The Watchtower, February 1, 1954

Download: PDF — The Watchtower, February 1, 1954

"YOU ARE MY WITNESSES," SAYS JEHOVAH.—Isa. 43:12

The WATCHTOWER

Announcing

JEHOVAH'S

KINGDOM

FEBRUARY 1, 1954

Semimonthly

THE RANSOM MERIT OF

JESUS CHRIST

"RELEASE BY RANSOM"

"PAST ALL MORAL SENSE"

WOULD CHRIST HAVE PROCLAIMED

A "MARIAN YEAR"?

MORE MISSING THAN LINKS

THE Piltdown man was too good to be true. Evolutionists have long looked for the missing link between ape and man. If they could only find something half ape and half man! They have had it all the time. For forty years the Piltdown man was one of the evolutionists' most famous skulls. They always told us the cranium was human but the jawbone was apelike. But evolutionists are difficult to comprehend. When they finally proved the cranium really was human and the jaw was really from an ape you would think they would be happy. But it both embarrassed and saddened them.

Perhaps it was because the human cranium was older than the anthropoid jaw. It would seem Mr. Piltdown was descending to apehood instead of ascending to manhood. That is contrary to the theory, and anything that is heretical is excommunicated from consideration. Nor is it easy to conceive a cranium waiting around a few thousand years to be joined by its jawbone. So it was with some reluctance that the evolutionists acknowledged last November that the famous Piltdown missing link was really missing, banished as a monstrosity that never existed. Bluntly but embarrassingly put, it was a fake and a hoax that fooled these "wise" men for forty years. When its exposure as such was publicized, many who had accepted it came forward and said they had suspected it all the time. Yet some of these same men had

proclaimed it a proof that man had evolved from a primitive ape and displayed it as such on museum shelves.

In view of these facts, how can other controversial claims of evolutionary proof be confidently accepted? When they are exposed as false, how many of their scientific supporters will suddenly remember that they always suspected their authenticity anyway? It is easy to swallow something when your own prejudice is jamming it down your throat. The fact is that evolutionists are so biased in favor of their theory that their fantastic "evidence" has to be blown to bits before they will let loose of it. It is a popular but erroneous view to consider evolutionists as impartial judges weighing the evidence and coolly calculating and evaluating the results with no regard as to the effects on their pet theories. In other fields of science this unemotional scientific attitude and method may operate, but anyone who thinks it obtains in this highly emotional and controversial matter of evolution betrays a misplaced trust and a woeful gullibility. Not only are the needed links missing, but also the needed scientific attitude on the part of evolutionists is missing.

In evolution's chain there are so many thousands of links missing that there is no proof a chain even exists. But to limit ourselves to the links between ape and men, consider the facts on the shattered Piltdown man. In 1908 a small piece of skull was found in a gravel pit at Piltdown in Sussex County, England.

In 1912 another bit of a cranium was found, and then a jawbone with three molars. Several years later an eye tooth was found in a rubbish heap. Though found at different times and in different spots, the bits were put together and Piltdown man was born. A few evolutionists argued that the pieces did not belong together, but the majority ruled and, with no proof but much dogmatism, proclaimed a missing link. Its age? Five hundred thousand years. Proof? No, just more dogmatism. Now the five hundred thousand years have dwindled to fifty thousand and some scientists have even cut it to ten thousand.

Mr. Piltdown's antiquity is gone, his position as a link is shattered, but the dogmatism of his evolutionary sponsors remains. It is demonstrated relative to other so-called links between ape and man. A case similar to the Piltdown man is that of the Java man. In 1891 Dubois discovered in river gravel a few fragments of skull and some teeth. Later, and some fifty feet away, a thigh bone was uncovered. These bits were unjustifiably assumed to be all from one creature, and so were assembled to become the famous Java man. As in the case of Piltdown man, some evolutionists have objected to this arbitrary association of these scattered bones and have pointed out that the skull fragment is undoubtedly from a chimpanzee or gibbon whereas the thigh bone is human. Yet the majority of evolutionists would not allow their manufactured link to be dissolved and to this day hail Java man as one of the strongest proofs of evolution from ape to man. Doubtless when this folly is unmasked before everyone these dogmatic evolutionists will shrug it off as something they suspected all the time.

The average person may think of a completely assembled primitive ape-man when

the Heidelberg man is mentioned. But all science has is a large jawbone complete with teeth. From this the evolutionists tell us the size, posture, diet and tools he used. However, they do not tell us jaws of similar size and proportion are found among the Eskimos of today. You have heard of Peking man, another famous link. It is heralded because its brain size is about halfway between that of man and ape. But again, people of this same skull size and shape exist today; namely, the Veddas in Ceylon. Neanderthal man is no different from some men living today. Moreover, modern-type men are found in earth layers older than those containing these so-called "missing links." There is absolutely no proof of any missing links between man and ape.

Of the famous missing links evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith said: "We cannot trace modern man back to any of these extinct types." Professor Branco of Berlin University said: "Paleontology tells us nothing on the subject—it knows no ancestors of man." Professor Virchow declared: "The man-ape has no existence and the missing link remains a phantom." Austin Clark of Smithsonian Institution said: "Missing links are misinterpretations." And when their finds do not support their theory the evolutionists conceal that evidence, as evolutionist Hooton, Harvard professor of anthropology, admits: "Heretical and nonconforming fossil men were banished to the limbo of dark museum cupboards, forgotten or even destroyed." Incidentally, when Hooton heard of the disgrace and demise of the Piltdown man he termed it "tragic." Little wonder, since he had staunchly defended it in his writings.

