The Watchtower — November 1, 1972

Be Big Enough to Admit a Mistake

“WE ALL stumble many times. If anyone does not stumble in word, this one is a perfect man, able to bridle also his whole body.” Thus wrote a leading Christian in Jerusalem more than nineteen centuries ago. And is there any gainsaying his words? Of course not!​—Jas. 3:2.

“Stumble” is just another word for “make a mistake.” And though we all make mistakes, how difficult it is to admit making one! It goes against one’s pride. When one is charged with making a mistake one is prone to want to justify oneself, to make excuses, to shift blame onto others, or to deny having made the mistake. It takes bigness to admit a mistake, to shoulder the blame, to admit that one has been wrong, or used poor judgment.

At times youngsters have a valid complaint against their father in this regard. Thus once some of them said: “We like Dad; sure we do. But when we have discussions, he never, never admits to being wrong or having made a mistake. Now, everybody makes mistakes, sometimes!”

This Dad may have felt that to hold on to his authority he should never admit to having made a mistake or having been in the wrong. Whatever the reasoning, his attitude was not one fostering communication and harmony within the family. By taking this ill-advised course, rather than strengthening his authority he was lowering himself in the eyes of his children. By admitting that at times he had been in the wrong he would have shown himself big enough to take the blame for mistakes!

Refusing to admit that one has made a mistake is like claiming infallibility. The heads of the world’s largest religious organization have for a century claimed that they were infallible, that they did not make any mistake​—nor that any popes ever had—​when speaking officially on matters of doctrine and morals. But more and more voices are being raised within that very same religious organization questioning this claim. Thus the Roman Catholic bishop, F. Simons, at Indore, India, stated:

“When, even though in good faith, the church exceeds the apostolic testimony about Christ, she has no right to expect that she can teach such additional views with unerring certainty. The Apostles themselves, when demanding faith, appealed to evidence, to what they had heard and seen. . . . Nor is there any divine promise or assurance that the church received such an endowment by virtue of which she can have certainty about Christ independently of the assured contents of the apostolic witness. As soon as she leaves the sure foundation laid by the Apostles, she is subject to the ignorance and errors of her age, which extend, as experience has shown, even to her understanding of the scriptures.

“The claim to infallibility does incalculable harm to the credibility of the church’s teaching authority. It unduly restricts her ability to accept new evidence and makes her the victim and champion of past errors.”​—Commonweal, September 25, 1970, pp. 480, 481.

In striking contrast to the position taken by the popes is that taken by the Christian witnesses of Jehovah. They readily admit to having made mistakes as to doctrine and worship. Thus for a time, in common with Christendom, they celebrated Christmas until they learned of its pagan origin. Then again, because Romans 13:1 had been construed to mean that the governments of the world must be given unqualified obedience, the Witnesses interpreted the ‘higher powers’ or “superior authorities” there mentioned as applying to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. However, a closer examination of the context revealed that Romans 13:1 does indeed refer to the political governments of this world. But by comparing this scripture with others, such as Acts 5:29, which states, “We must obey God as ruler rather than men,” it was seen that the “subjection” mentioned at Romans 13:1 must be a relative subjection, not an unqualified one. That is, Christians are to be in subjection to the governments of this world so long as these do not ask Christians to go contrary to God’s laws. When such governments do, then the Christian must obey the higher law.​—Acts 4:19, 20.

Does this admission of making mistakes stamp them as false prophets? Not at all, for false prophets do not admit to making mistakes. In fact, the book of Acts gives more than one example of early Christians being mistaken as to their beliefs and needing to be set straight, but they are spoken of with approval in God’s Word. All of this is in keeping with the Bible principle that “the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.”​—Prov. 4:18.

In view of such examples, why should it be so difficult for individuals to admit to making mistakes? No human knows everything; we all keep learning. Time and again, due to insufficient knowledge, we make mistakes. Or, then again, we may make mistakes due to our emotions getting the better of us; we may have let some prejudice or wounded vanity cause us to respond without first using our thinking ability to evaluate the consequences of our words or actions.​—Prov. 5:1, 2.

Being willing to admit a mistake is the right course, for it leaves one with a clear conscience. It keeps us from being on the defensive or attempting to justify our mistakes by saying, “Nobody is perfect.”

Being big enough to admit a mistake is also the wise course. Even as noted with the children who complained about their Dad’s not admitting a mistake, by our admitting we made a mistake we make for better relations with others, be they our fellows, our superiors, or inferiors​—that is, organizationally speaking. And by admitting the mistake it will impress it so on our own mind that we will be less likely to repeat that mistake, if for no other reason than because of the humiliation that was involved.

So be big. Be big enough to admit a mistake. Be willing to say, “Yes, that’s right. I did make a mistake and I’m sorry.” Then try very hard not to repeat it.

Divine Rulership​—Over Mankind at the Start

“Jehovah himself has firmly established his throne in the very heavens; and over everything his own kingship has held domination.”​—Ps. 103:19.

1. What, according to our meaning, is the “establishment” into which we were all born, and what estimate must we make of it?

WE WERE all born into an “establishment.” By that word do we mean the system of things that exists here on our earthly globe? No! We mean an establishment of which our earth is just a very tiny part. We mean an establishment that extends away out into outer space. It takes in more than the Milky Way galaxy of which our sun is merely one of many like suns. It takes in all the galaxies of stars that the greatest man-made telescopes have been able to bring to human view. So tremendously big is this establishment that it needs to be measured in units of distance called “light-years.” Regardless of its hugeness, everybody has to admit that it is a marvelous establishment. It was already here before ever protesting youth of today got here, or before ever mankind got started here. All of us were brought into this establishment, not by our own will or choice. So, is this establishment something to protest about?

2. Why could it not be that man is responsible for running this “establishment,” and what does our reason dictate as to the runner of it?

² Who runs this staggeringly large establishment? It was already operating orderly before we humans came into existence. It does not need us to keep it running forever, hanging out there in space and working so harmoniously. Needless to say, it is too big for us, too far beyond our power of influence to reach. We cannot control it from here on earth with missiles, spaceships or radar systems. This is no chance establishment. If we were to calculate scientifically, it would be a case of trillions upon trillions of reasons against one bare possibility that such a harmonious, highly organized, perfectly operating “establishment” came about by accident, by chance. It could not come from nothing, for something never comes from nothing. Such a mighty concentration of dynamic energy as this establishment has in itself could never come from a hollow vacuum, from emptiness. According to our reasoning powers with which we have been gifted, it had to come from a central, inexhaustible source of power and energy. And that “source” would have to be intelligent, having know-how besides almighty ability. It must run the establishment.

3. (a) What must we conclude as to the runner of this visible “establishment,” and what is a suitable name for such? (b) What is the title as given in the Holy Bible?

³ We do not want to act “dumb,” do we? That is to say, stupid, senseless, unreasonable, which also means, unscientific? There is nothing else for reasoning, intelligent humans to accept but that the great Runner of this amazing “establishment” of beauty, design and power is an intelligent Person, even though invisible to our frail natural eyes. Does any of us have a better title by which to call that Person than “God”? That is what the Greatest Book on earth calls that Person. And this it does in its very opening sentence, saying: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In the original language in which this part of the Book was written the word for our English word “God” is Elohimʹ. As The Holy Name Bible, which utterly rejects the title “God,” puts the sentence in English: “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1) This same Creator of the heavens and the earth takes the responsibility for that Book of all books, the Holy Bible, and from the first to the last this Book of more than a thousand pages reveals this intelligent Creator to be a God of perfect activity, of perfect wisdom, justice, love and power. He is perfectly able to run this visible “establishment.”

4, 5. (a) According to the Bible, on what is this earth suspended, and how does our earth compare with the whole establishment in size? (b) What questions as put to Job deserve to be asked of scientists?

⁴ Our earth is suspended in space upon nothing of a material kind. As that Book of books said in its account of the patriarch Job not quite three thousand five hundred years ago, in Job chapter twenty-six, verse seven: “He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.” In comparison with the countless bodies in the heavens, our earth is like a mere speck of dust in the midst of a tremendous dust cloud. Since the God of creation runs or rules the great establishment as a whole, he must also be the ruler of the earth. His rulership, not that of human creatures on the earth, is the true, original, rightful rulership for the earth. A Creator should run his own creation. Man had nothing to do with creating this earth as his everlasting home. On this vital point the same questions deserve to be put to modern-day scientists and evolutionists that were put to the patriarch Job by God respecting the creation of the earth. To Job he said:

⁵ “Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man, and let me question you, and you inform me. Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you do know understanding. Who set its measurements, in case you know, or who stretched out upon it the measuring line? Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause? . . . Was it from your days onward that you commanded the morning? Did you cause the dawn to know its place, to take hold on the extremities of the earth, that the wicked ones might be shaken out from it?”​—Job 38:3-13.

6. (a) Whom did God say witnessed the creating of the earth? (b) Why are we in no position to pass judgment upon God’s pronouncement of six thousand years ago on his creative work?

⁶ In answer to those questions, all of us today would have to say humbly that we were not on the scene. Those whom God here calls “the morning stars” and “all the sons of God” witnessed the creating of the earth and they were all delighted with this tiny part of the visible “establishment.” Well, then, do we inferior human creatures have any reason to criticize God for the way that he created our earthly home? When God finished the preparing of it for man’s dwelling place and put man upon it, then, as the last verse of the first chapter of the Holy Bible says, “God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Gen. 1:31) Since the Creator himself looked at his earthly creation and considered it to be “very good,” who are we who have come on the scene six thousand years later to say that it was not “very good” from our human viewpoint? Who are we today to judge what the state of the earth was six thousand years ago when God created the first man and woman in human perfection and put them in a Paradise of Pleasure? The polluted condition of the earth today is no basis for true judgment.

