The Watchtower — April 15, 1963

The Bible—a Book That Gives Hope

WHILE studying for examinations, a twenty-eight-year-old nurse in Australia suffered a mental breakdown. The best psychiatric treatment failed to bring about a recovery. The girl threatened suicide. The local doctor pronounced her a hopeless case and placed her under heavy sedation. An application was made on her behalf for a full invalid pension. Her parents spared nothing, yet all their efforts seemed so very hopeless because their daughter did not get better.

Finally, in desperation the father consented that a Bible study be held with his ailing daughter. After a few Bible studies the daughter’s health picked up noticeably. Her father, friends and relatives were all amazed at her restored condition. The girl’s doctor, too, was positively dumbfounded at her rapid and complete recovery. He asked her the reason for the big change. Her reply was simple and to the point: “I now have something to live for—the new world.” Yes, the Bible is the Book that gives hope.

Strangely enough, many of the so-called “greats” among the Greeks and other nations felt that hope was an illusion. Aeschylus said it was “the food of exiles.” Euripides called it “man’s curse.” But the Bible takes an opposite view. It extols hope and links it to faith and love. (1 Cor. 13:13) It not only lauds the efficacies of hope, but urges Christians to “rejoice in the hope ahead” and to “abound in hope.” Further, it calls hope “an anchor for the soul.”—Rom. 12:12; 15:13; Heb. 6:19.

What the Bible has contended all along doctors are now admitting to be true, namely, that hope is indispensable to a healthy life. Psychiatrist Karl Menninger stated that some of his patients scoffed at the idea of the need for hope, then he added: “Partly that is why they were patients.”

The Bible is the book that gives hope, because it contains the promises of the Almighty, the God of hope. The apostle Paul highlights this fact in his letter to the Romans. He said: “All the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Rom. 15:4, 13) To man, who because of sin inherited the frailty and corruption of his forefathers, the Bible opens up the precious hope of everlasting life. At Titus 1:2 it speaks about “the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised.” The apostle John wrote: “This is the promised thing that he himself promised us, the life everlasting.” (1 John 2:25) Everlasting life is the abundant life that Jesus Christ made possible for mankind. (John 10:10) Nowhere outside the Bible can so great a true hope be found.

The abundant life of Bible promise is to be lived, not in this world filled with dilemmas, threats of nuclear annihilation, unprecedented woes, sickness and death, but in a new world of God’s making. The apostle Peter wrote of this hope in these words: “There are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell.” (2 Pet. 3:13) The apostle John wrote of the blessings that are to be enjoyed in that new world. He said: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be any more. The former things have passed away.” (Rev. 21:2-4) What a wonderful hope this is! Think of living in a world without sickness, sorrow or death! Little wonder this hope inspired the Australian girl to better health. These promises can be trusted because they have the backing of God. He assures us that “these words are faithful and true.”—Rev. 21:5; 1 Ki. 8:56; Heb. 10:23.

The fact that the Ruler of God’s promised new world is Jesus Christ also inspires hope. Paul writes: “On him nations will rest their hope.” (Rom. 15:12; 1 Tim. 1:1) Why hope in Jesus? Paul answers for us: “This hope we have as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm, and it enters in within the curtain, where a forerunner has entered in our behalf, Jesus, who has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.” (Heb. 6:19, 20) When on earth Jesus performed many marvelous works in behalf of the people. We are told he cured “every sort of disease and every sort of infirmity.” (Matt. 9:35) He opened the eyes of the blind, unstopped the ears of the deaf and caused the dumb to speak. The lame he made whole and even raised the dead to life. His earthly works were only a token of the blessings that God’s kingdom by Jesus Christ will bring to those who will live in the new world.

Think what this should mean to those who grope in physical darkness today, to those who are deaf, dumb or lame! Jesus is still their only hope, and the Bible makes this fact known to us. As for the oppressed, the promise is that the defrauders and oppressors will be crushed and that depressed souls will be comforted. Those hungering for friends have only to embrace the good news. Jesus assured his followers that they would gain “a hundredfold now in this period of time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, with persecutions, and in the coming system of things everlasting life.”—Mark 10:30; Ps. 72:4.

What hope does the Bible hold out for the dead? There is a resurrection hope for them. God promises to bring them back to enjoy life on a paradise earth. This hope Jesus left with an evildoer who was impaled alongside him, saying: “You will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43; 1 Cor. 15:22) Surely this is a grand hope.—Acts 26:6-8.

Only for the wicked the Bible holds out no hope. They will perish. (Ps. 9:17; 68:2) But to all who love God and seek to know and do his will the Bible gives hope. How vital that we study its pages and make the hope that it holds out ‘an anchor for our souls’!

Resurrection—of a Dead Body or of a Dead Soul, Which?

“There is going to be a resurrection.”—Acts 24:15.

1-4. (a) What idea may strike Watchtower readers as new or unusual, and this in view of what experience of Paul before an Athenian court? (b) What is our hope regarding such readers, and why?

THE future life of dead mankind depends upon the resurrection of the dead. The idea may strike the reader as something new or unusual. That is the way it struck intellectual judges of the highest court of Greece in ancient days. This was the court of Areopagus or of Mars Hill, and they had before them a man accused of religious heresy. He was Paul, a Christian apostle. He talked to them about a God to whom they offered sacrifices but who was nonetheless a God unknown to them. He was unknown to them as regards his powers and purposes, for these judges were acquainted with only pagan Grecian philosophy. So it took them quite by surprise when Paul showed what kind of judge this God was by saying:

² “God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent. Because he has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has furnished a guarantee to all men in that he has resurrected him from the dead.”—See Acts 17:30, 31 in The Holy Bible.

³ As to how those worldly-wise judges of Athens, Greece, reacted, the record in Acts 17:32-34 tells us: “Well, when they heard of a resurrection of the dead, some began to mock, while others said: ‘We will hear you about this even another time.’ Thus Paul went out from their midst, but some men joined themselves to him and became believers, among whom also were Dionysius, a judge of the court of the Areopagus, and a woman named Damaris, and others besides them.”

⁴ Like reactions by readers of this discussion of this resurrection miracle of God would not be surprising, but our hope is that the reaction of some readers will be like those of Judge Dionysius, Damaris and the others who became believers. For, if persons prove unworthy of a resurrection, what hope is left for them after death?

5. Were there resurrections of the dead before our Common Era, and what evidence is there to support the answer given?

⁵ In ancient times, before God resurrected that one by whom he purposes to judge the inhabited earth, there were resurrections of the dead. We read of this in the fifty-eighth book of the Holy Bible, namely, in Hebrews 11:35, which tells us of persons who had faith in the Almighty God and his power to resurrect the dead: “Women received their dead by a resurrection: and others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection.” (AS) One of these women was a Phoenician widow of the town of Zarephath, whose son God’s prophet Elijah brought back to life. The other was a woman of the Israelite town of Shunem, whose young son God’s prophet Elisha raised to life. Later on, after how long a time we do not know, the sons of these two women died again, and now they are awaiting the resurrection of the dead with others of mankind, in a new world where God will provide them the opportunity to live forever on a paradise earth under God’s kingdom.—1 Ki. 17:8-24; 2 Ki. 4:8-37; Luke 4:25, 26.

6, 7. (a) Why did Paul know what he was talking about to those judges of the Areopagus? (b) How did he also emphasize this important truth to others?

⁶ With regard to the resurrection that the apostle Paul mentioned to the judges of the Areopagus in Athens, it was nineteen hundred years ago that God raised this special one as a guarantee that there will be a day in which God will judge the inhabited earth in righteousness. Paul knew what he was talking about, for he himself had encountered this resurrected one, who identified himself to Paul as Jesus Christ, the Son of God.—Acts 9:1-19.

⁷ As a result of this encounter Paul turned from being a persecutor of the followers of Jesus Christ to being one of those followers himself. As an innocent man Jesus Christ died at the hands of his religious enemies. For that reason Almighty God raised him from the dead and so furnished the guarantee that there would be a future day of judgment for the benefit of which the dead would be resurrected. The apostle Paul emphasized this important truth, not only to the judges of the Areopagus, but also in a letter in which he wrote: “Now Christ has been raised up from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep [in death]. For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.”—1 Cor. 15:20-22.

8. Why is resurrection a possibility, but what question may some Watchtower reader raise as to the need of it?

⁸ Impossible as resurrection may seem to us dying humans, it is perfectly possible for Almighty God. He would not declare to men what he could not do. An angel of God said to Mary the mother of Jesus: “With God no declaration will be an impossibility.” And Jesus himself said: “The things impossible with men are possible with God.” (Luke 1:37; 18:27) However, due to our inability to understand things at first, the Bible teaching of a resurrection of the dead may raise certain problems. For instance, some reader may say: ‘How can there be a resurrection of the dead? The human soul is immortal; it does not die, and so there are no dead. Why, then, is a resurrection necessary? What is to be resurrected?’

9. To this question what may a believer in a well-known religious creed reply?

⁹ Another reader may think he has the answer to this and reply: ‘As you say, the soul is immortal, and it does not need any resurrection, for it keeps on living after the death of the human body. So it is the body that is resurrected, and this body the resurrected people take either to heaven for everlasting happiness with God or to a burning hell for everlasting punishment in the flames of fire mingled with brimstone. In our church we repeat The Apostles’ Creed, and, among other things, it says: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, . . . the forgiveness of sin; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.” That proves it.’

10. But why does that not prove it, and with what pertinent question do we see ourselves faced, with an answer only from where?

¹⁰ However, we must say, No, it does not prove it; because that Creed was not composed by the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. It was composed, at the latest, three centuries afterward.a From what the inspired apostles and disciples wrote in the last twenty-seven books of the Bible, no one can prove the teaching that there will be a resurrection of the very same body in which the dead died. All will have to admit that the question as raised by some people is a reasonable one, that, if the human soul cannot die but lives on in an invisible realm, how are there any dead to be raised and why is there need of a resurrection? For this reason we see ourselves faced with this question: Is the resurrection that of a dead body or that of a dead soul? Which is it? For our complete satisfaction, we must let the inspired Holy Bible answer the question.