But the evolutionists will continue parading their "links" and will propagandize for them with unabated dogmatism. From beginning to end, the evolution theory is supported by assertions, not evidence. Any who argue against it are not authorities any who criticize it are not scientific; so they say to intimidate and scare off critics and jam the theory down people's throats by the tyranny of authority.

So it is not only links that are missing, but proofs and unprejudiced approaches and scientific methods that are missing. Despite hot de-

nials, evolution is accepted on "faith" and faith alone.

Now their faith in Piltdown man is gone. Their words about him are false, their wisdom turned out to be folly. "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." But, "The word spoken by Jehovah endures forever."—1 Cor. 3:19; 1 Pet. 1:25, NW.

Would Christ Have Proclaimed "MARIAN YEAR"?

CHRIST JESUS while on earth kept God's

law perfectly. He therefore had due respect for his foster father and his mother, for God's law required that he honor them. But were he present today would he pro-

Mary and shrines where she is said to have ap-

peared, such as that at Lourdes, France.

And why did the pope designate 1954 as a Marian year? Because it is the hundredth anniversary of the promulgation of the

claim a "Marian Year" as did his claimed vicegerent, the pope of Rome?

A "Marian Year"? Yes, the New York Times, September 27, 1953, reported that on September 8, which, incidentally, is claimed to be the birthday of Mary, the pope issued his twenty-fifth encyclical, which he termed "Fulgens Corona," that is, the "Radiant Crown," wherein he designated 1954 as a "Marian Year" in that it was to be devoted to veneration of Mary.

In this encyclical the pope called upon all Christians, Catholics and non-Catholics alike to make the year one of special

dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, which, according to the opening paragraph of this encyclical, holds "that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary at the first moment of her conception was by a singular grace and privilege of the omnipotent God in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved from all stain of original sin."

SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT?

Whether or not Christ Jesus would have proclaimed a Marian year would first of all depend upon whether Mary was con-

amke, to make the year one of special prayer. Among the many things for which they were to pray, three were particularly stressed: the peace of the world, the unity of the church, and freedom for the church in totalitarian lands. No world pilgrimages were to be made to Rome, as this was but a "Little Holy Year"; however, every Catholic church was to be a shrine, with special emphasis on churches named after

an depend upon whether Mary was conceived without sin or not. As Christians we, of course, accept God's Word as our authority. Do we find anything therein supporting the dogma under question? We do not. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, page 675, admits that "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture." Is it not strange that a dogma, the denial of which merits excommunication, should not be mentioned at all in the Scriptures?

And that even such early church "fathers" as Origen, Basil and Chrysostom did not hold to it?

Yes, it would be strange if a dogma essential to salvation were not mentioned in the Scriptures. But the fact is that not only is the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary not mentioned in the Scriptures, but they teach just the opposite. Plainly and unequivocally they state, "All alike have sinned, all alike are unworthy of God's praise." "All alike were guilty men." "If we deny that we have sinned, it means that we are treating him as a liar; it means that his word does not dwell in our hearts."—Rom. 3:23; 5:13; 1 John 1:10, Knox.

We also know from the Scriptures that Jesus was an exception to the foregoing. Time and again we are assured that he was without sin: "Who did no sin." He was "holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners," and, although tempted in all points as we are, still remained "without sin." (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 7:26; 4:15, Dy) Besides, he could not have given his life as a ransom had he been contaminated with sin.—Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:5, 6, Kx.

But not a word do we find about Mary's also being an exception. If it is necessary for us to be repeatedly reminded in the Scriptures that Jesus was without sin, would it not be even more imperative that the exception of Mary be brought to our attention plainly, stringently and categorically, if she also were an exception? To argue that it was necessary for Mary to be without sin so that Jesus could be without sin would have made it necessary that both Mary's father and mother be without sin, and so on back! No, the Scriptures do not allow for the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception, and so Christ Jesus would not have proclaimed a Marian year

in celebration of the hundredth anniversary of its promulgation.

MARY EVER VIRGIN?

While the Scriptures state that 'in sin did our mothers conceive us,' the claim is made that Mary is "ever virgin" and therefore could have remained free from sin. But what do the Scriptures say? At Matthew 1:25 (Dy) we read that Joseph "knew" Mary not, that is, did not have relations with her, "till she brought forth her firstborn son." Clearly the implication is that after Jesus was born Joseph did have relations with her. Further note that Luke also refers to Jesus as Mary's "firstborn son," implying she had other sons. Why did not Matthew plainly state that Joseph never had any relations with Mary, and why did not Luke state that Mary brought forth Jesus her only son? Because they both knew that Mary had other children, that she was not "ever virgin."—Ps. 50:7*; Luke 2:7, Dy.

That is why we read of Jesus' acquaintances saying: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" It cannot be argued that these were his spiritual "brethren," for we are plainly told that these brethren did not believe on him. In fact, he contrasted these with his true followers, saying: "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matt. 13:54-56; John 7:3-5; Matt. 12:48- 50, Dy.