7. (a) What kind of rulership did man have at his beginning, but with what attitude have men been ruling the earth for now thousands of years? (b) Upon what question as to rulership do we now need to decide?

⁷ We are here by grant of the Creator’s favor. Who, then, are we to think that we humans have the right to run this earth as we please regardless of the Creator, God? And yet that is the way that human history shows that men have been running the earth for thousands of years. Originally, at man’s creation, man enjoyed divine rulership. Today man is suffering under human rulership that ignores God and defies divine rulership. The imperfect human rulers desire all peoples to look only to human rulership and defy divine rulership as they, the human rulers, do. As never before, the question upon which we are obliged to make a decision is, Divine rulership​—Are we for it or against it? If we are for it, what does it mean for us? If we are against it, what does it mean for us and those who are dependent upon us? Let us see, for we desire to choose what will mean happiness for us and ours.

THE COURSE OF THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST IT

8. (a) Whom might those on earth who are against divine rulership have in their company? (b) What are they obliged to admit as to whether hostility to divine rulership always existed?

⁸ Those today who are against divine rulership, that is to say, God’s rulership of the earth, have a lot of company. Likely they have a lot more company than they know of or realize. Likely they have in their company those whom they do not like to admit as being on their side and associated with them. What do we mean? Because they are materialistic in their philosophy, they refuse to agree that there is anything spiritual, even to the point of denying that there is a God, who is a Spirit. At least they do not take the thought of God seriously, nor the existence of any other spirit person of intelligence. They really have no reasonable basis for taking this mental opinion and attitude; yet they hold to it by blinding themselves to apparent facts. However, they will have to admit that this hostility to divine rulership had a start. There is history to prove that it had its start six thousand years ago. It did not start with man, but man got involved.

9. (a) With whom did resistance to divine rulership start, and whose painful experience with him proved the reality of that one? (b) For whose rulership was Job, and so what did Satan desire to test about Job?

⁹ With whom, then, did hostility to divine rulership have a beginning? It was not with a subhuman creature, like a snake, but with a superhuman creature, one of those of whom God spoke to the patriarch Job as being “sons of God.” (Job 38:7) Job had a painful experience with this beginner of hostility to divine rulership. Job was informed that the name of this one was Satan. In Job’s language the name Satan was the same as saying “Resister.” But “Resister” of whom? Of God, to be sure! Job was in favor of divine rulership. Satan proved that his resistance was against God by trying to destroy Job for his advocating God’s rulership. Satan was no imaginary person to Job any more than he was an imaginary person to God himself. After Job’s hard experience was over, God revealed to Job who was responsible for his sufferings and trials. It was this Satan. At a meeting of the “sons of God” in heaven Satan had put in appearance. There he asked God to lift his protection of Job and let him put Job to the test regarding his loyalty to divine rulership.

10. What did Satan claim that, given free course, he could make Job do, and what does James 5:11 indicate as to whether Job yielded?

¹⁰ Satan claimed that, given free course, he could make Job curse God to his very face. This was as long ago as the seventeenth century before our Common Era. The test of Job’s patience and faithfulness was recorded in the Bible book of Job for us to read. Did Satan succeed in forcing Job into the camp of resisters of God and of opposition to divine rulership? More than sixteen centuries later the Christian disciple James the half brother of Jesus Christ writes regarding this and says: “Look! We pronounce happy those who have endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome Jehovah gave, that Jehovah is very tender in affection and merciful.”​—Jas. 5:11.

11. How does the record show that God won out over Satan through Job’s not cursing God to his face?

¹¹ In the case of Job, Jehovah God won out over Satan, for Satan proved to be a liar. How so? As Satan brought trials upon Job, we read, “in all this Job did not sin or ascribe anything improper to God.” When the state of Job seemed desperate and his wife gave up hope concerning him, she said to him: “Are you yet holding fast your integrity? Curse God and die!” But Job said to her: “As one of the senseless women speaks, you speak also. Shall we accept merely what is good from the true God and not accept also what is bad?” Hence the record says: “In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” Finally, before Jehovah reversed the situation for Job, he said to three hypocritical critics of Job: “My anger has grown hot against you and your two companions, for you men have not spoken concerning me what is truthful as has my servant Job.” (Job 1:1-22; 2:9, 10; 42:7, 8) This, in effect, proved to be a rebuke to Satan, and he was exposed as a slanderer or Devil.

12. How long before Job’s time and at what place was the issue over divine rulership raised, and with what result to God’s seventh creative day or Sabbath?

¹² Thus this historical person, Job of the land of Uz, remained faithful to Jehovah as God Almighty. Job was in favor of divine rulership. However, it was more than two thousand four hundred years before Job’s trial that Satan the Devil raised the issue over divine rulership. This was shortly after the Creator, Jehovah God, had planted the Garden of Eden some hundreds of miles to the northeast of the location of the land of Uz. Into that Paradise of Pleasure Jehovah had put the first man and woman to live and serve in subjection to the divine rulership. It was then about the beginning of Jehovah’s seventh creative day, about 4026 B.C.E., or almost six thousand years ago. (Gen. 1:28 to 2:3) Did this seventh creative day, this great Sabbath Day for Jehovah as respects earthly creation, continue peaceful, with all creation in heaven and on earth in loyal submission to divine rulership? Our own human experience today as well as earthly history for the past six thousand years answers No. The calm of this great Sabbatic Day of Jehovah began to be disturbed from almost its very beginning.

13. How did a heavenly “son of God” cause temptation to form for him, and into what course did it draw him?

¹³ At that critical time one of those “sons of God” in heaven who had witnessed Jehovah’s creation of man and woman in the Garden of Eden let selfish desire enter into his heart and let it draw him and entice him away from divine rulership. He began to envy God’s rightful rulership over this human pair whom God commanded to raise a big happy family and fill all the earth, at the same time extending the Paradise in Eden to the very ends of the earth. (Gen. 1:26-28) This heavenly “son of God” now came under temptation of his own forming and desired to have that rulership over that first human couple and their family with which they would fill the earth. He cultivated this selfish desire until it became fertile and gave birth to sin. That sin was his launching off into resistance to the Divine Ruler over all, the Most High and Almighty God Jehovah. In this way this heavenly “son of God” converted himself into Satan or the Resister. God was in no way to be blamed for this as if tempting anybody in heaven or on earth to badness, to wickedness.​—Jas. 1:13-15.

14. How was it that Satan at Eden proceeded differently from what he did at the meeting of the “sons of God” before Jehovah, and how did he get Eve to listen to him?

¹⁴ At the Garden of Eden no coming together of the heavenly sons of God before Jehovah God is reported as having taken place at that time. Nor did Satan disclose what was in his heart and, as in the case of Job, ask the Supreme Ruler Jehovah to remove his protection from around Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. There then being no wickedness in all the realm of existence, there was nothing from which this first human couple needed to be protected. So Satan did not need to ask Jehovah to open up the way for him to get at Adam and Eve and put them to the test and make these earthly human subjects of divine rulership sin against God. Having yielded to his own temptation, he proceeded to make himself the Great Tempter by putting temptation in the way of Adam and Eve. Without disclosing his selfish purpose to other heavenly sons of God, he sneakily put on a disguise and deceitfully used a serpent in the Garden of Eden as his harmless-looking agent to set the trap. The woman Eve, despite her human perfection, was not aware that the unseen spirit creature, Satan, was using ventriloquism through the serpent to tempt her. So, instead of refusing to listen, she listened.

15. How did Satan turn himself into the Devil, and into what course did he influence Eve to go?

¹⁵ By the serpent, the traitorous son of God, Satan, struck at the law of God concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, as if God were misusing his divine rulership. Satan now transformed himself into the Devil, which means Slanderer, by calling God a liar who was unable to enforce the penalty for violating his law against eating the forbidden fruit. Would Eve die for defying divine rulership and exercising human self-rule? No! said Satan the Devil through the serpent. “You positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.” Eve could not see Satan the Devil any more than we today can see him with our natural eyes. Letting now the newly formed selfish desire for a forbidden thing draw her and entice her, she mothered human sin by calling into question divine rulership and breaking the divine law. Satan the Devil knew that the transgressor Eve would next try to persuade her husbandly head, Adam, to eat the forbidden fruit with her.​—Gen. 3:1-6.

16. How did Adam come into possession of the forbidden fruit, and on what fundamental issue did he make a decision, with effect upon whom?

¹⁶ Eve wanted company in her transgression. She desired her husband to join her. He did not pick any fruit off the forbidden tree at her suggestion, but his wife offered the fruit to him. Her voice became very pleading, tempting him to share with her in the forbidden fruit. Under the deception, she did not think that it would kill him to do so. A decision affecting the whole human family was now Adam’s to make. He had to make a decision, not only for himself, but for his unborn offspring that was in his loins. He faced the great issue, Divine rulership​—Am I for it or against it? Instead of listening to his heavenly Father’s voice of warning about the deadly consequences of eating the forbidden fruit, Adam listened to his wife’s persuasive voice. He did not choose to prove that “serpent” a liar and God true. Contrariwise, he chose to please his wife. He accepted the forbidden fruit at her hand.​—Gen. 3:6, 12, 17.

MANKIND BROUGHT UNDER DEMON RULERSHIP

17, 18. (a) For whose rulership did Adam decide, and on whose side did he put himself? (b) How does the apostle John analyze under whose rulership Adam’s firstborn son was?