THIS THING CALLED “SOUL”

11. Whose views of “soul” therefore come under examination?

¹¹ The inspired Bible writers, Hebrews or Jews, and Jesus also, had an understanding of what “soul” meant. The pagan non-Jews had their own understanding of what they called “soul.” Did the two understandings of “soul” agree? Religious clergymen of Christendom, in general, argue that the two agreed, for the clergy adopt the pagan teaching of the human soul and apply it to the Bible written by Hebrews and Christian Hebrews. But do the two views agree?

12, 13. (a) What did the editor-in-chief of a new translation of the Torah released just this year have to say about “soul”? (b) In agreement with that, what does the Lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs have to say about néfesh?

¹² In January of this year 1963 the Jewish Publication Society of America brought out a new translation of the first five books of the Bible, known in the Hebrew as Torah or in Greek as Pentateuch, in other words, the first five books as written by God’s prophet Moses.b Before this new translation from the original Hebrew was released, a reporter for the New York Times had an interview with the translation’s editor-in-chief, Dr. Harry M. Orlinsky the professor of Bible in the Hebrew Union College, New York city. After this interview, here, in part, is what the Times reporter had to say in the newspaper’s issue of October 12, 1962:

The word “soul” has been virtually eliminated from the translation, Dr. Orlinsky said, because “the Hebrew word in question here is ‘Nefesh.’”

“Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which,” he said, “is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”

¹³ However, we shall not let the word of this Hebrew editor-in-chief be the final authority on the matter. Let us turn also to the producers of Hebrew-English dictionaries. Consult in the public library A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius and edited by three clergymen, Drs. Brown, Driver and Briggs, in its corrected edition of 1952. On page 659, under the Hebrew word Néfesh, this Lexicon is honest enough to make this admission, in column two: “2. The néfesh becomes a living being; by God’s breathing neshamáth hhayím into the nostrils of its basár; of man Genesis 2:7; by implication of animals also Genesis 2:19; so Psalm 104:29, 30, compare Ps 66:9; man is néfesh hhayáh, a living, breathing being Genesis 2:7; elsewhere néfesh hhayáh always of animals Genesis 1:20, 24, 30; 9:12, 15, 16; Ezekiel 47:9; . . . 3. The néfesh . . . is specifically: a. a living being whose life resides in the blood . . . (hence sacrificial use of blood, and its prohibition in other uses; . . . ) . . . c. Néfesh is used for life itself 171 times, of animals Proverbs 12:10, and of man Genesis 49:3c . . . ”c

14. What does the Lexicon by Koehler and Baumgartner have to say on néfesh, and with what reference to the “Greek notion of soul”?

¹⁴ In order to have more than one witness on the matter, let us turn also to the Lexicon for the Old Testament Books, by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, in its edition of 1953, which gives definitions in both German and English. On page 627 of its Volume 2, this Lexicon says, under Néfesh: “the breathing substance, making man and animal living beings Genesis 1:20, the soul (strictly different from the Greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Genesis 9:4f; Leviticus 17:11; Deuteronomy 12:23 (249 times): 3. néfesh hhayáh living being; Genesis 1:20, 24 (= animals) Ge 2:19 . . . Ge 2:7; 9:10, 16. . . . 4. soul = living being, individual, person . . . who kills a person Numbers 31:19, . . . destroy lives, persons Ezekiel 22:27; . . . 7. Néfesh breath = life (282 times) . . . ” And on page 628, column 1: “Néfesh a dead one (has developed from a person) Leviticus 21:1; Numbers 6:11; 9:10; Leviticus 22:4; Haggai 2:13; Numbers 5:2; 9:6f; Nu 19:11, 13 . . . ”

15. Which meaning of “soul” did Jesus and his apostles accept, and how did Paul show this in 1 Corinthians 15:45?

¹⁵ It would be wrong for us to brush aside the above authoritative definitions just because we wanted to hold onto the teaching of a preferred religious sect of Christendom. The above was the meaning of néfesh or soul that Jesus Christ and his chosen apostles accepted. We today should also accept that meaning if we desire to prove ourselves his disciples and to know the truth that makes us free. (John 8:31, 32) For example, in discussing the resurrection, the apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:45, quotes a verse from the second chapter of the Bible that shows what a human soul is, namely, Genesis 2:7. In the popular Authorized Version Bible this verse says: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” That first man was called Adam, and he was a “soul.”

16. What fact did Paul not try to explain away, in contrast with the 1943 Spanish Torres Amat Version in 1 Corinthians 15:45?

¹⁶ Please note that, when, in discussing the resurrection, the apostle Paul quotes Genesis 2:7, he does not try to explain away the fact that the first man Adam was a soul. Paul does not say that God breathed into man’s nostrils a soul. He does not change the wording in order to suit the Greek idea of a soul or psykhé. Such a change of wording is made by the 1943 Spanish Torres Amat Version, with a Prologue Letter by Cardinal Copello of Argentina, for it translates 1 Corinthians 15:45: “The first man Adam was formed with a living soul, the last Adam, Jesus Christ, has been filled with an enlivening spirit.”d

17. How, therefore, does Paul show agreement with the Hebrew doctor on the matter of néfesh?

¹⁷ The apostle Paul wrote in common Greek; and although he used the Greek word psykhé instead of the Hebrew word néfesh, he wrote: “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” (1 Cor. 15:45, AV) The apostle Paul thus agreed with today’s Doctor Orlinsky that “the Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ [the soul] is the person himself.” Paul likewise argues that a human soul is not a spirit but that it is different from a spirit.—Heb. 4:12.

DOES THE HUMAN SOUL DIE?

18. Do animal souls die, and what questions arise with regard to the human soul?

¹⁸ The inspired writers of the Holy Bible call the lower animals, the birds, the beasts, the fishes, the insects, “living souls,” and these creatures die. In their case, then, the “soul” or néfesh or psykhé dies. Ah, but man is a creature higher than those animals and is a creation separate and distinct from those animals. So the human soul does not die, does it? For an inspired decisive answer shall we take the word of the pre-Christian Greek philosophers Pythagoras and Plato, or shall we take the word of God’s prophet Moses and the other inspired writers of the Holy Bible? Because we desire God’s authoritative answer, we go to his inspired Bible.

19. How does the above Lexicon show the correctness of the expression “dead soul”?

¹⁹ The above-quoted Hebrew-English Lexicon referred us to a number of Bible verses where a dead néfesh or soul is spoken of. Look up these verses in your copy of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible, and you will find this: In Leviticus 21:1; 22:4 néfesh (the Hebrew word for “soul”) is translated “the dead,” also in Numbers 5:2; 6:11. But in Numbers 6:6 it is translated “body” in the expression “dead body”; or, as Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament says, on page 829b, “literally, dead soul.” In Numbers 9:10 néfesh occurs translated by the expression “dead body,” also in Numbers 9:6, 7; 19:11, 13 and Haggai 2:13.

20. How does this Lexicon show whether the human soul is destructible, and what truth does Ezekiel 18:4, 20 plainly show?

²⁰ Besides this, the Lexicon cites us to Numbers 31:19 as a case of killing a néfesh or soul, and Ezekiel 22:27 as a case of destroying a néfesh or soul. These verses prove in themselves that God’s written Word teaches that the human soul is mortal and dies. But no Bible verse is plainer on this truth than Ezekiel 18:4 (AV), in which the Lord God says: “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Eze 18 Verse 20 repeats: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” See also Ezekiel 13:19, AV.

21, 22. But did the status of the human soul change with the “Christian New Testament,” and what did Jesus, Paul and Philip show on this?

²¹ Possibly some of our readers may say: ‘But in the Christian New Testament things are changed and it is shown to be a Christian truth that the human soul does not die but is immortal.’

²² But not so! Did not the Christian apostle Paul say that “the first man Adam was made a living soul”? Hence when Adam died at the age of 930 years and returned to the dust because he was dust to begin with, the human soul died. (Gen. 3:19; 5:5) When Jesus told his twelve apostles not to be afraid of men, what did he say? “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matt. 10:28, AV) In his last night in the garden of Gethsemane, what did he say to his apostles? “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” (Matt. 26:38; Mark 14:34, AV) Philip the evangelist applied contextually to Jesus the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12 (AV), which says: “He hath poured out his soul unto death.”—Acts 8:30-35.

23. How are James and Revelation in agreement with the above?

²³ The disciple James closes his letter by saying: “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death.” (Jas. 5:19, 20, AV) And in the very last book of the Bible we read, in Revelation 16:3 (AV): “The second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.”

24. Does one part of the Bible contradict the other part on the matter of soul death, and what Bible words does it not apply to “soul”?

²⁴ We remember the traveling Bible lecturer of some years ago who challenged his audiences by saying that he would give them a five-dollar bill for every Bible text that they would show him that said that the human soul was immortal. Needless to say, he was never obliged to give anyone even one five-dollar bill; for the Bible does not contradict itself on the fact that the human soul dies because of sin. In all its hundreds of pages the Bible uses the words “immortality, immortal, incorruption, not corruptible, uncorruptible, incorruptible” only sixteen times in the Authorized (King James) Version Bible, and never once does God’s Word apply these words to the human soul.e

25. Our pointing out these facts from God’s Word ought to make everybody feel which way, and why?

²⁵ Why should certain religious people get angry and refuse to read any further just because we point out these facts on the soul from God’s Word of truth? It ought to make everybody happy! Why? Because at death the human soul dies and there is thus no immortal conscious soul to go to a pagan kind of hell or purgatory to be tortured and tormented with fire and brimstone forever or even for a limited period of time. This fact, coupled with the associated fact that there will be a resurrection of the dead, should make all who love God and humanity very glad. It helps us to see clearly why there has to be a resurrection if the human dead are to live again with us in a new world in endless happiness.