Neither can it be argued that these were merely male and female relatives such as cousins. Why not? Because when a cousin is referred to, as when the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary about her cousin Elizabeth, the Greek word syngenés is used, whereas when Jesus' brothers and sisters are referred to the Greek words adelphos and adelphé are used.—Luke 1:36, Dy.

DID JESUS VENERATE HIS MOTHER?

According to the pope's encyclical all men are to pray to Mary regarding many matters. But is there any Scriptural support for such admonition? Did any of the early Christians, while she was alive or after her decease, address petitions to her? Had the early church venerated Mary and addressed petitions to her we may be certain that we would have a Scriptural record of the same. Nowhere do we read that they made pilgrimages to her, that they venerated her, or addressed petitions to her.

Why did they not do so? Because they appreciated that Mary was not important in herself. She had an assignment from God as a female slave or handmaiden to provide a human body for God's Son, and that she did. In doing so she had merely done her duty, and, like all the rest of God's imperfect slaves, she was still but a woman who could say: "I am a good-for-nothing slave." That in itself did not guarantee her salvation nor make her a fitting object for veneration.—Luke 17:10, NW.

Certainly if anyone should have given her honor for what she did it should have been her son Jesus. But did he do so? Far from it! In fact, as we examine the Scriptures we find that in every instance in which Jesus addressed her he refers to her, not as "holy mother," or "dear mother," nor even as "mother," but simply as "woman," the same term he used when speaking to the immoral woman at the well. Always his manner was objective and not subjective. When his mother rebuked him at the age of twelve, he did not meekly take the rebuke, but corrected her, saying, "What reason had you to search for me? Could you not tell that I must needs be in the

place which belongs to my Father?"—John 4:21; Luke 2:49, Kx.

At the very beginning of his ministry when attending the wedding feast at Cana, his mother called his attention to the fact that the wine had run out. Did he obsequiously reply, "Thanks, mother dear. What do you want me to do?" No, he did not, but the import of his reply was as given by Monsignor Knox's footnote: "Leave me alone, do not interfere with me." And again it was "woman," not "mother."—John 2:1-5, Kx.

On another occasion Jesus said: "Nobody is good, except one, God." And in that "nobody" he included also his mother Mary. As proof for that, note his reply to the woman who sought to praise his mother by saying: "Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that you sucked!" Not agreement, but, "No, rather, Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!" As far as Jesus was concerned his mother was not better or more blessed than any other of his faithful disciples.—Luke 18:18, 19; 11:27, 28, NW.

The exaltation of a woman is nowhere taught in the Scriptures but is everywhere found in pagan religions. Christ Jesus while on earth, as well as his immediate disciples, magnified his Father's name, goodness and kingdom. He addressed his petitions to his Father and taught others to do likewise. Not once do we read that he dwelt on Mary's goodness or her blessed lot. He treated her objectively. In view of all the foregoing, were Christ Jesus here today would he proclaim 1954 a "Marian Year"? He would not!

The Roman Catholic Church by exalting Mary comes in for Paul's criticism found at Romans 1:25 (NW): "Even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever."

trust the doctor that changed the temperature scales on the thermometer to make the fever normal? That would remove the fever from the patient's chart, but would it not remain in his body? To say the sick are well does not cure the sick. To change the label does not eliminate the problem. To deny the disease does not halt death. Such tactics would be more than futile endeavors to hide the doctor's failure; they imperil the life of the patient by camouflaging the danger. You may think you need nothing, while actually lacking your real need: "You say: 'I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all,' but you do not know you are miserable and pitiable and poor and blind and naked." Rev. 3:17, NW.

Many of the modern social scientists are just such "physicians of no value." (Job 13:4) They are not scientists in the true sense of the word, but appropriate that classification for themselves to give their work an unearned standing by associating it with pure science. Pricking their bubble of outward show and pretension, a scientist wrote of them: "A social scientist prefers the more long-winded expression every time, because it gives an entirely spurious impression of scientificness to what he is doing." After listing instances where their findings are unreliable because of the unpredictable human element involved, this writer added: "But they are no more affected by them than the asylum inmate is by being told that he is not Napoleon." Concerning the rash of polls they conduct he observed: "The result is guesswork clad in the long flowing robes of gobbledygook." Which means the inflated involved, obscure verbiage

found in pompous pronouncements.

Recently social scientists have made sex surveys that show an appalling collapse of morals. The accuracy of the findings has been questioned by many. Nevertheless, the over-all picture of widespread immorality cannot be challenged, and it stands as a confirmation of Bible prophecy that in the last days men would be lovers of themselves and lovers of pleasures, without self-control and without love of goodness at a time when "wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled." Conditions now match those prior to the flood of Noah's day, when "Jehovah saw that the badness of man had become great in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time."—2 Tim. 3:1-5, 13; Gen. 6:5; Matt. 24:37, NW.

But after these glorified pollsters under the guise of science have conducted their survey of people who like to air their sex adventures, what remedies do they offer for the moral ills they found? None. In some respects it is normal and advantageous, they say. It is the Bible's moral code that they view as sick, unhealthy for modern men to follow. Instead of men striving to meet good standards, they would lower the standards to meet bad men. Thus they would remove guilt by closing their eyes to wrong. They practice a kind of Christian Science in the field of morals. Of such Jehovah declared: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!" Isa. 5:20, 21, RS.