¹⁷ Here resistance on earth to divine rulership started. Adam, the earthly head of the human family, decided for human self-rule. He was also deciding in favor of something else, although he may not then have realized it. Like his wife Eve, he did not with his natural eye see Satan the Devil as the moving power behind that talking “serpent,” but, just the same, Adam was deciding in favor of Satan’s rulership as against divine rulership. Adam and Eve were now on the side of Satan the Devil​—against divine rulership, against theocratic rule. That is why Adam and Eve were driven out of the Paradise of Pleasure, to bring forth their family outside on ground upon which God’s curse rested. Their firstborn son, Cain, showed under whose rulership he was when he murdered his God-fearing brother Abel. (Gen. 3:17 to 4:16) In pointing this out the apostle John writes:

¹⁸ “This is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should have love for one another; not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother. And for the sake of what did he slaughter him? Because his own works were wicked, but those of his brother were righteous.”​—1 John 3:11, 12.

19. As in Cain’s case, how does mankind today prove that it is not submitting itself to divine rulership?

¹⁹ All this illustrates the serious consequences that follow from going against divine rulership. Do we have fratricide, the killing of brother by brother, today? No one can deny that we have it on a colossal scale, especially when world wars come along. Men wise in the wisdom of this modern world may say that Satan the Devil has nothing to do with this. But we have better information from authoritative sources rather than from these self-opinionated persons. Brother haters and brother murderers today originate from the same wicked one now as they did in the days of Cain and Abel, only there are more of them now than there were on earth in the first century of the human family on earth. Yes, and more than in the first century of Christianity, when the apostle John wrote the foregoing words about brother love and brother hate. The evidence is overwhelming, therefore, that mankind today is not just under human rulership but, unknown to itself, also under Satanic rulership. The increasing lack of brotherly love proves that mankind is not submitting itself to divine rulership. “God is love,” we read in 1 John 4:8, 16.

20. In whose days did there come a break in Satan’s rulership over mankind, and what men down to him were in favor of divine rulership?

²⁰ From the day when Adam and Eve took their stand against divine rulership until now, there has been only one temporary break in Satanic rulership over mankind. This was in the days of the patriarch Noah, the tenth man in line of descent from Adam. Before Noah, the faithful martyr Abel had been in favor of rulership by the Divine Being whom he worshiped. Also, the prophet Enoch, the seventh man in line of descent from Adam, was for divine rulership. Evidently so that Enoch might not be murdered by ungodly opposers, Jehovah God miraculously took him from the earthly scene when he was just 365 years old. (Gen. 5:18-24; Heb. 11:4, 5; Jude 14, 15) In favor of whose rulership Noah was is evident from the record in Genesis 6:9, which reads: “This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God.”

21. (a) In the light of what prophecy of Jesus do we do well to note the situation existing in Noah’s day? (b) How does the account in Genesis show that divine rulership was not recognized in Noah’s preflood days?

²¹ We today do well to take note of the world situation in Noah’s day down to his six hundredth year of age. Why? Because Jesus Christ said in his prophecy regarding world conditions at the “conclusion of the system of things” this significant statement: “Just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, . . . they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.” (Matt. 24:3, 37-39) Besides the eating, drinking and marrying that was then going on in those pre-Flood days, there was a situation that called for the Creator to bring that globe-sweeping Flood. It was what was described in Genesis 6:11, 13, where we read: “The earth came to be ruined in the sight of the true God and the earth became filled with violence. After that God said to Noah: ‘The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence as a result of them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.”’ Certainly, then, divine rulership was not recognized.

22, 23. (a) In the pre-Flood days, how did Satan’s rulership take on added force in connection with “women being given in marriage”? (b) How was it evident that the Nephilim offspring of the angelic-human marriages were of no moral help to mankind?

²² In those pre-Flood days, Satanic rulership over the human family took on added force. How so? Well, in Jesus’ reference to the days of Noah he spoke of “women being given in marriage.” (Matt. 24:38) Among those women being then married off were many women who were taken by persons whom Genesis 6:4 calls “the sons of the true God.” They were heavenly “sons of God,” just as Satan the Devil had once been, but they were tempted to come down and take up living on earth because of the “good-looking” daughters of men, who were available for marriage.

²³ So these heavenly “sons of the true God” materialized as men and “went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.” Possibly, more than one wife each. Among the offspring of such angelic-human marriages were what the Bible calls Nephilim, which means “Fellers,” that is, those who cause someone or something to fall forcibly. “They were the mighty ones who were of old, the men of fame.” (Gen. 6:1-4) Those hybrid Nephilim or Fellers were manifestly not of any moral help to the pure human stock of mankind, for after that the Bible reports that the earth was being ruined and was filled with violence. This definitely proves that those angelic “sons of the true God” had acted sinfully in marrying the “daughters of men” for sexual satisfaction.

24. (a) Did those marrying “sons of God” sin, and on whose side did they put themselves? (b) At the Flood, what happened to the Nephilim, and what were the married “sons of God” obliged to do?

²⁴ That those heavenly sons of God did sin by leaving their invisible spiritual estate and their own proper habitation in God’s celestial service is positively stated in the Bible. (1 Pet. 3:19, 20; 2 Pet. 2:4, 5; Jude 6) This decidedly put them in opposition to divine rulership both in heaven and on earth. That put them on the side of Satanic rulership and under it. Their hybrid offspring, the Nephilim, were not preserved through the global flood; none of them were taken into the great ark that Noah and his three sons built. Being human because of their human mothers, they were drowned in the Flood, along with their earthly relatives. Their angelic fathers dematerialized and unwillingly, under compulsion, disappeared into the spirit realm. There they were obliged to join Satan the Devil as their ruler.

25. How was there thus an interruption of Satan’s rulership brought about, and under what did mankind get a new start?

²⁵ The global flood interrupted the Satanic rulership over the human family. Noah and his wife and their three sons and three daughters-in-law, inside the ark during the deluge, were all for divine rulership. They survived that global cataclysm, but all those who were against divine rulership were drowned in the floodwaters. Consequently, when Noah and his fellow survivors stepped out of the ark onto the cleansed earth, the human family was once again under divine rulership. In evidence of that fact Jehovah God as the Divine Ruler told Noah and his family to do what he had told Adam and Eve in Eden to do, to fill the earth with their offspring, subject to certain stated divine laws. (Gen. 6:13 to 9:7) Mankind thus got a second start under divine rulership.

26. Consistently, why should God not be less concerning about earthly conditions today, and how do we know whether he will do something about this as in Noah’s day?

²⁶ If the ruination of the earth and the filling of it with violence in the preflood days of Noah were deserving of mention in the Holy Bible, certainly the greater ruination of the earth and the filling of it with more widespread violence in this twentieth century are due for mention. Is God the Creator less concerned about this present-day far-worse world condition than he was with that of Noah’s day? By every rule of consistency he should be far more concerned about it and hence obliged to do something about it as Creator of heaven and earth. Jesus Christ the faithful Son of God prophesied that God would do so.

[Picture on page 652]

The pre-Flood people kept on eating, drinking and marrying, taking “no note until the flood came” and destroyed all those ignoring divine rulership. “So it will be also in the days of the Son of man.”​—Luke 17:26, 27

Divine Rulership​—Are We for It or Against It?

1. (a) After the Flood, how did human rulership begin to be organized? (b) How had Satan’s power for rulership over mankind been reinforced, and what evidence do we have for the existence of demons in history since then?

ALL THE facts today go to prove that mankind does not favor divine rulership. This is because within less than two centuries after the Flood human rulership began to be organized by human leaders in opposition to Jehovah God. Notoriously prominent in this was Nimrod, the builder of Babylon and the Tower of Babel. (Gen. 10:8-12; 11:1-9) By doing this, they were bringing the majority of mankind, not merely under oppressive, imperfect rulership, but also under Satanic rulership. The power of Satan the Devil was now reinforced by those other “sons of God” who had turned against God’s sovereignty and had intermarried with the daughters of men. These, like Satan the Devil, had made demons of themselves. The materialistically minded people of today who smile at Satan the Devil and his demons as being mythical figures and figments of the imagination cannot rub out the record of all ancient history. The ancient records, in writing and in temples and other religious ruins, all testify that the ancient nations worshiped demons and were influenced by them. Demons are! They do exist!

2, 3. (a) Information from which authoritative source is more important than such historical evidence, and how does it speak of the demons? (b) What advice did Paul write to the Ephesians against the demons?

² More importantly than that, the Book of sacred truth, the inspired Bible, gives us definite information regarding these demons and their leader, Satan the Devil. That Book warns us against the machinations, the crafty schemes and sly designs, of those malicious, invisible spirit persons, who are not of blood and flesh. The people today, even those in Christendom, do not take seriously the advice that the Christian apostle Paul wrote for all Christians in his letter to the congregation of Ephesus, saying:

³ “Put on the complete suit of armor from God that you may be able to stand firm against the machinations of the Devil; because we have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.”​—Eph. 6:11, 12.

4. (a) What do those words mean as to Satan’s organizing activity, and so what do Jesus and Paul call Satan? (b) How do human rulers react on being classed with such company, and yet who put them there?

⁴ Do we get the sense of this? This means that Satan the Devil has an invisible, superhuman organization. It means that he has organized the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places into “governments,” into “authorities,” into “world rulers of this darkness.” This unseen organized power is mightier than the communist bloc of nations with its vast military strength; it is mightier than the rich democratic bloc of nations with all their military might. Jesus Christ, who ought to know, called the Devil, Satan, “the ruler of this world.” The Christian apostle Paul called Satan “the god of this system of things.” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Cor. 4:4) The earthly governments might want to muzzle us for saying this as downgrading to them, but we are merely quoting what Jesus Christ and his apostle Paul say on the pages of the Holy Bible. They do not like to have it pointed out from God’s Word that they are in such company, but we did not put them there. But, if they are not in favor of divine rulership by Jehovah God, where else can they find themselves?

HOW DIVINE RULERSHIP IS NOW REPRESENTED

5. (a) Through whom is divine rulership expressed today? (b) In Jesus’ days on earth, what was the issue that faced the people, and what problem did they have to solve?