[Footnotes]

Instead of saying “dead soul” or “soul,” Numbers 6:6, 11; 19:13 uses the words “dead person” and “corpse” and “body” and “person,” and reads: LORD, he shall not go in where there is a dead person. The priest shall . . . make expiation on his behalf for the guilt that he incurred through the corpse. . . . Whoever touches a corpse, the body of a person who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the LORD’S Tabernacle; that person shall be cut off from Israel.” (Italics ours.)

Identifying the Resurrected

1. As regards the resurrection, what do we desire with regard to ourselves and others, and what assurance do we have on this?

WHAT all of us who may have a part in the resurrection desire is to know our loved friends and relatives after their return from the dead. In fact, we desire to recognize our very own selves. We do not care to suffer a loss of memory so that we do not know who we ourselves are. God’s Word makes us sure of our mutual recognition of one another. The apostle Paul who trusted in the resurrection says: “Then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known.” (1 Cor. 13:12) But what will be the thing by which to identify ourselves and others?

2. In view of the explanation given according to the Apostles’ Creed, what practical questions arise about resurrection bodies?

² Will it be by having the very same bodies with which we died? That is the way the so-called Apostles’ Creed is explained. So, will the person who died with a malignant cancer running its tentacles through his body have to come back with the same body in the grip of that cancer? Will the person who dies eaten up with leprosy and disfigured terribly have to come back with the same body afflicted with that loathsome disease? The pregnant woman who died with an unborn child in her womb—will she be raised from the dead with that same pregnant body and give birth to the child on or after the resurrection day? Will a person who was caught in an explosion and had both arms and legs blown off and had to use artificial arms and legs afterward—will he have to be resurrected as just a torso minus limbs? Does God’s Word teach resurrection of the same body?

3. What cases may be argued in favor of resurrecting the same body, but what happened to the ones restored to life in such cases?

³ It is true that Elijah raised to life the same body in the case of that son of the Phoenician widow. Also, that Elisha raised the same body in the case of the son of the Shunammite woman. Also, that Jesus raised the same bodies in the cases of the son of the widow of Nain, of the daughter of Jairus, and of his dear friend Lazarus dead four days. The apostle Peter raised the same body of the charitable Christian woman Dorcas of Joppa. The apostle Paul raised the same body of Eutychus, who fell out of an upstairs window. But all these died again and came under the need of a future resurrection by God’s power through Jesus Christ.

4. What argument as to body may be used in connection with Jesus Christ, but what does 1 Peter 3:18, 19 say by way of correction?

⁴ Here some Watchtower readers may interrupt and say: ‘That is true. But Jesus Christ himself was raised with the very same body in which he was crucified, and that fact sets the pattern for all the other dead who are to be resurrected. And Jesus now has that same body in heaven to which he ascended.’ These readers have been taught so in the religious systems that they have attended. But does the apostle Paul agree with that? Does the apostle Peter agree with that? In 1 Peter 3:18, 19 he says, according to The New English Bible of 1961: “For Christ also died for our sins once for all. He, the just, suffered for the unjust, to bring us to God. In the body he was put to death; in the spirit he was brought to life. And in the spirit he went and made his proclamation to the imprisoned spirits.” Other modern translations of 1 Peter 3:18, 19 read similarly.

5, 6. (a) What events on Jesus’ resurrection day does Peter’s statement help to explain? (b) Why did Jesus have to materialize a body of flesh and bones on each occasion?

⁵ So, as regards Jesus’ resurrection, Peter says that “in the spirit he was brought to life.” This explains why on the resurrection morning when God’s angel rolled the stone from the door of the sepulcher the soldier guards did not see Jesus rise from the dead and come out, although they did see the materialized angel. (Matt. 28:1-4) This explains why, when the resurrected Jesus met two disciples walking that day to Emmaus and went along with them and started to take supper with them, they did not know him until he began to serve the bread; and then he disappeared.—Luke 24:13-35.

⁶ This explains why, when the apostles and other disciples were met together in Jerusalem behind closed doors for fear of the fanatical Jews, Jesus must have come right through the walls. For he amazingly stood right in among them, and, after eating and talking with them, he vanished from them, but not through any unbolted door. (Luke 24:36-44; John 20:19-24) Of course, for Jesus, who had been brought to life in the spirit, to make himself visible to his disciples, he had to materialize on each occasion a body of flesh and bones. Jesus himself then said: “A spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have.” Since the flesh-and-bones disciples could not see what was not flesh and bones, they could not see a spirit and they could not see the resurrected Jesus, who was “in the spirit.”—Luke 24:39.

7. How should we explain Jesus’ not mentioning blood when telling his disciples about what a spirit does not have?

⁷ Because Jesus did not mention blood, he did not mean a spirit has blood like that of a human person. When we feel a person, as his disciples then felt Jesus, we do not feel blood, but we feel the flesh and the bones, especially bones in the hands, the feet and the chest. A fleshly body without bones would just collapse.

8. What explanation can be given as to why, on occasions, the disciples did not recognize the resurrected Jesus?

⁸ On some occasions the disciples did not know or recognize the resurrected Jesus. (Matt. 28:16, 17; Luke 24:15, 16; John 20:14-16; 21:4-12) The explanation for this is given in the words found in the Latin Vulgate, the Roman Catholic Douay Version, the German Luther Bible and the Authorized (King James) Version, in Mark 16:12. This verse in the Douay Version reads: “And after that he appeared in another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the country.” The Greek word there translated “shape” is morphé, which the Greek-English Lexicon says means “form, shape, fashion, appearance.” But even apart from what Mark 16:12 says, a careful study of the resurrection appearances makes it clear to the honest investigator, who does not need to be a Sherlock Holmes of a detective, that the resurrected Jesus materialized different bodies to suit the occasion. On at least two occasions he materialized bodies that resembled the one in which he had been nailed to the stake. (Luke 24:38-40; John 20:20-27) On other occasions the form or shape that he materialized left the disciples in doubt for a while.

9. When Jesus ascended to heaven, what did angels say to the onlooking disciples, but what did they not say about Christ’s return?

⁹ Possibly some readers will now think of Jesus’ ascension to heaven, how he led his disciples out to the Mount of Olives, where, “while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight,” and angels said to them: “This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11, AV) In those words “in like manner” the Greek word for “manner” is, not morphé, but trópos. So the angels did not say that this same Jesus would return in the same form or shape but in the same manner. Neither did the angels say that those disciples would see Jesus return.

10, 11. (a) How do some argue around the fact that Jesus could not take a fleshly body to heaven as 1 Corinthians 15:50 shows? (b) How is it shown that there was no need to spiritualize material things?

¹⁰ Jesus could not take a human body through the Van Allen radiation belts and outer space to heaven, for, in discussing the resurrection, Paul says: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption,” which agrees with Paul’s preceding statement: “It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.” (1 Cor. 15:42, 50, AV) Oh! but some readers will say, he spiritualized his fleshly body in order to take it to heaven! But, we ask, did those angels who materialized human bodies in order to appear to the disciples on resurrection day and on ascension day spiritualize those bodies in which they appeared in order to return to the invisible spirit realm? Did Jesus spiritualize the clothing in which he appeared to his disciples?

¹¹ Jesus certainly had to materialize clothing in which to appear, for the clothes he had on before he was impaled were divided among the soldiers and they cast lots over his seamless inner garment; and the bandages in which his corpse had been wrapped and the cloth that had been upon his head were left in the sepulcher. (John 19:23, 24; 20:5-7) If the resurrected Jesus could materialize new clothing, could he not also materialize new suitable bodies in order to appear and then dematerialize instead of spiritualize them? Yes!

SACRIFICE NOT TAKEN OFF ALTAR

12, 13. What would it mean if Jesus had taken his human body to heaven to enjoy there, and why so?

¹² If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood and bones to heaven and enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be taking his sacrifice off God’s altar.

¹³ Jesus said: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (John 6:51, 54, 55) How could we eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood in order to have everlasting life and at the same time Jesus himself have the flesh and blood themselves in which to live in heaven? It is a common proverb that a person cannot have his cake and eat it too.

14. If Jesus had his human body in heaven, what would this mean about our knowledge of God and Christ, but how is this disproved?

¹⁴ Just suppose that Jesus has his earthly human body in heaven. Since clergymen who insist that Jesus has his human body in heaven teach that he is also God himself, then we know what God looks like. He looks like Jesus when down on earth; he is possibly six feet tall, has a Jewish nose, possibly a beard, has man’s sex organs, and seems to weigh two hundred pounds or around a hundred kilograms. He is maybe like the painting by the Italian Michelangelo of the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel of the Vatican. However, Jesus told the Jews: “The Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape [morphé].” (John 5:37, AV) The apostle John also said to Christians: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2, AV) John’s words would not be true if Jesus had his human body with him in heaven, for then we would know what Christians will be like in heaven after their resurrection from the dead.

15. If Jesus has his human body in heaven, what does this mean as the result of his eating and drinking with his disciples in heaven?

¹⁵ Another thing: If Jesus had his human body in heaven, then he has the entire digestive system, including the mouth and the stomach; and his faithful disciples, on going to heaven, would have the same things. We remember that Jesus said to them: “I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.” (Luke 22:29, 30) Well, then, after eating and drinking, the food and drink would go through their digestive systems. So what? Well, Jesus said: “Whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught.” (Matt. 15:17, AV) Think of it! Since the arrival of human bodies, there now have to be draught houses in heaven, toilets, both private and public, with separate ones for men and women. And now and forever Jesus, who the clergymen say is very God himself, has to use a heavenly toilet, something that he never had to do in heaven before he became a man!a This has to be true if we carry arguments to their logical conclusions!

16. How, though, is the Bible reasonable in this matter?

¹⁶ How reasonable, though, the Bible is in saying that “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom”! (1 Cor. 15:50) In explaining the annual Atonement Day or Yom Kippur of the Jews, the Jewish Christian Paul proves that Jesus Christ did not take his fleshly body with him to heaven but left it behind as a human sacrifice.