They do not approve of holding to God's standards, but approve as proper freedom the practicing of immorality. Actually, immoral persons have a disapproved mental view: "Although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish. Therefore God in keeping with the desires of their hearts gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting. Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also approve those practicing them."—Rom. 1:21, 22, 24, 28, 32, NW.

When those once immoral become Christians and abandon loose conduct in order to meet God's law, their former lustful companions that are without such legal restraint speak abusively of them. To such reformed ones the Bible says: "The time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have worked out the will of the nations when you proceeded in deeds of loose conduct, lusts, excesses with wine, revelries, drinking matches, and idolatries that are without legal restraint. Because you do not continue running with them in this course to the same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you." Wrongdoers love company. It eases their own guilt when others share in their sins. They hate to have examples of

moral uprightness confronting them. So, Christians, do not be disturbed when they "are speaking slightlyly of your good conduct." Their best defense of their badness is a diverting offense against your goodness.1 Pet. 4:3, 4; 3:16, NW.

"SHAMEFUL EVEN TO RELATE"

Do not misunderstand. This is not arguing against proper sex education. Jehovah God created man and woman with the powers of sex for the purpose of producing offspring, and he set standards to guide in its use in cleanness. To understand the natural and clean functions of sex is beneficial. But such instruction is not gained by delving into filth and degraded perversions done in secret and then relating them publicly. The mind is not cleansed by feeding on filth, no more than a sow is washed by wallowing in the mire. Real Christians are neither prudes shocked by clean sex nor perverts stimulated by sexual immoralities. Their mind is open to clean instruction but closed to degrading obscenities, in keeping with Bible counsel: "Let fornication and uncleanness of every kind or greediness not even be mentioned among you, just as it befits holy people, neither shameful conduct nor foolish talking nor obscene jesting things which are not becoming, but rather the giving of thanks. Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the

Lord; and quit sharing with them in the unfruitful works which belong to the darkness, but, rather, even be reproving them, for the things

that take place in secret by them it is shameful even to relate."—Eph. 5:3,4, 10-12,NW.

To feed minds on immorality builds up desires of fallen flesh that are otherwise kept subdued: "Each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death." (Jas. 1:14, 15, NW) Sex surveys are lewd word pictures in scientific frame or setting. Reading minds envision the immoral acts and may be enticed to copy them, especially when assured the majority are doing them. Also the inexperienced reader may learn of sordid acts for the first time, and in quest of new sex adventures may take up their practice. So the Bible wisely advises against publicizing such sins unless it is done as a warning to others to avoid them. Some reviewers of one of the latest widely publicized sex surveys put their critical finger on that exact vulnerable point. One of them wrote:

"An aspect of the discussion, which now centers around the report, is deeply concerned with the justification of making such a survey available to the general public. Can such a survey of behavior be made accessible to all without affecting the behavior of the readers and those who hear of it? Kinsey himself in discussing the advantages of an interview over a questionnaire points out that in the former the inexperience of some interviewees would be respected and writes: 'But a questionnaire must cover all of the activities which the most experienced adult may have had, and there would be a variety of objections to undertaking such an exposition of all the possibilities of human sexual behavior in the course of a single interview.' The obvious extension of this remark is that there might be also a variety of objections to exposing all the possibilities of human

sexual activity to inexperienced readers as well."—Natural History, October, 1953.

well."—Natural History, October, 1953.

Minds filled with such thoughts may lay plans for expressing them in actions, contrary to the advice: "Do not be planning ahead for the desires of the flesh." Instead, "Put away all moral badness." Rather than plant filthy ideas in the mind, "put away all filthiness and that superfluous thing, moral badness, and accept with mildness the implanting of the word which is able to save your souls." It is by taking in accurate knowledge of God that former unclean practices give way to decent conduct: "Deaden, therefore, your body members which are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of those things the wrath of God is coming. In those very things you, too, once walked when you used to live in them. But now really put them all away from you, wrath, anger, injuriousness, abusive speech, and obscene talk out of your mouth. Do not be lying to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices, and clothe yourselves with the new personality which through accurate knowledge is being renewed according to the image of the one who created it."

It is by now rejecting impure thoughts and taking in edifying ideas that you can "quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over."—Rom. 13:14; 1 Pet. 2:1; Jas. 1:21; Col. 3:5-10; Rom. 12:2, NW.

"MARKED IN THEIR CONSCIENCE AS WITH A BRANDING IRON"

Christians obey God not only out of a fear of his wrath, but also and primarily out of a good conscience, a conscience trained in its sense of right and wrong by God's Word. Paul stressed that point when admonishing Christians to be subject to Jehovah and Christ: "There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience."

Men speak of the conscience as a guide; so does the Bible. It says that when persons who do not know Jehovah's law do things "their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused," according to whether the things are good or bad. But since "the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" without guidance from God's Word, it is only the divinely educated conscience whose prickings and proddings constitute a safe guide. Only it fits the description: "The conscience of a man is the lamp of the LORD, searching the whole innermost being." It must be kept clear, clean and sensitive if we are to "hold a good conscience."—Rom. 13:5; 2:15, NW; Jer. 10:23; Prov. 20:27, AT; 1 Pet. 3:16, NW.