⁵ How is divine rulership expressed today, that we may know whether we are for it or against it? Divine rulership is now exercised through the kingdom of his faithful heavenly Son, Jesus Christ. Like ancient Job of the land of Uz, Jesus Christ as a perfect man of blood and flesh on earth endured the greatest of tests at the hands of Satan the Devil and his human agencies on earth. He thereby proved his absolutely unbreakable integrity to Jehovah God as the Divine Ruler. Job did not die at the hands of Satan the Devil. But Jesus Christ died a cruel death at the hands of Satan’s crowd on earth. This took place outside the walls of Jerusalem. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and of the Roman provinces of Judea and Galilee were involved. For these religiously devout people the issue that then faced them was, Divine rulership through the Messiah of Jehovah God. The big problem that those people who were looking for Jehovah’s Messiah had to solve was this: Is Jesus the descendant of King David the long-promised Messiah or not?

6. (a) How did what Jesus said and did compare with what the people expected the true Messiah to do? (b) To whom did the people look for solving their Messianic problem, and on what charge did they turn Jesus over to a pagan governor?

⁶ From the time of his baptism in the Jordan River by John the Baptist until his death three and a half years later, the things that Jesus said and the miracles that he did, the people who entertained the Messianic hope never expected the Messiah or Christ to say and do. They expected merely that the Messiah would liberate them from Gentile or non-Jewish rule and make their land a prosperous country and their nation the leading nation on earth to which the Gentile nations would flock. The problem was not merely a governmental one but also largely a religious one. The people looked to their religious leaders to direct them in solving the problem. These leaders made the decision for the vast majority of the people. They considered Jesus a blasphemer against God, a false Christ. Yet, not to be blocked in having him killed, they turned Jesus over to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. On what charge? On the charge of being a seditionist, claiming to be a king, not the king of the Roman Empire, but their king, the King of the Jewish nation. So they pretended to be befriending the Roman Empire, to be protecting its interests, even though pagan.

7. (a) Whom did the people before Pontius Pilate pretend to be befriending, to the discredit of Pilate? (b) By thus doing, the people were taking what stand as regards divine rulership, according to James 4:4?

⁷ When Governor Pilate expressed himself in favor of letting Jesus go free as not deserving of death, the people led by their chief priests pictured themselves as being friends of Tiberius Caesar whereas Governor Pilate was not his friend. The Bible record tells us: “Pilate kept on seeking how to release him. But the Jews shouted, saying: ‘If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. Every man making himself a king speaks against Caesar.”’ Thus the issue was being made a political one, and those people were speaking and acting in favor of being friends​—of God or of pagan Caesar? Of a divine Ruler or of a human ruler? They could not be friends of God and of Caesar at the same time, even if they claimed that Jesus was a false Messiah or Christ. We have to abide by the inspired rule, as written at Jerusalem some years later: “Are you not aware that the world’s intimacy means God’s hostility? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world renders himself an enemy of God.” (Jas. 4:4, H. J. Schonfield, 1955) So, in trying to befriend pagan Caesar on this issue of the Messiah or Christ, were those religious people showing themselves friends of divine rulership?

8. How did the people then show themselves to be in favor of pagan human rule as against divine rulership?

⁸ Finally the people brought the issue to a settlement, when they cried out for Jesus to be impaled, and Pilate objected, saying: “Shall I impale your king?” Here they positively rejected Jesus as the Messianic king, for, according to the record, “the chief priests answered: ‘We have no king but Caesar.”’ (John 19:12-15) Nobody can deny that here they made a choice of pagan human rulership. Unavoidably this put them against divine rulership.

9. (a) In proof that Jesus was the Messiah, what did God do on the third day? (b) Now, at the right time, who is being presented to all the world as the Messianic King, and what kind of rulership is his?

⁹ All the recorded facts show that Jesus fulfilled the Bible prophecies concerning the promised Messiah or Christ. That is why Almighty God resurrected him from the dead on the third day and exalted him to His own right hand in heaven. He is now the heavenly Messiah or Christ. (Acts 1:1 to 2:36; 13:26-39; 1 Pet. 3:18-22) And now, nineteen centuries later, just as Governor Pilate presented the Messiah to the Passover celebrators in Jerusalem in the year 33 C.E., so today the Most High God Jehovah is presenting his Messiah or Christ to the whole world of mankind. It is the time for this. The long time period mentioned as “the times of the Gentiles” or “the appointed times of the nations” ended in the fourteenth year of our twentieth century, the year that was marked by the outbreak of World War I. (Luke 21:24; Dan. 4:16, 23, 25) The kingdom of the royal house of King David that was overturned by the pagan armies of Babylon in 607 B.C.E. has now been reestablished, not on earth as a human rulership, but in the heavens in the hands of the true Messiah, the Christ of the Lord God Almighty Jehovah.

10. (a) Since 1914 C.E., what words do we hear by faith sounding from heaven about the kingdom of the world? (b) How has Christendom by world wars and by membership in the United Nations shown herself to be in favor of human rulership?

¹⁰ By faith our ears can hear, since 1914 C.E., the voices in heaven loudly saying the words recorded in the last book of the Bible: “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” (Rev. 11:15) That “kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” does not mean Christendom​—absolutely not! It means the heavenly royal government of the Messiah or Christ who has been anointed by the Lord God Jehovah to act for Him in ruling all peoples of the earth. According to her religious name, Christendom should be for that Messianic kingdom of God, but is she? After the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, did Christendom fight for that Messianic kingdom of the heavens, or was it for world domination by human rulership? Look at the League of Nations and the present-day United Nations, both of which Christendom introduced and promoted and keeps going today. Do those organizations stand for divine rulership by means of the Messianic kingdom of the heavens or stand for human rulership? What do the more than half of the members of the United Nations that do not profess to be Christian nations say in answer? They say: ‘No! The United Nations organization does not stand for divine rulership by means of a heavenly Messianic kingdom! It stands for human rulership of all the earth. We humans are going to rule it by our self-chosen forms of government.’ Logically, then, Christendom, by belonging to the United Nations, is for human (not divine) rulership.

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE FOR DIVINE RULERSHIP

11. As regards her course since the end of World War I in 1918, why is Christendom not excusable on the grounds of ignorance, and so may people look to her for right guidance as to choice of rulership?

¹¹ Christendom has belied her name, and there is no excuse for it. Ever since that critical year 1914, and particularly since the end of World War I in 1918, God’s Messianic kingdom as a government established in the heavens has been proclaimed. This has come as a fulfillment of the words of Jesus Christ about the sign by which the “conclusion of the system of things” would be recognized, namely: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matt. 24:14) Christendom’s awareness of this preaching of such “good news” is proved by the fact that she has objected to it, even to the point of persecuting and proscribing the preachers of such “good news.” Consequently, Christendom’s choice of human rulership along with the non-Christian governments of the earth was not made in ignorance and without the possession of the Holy Bible. In view of this, mankind cannot safely look to Christendom to guide them in making the right choice, any more than Jews could look to their priests and rabbis nineteen centuries ago.

12. What is the all-important issue today, and why is the choice so urgent today for us to make?

¹² The all-important issue today is, not Communism or capitalistic democracy​—which shall rule? for these are both merely forms of human rulership. Rather, it is: Human rulership by men who are imperfect, sinful, dying and out of harmony with Jehovah God, or divine rulership by the Messianic kingdom of the resurrected Jesus, the Lamb of God who died sacrificially for all mankind? Today the choice is more urgent to make than it was nineteen hundred years ago when Jesus Christ was presented by Governor Pilate to the crowd of Passover celebrators in Jerusalem. We today stand very near the end of the “conclusion of the system of things.” Human rulership by imperfect, sinful, dying humans is about to be removed from the face of the earth in mankind’s greatest “tribulation” foretold in the prophetic Bible.

13. Why does it do one no good to further oppose divine rulership, and what now makes the matter all the more serious for opposers?

¹³ It does us no good, and it will result in no success, for us to oppose and be against divine rulership. The rulership by the Almighty Controller of the tremendous “establishment” of which our earth is a tiny particle will come in anyhow and take over the entire earth. What makes the matter so serious is that those today who continue to be, not for, but against divine rulership, will be destroyed as enemies in the tribulation with which this system of things ends.​—Matt. 24:21, 22; Dan. 2:44.

14. (a) Choice of human rulership means choice of what other rulership also, and what will happen to this latter rulership? (b) Choice of eternal divine rulership does not mean what as to our attitude toward present human governments and institutions?

¹⁴ Let us not overlook this distasteful fact: The choice for human rulership means at one and the same time a choice for Satanic rulership, the continued rule of mankind by the “god of this system of things.” After the destruction of this human system of things, Jehovah God by his Messiah will put Satan the Devil and his legions of demons out of their invisible domination of mankind on earth. (Rev. 20:1-3) So, are we going to choose what is to be destroyed after just a little while longer? How much wiser it is in this crucial hour to choose that which will be eternal​—divine rulership! Being for divine rulership now before the coming “great tribulation” does not mean that we are going to be violent revolutionists and try to overturn present political governments and other human institutions forcibly. No, for Jehovah God strictly forbids his Christian witnesses on earth to do so. (Rom. 12:17 to 13:7) Rather than choose to lift a violent hand against the human governments that God has permitted to exist till now, they will meekly continue to suffer vicious persecution at the hands of human political rulers.

15. (a) By enduring such unjust suffering without resentment, what will they maintain, just as Job and Jesus did? (b) What do they seek first, and what do they have to preach, for how long?