17. On the annual Atonement Day of the Jews how was atonement made?

¹⁷ As explained in Leviticus, chapter sixteen, on the yearly Atonement Day the Jewish high priest carried the blood of the sacrificial bull and the sacrificial goat into the Most Holy of the sacred tent or temple made by human hands. As for the skins, the flesh and the dung of the bull and goat, these had to be burned outside the camp or community and thus be disposed of. Both the bull and the goat pictured the sinless Jesus Christ as a human sacrifice. The Most Holy into which the blood of the bull and the goat was brought pictured heaven itself, where God the Creator is.

18. How is this explained for us in Hebrews 9:11, 12, 24-26 as to its significance?

¹⁸ Here, now, is how God’s own Word explains this, in Hebrews 9:11, 12, 24-26: “When Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us. Neither is it in order that he should offer himself often, as indeed the high priest enters into the holy place from year to year with blood not his own. Otherwise, he [Christ] would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself.”

19, 20. What does the disposition of the bodies of the atoning bull and goat picture as regards Jesus Christ?

¹⁹ How were the fleshly bodies of the Atonement Day sacrifices disposed of? Hebrews 13:10-13 answers: “We [Christians] have an altar from which those who do sacred service at the tent have no authority to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is taken into the holy place by the high priest for sin are burned up outside the camp. Hence Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate. Let us, then, go forth to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach he bore.”

²⁰ According to the Atonement Day picture, as fulfilled by Jesus Christ, his fleshly human body was not taken into the true Most Holy, the heaven of God’s presence. Like the bodies of the atoning bull and goat, Jesus’ earthly body was disposed of according to God’s will, that believing mankind might feed upon it by faith.

21. What was pictured by the Jewish high priest’s taking the atoning blood into the Most Holy?

²¹ Even Jesus’ literal blood was not taken into heaven itself, but what his shed blood symbolized was taken by him to heaven. God’s Word says: “The life [Hebrew, néfesh] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls [néfesh in plural]: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul [néfesh].” (Lev. 17:11, AV) According to these words Jesus’ shed blood pictured his human life poured out. It stood for the value of his sacrificed life. So, when the Jewish high priest with the atoning blood passed beyond the inner curtain into the Most Holy of the tent of worship, it pictured Jesus’ being resurrected from the dead and entering with the value of his human sacrifice into heaven itself, there to present this value to God his Father. His life symbolized by his blood was offered for our lives based on our blood.

RESURRECTION BODIES

22, 23. (a) If Jesus had been resurrected as a man, what work could he not have done? (b) With reference to resurrection bodies, what illustration did Jesus use and what did Paul not say?

²² That Jesus Christ might accomplish this atonement work in the heavens where spirits live, he was, as 1 Peter 3:18 says, resurrected or brought to life “in the spirit.” Had he been resurrected as a perfect man again, he could not have done this high priestly work in heaven. What body did he have in his resurrection and what bodies do his faithful followers have in their resurrection? The apostle Paul illustrates it with the growth of a plant from a seed. Even Jesus himself referred to a plant and said: “The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (John 12:23, 24, AV) With what body does that fallen, dead seed come forth?

²³ Nineteen centuries ago the Christians in Corinth put up to Paul the same question, With what body do the dead return in the resurrection? Paul did not answer: ‘I believe in the Apostles’ Creed; and it says that there will be “the resurrection of the body,” the same body identically with which people died. Even Christians who enter the heavenly kingdom get their human bodies back.’

24, 25. With reference to resurrection bodies of Christ and his disciples, what does Paul write in 1 Corinthians 15:35-41?

²⁴ The apostle Paul wrote differently from the so-called Apostles’ Creed. Therefore let us read what he wrote in discussing the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his followers. Here it is:

²⁵ “Nevertheless, someone will say: ‘How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what sort of body are they coming?’ You unreasonable person! What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest; but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him, and to each of the seeds its own body. Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory.”—1 Cor. 15:35-41.

26. What does Paul there show with regard to the bodies that he discusses?

²⁶ Please note! Paul does not say there is a combination body, a body part heavenly and part earthly, a spiritualized human body, a body part fish and part bird, or part man and part monkey, or a God-man. Paul says that each body is of a distinct sort, a heavenly body of its own sort, an earthly body of its own sort. Well, then, what body does God give to the Christians who have been begotten by his spirit to a heavenly hope? Here is what Paul answers:

27. In 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 what does Paul write as to the resurrection bodies given to spirit-begotten Christians?

²⁷ “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised up in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Nevertheless, the first is, not that which is spiritual, but that which is physical, afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second man is out of heaven. As the one made of dust is, so those made of dust are also; and as the heavenly one is, so those who are heavenly are also. And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly one.”—1 Cor. 15:42-49.

28. How do the foregoing words support the truth that Jesus Christ was resurrected “in the spirit”?

²⁸ Paul’s words about receiving a different body in the resurrection apply to Jesus himself and not only to his faithful followers begotten by God’s spirit. Just as Peter said that Jesus was put to death in the flesh and resurrected to life in the spirit, so Paul here says that in the resurrection Jesus, who is the “last Adam,” was raised or “became a life-giving spirit.”—1 Cor. 15:45.

29. Why is a change of body necessary for the heavenly class, and what assurance does Paul give about this change?

²⁹ If Jesus had been resurrected human, he would again have borne the image of the “first man Adam.” Hence in becoming like Jesus in their resurrection his followers would be bearing again the “image of the one made of dust” and not the image of anyone heavenly. But for these Christians a change of body is absolutely necessary, since Paul says right afterward: “However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. . . . we shall be changed. For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality. But when this which is corruptible puts on incorruption and this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying will take place that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up forever.’”—1 Cor. 15:50-54.

DOES ANYTHING SURVIVE DEATH?

30. With regard to the resurrection bodies of people without a heavenly hope, what rule must apply, as stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:37, 38?

³⁰ So much for the spirit-begotten Christians with a heavenly hope. What about the billions of people, including faithful men and women of God, who died without a heavenly hope prior to Christ’s first coming? And what about people today? Hundreds of thousands of godly men and women are living without a heavenly hope. What about the resurrection of persons of this kind who die before God destroys this old system of things and introduces his new world or system of things under the kingdom of Jesus Christ? Regarding these descendants of the first man Adam Paul’s words quoted above say: “The first man is out of the earth and made of dust . . . As the one made of dust is, so those made of dust are also.” To these the rule about kinds of seed must apply, as stated by Paul: “God gives it a body just as it has pleased him, and to each of the seeds its own body.”—1 Cor. 15:37, 38.

31. Accordingly, what bodies will God give them in the resurrection?

³¹ So it will be with persons who remain part of the earthly seed of mankind and who have not been begotten of God’s spirit to become a heavenly seed. In the resurrection they will be raised with bodies belonging to the earthly seed. God will give them bodies just as it pleases him, human bodies, but not identically the same human bodies with which they died. ‘Oh! ‘ some readers may say, ‘how, then, will it be the same person?’ Almighty God will see to it that it is the same person, even without the same body.

32. What question is raised as to the need for something to survive to preserve identity?

³² At that these readers will ask: ‘Does not something have to survive death in order for the person to be the same person in the resurrection and not some newly created person like the person who died? You have proved from the Bible that the human soul dies when a human creature dies and that the corpse is either eaten up by the fish of the sea or by the worms of the earth and thus it goes out of existence. This being so, nothing survives, no soul, no body.’

33. (a) In Ecclesiastes 12:7, what is it that returns to God? (b) How does Psalm 104:29, 30 show that God can re-create human souls?

³³ That is Scripturally right. And Ecclesiastes 12:7 says: “Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the true God who gave it.” The spirit of the wicked as well as the spirit of the righteous returns to God who gave it. How so? Because the spirit [rúahh] here mentioned is not the soul [néfesh], which has died. The spirit is the force of life that God has given or has caused to be transmitted to every person that is born. God withdraws that life force from all mankind who are under the inheritance of death from Adam, and, when God withdraws this spirit or life force, the human soul dies. (Rom. 5:12) God alone can restore this spirit or life force and thus cause souls to live again. Psalm 104:29, 30 says: “If you conceal your face, they get disturbed. If you take away their spirit, they expire, and back to their dust they go. If you send forth your spirit [not, your soul or their soul], they are created.” These inspired words assure us that Almighty God can re-create, yes, re-create human souls.

34, 35. (a) Why is a question raised regarding God’s power to re-create? (b) Who determines whether anything of the dead soul shall live on, and what scriptures show this?

³⁴ Here some readers will say, ‘How can God re-create souls or make the same souls over again, if nothing physical or spiritual lives on after the soul dies and the body goes to dust and gases?’

³⁵ Ah, but there is something of the dead soul that lives on, if God chooses to have it so, and this something lays the basis for a re-creation. What is that? The life record of the dead soul. God can blot out the record of a wicked soul or he can preserve the record of a righteous soul for His own reference and use. Exodus 32:33 (AV) says: “The LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.” Deuteronomy 29:20 (AV) says: “The LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven.” Psalm 69:28 (AV) prays: “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.” Proverbs 10:7 (AV) says: “The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot.” Hence God does not keep the wicked ones in his memory. Because he blots them out of the book of the living, he will give them no resurrection from the dead.—Matt. 10:28; Ps. 145:20.

36. How is God’s ability to preserve records of dead souls shown to be most reasonable?

³⁶ Talk about preserving records, men today make motion pictures of a person on a film together with a sound track of his voice. This can be reproduced over television. In fact, men today can preserve on a phonograph record the speech and singing of a person. Even on a magnetic tape men can invisibly preserve television pictures and the voice of an actor. If imperfect dying men can do this because man was created in God’s image, what can Almighty God himself do in keeping records, even in his own memory, concerning persons for whom he reserves a resurrection from the dead by means of Jesus Christ? So our record with God is what counts.