But what about those who turn a deaf ear on the voice of their conscience, or rationalize their misdeeds to silence the legitimate protests of conscience? To go roughly and heedlessly against its cries hurts it, and to rub against it and wound it repeatedly will force it to callous and scar over for its own healing and protection. The Bible describes those who do that as being "marked in their conscience as with a branding iron." When flesh is seared by a hot branding iron the mark left becomes scarred tissue void of nerve endings and sense of feeling. Consciences so marked are rendered incapable of sensing right or wrong, and their owners have become more "like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed," in that beasts have no conscience. Like animals, such men view sex as merely a biological urge to be satisfied rather than as unselfish love. Like animals, such men have become insensible to high principles of conduct and have degraded past all

moral sense. God's Word warns Christians away from such mental darkness and alienation from godly living: "You no longer go on walking just as the nations also walk in the unprofitableness of their minds, while they are in darkness mentally, and alienated from the life that belongs to God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the insensibility of their hearts. Having come to be past all moral sense, they gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every kind with greediness."—1 Tim. 4:2; 2 Pet. 2:12; Eph. 4:17-19, NW.

The concern of thinking persons today is not just the moral collapse, but the calloused indifference to it and acceptance of it, the insensibility and hardness of heart toward it, the deterioration of many "past all moral sense." This moral decay spreads far beyond sexual morality; it honeycombs all the thoughts and acts of mankind. A leading United States magazine queried: "Have morals gone out of style?" Clergyman R. J. McCracken pointedly asked: "Is the moral tone of the nation—its politics, its business life, its literature, its theatre, its movies, its radio networks, its television stations—Christian?" Confused cleric Reinhold Niebuhr puzzled over the moral collapse: "It is not quite clear why everything seems to have gone wrong in man's actual history."

It is quite clear to those who believe and understand the Bible. They know that Satan is the god of this system of things, that the whole world lies in his power, that demonic propaganda fills the entire inhabited earth as Satan is confined to its vicinity, that the real foes of men are the wicked spirit forces, and that the only sure protection is for men to "put on the complete suit of armor from God" Jehovah. (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 John 5:19; Rev. 16:14; 12:12; Eph. 6:11-17, NW) This wisdom from God's Word may appear foolish to men saturated with worldly wisdom.

So they turn from the Bible to imbibe the philosophies and theories of men. They turn from the only sure protection and leave themselves defenseless before the invasion of demonic influences. Even the knowledge they accumulate they use in degraded and depraved ways, hastening their own moral decay. Ensnared in their craftiness, blinded by their own conceit, they are unable to see that the woes of our time are in fulfillment of Bible prophecy and are the last spasms of a dying system of things. Their worldly-wise ridicule of the Bible blinds them to the incoming, righteous "new heavens and a new earth."—2 Pet. 3:3, 4, 13, NW.

The moral collapse is more than a foretold sign of the last days of this wicked system of things. (2 Tim. 3:1-5) It is a divider of men, a separator of lovers of righteousness and morally indifferent evildoers. While the majority shrug off the immorality as normal, a minority of righteously disposed persons are deeply disturbed and grieved by it. They are like Noah, who refused to walk with his fellow man whose wickedness "had become great in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time." They are like Lot, for "that righteous man by what he saw and heard while dwelling among them from day to day was tormenting his righteous soul by reason of their lawless deeds." They are of the class that "sigh and cry for all the abominations that are done." They are the ones who will be delivered at Armageddon to life in Jehovah's new world of high morality. The bumper crop of evildoers indicates the nearness of the destructive harvest: "When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for

ever."—Gen. 6:5; 2 Pet. 2:8, NW; Ezek. 9:4, AT; Ps. 92:7.

By their course people are deciding to champion morality or accept immorality. Do you favor scuttling the standards because few live up to them? Because many sink should everyone drown? From those struggling in the seas of immorality social scientists would take their life belts and throw them a rock. The Bible standards are life preservers to those who cling to them. Do not let your mental grip on righteousness be loosened by taking filth into your mind, but keep integrity strong by filling your mind with pure thoughts, as advised: "Whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well spoken of, whatever virtue there is and whatever praiseworthy thing there is, continue considering these things." Right thinking is the key to good behavior. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things, whereas the wicked man out of his wicked treasure sends out wicked things." "As he thinketh in his heart, so is he." —Phil. 4:8; Matt. 12:34, 35, NW; Prov. 23:7.

So fill the mind with what is good to avoid being snared by what is bad. To reap what is good we must first sow what is good. And we must keep on sowing good until harvesttime, unweakened by the moral collapse, never giving out: "God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap; because he who is sowing with a view to his flesh will reap corruption from his flesh, but he who is sowing with a view to the spirit will reap everlasting life from the spirit. So let us not give up in doing what is right, for in due season we shall reap by not giving out."—Gal. 6:7-9, NW. The Ransom Merit of Jesus Christ

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all kinds of people." 1 Tim. 2:5,6,NW,margin.

JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth rose from birth in a manger to a position of vital importance to humankind. No other single individual since the creation of Adam has made such an indelible imprint on the pages of history, nor has any other person ever been so universally the subject of controversy. Countless other men have gone down into death as martyrs for causes they deemed worthy of their full devotion, but in no other instance has there been attributed to such martyrdom the role of savior. Jesus Christ stands alone in world history as one whose death is said to qualify him to act as the Redeemer of humankind. So unique is his position that a devoted disciple of his was compelled to say, "There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved." (Acts 4:12, NW) Certainly no such efficacy is attributed to the death of any other man.