¹⁵ By enduring such unjust suffering without feeling resentment against Almighty God who permits it, they keep their integrity toward Him, just as patient Job and the Lord Jesus Christ did, always enjoying a clean conscience toward God and toward man. (Acts 23:1; 1 Pet. 2:19, 20) To show where they stand and the choice that they have made, they seek first the kingdom of their heavenly Father and His righteousness rather than meddling in human politics and taking sides therein. The Divine Ruler has given them the “good news of the kingdom” to preach everywhere. This is what they obediently do until God himself by Jesus the Messiah puts that divine government in full, undisputed power and control over all the earth.​—Matt. 6:33; 24:14.

16, 17. (a) What will Jehovah God do for those who take that loyal course? (b) What is Jehovah examining all human hearts now to determine, and to what words of David will those respond who choose life in His Messianic order?

¹⁶ Those who take this course are the ones whom the Universal Sovereign Lord Jehovah will preserve through the approaching “great tribulation” and into His righteous new order with its Paradise earth. As he now examines human hearts, he looks to us to show by word of mouth and unhypocritical action what choice we have made as to rulership. Are we for divine rulership over all the earth as well as in heaven, or are we against it? The Divine Ruler chooses for life in his Messianic new order those who respond to the inspired words of King David, who sat on “Jehovah’s throne” in Jerusalem:

¹⁷ “Jehovah himself has firmly established his throne in the very heavens; and over everything his own kingship has held domination. Bless Jehovah, O you angels of his, mighty in power, carrying out his word, by listening to the voice of his word. Bless Jehovah, all you armies of his, you ministers of his, doing his will. Bless Jehovah, all you his works, in all places of his domination. Bless Jehovah, O my soul.”​—Ps. 103:19-22.

18. In the light of those words of the psalmist, how do we answer the question on the issue of rulership?

¹⁸ Divine rulership by Jehovah God through Jesus Christ​—Are we for it or against it? With all of Jehovah’s angels, mighty in power, with all his heavenly armies, with all his ministers, doing his will, we firmly answer, We are for Divine Rulership both now and forevermore!

[Picture on page 655]

When the Jews rejected Jesus as their king in favor of Caesar, they chose human rulership. Today Jehovah presents his Messiah to all mankind; which choice will you make?

Is a Fiery End Really Near?

WE HAVE heard all our lives that ‘someday the earth will meet a fiery end.’ Certain religions believe it will come from God. Some scientists say that it will eventually come through the expansion of the sun in its death throes, resulting in the engulfment and burning up of the earth.

Is either version true?

A British scientist, H. W. Chatfield, in his book A Scientist in Search of God, presents a mass of evidence that the superior mind of a great Creator designed the earth and life upon it, and provided in advance for a continuous supply of all things vital to life, especially for mankind. Then, in the concluding chapter, he shows why this gives evidence that God’s interest in man would also be continuous:

“Perpetual self-propagating creation on a grand scale does not accord well with a Planner whose interest was circumscribed solely by the duration of the mechanics of the operation, and who thereafter had no concern whatever for the beings which in some fragmentary measure at least were created in his own likeness.”

Rather, one who designed and created man in his own image would no more desert him than a loving father would suddenly turn away from his own children. Chatfield goes on to say:

“The mechanics of the creative acts are shown by scientific fact to have consumed ages of time on a basis of human reckoning, and it seems illogical that after such extended interest the living outcome should be left completely neglected by its architect.”

Now, the Creator who would make things in such a fine way and with such care and expenditure of time would also logically communicate with his intelligent creation, man. This would be particularly true in view of the fact that he placed man in charge of his earthly creation. (Gen. 1:26-28) The Bible constitutes that communication, God’s instructions and statement of purpose. Does it support the idea that earth and life on it are to remain permanently?

EARTH AND LIFE ON IT TO REMAIN

God showed he cared and purposed to have the earth continuously and permanently filled with animal and human creation when he preserved representatives of both human and animal kinds through the global flood of Noah’s day. Why would God do this if he did not care, or if he purposed someday to eliminate them all?​—Gen. 7:1-3; 8:1, 17.

Also, God was careful to have his people Israel keep a detailed genealogical record, particularly of the line through which the Messiah would come. Why keep a record if the line of descent was to end in oblivion? And why did the Messiah, the Son of God, come to earth? For the preservation of life and the restoration of perfect life that Adam lost for his family by rebellion. Accordingly, by providing a ransom for dying mankind, Christ becomes “the last Adam” and the “Eternal Father.” Thus God demonstrated in the strongest possible way his care for mankind.​—1 Cor. 15:45; Isa. 9:6.

Furthermore, the inspired psalmist sings of God: “He has founded the earth upon its established places; it will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever.” Then, after describing the wonder of God’s creative works, particularly his provisions for the animal kingdom, this writer prophetically adds: “The glory of Jehovah will prove to be to time indefinite. Jehovah will rejoice in his works.” (Ps. 104:5, 31) How would the Creator rejoice in these works if he burned them up?

A FIERY END PROPHESIED, FORESHADOWED

What, then, does the Bible mean when it speaks of God as using a destructive fire upon the earth? Let us turn to an example in the Bible that very definitely shows us what it means and also what is very soon to take place, giving us opportunity to escape from fiery destruction.

Strangely, in the incident under discussion, the fire came upon a people who claimed to be the nation of God. This reveals that a mere claim to serve God, or even mere association with those truly serving him does not assure safety.

The occasion was a vision given to the prophet Ezekiel over in Babylon in the year 612 B.C.E., along with its fulfillment five years later. A chariot of tremendous height, a war chariot, appeared to Ezekiel, atop which was a figure representing Jehovah God as the rider of the celestial chariot. Ezekiel had described the visionary chariot in the first part of his account (Eze chapter 1), telling of the height of its wheels and of the living creatures accompanying it. Later, the chariot, envisioned by Ezekiel as being in Jerusalem, stood outside the north gate leading into the inner court of the temple. Jehovah’s glory had moved from above the chariot to position itself above the threshold of the Most Holy of the temple.​—Ezek. 8:3, 4; 9:3.

Because of Jerusalem’s rebelliousness against him and its utterly detestable, unclean practices, Jehovah earlier had pictorially showed Ezekiel that he would destroy the wicked ones there. But first he commanded a visionary figure, a ‘man clothed with linen,’ to go throughout the city and mark righteous-hearted persons in the city for preservation. Alongside this man Ezekiel also saw six other men with ‘weapons for smashing’ in their hands.​—Ezek. 9:2-7.

A “FIRE” FROM HEAVEN

Ezekiel proceeds to tell us what occurred next:

“And I continued to see, and, look! upon the expanse that was over the head of the cherubs there was something like sapphire stone, like the appearance of the likeness of a throne, appearing above them. And he proceeded to say to the man clothed with the linen, even to say: ‘Enter in between the wheelwork, in under the cherubs, and fill the hollows of both your hands with coals of fire from between the cherubs and toss them over the city.’ So he entered in before my eyes.”​—Ezek. 10:1, 2.

The material to burn the city of Jerusalem was to come from between the chariot wheels. With Jehovah’s glory filling the temple, it was evident that he was present to see that his judicial decision was carried out.​—Ezek. 10:3-5.

Ezekiel then goes on to describe the actions of the man in linen:

“And it came about, when he commanded the man clothed with the linen, saying: ‘Take fire from between the wheelwork, from between the cherubs,’ that he proceeded to enter and stand beside the wheel. Then the cherub thrust his hand out from between the cherubs to the fire that was between the cherubs and carried and put it into the hollows of the hands of the one clothed with the linen, who now took it and went out. And there was seen belonging to the cherubs the representation of a hand of earthling man under their wings.”​—Ezek. 10:6-8.

It was not man-made fire that thus burned Jerusalem in the vision. It was miraculous fire from God’s heavenly chariotlike organization. What does this signify? This: that the utter destruction of Jerusalem as IF with fire could be an expression of Jehovah’s anger and fury against that city. In his book of Lamentations the prophet Jeremiah likens the rage of Jehovah (with which Jerusalem was destroyed) to fire, though the sword, famine and pestilence, as well as fire, were used.​—Lam. 2:2-4; 4:11.

ADVANCE WARNING

By the linen-clad man Jehovah was serving advance notice of the pouring out of his fiery rage to bring Jerusalem’s destruction. In like manner the modern-day counterpart of the linen-clad man, namely, the anointed, spirit-begotten brothers of Jesus Christ, scatter the fiery message from God’s Word all over Christendom. This serves as advance notification to her that Jehovah’s fiery anger will be vented upon her in the coming “great tribulation.”​—Matt. 24:21.

This vision given to Ezekiel shows that the anointed Christian witnesses of Jehovah will not actually set fire to Christendom, nor will they have any active hand in destroying her. It was not the linen-clad man that did the destructive work. It was the “six men” with weapons for smashing. (Ezek. 9:2, 4, 5) Likewise, Jehovah’s witnesses today merely proclaim the “day of vengeance on the part of our God” against Christendom. They do not execute vengeance.​—Isa. 61:1, 2; Rom. 12:19.

Jehovah’s witnesses got this fiery message from Jehovah through his heavenly organization, his celestial “chariot.” As it were, one of the heavenly cherubs belonging to that celestial chariot put these symbolic “coals of fire from between the cherubs” into the hollows of their hands to go and toss them out over the city of Christendom as warning notice.

However, Jehovah’s invisible heavenly organization under the glorified Jesus Christ will have a hand in the literal wiping out of Christendom. Under heavenly direction radical earthly agencies will also be used to wreak violent destruction upon Christendom as the Babylonians did to hypocritical Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.

AVOID BEING A ‘MOURNER’

So a fiery end is near for Christendom. Her religious organizations will be destroyed. The apostle John heard prophetic words from heaven spoken against Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion, of which the religions of Christendom are the dominant part: “That is why in one day her plagues will come, death and mourning and famine, and she will be completely burned with fire, because Jehovah God, who judged her, is strong.”​—Rev. 18:8.