37. (a) What does each one’s record with God represent? (b) How is it proved that soul according to the pagan Grecian idea is not the seat of intelligence and thought and personality?

³⁷ Each one of us makes his own record with God. That record represents you! It tells of your personality. Your personality does not altogether depend upon your physical body. Because of the continual wearing out and repairing of the tissues and organs of our bodies we get a completely new body every seven years or so. Yet our personality remains as an identification of our being the same person. Even our personalities can change, not because our bodies are renewed, but because God’s holy spirit or transforming force acts upon us. Each one develops his own personality pattern, and this is stored up in each one’s brain, also in the blood to some extent. The seat of intelligence, of thought, of memory, or consciousness and of personality is not some pagan Greek idea of a soul or psykhé. Pagans argue that a soul resides in each of us and is the seat of intelligence and personality; but we know that if the physical brain is damaged in anyone, he loses his intelligence or sanity and no so-called soul inside him keeps him intelligent, sane or possessed of memory and thinking ability. This disproves the pagan theory of an immortal soul as the seat of life and thought.

38. How will God re-create dead souls, and what does Ecclesiastes 11:3 indicate regarding this?

³⁸ God knows all this. At his time for resurrecting the earthly dead souls under the kingdom of his Son Jesus Christ, God can consult his records of each one or his own memory of each one. He can give each person resurrected to life on earth a “body just as it has pleased him,” with its distinct type of blood. That body will have a human brain, not made, of course, of identically the same atoms or molecules that the person had in the brain with which he died. Yet it will be the same brain. How? In that God will exactly reproduce the brain that the individual had at death. He will repeat its convolutions and implant in them the record that the individual made of himself in the former life. God will implant the exact impressions and memories of all things that happened during the person’s previous consciousness, his power of recognizing people and scenes and locations, and all his personality traits, and everything that displays his mental growth or retardation. This will be because, when he died as a soul, he experienced no mental or personality changes afterward in death. At what state of attainment his personality and mentality fell in death, there they remained.—Eccl. 11:3.

39. Thus why would the person resurrected be, not some newly created person like him, but the person that died?

³⁹ Thus in the resurrection that person with that personality and brain ability will be the individual that died, not some other person like him. Nobody else made the record that is reproduced in this resurrected person; and no person who is merely like him could account for having such a record in himself since he did not work out that particular record. So if you were to die and have a resurrection, and God provided a body with a brain like yours and with your record at death, that resurrected person would be you, nobody else but you. Your acquaintances would know it was you.

40. (a) What opportunity will the resurrection of dead souls on earth open up to them? (b) What special opportunity do proclaimers of God’s kingdom today have before them, and why?

⁴⁰ How wonderful that in God’s resurrection of the dead souls we shall know one another and also remember God’s past loving-kindness to us! The resurrection of the dead souls to life on earth will open up an opportunity for them to gain life everlasting on a paradise earth under the perfect government of God’s kingdom. (Luke 23:42, 43, Ro; NW) Besides that, there lives on earth today a great crowd of God-fearing people who are proclaiming God’s kingdom worldwide and who will not need a resurrection from the common grave of dead mankind. These people will survive the “war of the great day of God the Almighty” with which this wicked system of things will end shortly. (Rev. 16:14, 16) Thus without dying they will enter into the new world under God’s kingdom and gain the prize of everlasting life for themselves. They will also be on hand to welcome back the earthly dead in the resurrection. But that is a subject for discussion some other time.

[Footnotes]

[Picture on page 237]

“Last Judgment”—Sistine Chapel

Patient Endurance Brings Rewards

One of Jehovah’s witnesses from Ohio related this experience at an assembly in Point Pleasant, West Virginia, in 1962: “About ten to twelve years ago I was working in a little village where I knew nearly everyone, and everyone knew me. When I knocked on one door the lady said, ‘Come in. I’m a Seventh-day Adventist, and there never has been one of Jehovah’s witnesses in my house. In fact, I wouldn’t have let you in if I hadn’t known you. I know enough about the Bible to know there is only one truth, only one religion that God recognizes. We can’t both be right. I want the truth, and I don’t care where it comes from. If my religion can’t stand any test, it isn’t worth much.’ I agreed, ‘We both can’t be right. Like you, I want a religion that can stand any test.’

“So on this basis a Bible study was started in the book ‘Let God Be True.’ We did fine over a period of time till we came to the chapter on the sabbath. During the next six to eight years this person stopped and then resumed the study many times, and the chapter on the sabbath was studied perhaps ten or more times with different Witnesses. During the past five or six years she has been coming to the Kingdom Hall now and then. One never knew who would be with her; maybe her husband, sister, daughter or other relative, or one of the neighbors. In 1960, she started preaching the good news of the Kingdom with me. She is a regular publisher. In September, 1962, she and her sister were baptized. Today one of my greatest joys is to hear her explain the sabbath from the Bible to a person of goodwill.”

Easter—What Are Its Origins?

BY MANY Easter is considered to be Christendom’s chief religious festival. Early on Easter morning large numbers throughout the world meet together for the Easter sunrise service. Everywhere the churches are filled with worshipers, some even several times, and thousands crowd into the square of St. Peter’s Basilica on that day to hear the pope give his Easter blessing. Great throngs of pilgrims also flow into the old walled city of Jerusalem to make their Easter pilgrimage.

But Easter also has another side to it. During the Easter season bakeries display hot cross buns, and candy counters feature butter-cream eggs and chocolate rabbits. There are also Easter music, Easter perfume, Easter jewelry, Easter clothing for men and women and Easter dinners. And not to be overlooked is the Easter parade, in which hundreds of thousands parade on New York City’s Fifth Avenue alone, to be seen or just to see. In the United States the Easter festival may be said to come to an end on Monday with the egg-rolling contest on the presidential White House lawn, which in times past was a decorous affair but of late appears to have deteriorated into a boisterous egg-throwing affair.⁠¹

The ostensible purpose of Easter is to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This being so, it may well be asked, What do hot cross buns, eggs, rabbits, new clothes, and so forth, have to do with Easter? Little, except that both for long have been associated with the spring of the year. As An Encyclopedia of Religion, by Ferm, says: “Pagan practices were introduced into the Christian observance of Easter at an early age on account of the fact that the feast coincided with the beginning of spring. . . . At that season of the year, the New Year and the creation of the world were celebrated in ancient times by an exchange of gifts (Easter eggs) and by generous hospitality to friends, to the poor, and so forth.”

YES, PAGAN ORIGINS

Did you know that the very name “Easter,” is of pagan origin? Says an early eighteenth-century Catholic scholar, a Benedictine monk, in a work that may well be said to have been the forerunner of the modern Bible dictionary:

“Easter is a word of Saxon origin; and imports a goddess of the Saxons, or rather, of the East, Estera, in honor of whom sacrifices being annually offered about the passover time of the year (spring), the name became attached by association of ideas to the Christian festival of the resurrection which happened at the time of passover; hence we say Easter-Day or Easter Sunday, but very improperly; as we by no means refer to the festival then kept to the goddess of the ancient Saxons.”⁠²

To the same effect testify other authorities, from the eighth-century English historian Bede to the lastest encyclopedias.

Concerning the use of hot cross buns at Easter time we are told:

“Like the Greeks, the Romans ate bread marked with a cross . . . at public sacrifices, such bread being usually purchased at the doors of the temple and then taken in with them—a custom alluded to by St. Paul in 1 Cor. x. 28. The cross-bread was eaten by pagan Saxons in honour of Easter, their goddess of light. The Mexicans and Peruvians are shown to have had a similar custom. The custom, in fact, was practically universal, and the early Church adroitly adopted the practice, grafting it on to the Eucharist and so giving us the hot crossbun.”⁠³

What about the Easter eggs? It is a well-known fact that in the ancient pagan cosmogonies, or theories about the origin of the universe, the egg looms up prominently. One tells of the “Egg of Light,” another of the “World-Egg.” From one or another of these eggs was supposed to have issued the first god, the Maker and Ruler of the World. Eros, the god of “love,” is also said to have issued forth from an egg.⁠⁴

True, some claim that the use of eggs at Easter is due to the fact that at one time eggs were banned during Lent, but this does not explain the featuring of eggs on Easter ever since that ban was lifted and now when eggs can be eaten all during Lent. Neither does it explain why the same prominence is not given to other foods that are still banned during Lent and that may be eaten only beginning with Easter. The eating of ham on Easter does not prove the contrary, for it began to be featured in Easter dinners for an entirely different purpose. Says one authority: “Many American Catholics have a boiled ham for dinner on Easter without being aware of the origin of the custom. It is a survival of the ancient habit among the English of eating a gammon of bacon on that day to show their contempt for the Jewish custom of not eating pork.”⁠⁵

The more pertinent explanation for eating eggs on Easter is that found in The Catholic Encyclopedia: “The custom may have its origin in paganism, for a great many pagan customs, celebrating the return of spring, gravitated to Easter. The egg is the emblem of the germinating life of early spring.”⁠⁶

Concerning the Easter bunny, this same religious authority states: “The Easter Rabbit lays the eggs, for which reason they are hidden in a nest or in the garden. The rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility.”⁠⁶

Even the early Easter sunrise service is not without pagan antecedents. “According to old superstition, the sun rising on Easter morning dances in the heavens; this belief has been traced to old heathen festivals of spring, when the spectators danced in honor to the sun.”⁠⁷

And the same must be said of the impressive ceremony that takes place throughout Christendom on the day before Easter in which new fire is blessed and certain candles and lamps are lit. A detailed description of this ceremony includes the following: “The obtaining and blessing of the new fire is probably a rite of Celtic or even pagan origin, incorporated in the Gallicana Church service of the eighth century.”⁠⁸

ITS HISTORY

How did all this originate? Certain it is that it does not go back to the beginning of Christianity, for as The Encyclopædia Britannica states:

“There is no trace of the celebration of Easter as a Christian festival in the New Testament or in the writings of the apostolic fathers. The sanctity of special times or places was an idea quite alien from the early Christian mind; too profoundly absorbed in the events themselves to think of their external accidents [nonessentials]. ‘The whole of time is a festival unto Christians because of the excellency of the good things which have been given,’ writes Chrysostom. . . . Origen [urges] in the same spirit . . . The ecclesiastical historian Socrates . . . states with perfect truth that neither Christ nor his apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival. ‘The apostles,’ he writes, ‘had no thought of appointing festival days, but of promoting a life of blamelessness and piety;’ and he attributes the introduction of the festival of Easter into the church to the perpetuation of an old usage, ‘just as many other customs have been established.’ This is doubtless the true statement of the case.”⁠⁹

This should not surprise us, for had not both Jesus and his apostles foretold a falling away from the pure worship? This is what Jesus had reference to when in one of his parables he said: “While men [the apostles] were sleeping [in death], his [Christ’s] enemy [Satan] came and oversowed weeds [false Christians] in among the wheat [true Christians], and left.” And the apostle Paul warned: “I know that after my going away . . . from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” The apostle John likewise foretold a falling away, in fact, said that it had already begun in his day.—Matt. 13:25; Acts 20:29, 30; 1 John 2:18, 19.

