us from our tormentors. Immediately we began to fulfill our preaching commission on a larger scale. It was then that my wish to become a full-time minister became a reality, without any neglect of my family responsibilities. This was real cause for joy. My former employer offered me a well-paid position, but I decided that there could be no better job than serving only Kingdom interests. In 1946 I became a member of the German Bethel family and was soon joined there by my wife. What a wonderful privilege to serve the God of eternity here in the Bethel home in Wiesbaden, where we still live!

Serving Jehovah is the way of immeasurable happiness, no matter what momentary tests are permitted to come upon faithful Christians. We need have no fear of what man can do, for we have seen the truth of the psalmist’s words: “Had it not been that Jehovah proved to be for us when men rose up against us, then they would have swallowed us up even alive. when their anger was burning against us. Blessed be Jehovah, who has not given us as a prey to their teeth. Our soul is like a bird that is escaped from the trap of baiters. The trap is broken, and we ourselves have escaped. Our help is in the name of Jehovah, the Maker of heaven and earth.”—Ps. 124:2, 3, 6-8.

Questions From Readers

● The Watch Tower publications state that Isaac was five years old when he was weaned. What is the basis for this statement?—H. S., United States.

While the Scriptures do not specifically state the age at which Isaac was weaned, from the facts they do contain we can, nevertheless, ascertain this. Stephen said, as recorded at Acts 7:6, 7: “God spoke to this effect, that [Abraham’s] seed would be alien residents in a foreign land and the people would enslave them and afflict them for four hundred years.”—Gen. 15:13.

What would happen at the end of that time period? Genesis 15:14 answers: “But the nation that they will serve I am judging, and after that they will go out with many goods.” God did execute his judgments on Egypt in the form of ten plagues, and then, laden with the precious things of the Egyptians, the Israelites made their exodus from the land, crossing the Red Sea and heading southeast to Mount Sinai, where they gathered to worship Jehovah.—Ex. 7:4, 5; 12:35, 36.

As shown in the Bible chronology published in The Watchtower, 1951, pages 221, 222, and the book “New Heavens and a New Earth,” this deliverance from Egyptian bondage took place in 1513 B.C. Since this marked the end of the four-hundred-year period of affliction, the beginning of that period must have been in 1913 B.C. According to the same chronology, Isaac was five years of age at this time.

It had been foretold that Abraham’s seed would be alien residents in a land not theirs. This was true from the time of Isaac’s birth, for his father had left his home in Ur and was an alien resident in southern Palestine. It had been also foretold that this seed would come into servitude or be enslaved, but this was not true of their situation during the entire time of their alien residence. Not until 1750 B.C. was Joseph sold into slavery by his brothers and taken to Egypt, later to be made prime minister of the land. Then, in time, his descendants and those of his brothers who had moved into Egypt and had become a populous people were subjected to oppressive forced labor there. So it is evident that the slavery, which terminated in 1513 B.C., did not extend over a period of four hundred years. Nevertheless, affliction for Abraham’s offspring did begin four hundred years before the deliverance from Egypt. It began at the time that Isaac was weaned, and on which occasion, the Bible makes it a point to say, Ishmael, the son of Sarah’s Egyptian slave girl, poked fun at Isaac. Since the four-hundred-year period indicates that Isaac was five years old when this “affliction” began, and, according to the record, it started at the time of his being weaned, we must conclude that he was weaned at the age of five.—Gen. 21:8, 9.

Today, when so many women in the Western world refuse to nurse their own children, or limit their nursing of a child to six to nine months, the period of five years seems incomprehensibly long. But Dr. D. B. Jellife, in Infant Nutrition in the Subtropics and Tropics, shows that in many parts of the world children are weaned first after eighteen months to two years, that frequently in Latin-American lands children are nursed up to two or three years, and that in Arabia it is customary for a mother to nurse her children anywhere from thirteen to thirty-two months. In many places the length of nursing, or lactation, as medical literature refers to it, continues until the next pregnancy.