The demise of Babylon the Great, though fully in harmony with justice, will have its mourners. Concerning them, the angelic heavenly voice says: “And the kings of the earth who committed fornication with her and lived in shameless luxury will weep and beat themselves in grief over her, when they look at the smoke from the burning of her, while they stand at a distance because of their fear of her torment and say, ‘Too bad, too bad, you great city, Babylon you strong city, because in one hour your judgment has arrived!”’​—Rev. 18:9, 10.

The Scriptures go on to tell us that Babylon the Great’s mourners as well as all others who deny God’s Sovereign Rulership and defile his creation will follow Babylon the Great into destruction. It is dangerous, therefore, to hold sympathetically onto that great organization of false religion.​—Rev. 11:18; 19:19-21.

Consequently, though a fiery end is coming, it is one that will cleanse and purge the earth of those who selfishly have no regard for their fellowmen who do want to live and follow righteous principles. (2 Pet. 3:12, 13) Those who care only for themselves and not for God or his wonderful creation must be blotted out as though by fire. (Mal. 4:1) God’s anger is specially hot against Christendom, because it has been the greatest defamer of his name. (Rev. 18:5-7) If you love life and enjoy God’s creation, forsake Christendom and other false religions NOW. Avoid the fiery destruction coming upon her supporters and ‘mourners.’

Jehovah Strengthens Those Who Prove Loyal

As told by Gresham Kwazizirah

I WAS born in a small town called Ncheu in the African country then called British Central Africa, later called Nyasaland and now Malawi. Birth records were not legally required at the time, but I believe it was about 1896. At that time European missionaries of various religious denominations had introduced the Bible to us eager African people. As I had learned at school to read and speak English, I had for some time been an avid reader of God’s Word the Bible.

When I was finishing my education at school, our elder of the Presbyterian Church gave us the opportunity to ask him questions concerning the Bible. For a long time I had wanted to understand the meaning of Revelation 17:1-5, about the mystery of “Babylon the Great.” I asked him to explain this passage of Scripture.

Speaking rather harshly, he replied: “This is not the time for this scripture to be interpreted by a human, but we wait till Jesus’ second coming and he will give the meaning of this.” My mind was not satisfied; I thought that someone, somewhere, should have the explanation.

In time I found employment at the General Hospital in the capital city, Zomba. It was while I was working there that one day I accepted an invitation to a religious meeting of persons using the term “Watch Tower.” This meeting was to bring about a great change in my life.

When I met with them I listened to the talk entitled “God Sanctifies His Organization,” in which the book of Revelation was explained. My attention was captured as I thought back to the Presbyterian elder who had been unable to answer my question about “Babylon the Great.”

BAPTISM LEADS TO A TEST OF LOYALTY

As I had become impressed by the truths from God’s Word, I decided to leave my employment at the hospital and go back to my home to work with this organization, as a group of them were meeting near there. When I located the overseers of the group, I asked them to obtain for me the seven volumes of Studies in the Scriptures, published by the Watch Tower Society. When I finished the volumes, I asked the overseers or ‘pastors,’ as they were then called, to baptize me.

They told me that, since I had been a teacher in the Presbyterian Church, it would first be advisable for them to go with me to the district commissioner (the local government officer for native affairs under the British colonial regime) in the town nearby to explain the matter, in case the Presbyterians should make trouble for me. We saw the district commissioner, and I was baptized in January 1925.

When the news reached the clergyman of my former Presbyterian congregation, he warned all my former associates, telling them that I would try to convert other members of his congregation. I had a trying time when I was taken to the district commissioner, the very one whom we had visited before I was baptized, and was falsely accused of wanting to “teach people that war will come from America which will kill all the chiefs and the district commissioners as well, and that they [Americans] will take their places.”

The district commissioner took me into custody for a month and forwarded the case to the provincial commissioner, a higher government official. Thus my baptism led to a test of loyalty. Would I be faithful to Jehovah and his organization, or fearfully renounce my faith because of clergy pressure. I determined to be loyal.

The provincial commissioner meanwhile went to my hometown of Ncheu to check into the case and pass judgment. He found that the clergy accusations were groundless and due to jealousy. He told the district commissioner that, in investigating the Watch Tower Society’s literature, he had not found even one page to prove the accusation. So I was released from prison, strengthened and determined to carry on Jehovah’s work.

BLESSINGS FROM FULL-TIME PREACHING

Some time afterward, I left my home and obtained employment from Nyasaland Railways and was sent to Mozambique. In 1933, I received a letter from a European representative of the Watch Tower Society, R. A. McLuckie, who was coming to Malawi to open a depot for the Society. When I read this news, I immediately left my telegraphist’s job in Mozambique and hurried to meet him. I was soon assigned as a full-time preacher of God’s Word and was sent to my first assignment, at Chiradzulu. Here my ministry was singularly blessed by Jehovah, and after six months I went to a new assignment, leaving behind many proclaimers of the good news as the nucleus of a strong congregation.

For my next assignment, at Mangochi at the southern end of Lake Malawi, I was joined by another full-time preacher, Brother Kupheka. Because transportation was difficult in those days, we had to carry our cartons of literature on our heads from Zomba to Mangochi, a journey of nearly one hundred miles. Our loads became lighter and lighter, since we distributed most of the literature on our way. In this territory the people in general were difficult to talk to because of their Moslem religion. They were rooted in tradition and superstition. We had just one interested person with whom we associated during our four-month stay there.

The Society thought it beneficial to give us a new assignment. This time we were to go to Lilongwe, which then had one congregation, but there were many interested persons. We knew that the journey from Mangochi was a long one, 177 miles. This did not unduly concern us, however, for the joy of the full-time ministry gave us strength and we arrived there after walking for five days. Our new territory turned out to be well worth this effort, because the people were tired of their worldly customs and false religious traditions. They were thus receptive to the truths of God’s Word, which would set them free from this yoke. Soon, Witnesses and interested persons were meeting in twenty-two locations in that area.

The last part of the 1935 service year saw the extension of our territory to include the nearby town of Dowa, where the Kingdom message was also received favorably. Our activity was again blessed by Jehovah to the extent that, after only four months, proclaimers of the good news were meeting in four more locations.

On October 10, 1935, I was appointed to another service position, that of regional service director, or regional servant as we were called after July 1936. In this new assignment, I traveled throughout all the northern province of the country, visiting my Christian brothers to help them with their ministry and to give Bible talks. At first I was nervous, thinking how great the responsibility was and wondering if I would be able to fulfill it. However, I found that Jehovah gave me strength to do his will, as long as I relied upon him.

MINISTERIAL VISITS TO THE CHIEFS

Part of my assignment in the north of the country was to visit the local chiefs, who had prohibited our work in their area, with the consent of the governor. For this purpose, the Watch Tower Society had provided me with a letter of introduction to all the chiefs with their names listed on it. In order to explain our work clearly and aid in spreading the Kingdom message, the Society had arranged for me to give a talk on “The Days of Noah,” where this was possible.

At the first village I visited, the chief read the letter of introduction and promptly called together all his subjects along with the religious leaders in his area and other prominent persons. He acted as chairman for the meeting, announced the theme of my talk and asked the audience to listen carefully to the end, when they would be given opportunity to ask questions. There were no questions when I finished speaking, so the chief said: “If you keep silent there is no reason for stopping the Witnesses from preaching in this area of mine.”

One of his counselors then stood up and said: “Well, your excellency the chief, this young man has spoken the truth, which cannot be denied, and no one seems to have any word of opposition on the points we have just heard.”

So the chief replied: “I have opened up my area so that the Witnesses may preach here, and if anyone opposes them, he will be fined.”

I was strengthened by seeing that Jehovah’s spirit was backing me up in doing his work. Even though the chief’s court clerk tried to cast a magical spell on me and threatened that I would die that very night because I had managed to persuade the chief to approve of our preaching, no harm came to me despite a risky encounter I had during the night with a black mamba, a poisonous snake.

Gradually the whole of the northern province was opened to our witnessing activity, as the chiefs came to understand our preaching work more clearly. I am grateful that I was used by Jehovah in opening up the work, and I was thrilled to see the stronger ones encouraged, weaker ones strengthened and the congregations increasing in number.

POSTWAR PRIVILEGES AND TESTS

After World War II we became better organized for expansion. Circuits of Jehovah’s witnesses were organized in 1946 with semiannual assemblies. In 1946 I was appointed as a district overseer of Jehovah’s witnesses, and it was my privilege to cover the whole country, visiting circuit overseers and circuit assemblies.

I very much appreciated the association of missionaries from the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead, who began to arrive from late 1948. Some of these joined me in the district work and later, when I became a circuit overseer in March 1957, I benefited greatly from their experience, helpful counsel and example.

In July 1960, when I was about sixty-four years old, the Society considerately, due to my advancing years, appointed me as a special pioneer minister. Since that time I have witnessed continued expansion in the Kingdom work in Malawi as the proclaimers of God’s kingdom have increased in number from 14,000 to over 23,000. I have also seen two periods of intense persecution, in 1964 and 1967, and marveled at how Jehovah has strengthened us so that we could endure it.

I myself had a number of encounters with fanatical political party members who threatened my life. After a group of these had left my home, they sent a man with a knife who had been made to swear that he would kill me. When he arrived at my home, I was just finishing shaving. I gave him a chair to sit down. He secretly drew out his knife, but I saw him as I turned around. He began to tremble when he realized that I had seen him. I asked: “Have you come to kill me?”

He said that he had been sent to do so, and named the three persons who had sent him. “They say you are responsible for the people’s not buying [political party] cards. That is why they have sent me to kill you,” he continued. “Here I am,” I said. But fearfully he answered: “No.” Then the two of us went outside my house and he went away to his home. The three men he named still continued to harass me and threaten my life, but not long afterward their leader was sent to prison for acts against the government.