History shows that these prophecies have been fulfilled, and the facts regarding Easter are an illustration of it. Before the end of the second century there was much disputing as to just when Christ’s resurrection should be celebrated, Victor, the bishop of Rome at the time, unsuccessfully attempting to impose his views on the rest of the then professedly Christian world.⁠¹⁰ To end this conflict was one of the purposes for which the Council of Nice was called. It ruled that Christ’s resurrection should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the spring equinox, or after March 21.⁠¹¹ It appears that antipathy to the Jews played a part in determining this date.⁠¹²

Concerning this trend in early Christendom Sir James G. Frazer, a historian, revealingly states:

“Taken altogether, the coincidences of the Christian and heathen festivals are too close and too numerous to be accidental. They mark the compromise which the Church in the hour of its triumph was compelled to make with its vanquished yet still dangerous rivals. The inflexible Protestantism of the primitive missionaries, with their fiery denunciations of heathendom, had been exchanged for the supple policy, the easy tolerance, the comprehensive charity of shrewd ecclesiastics, who clearly perceived that if Christianity was to conquer the world it could do so only by relaxing the too rigid principles of its Founder, by widening a little the narrow gate which leads to salvation.”⁠¹³

However, let it be noted that nowhere did Jesus command his followers to conquer the world by conversion or by force of arms. His Kingdom gospel was to be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations.—Matt. 24:14.

In this connection it will no doubt be news to most Protestants that just as at one time Christmas was forbidden by law in certain Protestant lands because it was held to be a pagan festival, so “with the rise of Puritanism in England and its abhorrence of religious ceremonial the Protestants for a long time took no note of Easter, or of any other of the church festivals. . . . It was during the Civil War [1861-1865] that the non-ritualistic churches [of the United States] began to observe Easter.”⁠⁵

THE SCRIPTURAL POSITION

In view of all the foregoing what should be the attitude of those who would please God toward the celebration of Easter together with all its pagan appendages? As already noted, neither Jesus nor any of his apostles established any Christian festival days. Nor was this any mere oversight, as shown by Paul’s rebuke to the Christians at Galatia: “How is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? You are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years.”—Gal. 4:9-11.

Even more strongly condemned in the Scriptures is the comingling of paganism with the worship of the one true God: “Flee from idolatry. . . . What, then, am I to say? That what is sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No; but I say that the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers with the demons. You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of ‘the table of Jehovah’ and the table of demons. Or ‘are we inciting Jehovah to jealousy’? We are not stronger than he is, are we?” Paganism is the product of Satan and his demons, and to mix it with Christianity is an affront to Jehovah God that he will not permit to go unnoticed, for he is “a God exacting exclusive devotion.”—1 Cor. 10:14-22; Ex. 20:5.

The adopting of pagan appendages in Christian worship is also ruled out with these words: “What fellowship does light have with darkness? Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols?” None whatever. “‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing”’; “‘and I will take you in.’” Godless paganism is part of this unclean world, and Christians must keep themselves “without spot from the world.”—2 Cor. 6:14-18; Jas. 1:27.

Yes, what a discredit to associate such pagan appendages as hot cross buns, eggs, rabbits or hares, eternal fire and suchlike with the greatest of all miracles, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, from the dead, one of the paramount truths of Christianity! True, children need entertainment—and adults too—but surely there are better forms than those that make a pagan caricature of the great truths of God’s Word!

Christians show appreciation for the miracle of Christ’s resurrection, not by celebrating a certain day set aside by some ancient council of men, and doing so with pagan appendages, but by accepting by faith the fact of Jesus’ resurrection and by letting it give them hope for their dead loved ones and for themselves and then letting that hope spur them on to serve Jehovah God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength.—Mark 12:30; 1 Cor. 15:58.

REFERENCES

¹ New York Times, April 24, 1962.

² Dictionary of the Bible—Calmet, p. 363.

³ The Encyclopædia Britannica (1959 Edition), Vol. 4, p. 381.

⁴ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics—Hastings, Vol. 4, pp. 147, 148.

⁵ The American Book of Days—Douglas, pp. 200-202.

⁶ Vol. 5, pp. 225-227.

⁷ The Encyclopædia Britannica (1959 Edition), Vol. 7, p. 531.

⁸ The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, p. 438.

⁹ Ninth Edition, Vol. 7, p. 531.

¹⁰ History of Christianity—The First Three Centuries—Neander, Vol. 1, pp. 523-537.

¹¹ The Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 9, p, 507.

¹² Ecclesiastical History—Socrates (Bohn’s Edition), pp. 37, 38.

¹³ The Golden Bough—Frazer, p. 361.

[Footnotes]

Early Catalogues and the Christian Greek Scripture Canon

IT HAS been said that at the famous church council of Nicaea held A.D. 325 some forty “gospels” were placed on the floor before the assembled audience and, after prayer had been offered, our four Gospels rose miraculously and settled on the table and because of this they have since been accepted as the true ones. In the light of historical evidence such a story can at once be dismissed as foolish, but it does prompt the question, How did the twenty-seven books now found in our Christian Greek Scriptures come together as a collection? Why should just these books be accepted as genuine and canonical, and others be rejected? In considering this portion of the Bible it should be remembered that, though the Hebrew Scriptures are not dealt with here, the canon is not a divided one, making an “Old Testament” and a “New Testament.”

The word “canon” itself shows why it is important to have the right books in our Bible. Originally it referred to a reed used as a measuring rod if a piece of wood was not at hand, and then to a tool, a carpenter’s level or a scribe’s ruler. The apostle Paul referred to a “rule (Greek: kanōn) of conduct” as well as to a literal rule or boundary line. (Gal. 6:16; 2 Cor. 10:13) So canonical books are those that are true and inspired and worthy to be used as a straightedge in determining the right faith and doctrine. If we use books that are not “straight” as a plumb line, our “building” will not be true and it will fail the test of the Master Surveyor.

The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the canon, and reference is made to the Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397), where catalogues of books were formulated. The opposite is true, however, for the canon was already settled by then, not by the decree of any council, but by the usage of Christian congregations throughout the ancient world. Says one authority, “It goes without saying that the Church, understood as the entire body of believers, created the Canon . . . it was not the reverse; it was not imposed from the top, be it by bishops or synods.”¹ Our examination of the evidence will describe how this came about.

THE EVIDENCE OF EARLY CATALOGUES

A glance at the accompanying chart reveals that several fourth-century catalogues agree exactly with our present canon, or omit only Revelation. Before the end of the second century there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels, Acts and twelve of the apostle Paul’s letters. Only a few of the smaller writings were doubted in certain areas.

The most interesting early catalogue is the fragment discovered by L. A. Muratori in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, and published by him in 1740. Though the beginning is missing, its reference to Luke as the third Gospel indicates that it first mentioned Matthew and Mark. Another library find is the Cheltenham list, first noticed by T. Mommsen in 1885 at Cheltenham, England. Both lists suffer from some ambiguity, especially concerning the smaller letters, and scholars are not agreed as to which books are meant.

The majority of the catalogues in the chart are specific lists showing which books were accepted as canonical. Those of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen are completed from the quotations they made, which reveal how they regarded the writings referred to. These are further supplemented from the records of the early historian Eusebius. But why do we not find exact lists earlier than the Muratorian fragment?

It was not until men like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century that the need arose to catalogue the books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by now spreading throughout the world, made it imperative to pronounce a clear-cut distinction between what could be received as Scripture and what could not. So we need to work back from the lists at the end of the second century in order to fill the remaining gap of about a hundred years.

COLLECTION OF GOSPELS AND LETTERS

It should not be thought that the early Christians lacked vigor in the collecting of inspired writings, or were all too poor to afford copies. Since false writings worth nearly £3,000 ($8,400) were burned on one occasion by those embracing Christianity, it is certain that they would be replaced by copies of the Scriptures as soon as opportunity afforded. (Acts 19:19) It has been calculated that by the end of the second century 60,000 copies of the major part of the Christian Greek Scriptures could have been in circulation, even if only one in every fifty of those professing Christianity possessed a copy.

Early writers show their familiarity with a Gospel collection. Justin Martyr, about A.D. 150, speaks of “the memoirs, composed by them (the apostles), which are called Gospels.” (1 Apology 66) On another occasion he refers to “the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them” (Dialogue with Trypho 103), the last remark referring to Mark and Luke. Ignatius, who died A.D. 115, also refers to “gospel” in the singular, though he has knowledge of more than one.—Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans 5.1; 7.2.

Irenaeus argues, about A.D. 190, that there were just four Gospels. His term ‘fourfold gospel’ shows that he knew the Gospels as a collection, and he recommended these writings as the rule or canon of truth. (Against Heresies III. 11.8) Clement of Alexandria, indicating both the authority and collected form of the Gospels, states, “We do not find this saying in the four gospels that have been handed down to us, but in that according to the Egyptians.”—Miscellanies III. 13.