Yet, despite the widespread confession in Christendom that Jesus Christ is the Ransomer of fallen mankind, there is great misunderstanding as to the role he plays in the purposes of the Almighty God. Even among those professing to believe on him there is actually startling disbelief in the

merit of his life given as a ransom. Then, of course, there are millions who, though recognizing his prominence in Jewish history, attribute nothing spectacular to his life or death beyond his devotion to certain principles he considered good. However, in contrast, even before Christ made his appearance, "other men were tortured because they would not accept release by some ransom, in order that they might attain a better resurrection" through the ancient promise of God to send forth a "seed" that would provide an eternal release from sin and death.—Heb. 11:35; Matt. 20:28; 2 Tim. 2:8-10, NW.

3 Upon the basis of what the Bible teaches, what is the position of Jesus Christ in Jehovah's magnificent arrangement of things for establishing a completely new world? Should he be regarded only as a legendary figure of noble ideals who set for us a splendid example of moral living? Or should we view him as the one who poured out his lifeblood in sacrifice so as to purchase by ransom the life rights that Adam lost through rebellion, and thus make it possible for men to ultimately live forever? The correct answer to these questions is vital to every living person today.

4 It is important to appreciate that Jesus Christ did not suddenly burst upon the human scene and proclaim himself a savior. He was not merely a man of unusual gifts and mental brilliance who made a mark upon civilization by reason of his energetic activity, as other men have done with varying degrees of success from time to time. No, indeed! Rather, his appearance was singularly different, for long centuries beforetime his coming was foretold.

Men of godly understanding looked for the appearance of a savior of humankind because of the promise Jehovah gave in Eden concerning the coming of a "seed" of righteousness.—Gen. 3:15; Gal. 3:19, NW.

5 Nearly 1,900 years before the birth of Christ, Jehovah with an oath confirmed his promise to Abraham concerning this Savior, saying: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." (Gen. 22:18, AS) Abraham and other faithful men of ancient days looked for this "seed" and longed for the blessings that would come through it. The apostle Paul removes all doubt as to the identity of the "seed" when he says: "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not, 'And to seeds,' as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one, 'And to your seed,' who is Christ."—Gal. 3:16, NW.

6 More than three hundred years after Abraham's day Moses spoke to Israel about this same coming savior, saying that anyone who failed to listen to him would not live. (Deut. 18:19; Lev. 23:29) Peter confirms the historical fact that Moses predicted the coming of the savior, Christ, saying: "In fact, Moses said: 'Jehovah God will produce for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to him according to all the things he speaks to you. Indeed, any soul that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.'" (Acts 3:22, 23, NW) David was a direct descendant of Abraham, and respecting him Jehovah repeated the promise concerning a savior some six hundred years before Christ appeared. "Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall

reign as king . . . and [he] shall execute justice and righteousness in the land." —Jer. 23:5; 33:15, AS.

Approximately 150 years before Jeremiah penned the above words in the sacred Record, the prophet Isaiah, knowing full well that the Redeemer was to come through Abraham and David's line, under inspiration wrote: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever." (Isa. 9:6,7,AS) Bethlehem was predicted as the place of his birth. (Mic. 5:2) In fact, all the prophets agreed that a redeemer was due to appear upon the human scene; and "to him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone putting faith in him gets forgiveness of sins through his name."—Acts 10:43, NW.

The prophet Isaiah in advance declared remarkable details concerning Jesus Christ, namely, that he would be despised, rejected, be a man of sorrows and be acquainted with grief; that his life would be made an offering for the sins of many, that he would intercede for mankind, that when he was oppressed and afflicted he would not open his mouth to complain but would submit to his sacrifice like a lamb that is led to the slaughter. No wonder John the Baptist, when he saw Jesus approaching, loudly exclaimed, "See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29, NW; Isa. 53:3-9, AS) That John was correct in his identification of Jesus as the Redeemer is made sure by the record of the angel's declaration thirty years previous, when that mighty spirit creature said to the shepherds, "Have no fear, for look!

I am declaring to you good news of a great joy that all the people will have, because there was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in David's city." (Luke 2:10, 11, NW) Beyond any question, Jesus Christ was not a self-proclaimed savior, but had come in fulfillment of promises made by God long centuries before.

The apostle John supports this view with the forthright declaration that it was God who sent Jesus. "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16, NW) Jesus was thus not an ordinary mortal whom Jehovah selected to use in providing a ransom, but, with good reason, was one who came direct from God's own heavenly realm for the specific purpose of vindicating the Father's name and providing a ransom. Jesus' prehuman existence extended back before humankind or even the earth itself came into being. (John 1:1-3; Prov. 8:22-36, AS) His disciples appreciated Jehovah's great expression of love in sending his Son. They knew Jesus Christ was no mere man like themselves, and they showed no hesitancy in declaring so. (Matt. 16:16, NW) "By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him. . . . we ourselves have beheld and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as Savior of the world."—1 John 4:9, 14, NW.