We here in Malawi have experienced trials such as our Christian brothers in other countries suffered under Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and others. But we are thankful that Jehovah’s organization has prepared us for fiery tests by counsel in the Society’s publications. The expulsion of the missionaries from our country and the closing of the Watch Tower Society’s branch office in 1967 emphasized to us that the present wicked system of things is moving ever nearer to its end and is soon to be removed.

When I look back on my almost forty years in full-time service, I am glad that I have stayed with Jehovah’s organization. It is from Jehovah’s organization that I have received answers to my many Bible questions, including the one about the identity of the mysterious “Babylon the Great.” How grateful I am for the Watch Tower Society’s book “Babylon the Great Has Fallen!” God’s Kingdom Rules!, which presents abundant evidence that the mystic Great Babylon is none other than the world empire of false religion! How grateful I am for the privileges I have been given to help people flee out of “Babylon the Great” before it is too late!​—Rev. 18:4.

Thankful also am I for the strength received from Jehovah to carry on these many years. During this time I have seen that the persecutors of Jehovah’s people have been unsuccessful; in fact, some of the persecutors have humbled themselves and have become Witnesses themselves. Therefore, along with my faithful Christian brothers in Malawi, I confidently look forward to the future, knowing that Jehovah will strengthen us for what lies ahead as long as we prove loyal.

What the Way You Dress Tells About You

Helpful facts that young people want to know

“MERE man sees what appears to the eyes; but as for Jehovah, he sees what the heart is.” (1 Sam. 16:7) Since God looks at our heart, does it really matter what our outward appearance is like?

Yes, it does. Because, just as it is true that Jehovah sees the heart, it is also true that “man sees what appears to the eyes.” People are initially guided by what one’s outward appearance tells.

And, really, the way you dress can even tell something of what is in your heart. How is this?

WHAT THE WAY YOU DRESS REVEALS

When you were very small, your parents picked out your clothes for you. (Compare 1 Samuel 2:18, 19.) They probably combed your hair in a certain way for you also. But as you grew older they likely allowed you to have more to say about selecting clothing, as well as your hairstyle. The more your own choice came into play, the more the way you dressed reflected what you are like inside, your own personality. So, then, what does your dress tell about you?

Does it show you to be proud and vain, extremely style-conscious and wanting to “outshine” others? (Compare Isaiah 3:16-23.) Or does it show instead that you have a “don’t care” attitude about how you look, wearing sloppy clothing, with no thought of the effect it has on others?

Or​—in between these two extremes—​does your way of dress show you to be modest and considerate of others, while still manifesting good taste and intelligent choice in your clothing and other things having to do with your appearance? Really, what does your heart motivate you to do in all this?

Some young persons may complain that unless they ‘keep up with the styles’ they will make themselves conspicuous, appear “old-fashioned.” But there is always a happy medium or middle ground you can hold to, neither being “ultraconservative” nor very “mod.” Stop and think, too. Who benefits from your becoming very style-conscious? Basically, styles are set or at least encouraged by the commercial world. They have just one main interest: to make money. When you play into their hands you are not really benefiting yourself in any genuine or lasting way.

On the other hand, we should not want to become slovenly in our appearance. True, many persons have little money. They do not have much choice in what they can afford. But even then, if a person keeps his clothes neat and clean, this shows he has self-respect and a measure of dignity. It shows he is not guilty of a “don’t care” attitude. Generally this earns him increased respect from others.

A good rule to follow in all life’s affairs is found in the Bible at Romans 15:2: “Let each of us please his neighbor in what is good for his upbuilding.” Other people look at us more than we look at ourselves. Since that is so, should we not try to give them something they will find pleasant to look at? Not something that makes them feel inferior or self-conscious because of their own appearance, but something that shows we care about them and their feelings.

YOUR APPEARANCE CAN CONNECT YOU WITH OTHERS

The way you dress tells something about you in another way. It can identify you with a certain group or class. This was true even thousands of years ago, when the Bible was being written.

For example, in the book of Second Kings we read of messengers reporting back to King Ahaziah and telling of meeting a man who gave them a certain message. The king asked: “What was the appearance of the man?” When they described his garments, the king said immediately: “It was Elijah.” How did he know? Because Elijah wore the distinctive garment of a prophet.​—2 Ki. 1:2, 7, 8; compare 2 Kings 2:13, 14; Matthew 3:4.

To be identified as a prophet was an honorable thing. But one’s dress could also link one up with that which is dishonorable. To attain a certain purpose, Judah’s daughter-in-law Tamar took off garments identifying her as a widow and put on a shawl and veil and sat alongside the road. When Judah came along, the record says that “he at once took her for a harlot, because she had covered her face [with the veil].” Her dress gave her the appearance of a prostitute.​—Gen. 38:13-15.

Today, just as back then, the way we dress can link us up with certain classes of persons, even though we may not practice what they practice or believe what they believe. People assume that we at least sympathize with the class of persons who dress that way. Can we blame them?

Manner of dress not only distinguishes policemen, firemen, or nurses; it also distinguishes people whose occupation is dishonorable. Today prostitutes seldom wear shawls or veils as they did in Canaan some three thousand years ago. However, their revealing, suggestive clothing now points even more plainly to the profession they practice. Among men, those who favor revolt or radical political action have their distinctive styles; so do many homosexuals.

Do we want to be linked up with any of these? And if we dress like them and have problems as a result​—as when trying to get employment or in enjoying certain privileges in a Christian congregation—​who is to blame?

WHAT SHOULD DETERMINE HAIRSTYLES

We cannot very well change the shape of our face or the size of our ears or the length of our neck. But our hair does allow for considerable arranging and control. It can contribute a lot toward an attractive appearance.

Hairdressing has a very ancient history. Down through the centuries, hairstyles have varied from country to country and from one period to another. Sometimes human pride has produced very extreme hairstyles. Back in the first century the apostles Paul and Peter found it necessary to counsel Christian women not to be extravagant or put too much importance on hairstyles. (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3) Today, however, many boys, by their very long hair and sideburns, draw most attention.

Did not men in Bible times generally wear their hair longer than is customary in most lands today? Undoubtedly they did. But something else is equally certain. What? That men’s hair was still consistently shorter than that of the women. That is why the apostle Paul could write to the congregation at Corinth, Greece, and say: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him; but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her?” (1 Cor. 11:14, 15) How does “nature” teach us this?

Paul’s statement does not mean that men cannot grow long hair like a woman’s, for they can, and today quite a number do. Commenting on Paul’s use of the word “nature” here, Bible scholar Albert Barnes said: “The word . . . denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have . . . It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among men. . . . The word . . . refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right.”​—Notes on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, pp. 225, 226; see also Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 1207.

So people then recognized that it was the “natural” thing​—the proper and fitting thing—​for men to cut their hair to a moderate length, shorter than that of women. We, today, ought to recognize what is “natural” also. A man could let his fingernails grow to a length of several inches​—but it is “natural” for him to cut them, since this makes it easier for him to pick things up and do work. A person could go without washing his hands or body for a year at a time​—but the “natural” (as well as considerate and healthful) thing to do is to bathe more frequently. Even animals do this.

So, just because something is possible, that does not make it natural, according to the Bible’s definition. For a man or a boy to wear his hair so that he looks like a girl is still “contrary to nature.” It is typical of an age (and lands) where homosexuality is on the increase. And the Bible shows that homosexuality is also “contrary to nature,” both unfitting and detestable in God’s sight.​—Rom. 1:26, 27.

Does this severely limit us? No, for just as with clothes, so with hairstyles there is a wide variety of ways of arranging one’s hair that are pleasing and attractive without being immodest or unnatural. There can still be refreshing variety without going beyond the bounds of what is right in God’s eyes.

WHAT ABOUT COSMETICS?

Are cosmetics also ruled out as unnatural? The Bible does not say so. Even as people use clothes not merely to cover the body but also to produce an attractive appearance, and just as the ancient Hebrews often used perfume to make their bodily presence more pleasant, so certain cosmetics, particularly ointments, were evidently used among the Hebrew women to combat dryness of skin and to improve their appearance.

What, then, should be the guide for young women today who want to do what brings God’s approval? They need to follow the good advice to do all things “with modesty and soundness [or, healthfulness] of mind,” letting the main adornment be “the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible apparel of the quiet and mild spirit, which is of great value in the eyes of God.”​—1 Tim. 2:9, 10; 1 Pet. 3:3, 4.

Of course, it is good for young girls to realize that cosmetics can often do more harm than good. They can ruin a good complexion or make a poor one worse. Besides this, cosmetics frequently mask the freshness of youth that is really of far greater beauty than the artificial effect cosmetics create.

Overuse of cosmetics by girls often only draws attention to weak points. Worse, it may prevent any beauty of personality (which is actually more attractive than good looks and far longer lasting) from showing through or being noticed. Overuse of cosmetics can pervert your personality in the eyes of others and, in time, can even tend to mold your personality into the cheapened image you thereby present.​—Compare 2 Kings 9:30.

FOLLOWING RIGHT GUIDELINES

In God’s Word there are no specific rules on these things, but, instead, fine guidelines are provided. Young people should seek to get a balanced outlook, and the Bible will help them to do that.

Your parents have the natural right to set down supplementary guidelines. If the house you live in were painted with a wild or weird combination of colors, people would wonder if the head of the house (or his wife) had any sense. Or, if the house were neglected and became run down in appearance, they would have little respect for the house owner. You represent your parents even more than the house does. You bear their name and, just as what you do and say reflects on the training they give you and the kind of people they are, so does the way you look. More importantly, if you claim to be one of God’s servants you also represent him. Does your appearance fit your claim?