A unique work of the second century was Tatian’s “Diatessaron,” meaning “of the four.” This was an early harmony, weaving together into one narrative the various sections of the four canonical Gospels. This again indicates the acceptance of the four as a collection and testifies to their undisputed authority as the authentic record of Jesus’ life and words. Because Acts was associated with Luke it may often have been circulated with the four Gospels, as in the early third-century Chester Beatty manuscript P⁴⁵.

Just as the early Christians would be anxious to collect together the four Gospels, so they would desire to have all of the apostle Paul’s letters. Upon its receipt, a letter would be read to all in the congregation and then the original or a copy would often be sent to another congregation in exchange for their epistle. (1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16) If it was addressed to a number of congregations, it might be copied many times. (Gal. 1:2) Though Paul addressed two letters specifically to Corinth, he expected them to have a wider circulation. (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1) Gradually various collections would be formed.

How soon a complete collection was formed we do not know, but scholars generally agree that at least ten Pauline epistles were widely known as an established collection by A.D. 90-100.² Early writers show acquaintance with such a collection, for they would weave quotations and extracts into their works. Among these can be named Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement of Rome.³ Clement of Alexandria uses the collective term “Apostolos” and Irenaeus uses “Apostles,” quoting Paul as authoritative more than two hundred times and using all the epistles except possibly Hebrews and Philemon.³ The third-century Chester Beatty manuscript P⁴⁶ originally contained in one codex ten epistles, including Hebrews (some say eleven, adding in Philemon), so that the united evidence of the entire period prior to formal catalogues testifies both to the canonicity and collected form of Paul’s letters.

The authority of all these books is further confirmed by such phrases as the well-known “it is written,” found some forty times in the Gospels alone. Not only do the Gospel writers use this expression when referring to the inspired Hebrew Scriptures, but the phrase is used about A.D. 125 when quoting Paul’s epistles.⁴ Barnabas (not the same as Paul’s companion) and Justin both use it in quoting from Matthew. (The Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 4; Dialogue with Trypho 49) A writing ascribed to Clement of Rome also refers to the Gospels and the epistles as “Scripture.” (The Second Epistle of Clement, Chapter 2) More important still is Peter’s testimony, “Paul . . . wrote you, speaking about these things as he does also in all his letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Pet. 3:15, 16) Peter here refers to ‘all of Paul’s letters’—an early collection.

Not only were the “Gospel” and the “Apostle” placed on the same footing as collected Scripture by Clement of Alexandria, but they were equated with the Hebrew Scriptures. (Miscellanies, Book 4) Justin tells us that at the meetings of the early Christians “the memoirs of the apostles or the writing of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.” (1 Apology 67) Ignatius, Theophilus and Tertullian also spoke of the Prophets, the Law and the Gospel as equally authoritative.—Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 5.1; Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 3, chap. 12; On Prescriptions Against Heretics, chap. 36.

THE CANON COMPLETED

Having established the canonical position of the major part of the Christian Greek Scriptures, we can consider the books marked in the chart as disputed by some.

Because Hebrews did not bear Paul’s name and seemed to be written in a different style, it was rejected by certain ones, especially in the West, although Clement of Rome used it as a work of authority. (E.g., 1 Clement 36; Heb. 1:3, 4) It was accepted completely in the East, however, and at Alexandria both Clement and Origen recognized Paul as the author. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius,a pp. 233, 234, 246) It also contains many Pauline constructions and similarities of language, especially to Romans and Corinthians. But as Westcott remarked, “We have been enabled to acknowledge that the apostolic authority of the Epistle is independent of its Pauline authorship . . . no book of the Bible is more completely recognised by universal consent as giving a divine view of the facts of the Gospel.”⁵ Internal evidence produces the strongest reasons for canonical acceptance.

The book of Revelation is attested to by a unanimity of early commentators including Papias, Justin, Melito and Irenaeus.⁶ (Fragments of Papias 8) It was rejected by some in the East because its teachings were unacceptable to certain schools of thought. But this did not disturb its general reception Even at this early date due regard was also paid to having a correct text, as Irenaeus informs us in referring to Revelation 13:18 when he remarks, “The number is thus found in all the genuine and ancient copies.”—Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 188.

This leaves James and Jude and the epistles of Peter and John. There was never any difficulty with First Peter and First John, Papias and Polycarp being among the early testimonies for their authority. (Fragments of Papias 6; The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 2, 7) When it is remembered how small each of the remaining five writings is, we are not surprised to find a paucity of references to them, comprising as they do only one thirty-sixth of the Christian Greek Scriptures. They are all referred to by one second-century Christian or another, but it is only to be expected that shorter works would not be quoted so often and, as they might have had a slower circulation, they would be known in some regions and not others. Second Peter has been questioned most by critics, but Irenaeus uses it, (Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.23.2 and 5.28.3) and internal evidence shows it to be an early work and not of the second century.

PRESENCE OF APOCRYPHAL WORKS

But why does the manuscript Codex Sinaiticus include after the book of Revelation the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Codex Alexandrinus add the two Clementine epistles? Many similar writings have been discovered recently claiming apostolic status, and among these the so-called Gospel of Thomas has evoked much discussion. Should some of these works be included in our Bible today?

The historian Eusebius, in summing up the position, sets out three categories of writings. First the acknowledged ones are enumerated and then the disputed ones, both classes being considered canonical. The third group, in which he names the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas and others, he calls spurious, although they were read in various congregations at times. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 110) The Muratorian fragment states that the Shepherd could be read but was never to the end of time to be recognized as canonical.⁴

When it was found that the apocryphal Gospel of Peter was being read publicly at the end of the second century, it was ordered to be rejected as false. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 231) Tertullian tells us that the author of the “Acts of Paul” was punished for posing as a first-century writer. (De Baptismo 17) In a letter written by Theodore of Egypt in the fourth century the apocryphal writings are referred to as “the lying waters of which so many drank,”⁷ and the Muratorian list speaks of them as gall which should not be mixed with honey.⁴ So the Christian community was careful to protect the integrity of its writings.

It was often a matter of convenience to bind into a codex an apocryphal work, for it might be read by some, though they would have in mind the distinction shown by the fact that in the two codices cited (the Sinaitic and the Alexandrine) the apocryphal writings followed Revelation, the last of the canonical books. Or we might possess a manuscript today that belonged to an apostate congregation giving too much attention to such works, just as in the case that Serapion of Antioch discovered at the end of the second century.

Internal evidence confirms the clear division made between the inspired and the spurious works. The apocryphal writings are much inferior and often fanciful and childish. They are frequently inaccurate. Note the following statements by scholars on these noncanonical books:

“There is no question of any one’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.”—M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. xii.

“We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realise how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical.”—G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, p. 228.

“Much of the Gospel of Thomas is plainly later and untrustworthy tradition . . . of no use for determining what Jesus said and did.”—F. V. Filson, The Biblical Archaeologist, 1961, p. 18.

“There is no known extra-cononical Gospel material which is not (when it can be tested at all) in some way subject to suspicion for its genuineness or orthodoxy.”—C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, p. 192.

“It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added today to the Canon.”—K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, p. 24.

INSPIRED OF GOD

The true test of canonicity is the evidence of inspiration. (2 Tim. 3:16) The twenty-seven books of the Christian Greek Scriptures found their place, not by the mere caprice of men, but by the spirit of God. Nothing is missing and nothing extra has been added. John could already see the beginning of a vast additional literature in his old age, but was it needed? (John 21:25) Even if a genuine saying of Jesus could be found in one of these works, that would not make it an inspired writing. God’s Word in its sixty-six books is our guide and its complete harmony and balance testify to its completeness. All praise to Jehovah God, the Creator of this incomparable Book! It can equip us completely and put us on the way to life. Let us use it wisely while we yet have time.

REFERENCES

¹ The Problem of the New Testament Canon, by Kurt Aland, 1962, page 18.

² The Text of the Epistles, by G. Zuntz, 1946, pages 14, 279.

³ Early Christian Doctrines, by J. N. D. Kelly, 1958, page 58.

⁴ The New Testament Documents, G. Milligan, 1913, pages 214, 290, 291.

⁵ The Epistle to the Hebrews, Greek Text and Notes, by B. F. Westcott, 1889, page lxxi.

⁶ Historic Evidence of the Authorship and Transmission of the Books of the New Testament, by S. P. Tregelles, 1852, pages 61-63.

⁷ The New Archaeological Discoveries, 2d Ed., by C. M. Cobern, 1917, page 334.

[Footnotes]

[Chart on page 252]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Chart of Outstanding Early Catalogues

Muratorian Fragment, Italy 170

Irenaeus, Asia Minor 180

Clement of Alexandria 190

Tertullian, N. Africa 200

Origen, Alexandria 230

Eusebius, Palestine 310

Cyril of Jerusalem 348

Cheltenham List, N. Africa 360

Athanasius, Alexandria 367

Epiphanius, Palestine 368

Gregory Nazianzus, Asia Minor 370

Amphilocius, Asia Minor 370

Philastrius, Italy 383

Jerome, Italy 394

Augustine, N. Africa 397

Third Council of Carthage, N Africa. 397

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Romans

1 Cor.

2 Cor.

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thess.

2 Thess.

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelation

A – Accepted without query as Scriptural and Canonical.

D – Doubted in certain quarters.

DA – Doubted in certain quarters but cataloguer accepted as Scriptural and Canonical.

? – Scholars uncertain of the reading of the text.

Bible Statistics

Bible Statistics

Hebrew Greek

Scriptures Scriptures Total

Words 592,493 181,253 773,746

Verses 23,214 7,959 31,173

Chapters 929 260 1,189

Books 39 27 66

As contained in the King James Version Bible.