10 But there are some religious men who deny Jesus was God's son and had come in the flesh by Jehovah's miraculous transference of him to the womb of a Jewish virgin, Mary. Instead they teach the incarnation theory, saying that Jesus was actually God himself who clothed his spirit body with a covering of flesh, as angels had done in appearing to Abraham, Lot and others. (Gen. 18:1, 2; 19:1; Judg. 13:9-11, 16) Trinitarians are stuck with the same false reasoning, since they believe that God and Christ are one and the same. This erroneous doctrine forces still other wrong conclusions. For instance, this theory must assume that Jesus' weariness and suffering were merely feigned, because no spirit creature can be weary and suffer. It is bound to force the conclusion that his prayers were feigned, since he was only praying to himself after all, and did so merely for the profound impression such made upon his disciples and others. (John 17, NW) Still farther along the same road of error it would have to be concluded, on the basis of the original premise, that Christ's death was merely an appearance of death, for God, being immortal, cannot really die; hence there was no real death and pouring out of blood as a ransom for humankind at all!

11 Closely akin to this hazardous reasoning are the conclusions of those who believe in the "moral influence theory." They hold that the sole mission of Christ was to reveal the love of God in a way so moving as to melt the heart and induce men to forsake sin. (Theology at the Dawn of the Twentieth Century, p.261) "Strictly speaking," say they, "the death of Christ was not necessary to human salvation."

12 It is not surprising, then, to find a very prominent religious leader saying this in regard to the ransom: "Of course I do not believe in the Virgin Birth, or in that old fashioned substitutionary doctrine of the Atonement; and I do not know any intelligent Christian minister who does.

The trouble with these fundamentalists is that they suppose that unless one agrees with them in their doctrinal set-up, he cannot believe in the profound, substantial, everlasting truths of the Christian gospel that

transform men's lives, and are the only hope of Christ's saviorhood in this world." * Included in this class of men are those who ridicule the death of Jesus Christ as necessary

to provide a ransom because, as they say, it requires a murder to fulfill the will of God.

13 Thus we find religious men, leaders at that, who actually deny the ransom merit of Jesus Christ. Yes, they talk about the "everlasting

price paid over to God to regain for mankind the life rights lost by Adam. Pretending to be servants of God, they are actually false teachers. How accurately Peter describes them: "There will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themtruths of the Christian gospel," but in their eyes the principles embodied in the Ten Commandments plus the new commandments that Christ taught, the love of God, the love of neighbor unto dying for him—these are the things "that transform men's lives, and are the only hope of Christ's saviorhood in this world." By their own words and deeds they do not believe that the life of Jesus Christ, laid down in sacrificial death, actually served to open up the way for mankind to regain that perfection of flesh and unity with God that Adam first lost by his sin of rebellion. They do, in fact, disown Christ as their redeemer and savior, and do not believe that the value of his shed blood was the

selves."—2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Cor. 1:18, NW.

14 Every person interested in life must appreciate the full impact of the truth that the Sacred Scriptures are overwhelmingly specific and definite in making known that only through the ransom merit of Jesus Christ will anyone ever attain to salvation. Moreover, anyone gaining salvation must meet the terms of the ransom and

thus qualify according to God's standards. In the final analysis, the philosophies of men and all the worldly knowledge and human reasoning they can bring to bear against the Scriptures will avail nothing. The Word of God is sure, firm, to be relied upon as coming from the one who has all knowledge and who possesses all power to back up his word and fulfill it. Rightly we go to him for an explanation of the position of his Son in the divine purpose as it relates to the salvation of humankind.

15 To "ransom" means to "redeem from captivity, slavery, punishment or the like, by paying a price; to buy out of bondage; to deliver, as from sin, its penalty, or the like; to be the Redeemer of." (Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd Edition) That mankind since Eden has been in bondage to sin and its penalty, death, stands admitted.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me," said David. (Ps. 51:5, AS) That confession of bondage applied not only to David himself, for Paul confirms it as being true of the whole human race, when he says, "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Rom. 5:12, NW) The whole human race has been and is in bondage, slavery, which results in death, and needs a Ransomer to effect release if the full freedom of Eden in its perfection is ever to be realized again.—Heb. 2:15, NW.

16 Death comes to man justly, through the operation of Jehovah's righteous and perfect laws. It was no injustice on God's part, for man brought this slavery upon himself, with its punishment of death. In keeping with justice, God could allow death to reign over men for all time to come, but his great quality of love and mercy moves him to provide a way out for men who incline to righteousness. In exercising his mercy, however, Jehovah cannot disregard or ignore the justice of the penalty judgment of death entered against man. "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"—this expresses the terms and principles under which God has always operated. (Ex. 21:23, 24, AS) Consequently what Jehovah had decreed as the penalty for mankind's sin, namely death, could be lifted only by the payment of a ransom or corresponding price. If one could be found willing and able to make payment of this ransom, thus fulfilling Jehovah's just law, then his mercy might be extended toward mankind. Jesus Christ

was the one willing and able to buy man out of his bondage.

17 That it was Jehovah's love and mercy that moved Christ to provide the payment of a ransom is plainly shown at John 3:16 (NW): "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." It was an action initiated by God, and it was accompanied by the willingness of his Son to meet the terms of justice in paying the ransom. "By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him. The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:9, 10, NW) Jesus Christ was willing to pay the ransom price, out of love for Jehovah and for fallen man.