In the Middle Ages in Europe the average age for weaning was two years and, apparently, in the time of the Maccabees it was three years, for at 2 Maccabees 7:27 we read of a woman who nursed her son three years. There are not a few in the medical profession who hold that a mother’s milk far surpasses cow’s milk in nutrients, and the claim is made by some that the longer the child subsists on its mother’s milk the healthier it will be. In view of Sarah’s fondness of Isaac, and especially as he was not only her first but also her only son, it is easy to understand why she would have nursed him for five years.

Note also that young Samuel was brought to the temple or tabernacle for service immediately upon his being weaned. Since it was not until the age of three that even the offspring of the priests were numbered among those for whom provision was made, Samuel must have been at least that old when he was presented for temple service, and perhaps older. A child that was too young would have been of little help to adults in ministering at the house of God.—2 Chron. 31:16; 1 Sam. 1:22-24.

● The Watchtower, April 15, 1962, on page 238, made reference to a certain petition to excommunicate Hitler that a group of Catholic organizations cabled to the pope. In view of the fact that this statement has been challenged by some, the entire text, as it appeared in the Catholic Telegraph-Register, Cincinnati, Ohio, of September 1, 1939, follows herewith:

“REARED AS CATHOLIC BUT VIOLATES FAITH SAYS CABLE TO POPE

“250 Chicago Delegates from Nations, Religious Veteran’s Trade Union Bodies Join in Startling Appeal.

“(While we carry the article below as an interesting news item, we do not agree editorially that it is wise to seek action on such a grave matter as excommunication. It is best to leave to the church authorities all such matters. They know best all the points involved and the possible consequences.—EDITORS.)

“(By James Colvin)

“CHICAGO (Exclusive)—An appeal has been made to Pius XII that Reichsfuehrer Adolph Hitler be excommunicated.

“The Resolution [was] sent in at the height of the European delegates of Nations, Religious, Veterans’, and Trade Union Groups, banded together in the United Organizations for the Defense of Democracy.

“Copies of the cablegram were sent to George Cardinal Mundelein of Chicago, William Cardinal O’Connell of Boston, Dennis Cardinal Dougherty of Philadelphia, and Archbishop Amleto Giovanni Cicognani Apostolic Delegate to United States at Washington.

“‘Adolph Hitler,’ it read in part, ‘was born of Catholic parents, was baptized a Catholic, and was reared and educated as such. While publicly by his words, deeds and orders he has become the world’s greatest menace to Christianity, and to civilization, he has not publicly up to the present time declared himself outside of the Church of his parents, and has not repudiated his membership therein, thus remaining subject to the laws and discipline of the Church.

“‘Firmly believing that the pronouncing of excommunication upon Adolph Hitler will help the cause of freedom, Christianity, Humanity, and civilization at this time, we hereby respectfully plead, appeal, and petition your Holiness publicly to proclaim and impose excommunication of Adolph Hitler.’

“One of the speakers at a mass meeting declared: ‘we petition to make saints, thus recognizing the power of the Papacy. If such action holds good there, why not here?’ Included in the organizations represented at the meeting were units of the Polish National Alliance, branches of the Polish Roman Catholic Unions, and its joint Committee of Slovak organizations.”

Announcements

FIELD MINISTRY

Proclaiming the “Word of life” is the work of Jehovah’s witnesses. (2 Tim. 4:2) During November, to help others to understand that Word, they will present the Bible-study aid From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained, with a booklet, for 75c.

“THE WORD”—WHO IS HE?

Have you ever asked the question: “How can the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost be three persons and yet only one God?” Many sincere Christians have been puzzled by it. Now, you can have an authoritative answer. The words of the apostle John bearing on this vital subject are compared one with another in the 64-page booklet “The Word”—Who Is He? According to John. Read it. You will be so thrilled with the clear-cut understanding this unbiased report presents that you will want to share it with your friends. Send today. Three booklets for 10c, seven for 25c.

“WATCHTOWER” STUDIES FOR THE WEEKS

December 9: “Be in Subjection”—to Whom? ¶1-25. Page 649.

December 16: “Be in Subjection”—to Whom? ¶26-39, and Subjecting Ourselves to “Every Human Creation,” ¶1-11. Page 654.

December 23: Subjecting Ourselves to “Every Human Creation,” ¶12-37. Page 661.