Aiding Those Aiming to Be Clergymen

QUALIFIED TO TEACH

At a circuit assembly in Norwalk, California, one of Jehovah’s witnesses related this experience: “As a Bible study servant, I was aiding a brother in the back-call work. We made a call upon a householder who raised the objection that he did not feel Jehovah’s witnesses were qualified to teach him, inasmuch as he was a student attending a theological institute. We spent about an hour answering his Bible questions on the subject of baptism. He felt that the Bible’s answer was contrary to what he had been taught, so he decided to call in some other members of this institute to have them substantiate the doctrine that they had taught him.

“He called in two members of his organization for the second back-call. As he listened to the discussion, the two men that he had called in became angry and left. He decided to go to the top man in the organization and see if he would sit in on a Bible discussion. He believed this top man to be so well qualified to teach that one had merely to quote a portion of the Bible and he could tell the chapter and verse where it was found. So he asked the president of the school to come, and, in turn, the president of the school decided that he would like the founder and dean of the school to be present.

“The day for the appointment came. The founder and dean, the vice-president and five others came to my house, along with the theological student. The issue in the discussion was water baptism, as they did not believe that water was necessary for baptism. They offered no scriptures to back up their thinking. The man that the student believed to be so well qualified said that there was no scripture in the Bible that said that a Gentile was baptized in water. I asked him if he could quote the scriptures at Acts 10:45-48. He said that he would have his vice-president read the passage. After it was read, he decided to read it himself. He felt, after reading the scriptures, that the apostle Peter was excited and was wrong in his statement.

“I made a comparison between the dean’s thought and the apostle Peter’s statement. The reaction of the group was that they believed the Bible. After this three-hour discussion I placed various booklets, and a few days later I called on the student. His reaction to all that had happened was that Jehovah’s witnesses were qualified to teach, whereupon we began a systematic Bible study.”

OFFERS FROM THE CLERGY

At the Pomona, California, Courageous Ministers Assembly the experience was related about a man who, after attending classes in a college for those aspiring to be clergymen, had become a lay minister in the Baptist Church. He also preached in other churches. Now the time was drawing near for him to become a fully ordained minister of the church. However, this man’s wife had long subscribed for The Watchtower and finally agreed to have a home Bible study with one of Jehovah’s witnesses. Her husband also attended the study. Another Witness began a second study with her husband, and he soon learned that the Witnesses were teaching the truth of God’s Word. “After studying a short while,” this man related, “I saw it was the truth, and even my sermons in the church began to reflect the truth. My children began going around the house quoting Revelation 18:4, ‘Get out of her, my people,’ and I realized I had to get out of the church.

“Then the offers started rolling in from my former religious associates. The first offer was from one of the Baptist ministers, and he gave me his ordination papers, hoping I would use them in getting my own from the church. The second offer was from a Methodist clergyman in whose church I had given a sermon; he offered me the assistant pastor’s job and wanted me to preach regularly. I told him the only way I could give any more sermons in the church would be as one of Jehovah’s witnesses. He withdrew his offer. Then the pastor of the Holiness and Sanctified Church offered me the pastor’s job of his old church because he was moving into a new church. All of these offers began to come in after they found out I was about to become one of Jehovah’s witnesses.

“Finally the minister of the Baptist church in which I had preached said that he would top any offer that I had received from the other clergymen, if I wouldn’t become a Witness. I turned down those four offers and accepted the more valuable prize—to be one of Jehovah’s witnesses. Tomorrow morning my wife and I are going to be baptized.”

Questions From Readers

● At Genesis 2:10-14 four rivers are mentioned. However, on Bible maps only two of these, the Hiddekel and the Euphrates, are shown. What about the other two, Pishon and Gihon?—H. N., United States.

Before answering this question it may be well to observe that “Hiddekel,” the third river mentioned in the scripture cited, is by common consent recognized to be the river Tigris. In fact, this is the name given for it in the Septuagint Version at both Genesis 2:14 and at Daniel 10:4.

As for the first two rivers, Pishon and Gihon, there has been much conjecture on their identity. Bible dictionaries and religious encyclopedias give various theories and some go to great lengths to present these. But in the end it all amounts to conjecture.

The fact that these two rivers cannot with certainty be identified is no cause for concern. It may well be that these two no longer exist. Changes have taken place in the appearance of the earth since those words were first recorded in the book that Moses consulted when compiling this part of Genesis. (Gen. 5:1) Especially is it reasonable to conclude that the flood of Noah’s day brought about great changes in the topography of the earth, even as that flood wiped out the garden of Eden, so that angels were no longer needed to guard its entrance.—Ps. 104:6-8; Gen. 3:24.

As Delitzsch so well observes in his Commentary on Genesis: “It is therefore unnecessary in order to establish the geographical statements of the sacred writer, that we should be able still to point to four distinct streams (the Tigris and the Euphrates among them), proceeding from a single source, which is plainly impossible. The original oneness of the four streams is, in the sense of the author, as certainly at an end as that paradise is lost.”

● What is the explanation for Lot’s being called Abraham’s brother at Genesis 14:14 when he was in fact his nephew?—A. M., United States.

Lot was, of course, the nephew of Abraham, for Genesis 11:31 says that Terah took “Abram his son and Lot, the son of Haran, his grandson,” along with him when they left Ur of the Chaldeans. However, Abraham recognized Lot as a brother, not because Lot was the son of Abraham’s dead brother Haran, but because he was in a spiritual family relationship such as obtains today between the members of the New World society of Jehovah’s witnesses. Hence Abraham addressed Lot as his brother, as, for instance, in Genesis 13:8, “Please, do not let any quarreling continue between me and you and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we men are brothers.”

In view of these facts it was consistent for Genesis 14:14 to speak of Lot as Abraham’s brother. Likewise, the members of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel addressed one another as brothers, although according to the flesh they were really cousins, all of them being sons of twelve brothers. Thus in the Christian Greek Scriptures we find the apostles repeatedly referring to their fellow Jews, not yet Christians, as “Brothers.” (See Acts 2:29; 3:17; 23:1, 5, 6.) In the same way these Jews at times addressed the apostles as “brothers.” (Acts 2:37; 13:15) In certain instances, however, it seems that the term “brothers” was intended to apply to Jews of the same age or younger, and so we find both Stephen and Paul using the expression, “Brothers and fathers.”—Acts 7:2; 22:1.

In Biblical Hebrew there is no specific word for nephew, as is apparent from the fact that the term “nephew” is not found in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. In Hebrew a nephew is termed either ben ahh, “son of a brother,” or ben ahhóth, “son of a sister.” The four references to nephews in the Authorized Version use this obsolete word for “grandson” and thus translate Hebrew and Greek words really meaning progeny or grandsons and are so rendered in the New World Translation. (See Judges 12:14; Job 18:19; Isaiah 14:22; 1 Timothy 5:4.) The term nephew does occur in the New World Translation, at 1 Chronicles 27:32. However, as noted in the footnote of the first edition of that translation, as well as in the margin of the Authorized Version, “nephew” or son of an uncle apparently is meant, although the Hebrew word there generally does mean “uncle.” But Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible translates it “relative.” Let it be noted, however, that modern Hebrew does have a word for “nephew,” namely, ahh·yán.

● Why does the New World Translation render Psalm 90:2 so differently from other translations?—B. B., United States.

According to the Revised Standard Version Psalm 90:2 reads: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” The New World Translation of this verse reads: “Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.”

The Hebrew word for the first of these expressions is the passive voice of yalad and, according to Hebrew lexicographers, it means to be begotten, born, and relates to the ordinary birth process. Yalad is applied to both the father’s and the mother’s part, as can be seen from Job 14:1 (“Man, born of woman”) and Psalm 2:7 (“I have become your father”).

The Hebrew word for the second verb in Psalm 90:2 is entirely another verb and is used in connection with the birth process to call attention to the pain and travail thereof. It is the Hebrew word hhil, which, according to Hebrew authorities, means basically, “to have labor pains.” The form of this verb in the Hebrew text here has a sort of reflexive force in which the performer of the act suffers the accompanying sensations. In other words, he experiences the labor pains or childbirth pains. That is why the word is also defined as “to bring forth (in pain).”—Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible.

This same word is found at Deuteronomy 32:18, which reads: “The Rock who fathered you, you proceeded to forget, and you began to leave God out of memory, the One bringing you forth with childbirth pains,” without doubt referring to the miracles Jehovah wrought in Egypt in connection with the deliverance of the nation of Israel. Also, we find this Hebrew term at Isaiah 51:2, where we read: “Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who gradually brought you forth with childbirth pains.” Also at Proverbs 25:23: “The wind from the north brings forth as with labor pains a downpour.”

From the foregoing references we can see the use of these words particularly in poetic writing, and we see that they are full of meaning, expressive indeed. Modern translations hide the force of these expressions by their free renderings.

Regarding the use of these terms in Psalm 90:2, it might be said that, judged by human standards, the producing of this earth and the productive land with all its complicated mechanisms and chemistry would certainly call for a great deal of effort, painful effort, as measured even by scientists today. The psalmist here speaks from a purely human standpoint and thereby shows both an active imagination and great respect for the amount of work involved for Jehovah to create these things; with what expenditure of time, of course, we do not know.

Announcements

FIELD MINISTRY

“Fully accomplish your ministry” is the admonition recorded at 2 Timothy 4:5. As part of their ministry, during this final month of the Watchtower subscription campaign Jehovah’s witnesses will offer a year’s subscription for this outstanding Bible journal, with three booklets, for $1.

READ WITH UNDERSTANDING

When you read your Bible, do you get the understanding? You can if you read it with The Watchtower. This magazine is devoted exclusively to Bible instruction and is read by more persons than any other religious journal in the world. Receive your copy regularly from the 4,200,000 published each issue in sixty-five languages. One year, $1. Send today.

“WATCHTOWER” STUDIES FOR THE WEEKS

May 26: Resurrection—of a Dead Body or of a Dead Soul, Which?, also, Identifying the Resurrected, ¶1-8. Page 229.

June 2: Identifying the Resurrected, ¶9-40. Page 236.