18 It was no new thing for Jehovah to thus require a ransom payment. He was merely following the same basic principle he followed in his dealings with Israel as that nation's Ransomer or Redeemer. He said of himself, "For I am Jehovah thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour; I have given Egypt as thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in thy stead. Since thou hast been precious in my sight, and honorable, and I have loved thee; therefore will I give men in thy stead, and peoples instead of thy life." (Isa. 43:3, 4, AS) The ordinances of the law covenant given to Israel provided for the payment of a ransom as a redemption for one's life in certain kinds of offenses. The poll tax of half a shekel for every Hebrew was deemed the ransom to propitiate for their lives. (Ex. 21:28-32; 30:12-16) The annual offering of a bullock and of a goat for the sins of the people served as an atonement or ransom that Jehovah recognized and accepted.—Lev.

4:1-35; 5:1-19; 16:1-31; Prov. 21:18.

19 In the case of man, the ransom God required to restore perfection and everlasting life could not be paid with silver, gold or other precious things, nor by the blood of animals, for these payments would not correspond or be equal to the perfect life that Adam lost for all mankind. (1 Pet. 1:18, 19, NW) To all the "inhabitants of the world, both low and high, rich and poor" Psalm 49 (AS) points out that man can never give to God a ransom for his life, "for the redemption of their life is costly, and it faileth for ever." It follows, then, that unless Jehovah provided the means of paying over the corresponding ransom, there would never be a recovery from sin and death. God made this provision by granting his only-begotten Son the privilege to lay down a perfect human life in sacrifice.—Gal. 4:4, 5, NW.

20 Jehovah did not have to coerce his Son into this sacrificial course, but Jesus willingly pursued it when he perceived that it was his Father's will. Says Paul concerning him, "He . . . gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men. More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake." (Phil. 2:6-8, NW) Jesus himself confirms his own willingness to lay down his life in sacrifice, saying, "This is why

the Father loves me, because I surrender my soul [life], in order that I may receive it again. No man has taken it away from me, but I surrender it of my own initiative." (John 10:17, 18, NW, margin) As the sacrificial lamb of God, Jesus Christ moved steadily, willingly and unwaveringly toward his sacrifice on the torture stake, with full appreciation of the ability it would give him to provide the ransom for believing mankind.—Isa. 53:7, AS.

21 It was doubtless at a distant time before his miraculous coming to earth that Jesus in his prehuman existence expressed his willingness to provide the ransom. It must have been so, for through Abraham, long before the earthly advent of Jesus, Jehovah illustrated how he would give his Son in sacrifice, and how that Son would of his own free will lay down his life. (Gen. 22:1-19) Immediately following this prophetic portrayal by Abraham, Jehovah made the promise that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," which "seed" Paul identified as the Christ. So God was showing that, at a fixed time future from Abraham's day, his own beloved Son would come to make the great sacrifice. In his written Word Jehovah was laying a groundwork so that righteously disposed men might fix their hope upon this great event and the untold blessings it would open up to them. A reliable record was being established by which men would be able to identify the one providing a ransom for them. (Prov. 8:22-36; John 8:58, NW) A great release was now in sight, but it would certainly come through the ransom of Jesus Christ.

"RELEASE BY RANSOM"

BORN in sin and shaped in iniquity, men were doomed to live in sin and pay its penalty death. Under the Mosaic law given to Israel the sins of the people were forgiven in a pictorial way by the animal sacrifices made and offered up by the high priest. Yet in a real sense the blood of bulls did not effect an actual release of permanent nature from the penalty of sin, death; for all those conforming to the law eventually died. Moreover, the sacrifices had to be repeated at regular intervals. The law covenant was actually a "shadow of the good things to come," illustrating what God would do through his Son, Jesus Christ. (Heb. 10:1-3, NW) "Consequently, the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith."—Gal. 3:24, NW.

"By means of him we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness."—Eph. 1:7, NW.

2 But even under the law arrangement righteousness was imputed only by the shedding of blood. In viewing the sacrifice and ransom of Jesus we must bear in mind the plain statement of Scripture that "unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place." That is why Israel through the high priest continuously offered the blood of animals to obtain, in a pictorial sense, the yearly release from sins. But with the coming of Jesus Christ there is a great change, for "he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting release for us." (Heb. 9:22,12,NW) No more was it necessary to periodically offer animal blood, for the one who was

foreshadowed by these animal sacrifices had come and established an everlasting release. Now it was a matter of qualifying to receive the benefit of that release by ransom.

3 The entry of Jesus Christ to make propitiation for the sins of humankind and thus effect a release was not an entry into any earthly temple. "For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands [as the high priest of Israel did] which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us. . . the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many." (Heb. 9:24-28) It was into the presence of Jehovah God in heaven that Christ went, following his resurrection, to offer the merit of the perfect lifeblood he had poured out, this to effect a permanent release for those of mankind who would exercise faith in the merit of that ransom. Peter confirms that it is the shed blood of Jesus that provides the ransom merit: "For you know that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, as a ransom that you were released from your fruitless form of conduct received by tradition from your forefathers. But it was with precious blood, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, even Christ's."—1 Pet. 1:18, 19, NW. poured out in sacrificial death, is thus seen to have a saving merit in behalf of those who exercise faith in it.

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

The Watchtower, February 1, 1954