Think of Jesus’ words: “If you know these things, happy you are if you do them.” (John 13:17) Are you able to discern for yourself the sense of what the Bible counsels? Or are you the kind of person who always waits for someone else to tell him exactly what he should do? You can show you have real insight and strength of personality by putting the Bible’s counsel to work in your life. Then you will have the happiness of knowing that you are pleasing in the sight of God, his Son, and all who love and serve them.

Was Peter Ever In Rome?

IF YOU belong to the Roman Catholic Church or are acquainted with its teachings, you know that its foundation depends upon Peter’s having been in Rome. Says The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911: “This constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.”

The fact that such great importance is attached to Peter’s being in Rome gives real reason to expect the backing of reliable historical proof. The Catholic Encyclopedia maintains that this is the case, saying: “St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries.” Similarly, the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “It is quite certain that Peter spent his last years in Rome.”

WAS BABYLON ROME?

The most ancient testimony pointed to is that of 1 Peter 5:13: “She who is in Babylon, a chosen one like you, sends you her greetings.” A footnote in the New American Bible, a modern Roman Catholic translation, identifies this “Babylon” as follows: “Rome which, like ancient Babylon, conquered Jerusalem and destroyed its temple.” Yet, this same Catholic translation acknowledges that, if Peter wrote the letter, “it must be dated before 64-67 A.D., the period within which his execution under Nero took place.” But Jerusalem was not destroyed by the Romans until 70 C.E. So at the time Peter wrote his letter no correspondency existed between Babylon and Rome.

Thus the idea that Babylon means Rome is simply an interpretation, but is not supported by fact. It was questioned even by Roman Catholic scholars of past centuries, including Peter de Marca, John Baptist Mantuan, Michael de Ceza, Marsile de Padua, John Aventin, John Leland, Charles du Moulin, Louis Ellies Dupin and the renowned Desiderius (Gerhard) Erasmus. Church historian Dupin wrote:

“The First Epistle of Peter is dated at Babylon. Many of the ancients have understood that name to signify Rome; but no reason appears that could prevail with St. Peter to change the name of Rome into that of Babylon. How could those to whom he wrote understand that Babylon was Rome?”

Aside from references to “Babylon the Great” in the book of Revelation, only one city is called Babylon in the Holy Scriptures. That city is the Babylon situated on the Euphrates. Could this have been the place from which Peter wrote?

Yes. Though Babylon declined after its fall to the Medes and Persians, it continued to exist. There was a sizable Jewish population in the area of Babylon in the early centuries of the Common Era. Says The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “Babylonia remained a focus of eastern Judaism for centuries, and from the discussions in rabbinical schools there were elaborated the Talm[ud] of Jerus[alem] in the 5th cent[ury] of our era, and the Talm[ud] of Babylon a cent[ury] later.”

Peter must have meant just what he wrote. This becomes clear from a decision he made some years before writing his first inspired letter. In a meeting with Paul and Barnabas, he agreed to continue devoting his efforts to spreading the gospel among the Jews. We read: “Recognizing that I [Paul] had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter was for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter as his apostle among the Jews had been at work in me for the Gentiles) and recognizing, too, the favor bestowed on me, those who were the acknowledged pillars, James, Cephas, and John, gave Barnabas and me the handclasp of fellowship, signifying that we should go to the Gentiles as they to the Jews.” (Gal. 2:7-9, New American Bible) Accordingly, Peter would reasonably have worked in a center of Judaism, such as was Babylon, rather than in Rome, with its predominant Gentile population.

The claim that Peter was in Rome thus has no basis in the Bible’s own testimony. But what about other ancient writings?

CLEMENT’S TESTIMONY

Clement of Rome, of the first century C.E., is often presented as one who confirms Peter’s stay in Rome. He wrote:

“Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.”

Concerning these comments, Roman Catholic scholar Lardner remarked:

“From these passages I think it may be justly concluded that Peter and Paul were martyrs at Rome, in the time of Nero’s persecution. For they suffered among the Romans, where Clement was bishop, and in whose name he was writing to the Corinthians.”

But is this really what Clement said? True, Clement mentions both Peter and Paul. But nowhere does he say that they both suffered a martyr’s death at Rome. He refers only to Paul as preaching “both in the east and west,” implying that Peter was never in the west (serving, rather, in the east, as at Babylon). Thus Clement’s testimony actually argues against Peter’s having been in Rome.

THE TESTIMONY OF IGNATIUS

Another early source cited in support of Peter’s residence at Rome is Ignatius, of the late first century and early second century C.E. Ignatius told Christians at Rome: “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man.” In explanation of these words, The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.”

Is the conclusion of The Catholic Encyclopedia sound? Did Ignatius say that both Peter and Paul were in Rome? No, he simply stated that, as apostles, Paul and Peter issued commandments. Be it remembered that commandments can be issued by means of letters, through messengers or even verbally when one is visited by people from other places. There is no need for the one commanding to be personally present in a particular city.

THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS

But some may say, Ah, but did not Irenaeus definitely say that Peter was in Rome? According to the extant writings of Irenaeus (second century C.E.), he did. We read: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” There is also a reference to the “universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” Nevertheless, Irenaeus may not have made these statements. Why not? Because the original Greek writings of Irenaeus are lost. These words attributed to him are translated from a poor Latin version found some hundreds of years later. A Latin scribe could have easily added the points about Peter. That there were similar forgeries is admitted by Louis Ellies Dupin, Roman Catholic church historian. He says:

“The Catholics invented false histories, false miracles, and false lives of the saints to nourish and keep up the piety of the faithful.”

The strongest evidence against the statements claimed to be made by Irenaeus is their disagreement with the Bible. As evident from the letter to the Romans, there were Christians in Rome before the apostle Paul ever came to that city. This is acknowledged in the introduction to the book of Romans in the Catholic New American Bible:

“Since neither early Christian tradition nor Paul’s letter to the Romans mentions a founder of the Christian community in Rome, it may be concluded that the Christian faith came to that city through members of the Jewish community of Jerusalem who were Christian converts.”

Neither Peter nor Paul, by laboring in Rome, founded the Christian church there. However, on the day of Pentecost 33 C.E., Peter spoke to “sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,” at Jerusalem. (Acts 2:10) This may be the basis for the traditions that credit Peter with the founding of the church at Rome. But, as the facts show, it is not a sound basis on which to build one’s faith.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTIMONY

Thus, seeming historical evidence for Peter’s stay at Rome, under close examination, proves to have no real foundation. This is also true of claimed archaeological evidence. Excavations brought to light remains of what is thought to have been a small funeral monument. Those who link this monument with the tomb of Peter base their conclusion on the assumption that he was in Rome. Concerning the bones that were found, the New Catholic Encyclopedia tells us:

“Anatomical and geological examination indicate that these bones are of the 1st century; among them are the bones of a man of large frame. But there is no way of proving that they are the bones of St. Peter.”

Hence there is no solid evidence, either archaeological or historical, to establish Peter’s stay in Rome. Biblical evidence is to the contrary. The claim of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the “Apostolic Primacy of Peter” is therefore false!

Questions From Readers

● In view of what is written at Deuteronomy 22:5, is it proper for a woman to wear slacks?​—U.S.A.

Deuteronomy 22:5 reads: “No garb of an able-bodied man should be put upon a woman, neither should an able-bodied man wear the mantle of a woman; for anybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah your God.” This text is not discussing styles of clothing. The prohibition concerns one’s putting on things specifically designed for the opposite sex.

The distinction between the sexes is of divine origin and the law set forth at Deuteronomy 22:5 served to preserve that distinction. When it comes to appearance and attire, the usual thing is for a man to want to look like a man and for a woman to look like a woman. For an Israelite to have acted contrary to this deep internal sense of what is fitting could have led to homosexuality. Thus the law at Deuteronomy 22:5 also opposed this sin.

At the time the law was given, both men and women wore robes. But there was a definite difference between the garb of men and that of women. Similarly, in some parts of the earth today both men and women wear slacks. But styles of slacks for women differ from those for men. Accordingly, the principle taught at Deuteronomy 22:5 would not rule out a woman’s wearing slacks or pants.

Moreover, Christians are not under the Mosaic law. (Rom. 6:14) Insistence on applying the letter of this law would therefore be contrary to Christian teaching. So if a woman were to put on a worn-out pair of her husband’s trousers to do a job around the house or on the farm, she would not be going against the evident purpose of the law, namely, to prevent confusion of sexual identity and sexual abuses.

The fact that Christians are not under the Mosaic law but are guided by its principles calls for them to use discernment, good judgment and to exercise their conscience. A Christian woman appreciates that whether it would be proper for her to wear slacks or pants depends upon factors other than her personal likes. She would not want to be the cause for stumbling others or bring reproach on the Christian congregation. Clothing that may not be looked on with disfavor if worn in the privacy of one’s home or at work may be objectionable if worn at Christian meetings and when publicly proclaiming God’s Word or carrying on other public activity. Attitudes, too, may differ from area to area. The Bible’s counsel is that women “adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, . . . in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works.”​—1 Tim. 2:9 10.a

[Footnotes]

Can History Repeat Itself?

In your study of the rise and fall of nations you may have noted a similarity that suggests a repeating of history. The same is true in connection with the churches of Christendom today.

So closely are they following a course that led an ancient city to calamity that they can collectively be referred to as a modern-day counterpart of that city. Read the startling details in the book “The Nations Shall Know that I Am Jehovah”​—How? This hard-covered book of 416 pages contains a detailed consideration of the Bible book of Ezekiel. Send only 50c.

Please send me “The Nations Shall Know that I Am Jehovah”​—How? for which I enclose 50c. Send also the gift booklet Rescuing a Great Crowd of Mankind Out of Armageddon.